Loading...
05/09/2002 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; John Sittner, Director of Olympic Planning; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Director; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Roger Evans, Building Services and Licensing Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor's Chief Executive Officer; David Dobbins, Community and Economic Development Deputy Director; Margaret Hunt, Community and Economic Development Director; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Brent Wilde, Deputy Director of Planning; Melissa Anderson, Sugarhouse/Long Range Planner; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Jerry Burton, Police Administrative Services Unit Manager; Gaylord Smith, Engineering Project Manager Consultant; Tim Campbell, Airport Executive Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; Nancy Boskoff, Arts Council Executive Director; John Carman, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. INTERVIEW BRENT TIPPETS PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND EXAMINERS. Mr. Tippets said the Board did not meet frequently. Councilmember Saxton asked what the Board did. Mr. Tippets said if an issue came up which was mandated by building codes and someone wanted to appeal the code, the Board would consider the appeal. #2. INTERVIEW RANDALL DIXON PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD. Mr. Dixon said he would be representing Capital Hills where he had lived for 25 years. He said he walked to work so he felt he could add input from a pedestrian standpoint. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A ZONING AMENDMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1040 WEST 700 SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC LANDS (PETITION NO. 400-02-09 - PIONEER POLICE PRECINCT) View Attachment Jerry Burton, Brent Wilde, Melissa Anderson, Marge Harvey and Gaylord Smith briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Turner asked if problems with the soil and ground water had been taken care of. Mr. Burton said that job would be put out to bid next week. He said construction was scheduled to begin on the building in mid-July. He said the completion date was scheduled for June of 2003. 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 Councilmember Christensen asked if zoning provisions would protect the neighbors. Ms. Anderson said there were requirements in the current public land ordinance for setbacks. She said the Planning Commission suggested increasing buffering. She said parking had been reduced to increase the setback with green space and landscaping. #4 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE BUDGET FOR METRO WATER FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Gary Mumford and John Carman briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked if the increase in engineering staff would be ongoing. Mr. Mumford said rather than use consultants and outside engineering services, Metropolitan Water had hired engineers for the project. Mr. Carman said the GIS staff would be permanent. He said two engineers and an engineering technician would not be guaranteed work after 2007. Councilmember Turner asked if the City had extra water to supply other areas. Mr. Mumford said when the new Point of the Mountain Treatment Plant was complete and the City had additional allotments of water, the Metropolitan Water District should have surplus water to sell. He said the current budget did not show surplus water. Councilmember Lambert asked if part of the budget was used for publicity and education on water conservation. Mr. Mumford said Public Utilities participated in media campaigns countywide. Councilmember Saxton said the proposed increase for operation and maintenance was $103, 000, a 1.4% increase. She asked if the budget included $100,000 for landscaping which was not included in last year' s budget. Mr. Carman said that was correct. Councilmember Saxton asked about seasonal employees. Mr. Carman said the Jordan Narrows Pump Station by Utah Lake operated seasonally and functioned to supply exchange agreements. He said last year they failed to include seasonal employees in the budget, so they were paid from this year's budget so the budget showed an increase. #5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING SIDEWALK VENDING. Russell Weeks, Brent Wilde and Doug Dansie briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked how the $175 was calculated. Mr. Dansie said when the original ordinance was adopted, Property Management had a standard fee of $350 for any encroachment. He said the Administration wanted to encourage vending carts so they cut the fee in half. Councilmember Lambert asked what kind of input the City had from the vendors. Mr. Dansie said the fee was not an issue. He said the fee would be a land lease for public property. He said if a vendor operated on private property they still paid for a business license, but they arranged their own lease with the property owner. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about vending carts competing against people who were vested in a building, land and employees. Council Members Turner and Love said they agreed. Councilmember Buhler said Alternative 10 had the most favorable comments. He said that alternative left the fee at $175. All Council Members were in favor of Alternative 10. 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 #6. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING ARTWORK AND PERFORMING ON PUBLIC STREETS IN CITY PARKS. David Dobbins, Nancy Boskoff and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Gust-Jenson said everyone agreed that artists had certain rights to perform, display and sell their work. She said they also agreed that free types of performances where the performers put out their hat or their music case did add life to downtown. She said these performances needed to be encouraged. She said regulations to those needed to be minimal and relate specifically to public safety concerns. She said there had been interest expressed in providing a lesser regulation for an amateur artist who exhibited infrequently. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the City charged a $50 license fee for home occupations. Councilmember Saxton said if the City charged a home occupation $50, there was no reason to charge less for people on the street. Councilmember Buhler said if a person was performing and not selling, then that person should not have to pay. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about the regulatory aspect. He asked why artists would be given a break over any other regulated business. He said if a person came back to sell goods week after week then it was a regulated business and they should be treated like any other regulated business. Councilmember Buhler suggested that if a person was 16 years old or younger, they should be exempt from the ordinance. He said if a person was not selling art or a performance, that person should also be exempt. He said if a person was selling art less than four times a year, then that person should be required to pay a $5 registration fee. He said if a person was selling art more than four times a year, then a $50 business permit fee would be charged but there would be no charge on the public right- of-way. He said there could be a one year sunset clause on the ordinance. Councilmember Turner said he was not sure how many times a year goods should be sold. Council Members Saxton and Christensen said they supported the suggestions. Councilmember Lambert asked who was going to enforce selling goods more than four times a year. Councilmember Buhler said issues would be enforced by complaints. Councilmember Lambert said he supported the lower fee. Councilmember Love said she would be comfortable with selling goods more than four times a year. Councilmember Buhler amended his proposal to 12 times a year. Councilmember Buhler asked that staff prepare several different motions. He said 1) would be the Mayor' s ordinance as proposed, 2) would be the motion the Council had been discussing and 3) would be the same thing only with four times a year to sell things. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT OVERVIEW FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. (BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 7) View Attachment Michael Sears and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Lambert asked about one-time money. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council had asked staff to work on revenue projections. She said there were some things staff would bring to the Council' s attention concerning one-time money. She said an evening would be scheduled to talk about sources and uses of one-time funds. Councilmember Turner asked about Initiative No. 19, the Neighborhood Legacy Project. 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 He asked for direction as far as the City' s legacy. Councilmember Buhler said it was for the Council to define. He said the legacy could be park improvements, a piece of art or something determined by each Council Member with their community. Councilmember Buhler asked if the Council agreed that staff should identify savings when going through the budget. All Council Members were in favor. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment David Dobbins, Michael Sears, Roger Evans, Tim Harpst and Margaret Hunt briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Sears said Initiative No. 1 was a reduction in personal services. Mr. Dobbins said this was retirement and FICA adjustments. Mr. Sears said the next initiative was reduced electricity for streetlights. He said the department did take into account Utah Power's request for a rate increase. He said the rate increase was denied. He said the total over the yearly street lighting electricity was $950,000. He said the department was asking to reduce that amount by $50,000. Councilmember Saxton asked about the proposal being circulated for lighting projects throughout the City where the City would pay for electricity. Tim Harpst said they were attending community council meetings proposing several different concepts on how street lighting could be handled. He said after they had received all the comments, they would put together a recommendation for the Council's consideration. Mr. Sears said Initiative No. 6 was the elimination of one vacant building inspector position. Mr. Dobbins said there had been a definite slowing in construction activity. He said if they eliminated one position it could compromise their ability for inspection within 24 hours. He said it could also compromise their ability to deal with outstanding overdue permits. Mr. Sears said Initiative No. 7 dealt with the elimination of one zoning inspector position. He said that position was currently staffed and would result in a layoff. Mr. Dobbins said they had seven inspectors and two were assigned to District 2. He said one inspector in that district would be eliminated. Councilmember Saxton said she did not approve of the cut. Mr. Dobbins said they were currently averaging approximately 100 cases per inspector. He said it would create a significant increase in workload for the remaining inspectors. Councilmember Buhler said traffic calming was budgeted for $500,000. He asked why the amount had gone down but was not on the cut list. Mr. Sears said a moratorium had been placed to decide which traffic calming measures were most successful. Mr. Harpst said in last year's budget the City had accumulated approximately $700,000 in the account. He said now that they were proceeding, they were drawing that amount down. He said by the end of the fiscal year, there would be approximately $100,000 left in the account. He said they were spending between $300, 000 and $500,000 a year. All Council Members were in favor of $350,000 for traffic calming. Councilmember Buhler said the next issue was travel and training. He said Council staff had raised the issue that maybe there was not an opportunity for the Planning Commission to train or attend meetings. Councilmember Love asked if local entities provided training. Ms. Gust-Jenson said they had taken advantage of some training through the University of Utah. Councilmember Christensen said the local planning opportunities were all right for basic introductions. He said for complex subjects, the Commission needed more training. 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 Councilmember Buhler said he wanted to tentatively approve the budget with the exception of the zoning inspector layoff. He said he wanted to consider funding for Planning Commission training. All Council Members were in favor. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE AIRPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003. View Attachment Gary Mumford, Tim Campbell and Jay Bingham briefed the Council. Mr. Mumford said operating revenues had decreased and were projected to be approximately $1 million lower. He said operating expenses were held at the same level. He said there was an additional $7 million of capital security related projects. He said the projects were 90% paid for through grants. He said the airport had to defer some capital projects and part of the operating income they were putting into reserves for the new development program. Councilmember Turner asked about regional jets and the underground walkway. Mr. Campbell said one early phase of the development program would be a new regional jet facility. He said the tunnel described in the budget would connect the new facility with the concourse where the Delta mainline would be located. He said it would provide for quicker access and connecting time. Councilmember Christensen asked about parking revenues. Mr. Campbell said the absence of "meeters and greeters" had negatively affected parking revenues. All Council Members supported the airport's budget. #10. RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE OLYMPIC. View Attachment Michael Sears, Rocky Fluhart and John Sittner briefed the Council. Mr. Sittner said more than $4 million was spent Citywide on the Olympics. A discussion was held on the events at the City and County Building and Main Street, the walking maps, the Lost and Found Center, the relationship between the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC) and the City, partnerships, City employee coats, and the temporary homeless shelter. Councilmember Love asked about rental from the sports complex. She asked if a commitment had been made for money to go back to Steiner to pay bonds. Mr. Fluhart said there was no commitment and bond payments were paid by the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) . Mr. Sears said Budget Amendment No. 6 would deal with $216, 803 over budget. Councilmember Christensen asked since the Council had been given the information, had all the bills been turned in. Mr. Sittner said there was some indication the amount over budget might come out better. Councilmember Christensen said the Mayor had waived any indemnification when he sent the letter to the State. He said he assumed SLOC had funds in contingencies for last minute items. Mr. Fluhart said SLOC had adequately considered what liability there might be. #11. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS. An Executive Session was held. See File M 02-2 for Sworn Statement and confidential 02 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2002 tape. The meeting adjourned at 8 :37 p.m. bj 02 - 6 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 7,2002 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-02-09—Request to rezone the property at 1040 West 700 South from Residential R-1-7000 to Public Lands PL(Pioneer Police Precinct) STAFF REPORT BY: Marge Harvey,Constituent Liaison/Policy and Research Analyst Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Ordinance The proposal has no The proposal is The Administration has budget impact. presented to amend the clearly stated the zoning map for property positive aspects of the located at 1040 West proposal. 700 South OPTIONS AND MOTIONS: Additional options may be identified at the Council Work Session on May 9,2002. 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 1040 West 700 South from Residential R-1-7000 to Public Lands PL. 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance rezoning property at 1040 West 700 South from Residential R-1-7000 to Public Lands PL. KEY ELEMENTS 1. The proposed zoning map amendment would change the zoning for the property located at 1044 West 700 South from Residential R-1-7000 residential to Public Lands PL. The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed discussion of the proposed text amendment. Please refer to the Planning staff report for details.Key elements include: A. The project includes converting an existing vacant structure,which once housed a Salt Lake Community College satellite facility,to the Pioneer Police Precinct. B. Modifications to the existing site and structure include soil remediation to seismically stabilize the building,additions to the north and west side of the building,a parking lot with separate access points for both public and police vehicles, fencing and landscaping improvements. C. The proposal was originally submitted for a conditional use permit for a"municipal service"in the Residential R-1-7000 zoning district but after analysis,Planning staff felt it was more appropriate to rezone the property to Public Lands which allows"local government facilities". The Police Department concurred with this recommendation for the following reasons: 1 • "Local Government Facilities"such as police stations are permitted in the PL zone. • The PL zone is consistent with the future land use map of the West Salt Lake Community Plan • The PL zone is more restrictive than the Institutional zone with respect to permitted and conditional uses and thus more harmonious for the surrounding residential uses; and • The PL zone will allow more site design flexibility to reuse the existing structure for the proposed police facility. 2. The Planning staff report provides findings of fact that support the criteria established in the City's Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21A.50.050-Standards for General Zoning Amendments. Please refer to the Planning staff report for specific findings of fact and discussion of compliance with individual standards. 3. The purpose of the Residential R-1 zone is"to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods with lots not less that seven thousand(7,000)square feet in size." (Sec. 21/A.24.060) 4. The purpose of the Public Lands zone is"to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses,lands and facilities." (Sec.21/A.32.070) 5. Municipal Services are defined as"City or County government operations and governmental authorities providing services from specialized facilities,such as police service, street/highway department maintenance/construction,fire protection,sewer and water services,etc. City or County operations and governmental authorities providing services from non-specialized facilities shall be considered office uses." (Sec.21A.62.040) 6. The site is located within the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District due to the proximity of the Jordan River on the west side of the property. The Administration's transmittal notes that the proposed site modifications adhere to the setback regulations of the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District. (Sec.21A.34.050) A. A fifty-foot setback must be maintained for non-residential development adjacent to the river. B. The only physical modification that extends beyond the 50-foot setback is a walking path that connects the west side of the building and patio area to the Jordan River Parkway. The path is permitted within the setback area as long as it does not involve any grading or earthmoving. The path will be made of natural materials. C. The Engineering Division(Parks Planning)has reviewed the proposed pathway and has no objection. 7. The project was presented to the Poplar Grove Community Council on February 27,2002. The Community Council unanimously endorsed the project. The following issues were discussed at the community council meeting: A. Increased traffic on Jake Garn Way B. Lights from the police precinct shining into resident yards C. Adequate on-site drainage to control pavement and roof run-off D. Easy access to the facility by community members and residents 8. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 7,2002. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed rezoning and directed that the Planning Director work with the development team to: A. Reduce the number of parking stalls B. Improve the Jordan River Parkway trail system 2 C. Improve the landscape buffering on the north to mitigate impacts of the facility on surrounding properties 9. The following issues were discussed at the hearing: A. Possible decrease in value for property adjacent to the police precinct parking lot B. Loss of privacy and quiet for property owners whose yards are adjacent to the police precinct C. Noise from the shooting range D. Bright lights from the parking lot lighting impacting neighbors during nighttime hours E. Reduction of the number of off-street parking stalls to provide additional landscape buffering for adjacent properties and reduce impacts on the character of the residential neighborhood F. Proposed improvements to be provided along the Jordan River Parkway trail system MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Administration's transmittal notes that the proposed rezoning to Public Lands is consistent with the future land use map and policies in the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan and the City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report. Key policies include: A. The West Salt Lake Community Master Plan(1995)identifies the property at 1040 West 700 South on the future land use map as appropriate for institutional type uses. The community master plan refers to the Jordan River and states that the"river environment should be preserved in a park-like setting". The plan also discusses police services and states that a"priority is to maintain current levels of response time". B. The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan(1993)identifies"neighborhood security and personal safety"as an objective with"neighborhood police offices and neighborhood presence"as an action step toward this end. C. The Futures Commission Report(1998)discusses safety in neighborhoods and recommends expanding"a visible police presence". 2. The Open Space Master Plan supports expansion of the Jordan River Parkway concept. The Plan states that connection to the Jordan Parkway would provide a major north/south route for the open space system and should be considered a high priority. The plan also notes that the Jordan River Parkway Master Plan outlines in detail the improvements for trails,bank treatments, revegetation and access points along the river. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • February 27,2002 Poplar Grove Community Council • March 7,2002 Planning Commission Public Hearing cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Roger Cutler,Lynn Pace,Chief Dinse,Don Llewellyn,Scott Atkinson, LeRoy Hooton,Jeff Niermeyer,Rick Graham,Val Pope,Margaret Hunt,David Dobbins,Stephen Goldsmith,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Melissa Anderson,Annette Daley File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Rezoning,Police Substation 1040 West 700 South 3 imp 1. 22D 2 Au STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH G TY GORPORM IO ROSS C. ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE PLANNING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Management Services Directo FROM: Margar H ' nity and Economic Development irector TRANSMITTAL • arch 29, 2002 RE: Petition No. 400-02-09 zoning map amendment for the property at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 to Public Lands (PL). STAFF CONTACT: Melissa Anderson, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing regarding the proposed text amendment. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: In response to a request by the Salt Lake City Police Department, the Planning Commission initiated a petition on February 11, 2002 to rezone the property at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) zone. The project includes converting an existing structure to the Pioneer Police Precinct. Analysis: The project includes converting an existing structure, which once housed a Salt Lake Community College satellite facility, to a police substation; the Pioneer Police Precinct. The one- story structure is currently vacant. Modifications to the existing site and structure generally include soil remediation to seismically stabilize the building, additions to the north and west side of the building, a parking lot with separate access points for both public and police vehicles and landscaping improvements. The proposal was originally submitted for a conditional use peinhit for a"municipal service"in the R-1-7000 residential district. After analyzing the proposal and site layout, staff recommended that it was more appropriate to rezone the property to PL with "local government facilities"peituitted in the zone. The Police Department concurred with the recommendation, which is based on the following reasons: 1. "Local Government Facilities" such as police stations are permitted in the PL zone; 2. The PL zone is consistent with the future land use map of the West Salt Lake Community Plan; 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 ��� RECYCLED PAPER 3. The PL zone is more restrictive than the Institutional zone with respect to uses and thus more harmonious for the surrounding residential uses; and 4. The PL zone will allow more site design flexibility to reuse the existing structure for the proposed facility. The proposed rezone to PL is consistent with the future land use map, and the policies related to the Jordan River as well as Police services of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the policies of the Salt Lake City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report by providing neighborhood police offices and a visible neighborhood police presence in the West Salt Lake community. The new public facility will increase activity on the property with a 24-hour police station that operates throughout the year. Impacts to the adjacent properties have been mitigated with buffers, fencing, public on-site parking and an adequate setback to the Jordan River Parkway. The Pioneer Police Precinct will also benefit the West Salt Lake Community by increasing the police presence in the neighborhood, ensuring adequate response time, and providing space for the public gatherings and local community meetings. Public Process Poplar Grove Community Council—The project was presented to the Poplar Grove Community Council on February 27, 2002. The community council gave a favorable recommendation for the project and the rezone. Planning Commission -- On March 7, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public comment and to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission approved a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property from R-1-7000 to Public Lands. The Commission also requested that the Planning Director work with the project team to reduce the asphalt and improve the landscape buffering on the north to mitigate the impacts of the new facility on the surrounding properties. The revised site plan addresses both of these issues and is attached for review. Relevant Ordinances: Section 21A.50.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states "A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: • Consistency with adopted master plans; • Consistency with the overall character of surrounding properties; • Extent of adverse effects on adjacent properties; • Consistency with applicable overlay zones; and • Adequacy of public facilities and services. The Planning Commission found that the zoning map amendment is consistent with the adopted master plans and city ordinances. The Commission recommended in favor of the rezone from R-l- 7000 to Public Lands. 2 CONTENTS Revised Site Plan Chronology Ordinance Notice of City Council Hearing Mailing Labels Original Notice and Postmark Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes Planning Commission Staff Report Original Petition REVISED SITE PLAN (As directed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Planning Director) 41)41 --'' i1I - - - iIllt ". . !. BIKE PATH rk6 - .e 1f n 4h Y t+1f1 1 0 ry Via:r,La: tit " �, �QOv► ax' (' as tor ; ii -,-,\,--;A: t,s,-, , ,—, \*Ilw ............, • z ,1 ��i°� w� /® ,, lo �;, \' „Top ��1a .0000CC 10�ll ' vr. s4teVi _iv . ,4 i a's`-- -1 41,46P ‘1,/ i , , K _ ���� �am--.Amm ill ! 1t i9 II JAKE EARN It==L� CrV yl /- It I § ys f o i ©AWARD, • Q.w,<<• oowv SALT LIKE C04C P0®aE[R POd06 PRCCOMC4 1a0vm TOO SOUTH '/t*.aroawl I rOI 1 1 yION CH TE,T S'N 111 1 rf, I 441, ,_ �_ NB9sr42E-_-- -- -- -- '.It, o — __ - __- __3B3 2300 Ff !III 5 :TAIIS T2 -- 41.: , D >iAI I S 2 et....l z 1 1111,!/- . Pr I : „„ . 1 w- agg rig .2. <1 1 . a k SIi<OR 1Tnt�5 I mi IOTA5 A d�tp .n I I f , i �d �c4 I <-7-- IR aI1 `�,,' ® 0 p li f1V ® ® ® If8 `A 0 u Ta�tl: .1r. 11 — yi F3j1_I I (. 1111.111111011111.1404r,-• El } • 4,41, 2/sEDPe rtw.l \_ o DETENTION BASIN �,�5 /l1//r 0,.. ...„ . ,4€ ; LOCATION II ( rr L_ 4. J-7 ( ©O O DETENTION BASIN I ) . SHALL RAVE ...5, OF FREEBOARD. 4�• _ I VOLUME 76 OCUBIC II " '� ' IrvSTAiE 4 CONCRfif I HIGH WE ATE EET a, ri '4'� WAi(RWAv R N El 1223-00 ILE-,12 EI.00D - m ELEv=4zzaz � �I� ,. SITE PLAN i AZ 9`s]'Oa' _ rllolYaE PAvoNI • B.roe NO BMW Or. . ' FEW. INTOTR 5T.CE, �W SOUTH IN\ 422049 NORTH .tee: SITE PLAN 0 ; L=LT,.,,„.,.,T„ AS.101 CHRONOLOGY Chronology Petition No. 400-02-09 December 19, 2001 Police Department submitted an application for a conditional use permit with a favorable recommendation from the Poplar Grove Community Council. January 2, 2002 Petition received and assigned to Melissa Anderson. January 8, 2002 Planning staff sent copies of the proposal to the appropriate departments. February 7, 2002 Reviewed staff findings with the police precinct project team and decided that a rezone from R-1-7000 to Public Lands was the most appropriate course of action for the project. February 11, 2002 Petition initiated by the Planning Commission Chair to rezone the property. February 20, 2002 Notice of a public hearing was sent to the property owners within 300 feet of the property. February 27, 2002 Attended the Poplar Grove Community Council meeting and received a favorable recommendation from the community council for the rezoning. March 7, 2002 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council. March 8, 2002 Planning staff requested ordinance from City Attorney. March 22, 2002 Ordinance received. ORDINANCE • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Rezoning property located approximately 1040 West 700 South) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1040 WEST 700 SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL (R-1-7000) TO PUBLIC LANDS (PL), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-02-09. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, has held public hearings before its own body and before the Planning Commission, and has taken into consideration citizen testimony and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of its deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property located at approximately 1040 West 700 South is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. The property located at approximately 1040 West 700 South which is more particularly described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from residential (R-1-7000) to public lands (PL). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) ,y 3yLz-oa Bill No. of 2002. E Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Rezoning 1040 W 700 S-Mar 22,2002.doc ff - - ,,,,. .aii it...11 _ 1 =- _ Zv -Avg,._ f - � y Proposed Rezone from R-1 -7000 to [fir y A �1rt I Public •lands (Bidwell # 15-11-132-007) -1 - ri - 1 ',14;-'1.2-='-.% i r___ _ _ c _ , .. , 4_, ...... .,., _,, ...,..„: , ,.,_ L.; _ — ..%' , _4.-„.-„,,..- '? - - - - - - - _ yy�� _ as - i "I :. ,, _ _ , -I -,,,,,.._,A___ _ . .,_ 4 70V. s I. i _-`• Ai ot gta 1,-- - --- - ---,, - _ .- - - i 3 3 .. i - _ - - - _ i 1'-�'- Ali`' ,'��z 3 i _ t- k - I its s -` ' _ _ - } - ice' ' _ .-_3 .c 3; i. __ t - 't _ __ _ if i_ 1 Exhibit A PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND MINUTES March 7, 2002 NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 126 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Thursday, March 7,2002, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 118. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Comrr,ission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING at 5:50 p.m. — Petition No. 410-580, By Gold Cross Ambulance requesting a conditional use to allow a 123 foot high communication antenna, located on the roof of their dispatch and repair facility located at 762 South Redwood Road in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district. (Staff— Ray McCandless at 535-7282) b. PUBLIC HEARING at 6:10 p.m. — Petition No. 400-02-09, By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting to rezone the property at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) Zone at 1040 West 700 South. The site is proposed for use as the new Salt Lake City Police Pioneer Precinct. Modifications to the existing building and site generally include additions to the north and west side of the building, a parking lot with separate access points for both public and police vehicles and landscaping improvements. (Staff— Melissa Anderson at 535- 6184) 3. OTHER BUSINESS Sugar House Business District Zoning Map Update: Staff will present the Final Sugar House Business District zoning map, as was requested by the Planning Commission when they gave a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the text and map amendments for the Sugar House Business District Zone, on January 17, 2002. Salt Lake City Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. If you are planning to attend the public meeting and,due to a disability,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting,please notify the City 48 hours in advance of the meeting and we will try to provide whatever assistance may be required. Please call 535-7757 for assistance. PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. AT YOUR REQUEST A SECURITY ESCORT WILL BE PROVIDED TO ACCOMPANY YOU TO YOUR CAR AFTER THE MEETING. THANK YOU. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT•PLANNING DIVISION•451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406•SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757•FAX:801-535-6174 PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-02-09, By the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting to rezone the property at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) zone at 1040 West 700 South. The site is proposed for use as the new Salt Lake City Police Pioneer Precinct. Modifications to the existing building and site generally include additions to the north and west side of the building, a parking lot with separate access points for both public and police vehicles and landscaping improvements. Planner Melissa Anderson reported that the Planning Commission observed the property during a field trip. She noted that this was originally submitted as a conditional use permit for a government facility in a residential zone. After analyzing the existing footprint and setback constraints as well as looking at the master plan, the Staff felt it was more appropriate to rezone the property to PL (Public Lands) since local government facilities such as police stations are permitted in the PL zone. The Police Department concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Anderson stated that this matter was brought before the Community Council last week to provide an update of a clearer site plan, and they made a favorable recommendation. Ms. Anderson believed the surrounding community and neighbors understood the impacts and benefits of having a police station nearby. Community rooms and a strong police presence have resulted in positive feedback. Ms. Anderson reported that public notice was sent out, and she had not received any phone calls from the public. Ms. Barrows stated that she was unable to attend the field trip, but she was concerned with the change of grade for natural surveillance referenced in the CPTED report. Ms. Anderson explained that the area in front which faces 700 South is a rolling, grassy area, and the City will have to provide soil remediation to stabilize the site. There are not enough funds at this time to do all the architectural landscaping elements possible for the site. Ms. Barrows asked about the amount of grade change. Ms. Anderson was unsure but stated that she thought it was two to three feet. Mr. Nelson asked for clarification on parking in front of the building as it is not allowed in the zone. Ms. Anderson explained that in the PL zone, parking is allowed up to the 30-foot setback. Mr. Nelson asked if there was any opposition to this plan at the Community Council meeting. Ms. Anderson replied that concerns were expressed relative to lighting and drainage, but there was no opposition to the zone change. She reviewed an architectural rendering of the site plan showing the areas designated for on-site public parking and community meeting rooms. Planning Commission Meeting 4 March 7,2002 Ms. Barrows asked which zones house the existing police substations. Jerry Burton, representing the Police Department, stated that SLCPD currently does not have police substations. Ms. Anderson named municipal entities in Sugar House as examples of uses in the PL zone. Ms. Barrows expressed concern about how far they are stretching the definition of municipal service. She asked how many parking spaces currently exist on the site and the actual number for public and for police parking. Ms. Anderson replied that the proposed number is 82 spaces for police and 19 spaces for the public, and those numbers represent an expansion of the parking area. Mr. Muir recalled how the Planning Commission had expanded the criteria for Pacific Power and required them to make improvements along the Jordan River Parkway. He felt this project should carry the same kind of consistency. He noted that it is a City facility, and they owe it to the public to be consistent. Ms. Anderson explained that there is an existing pathway and that the City is already working on a project along that area. A 50-foot setback will be observed which would be required of any commercial development from the high water mark, but other than that, no additional improvements are required. Ms. Coffey remarked that, when the City worked with Ivory Development in the 1990's on the subdivision, she was sure the Parkway was improved at that time. Ms. Anderson offered to check on the equity of park improvements with respect to the power project referred to by Mr. Muir referred to. Chair Daniels referred to the existing path and noted that it is a paved path used by bicyclers, people with strollers, and others. The path is fairly complete, but that does not mean it could not be further improved. Ms. McDonough asked about the use for the paved area on the Jordan River side. Ms. Anderson replied that it would be an outdoor picnic area for police personnel. Ms. McDonough asked if it would be open to the public. Mark Provone, representing the architects, explained that the area is behind a secured line for the police and would not have public access. The public could use the terrace on the east side. Ms. Barrows stated that she could not figure out the fence line and asked if there would be a means, such as a meandering pathway, from the Jordan River Parkway to the public patio facility. Mr. Provone used the site plan to orient the Planning Commission to the project. He indicated public areas and police areas, access, and parking and explained that access to the Jordan Pathway will be along the sidewalks. Ms. McDonough asked if there was a security reason for not having public access along the south lawn. Mr. Provone replied that a sidewalk Planning Commission Meeting 5 March 7,2002 already exists on that side, and people are using it now. He expected that to continue without restriction. Ms. Barrows asked about noise from the gun range. Mr. Provone explained the gun range operation and how sound would be insulated from the neighbors. Ms. Barrows asked in what zones cop shops currently exist. Mr. Burton identified a number of locations and noted that they are all located in commercial zones. Mr. Nelson commented on the berms and asked if they create a security concern. Mr. Burton replied that they can be a security concern to a certain degree, and that was addressed in the CPTED recommendation. He would prefer that the berms be leveled out so someone could not hide behind them, but financial considerations are a factor. This is a concern, but not one that would preclude moving the project forward. Chair Daniels opened the public hearing. Rich DeHoney, a property owner at 622 South Center Circle, stated that his property runs along a major portion of the police parking area. He did not oppose having a substation in his neighborhood, but he was opposed to the possible devaluation of his property because every view from the rear of his house would be police cars. He was concerned with privacy issue. He noted that there is currently no traffic along the back of his house, and he assumed this project would increase the traffic level. He was also concerned about the hustle and bustle on the other side of the fence invading his quiet yard and privacy time. Mr. Burton stated that he felt Mr. DeHoney's concerns were valid, and he would never imply that there would be less activity. A police department is 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Three shift changes happen on a regular basis in addition to administrative staff hours. He stated that he would like to do as much as possible to alleviate the disturbance to Mr. DeHoney and, without knowing the zoning ordinance, suggested the possibility of a higher fence and shrubs. Mr. Nelson suggested putting taller trees in the 12-foot area to protect Mr. DeHoney's view. Mr. DeHoney stated that he found this suggestion acceptable. He noted that he works nights, and he was worried about the construction schedule interfering with his sleep time. Gaylord Smith, representing Salt Lake City Engineering, addressed concerns regarding the fence line and felt they could easily accommodate additional screening. He was unaware of the Planning Commission Meeting 6 March 7,2002 Code limits for fence heights in that area, and hd stated that they would be willing to re-fence the fence line from the river to the street. Regarding the construction schedule, he noted that most of the construction will take place inside the building. However, there will be some demolition, and Mr. DeHoney should expect that to be noisy. Mr. Smith expected that regular construction hours during the summer would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. It might be possible that the contractor could work with Mr. DeHoney and schedule jack hammering and other extremely noisy work for later in the day. Mr. Burton stated that the issue of police sirens was raised at the Poplar Grove Community Council meeting. Unlike the fire department, the police department does not turn on its sirens until after leaving the parking lot unless there is a problem in the neighborhood. Regarding re-fencing, Mr. Smith asked Mr. DeHoney if he would prefer a new fence to replace his fence or if he would prefer a stand alone fence on the other side. Mr. DeHoney replied that his main concern was protecting the serenity of his back yard, and he would rather look at trees than a 10-foot fence. Chair Daniels suggested that Mr. DeHoney, the Engineering Department, and the Police Department keep in contact to make sure all those issues are addressed satisfactorily. Mr. Smith noted that he has met with three other neighbors to discuss fences for the purpose of privacy, sound, and lighting impacts. Mr. DeHoney stated that he was unaware of the shooting range and asked about the noise impact. Mr. Smith replied that he may hear some noise, but nothing that would be unacceptable to the neighbors. Mr. Del-bney asked about parking lot lighting. Mr. Burton replied that the lights will shine down and not out. Mr. DeHoney asked if they would have some garbage cleanup along the public access. Mr. Burton stated that there will not be public access into the police area. Any garbage would come from the police officers, and they will make sure it is always cleaned up. Chair Daniels closed the public hearing. Ms. Barrows stated that she preferred the looks of a rolling berm and did not favor finding money to level it. However, she would like to see something that makes it more hospitable since they are a public amenity. She referred to Mr. Muir's comments regarding Pacific Power and agreed that this petitioner should be held to the same accountability. She requested that the Staff follow through to make sure they have the same kind of consistency. Planning Commission Meeting 7 March 7,2002 Mr. Jonas was unsure how they could be consistent when this is a rezone. Ms. Barrows pointed out that this project will be a permitted use after the re-zone, and the Planning Commission will not have the opportunity to request their wants and desires. Ms. Barrows stated that she did not understand why they need so much parking. Ms. McDonough agreed and felt they should ask the petitioner to keep the parking to a minimum. She suggested increasing the landscaped yard to the north if at all possible. Mr. Goldsmith noted that the parking requirement is based on the square footage of the building. Mr. Nelson asked if they could eliminate 20 parking stalls and still meet the requirements. Chair Daniels asked Mr. Smith to address the question of reduced parking. Mr. Smith explained the parking situation and how they arrived at the numbers. If the Planning Commission directed, he could bring back a portion of the green space. Ms. Funk stated that she was still concerned about parking and asked if the police actually need 81 parking stalls. She felt a 60-20 split was much more reasonable than an 80-20 split. If the police could get by with 60 parking stalls, they could reduce the amount of parking and still meet the parking requirement for the building square footage. Mr. Jonas suggested that they address the issue of the rezone as one item and recommend the parking issue to the City Council as a separate item. Mr. Goldsmith agreed with the Commissioners in terms of parking and offered to meet with Mr. Smith to see if it could be reduced. Motion for Petition #400-02-09 Arla Funk moved to approve Petition #400-02-09 to rezone the property located at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 to Public Lands based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report. Jeff Jonas seconded the motion with the modification that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Barrows, Ms Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye." Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Arla Funk moved to direct the Planning Director to work with the Police Department before this petition is presented to the City Council to reduce the parking to the extent that it can be reduced and possibly moved off to the street or possibly totally reduced within the facility itself. Planning Commission Meeting 8 March 7,2002 Laurie Noda seconded the motion. Ms. Barrows asked if the motion should be amended to mention the discussion of public amenities in terms of potential walking paths and other amenities the petitioner has offered which the Planning Commission supports. Mr. Nelson felt the motion should specifically mention the trees along the north side. Ms. Funk accepted the amendment to her motion that landscaping also be considered with additional planting as necessary to reduce the impacts on the neighbors. Laurie Noda seconded this amendment. Ms. Barrows, Ms. Funk, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, Mr. Muir, Mr. Nelson, and Ms. Noda voted "Aye." Mr. Daniels, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 7,2002 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Rezone from. R-1-7000 to Public Lands (PL) Poneer Police Precinct Petition Number 400-02-09 'wareik 7, 2002 REQUEST Petition Number 400-02-09, is a request by the Planning Commission in response to a request by the Salt Lake City Police Department to rezone the property at 1040 West 700 South from R-1 7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) zone. The project includes converting an existing structure, which once housed a Salt Lake Community College satellite facility, to a police substation; the Pioneer Police Precinct. The one-story structure is currently vacant. Modifications to the existing site and structure generally include soil remediation to seismically stabilize the building, additions to the. north and west side of the building, a parking lot with separate access points for both publc and police vehicles and landscaping improvements. The proposal was originally submitted for a conditional use permit for a"municipal service" in the R-1 7000 residential district. After analyzing the proposal and site layout, staff recommended that it was more appropriate to rezone the property to PL with "local government facilities"permitted in the zone. The Police Department concurred with the recommendation. rah h- A _ i. ' 1�. ,- : :atz Kam' F t P l V. ,1`, z ' ' z'L.-.-•---;::.L ,..,,,,--,,,,. 8. ,'' '..1 j SQ � �4 V !- Report, 1 Staff March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Petition Number Division400-02-09 PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW: Poplar Grove Community Council: The Poplar Grove Community Council initially reviewed this proposal for a conditional use permit in an R-1-7000 zoning district. They provided a letter in support of the new Pioneer Police Precinct for the 1040 West 700 South location. The project was presented again to the Poplar Grove Community Council on February 27, 2002, to introduce the proposal to rezone the property from the R-1-7000 residential zone to the Public Lands zone. The Community Council voted in support of the proposal. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Applicant: Police Department/Planning Commission Purpose of proposal and proposed amendment: The purpose of the proposal is to establish consistency between the future land use map and the zoning district for the site located at 1040 West 700 South, which will allow a police substation to better serve the western communities of Salt Lake City. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: The site is located within the R-1-7000 residential zone and the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District (LC). Existing Master Plan Policies: West Salt Lake Community Master Plan (1995) Salt Lake City Strategic Plan (1993) Futures Commission Report (1998) Affected areas and parcel numbers: The property is located at 1040 West 700 South. The parcel number for the property is 15-11-132-007. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES The site proposed for the new Pioneer Police Precinct is currently zoned R-1-7000 residential and is recommended to be rezoned to Public Lands (PL)based on the following reasons: 1. "Local Government Facilities"such as police stations are permitted in the PL zone; 2. The PL zone is consistent with the future land use map of the West Salt Lake Community Plan; 3. The PL zone is more restrictive than the Institutional zone with respect to uses and thus more harmonious for the surrounding residential uses; and 4. The PL zone will allow more site design flexibility to reuse the existing structure for the proposed facility. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 2 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Section 21A.50.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states "A decision to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance or the Zoning Map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the City Council should consider the following factors: 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The West Salt Lake Community Master Plan (1995) identifies the properties appropriate for institutional use on the future land use map. The Public Lands zoning classification is one of the zoning classifications used to implement the institutional land use policy. "Local Government Facilities" such as police stations are a permitted use in the PL zone. The community master plan refers to the Jordan River and states that the"the river environment should be preserved in a park-like setting" (pg. 10). The plan also discusses police services and states that a"priority is to maintain current levels of response time" (pg. 11). The Salt Lake City Strategic Plan (1993) identifies "neighborhood security and personal safety" as an objective with"neighborhood police offices and neighborhood presence"as an action step toward this end (pg. 15). The Futures Commission Report(1998) discusses safety in neighborhoods and recommends expanding "a visible police presence" (pg. 39). Findings: The proposed rezone to PL is consistent with the future land use map, and the policies related to the Jordan River as well as Police services of the West Salt Lake Community Master Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the policies of the Salt Lake City Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report by providing neighborhood police offices and a visible neighborhood police presence in the West Salt Lake community. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The Jordan River Parkway is located on the west side of the property, with residential uses located to the north, east and south sides of the site. The site is currently vacant with a one-story brick structure that once housed a Salt Lake Community College satellite facility. The property is proposed for use as the new Pioneer Police Precinct. The proposed zone change to public lands (PL) is consistent with the previous institutional use as well as the proposed police station. Additionally, "Local Government Facilities" such as police stations are permitted in the PL zone. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 3 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Modifications to the existing site and structure generally include soil remediation to seismically stabilize the building, additions to the north and west side of the building, interior modifications to service the police station and community, a parking lot with - separate access points for both public and police vehicles and landscaping improvements. The materials for the building addition will be concrete masonry units of various natural shades to compliment the existing brick on the building. Findings: The proposal includes reusing an existing vacant building for a new police precinct to better serve the community. The zone change to PL is consistent with the previous and proposed land use and harmonious with the overall character of existing development. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The proposed facility will house the Pioneer Patrol Division which provides initial police response to calls for service for the central and western portions of Salt Lake City. The new station will increase the police presence in the neighborhood and ensure adequate response time for the public. In addition, the station will provide space for administrative services with reception desk for the public, as well as serve as a training facility for officers,with an indoor gun range and fitness center. The indoor gun range will be self-contained and designed to prohibit noise or lead emissions into the air. The division operates 24 hrs a day, 365 days a year. There are three shift changes in a 24-hour period. This means that approximately 10 to 15 officers will be coming in for field activity briefings prior to work assignments. Although interviewing suspects will take place at this facility, it will not house any prisoners. Extensive interviews and placement of evidence will continue to occur at the Public Safety Building at 315 East 200 South. The new police precinct will also provide community meeting rooms. Community councils and other community groups will be invited to share the facility as well as other city depai liuents needing a meeting facility for a large group. In the event of a disaster, the facility will also provide a prime area for staging public safety operations to respond to community needs. In order to facilitate community access to the facility, 19 on-site dedicated public parking stalls will be provided, separate and in addition to the 82 police staff parking stalls. Within the parking area, the four mature trees will be preserved. The site plan has been designed to retain the mature trees wherever possible. The light poles within the parking lot will be directed downward so that the light will not shine on the adjacent properties. The dumpster will be located in the rear yard approximately 15 feet from the property line and enclosed on three sides with concrete masonry units colored to match the existing building. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 4 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division • The fence on the northern boundary will be a sight-proof fence to mitigate the impact of the vehicle activity and headlights that cross through the parking lot from the neighboring residential properties. A wooden fence is proposed to replace the chain link fence, which will match the existing wooden fence on the northwest property. The new and existing wooden fence will then be stained a consistent color the entire length of the northern boundary. For security reasons, a chain-link fence is proposed for the western boundary of the parking lot and building. This will limit public access to the facility and staff parking area to only the east side of the property. This will allow the police department staff to monitor public access onto the property and into the building or in the parking lot more effectively. The fence will run parallel to the Jordan River Parkway, therefore to visually soften the open fencing material, the chain-link fence will be treated with a dark colored rubberized coating to blend in with natural parkway setting. Findings: The new public facility will increase activity on the property with a 24-hour police station that operates throughout the year. Impacts to the adjacent properties have been mitigated with buffers, fencing, public on-site parking and an adequate setback to the Jordan River Parkway. The Pioneer Police Precinct will also benefit the West Salt Lake Community by increasing the police presence in the neighborhood, ensuring adequate response time, and providing space for the public gatherings and local community meetings. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts, which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The site is located within the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District (LC) due to the proximity of the Jordan River on the west side of the property. A fifty foot (50') setback must be maintained for non-residential development adjacent to the river. The only physical modification that extends beyond the 50' setback is a walking path that connects the west side of the building and patio area to the Jordan River trailway. The path is permitted within the setback area as long as it does not involve any grading or earthmoving. The path will be made of natural materials such as park mulch. The Engineering Division (Parks Planning) has reviewed the proposed pathway and has no objection. Findings: The proposed site modifications adhere to the setback regulations of the Lowland Conservancy Overlay District. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems,water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Staff requested feedback from the Building Services and Licensing Division, Public Utilities, Zoning Enforcement, Engineering, Transportation, Property Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 5 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Management, the Fire Department and the Police Department. There were no specific objections to the zoning map amendments. All requirements cited by each department will need to be addressed during the building permit and site plan review process. The Jordan River Parkway is located on the west side of property and the 50' setback protects the river from encroachment. The parks planning engineer for the Jordan River Parkway in this area has reviewed the proposal and has no objections. The property is also located where public utilities and streets exist and a structure is already built on the site. Additionally, the proposal to rezone the property to PL and then upgrade the existing building to serve as the Pioneer Police Precinct adds to the public facilities serving the area. Findings: The proposed police station will add a benefit to the community by increasing the public facilities serving the area. The public utilities and streets are adequate to serve the new facility and the Jordan River Parkway is protected. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings of fact contained in this staff report, the Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property located 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 to Public Lands (PL). Melissa Anderson Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Community Council Response 2. Site Photographs 3. Site Plan and Vicinity Map 4. Other Department Comments Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 6 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division __ Exhibit 1 Letter from Community Council Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division Poplar Grove Community Council March 5, 2002 Mr. Gaylord Smith Salt Lake City Public Works 324 S State Street Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Mr. Smith: The Poplar Grove Community Council unanimously endorsed the amended zoning relative to offstreet parking for the Salt Lake City Police substation at 700 South and the Jordan River. Some concerns were expressed about traffic on Jake Garn, about lights at night shining into residents yards, adequate drainage from pavement and roof run-off and easy access by the community. We were assured that all these concerns would be addressed. We look forward to the opening of the new substation. We applaud the intent of the Salt Lake City Police to offer their facilities for community gatherings and to work within our community for our mutual goals. In the design of the facility and grounds, we ask that it be readily accessible by residents and that it be in character with the work we are doing along the Jordan River to create trails and enhance the natural character of the river. Sincerely, Edie Trimmer Poplar Grove Community Council Cc: Melissa Anderson, SLC Planning Poplar Grove Community Council 246 S 1300 West Salt Lake City UT 84104 December 10,2001 Jordan Hughes Salt Lake City Police Department 315 E 200 South Salt Lake City UT 84111 Dear Mr. Hughes This letter is to advise you that the Poplar Grove Community Council endorses the building of a police substation on 700 South at the Jordan River. We believe this substation will be a positive addition to our neighborhood. We look forward to being your neighbor and offer you our support and assistance in the construction and operation of the substation. Please call me if you have any questions or if we can be of any assistance. Sincerely, Edie Trimmer,Chair Poplar Grove Community Council Cc: Planning Commission Councilman Van Turner Exhibit 2 Site Photographs Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division #hc l t T 4 � 5 ' 4 k u` View of the west side of the building, facing north i 1( N. 4. View of the west side of the building, facing north ;Sy �._. : , View of the south side of the building, facing east €z ,, eta ,•. .,. ''-t ti .LL ,,_- rye q ? `,,:. . 'tip - ., e :=. FMN 4g View of the north side of the building, facing south } wr r t View of the east side of the building, facing south f-= .A74 i S •' I y ,4 E •• Yam. a'jq d AA, ,� ` A View of the building from 700 South, facing north-west "fit ., iF r ,v rR 3}r‘k{'r`* 1 4 :`c . t1i 1 : "- g4 i.-;i.74s,*4,k--.;4',,:W,41,...4A.'.4"'"'cI i • ..:0----!-:i,4sT,'p,''--,'-.1% _ k, .z,d 'a..t�. ,.,',.4,.,'-::'.44-j-T.,--,---4-'-f-,,:i,.,l-.-,.- 4< `--s r- ., Lry,-,;%:ms�* ,s&A, tx r�. i, ., , s' r -- y*y. ` t 1' ,, • -- ; }b k '',‘,-”:*::4,9.:,_1,L,ftp-1,t1o.3...,1-.:.g,.,,...i,,,,,„,k.:.:,.4:7,7—;,‘;-,-f,'t4.-1„_3 e1-fib.:t—„t:a: -.. S i ms... _.zt-,..ei-t„,..‘t,s,3%-11-,,,''',—j1-,,'...,,, rt,—.--_p-?'-,::,.-„,i.i,',-..e.m.;,—...e.,-t-.-4:kA p,.>:',-i.:',,,s-,4v,*4-;,,',,,,.e-..-Pe.:,-.',:,--'4:-_,r-,,..4,---4--4r-,,,,1- 3 f 5a��5y�pe��r rt-'�,uaYY View of the mature trees and residential properties to the north •]k` ,'�• � ti. ' fig,',\ ilk o s--_ -,-; �', .., r 1'f3 �¢ ". fa P .1:; p ''( \ 4 etc-.u.. - Aft i '-'7, , 4 t C '' 'e 4 14 t x ,; 2Ao am'?• Ss S, i t;SsaP r-dam+'- — - _ View of the residential proposed parking lot area with a residence to the north Exhibit 3 Site Plan and VicinityMap Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division , - .....,-. ,ORPAN RIVER .: ____ ti.: :.,t,,,itzitagtitttioiefeero-x,i'..4"--t*,' P -I t .1til:..".rH L '''. :': ., r 1: _ 41,... i 1.,__/, 1 ® ',;:t ir-yoxix f,t4*0.4/ft 1 ,iii!,;ii::::; !,, . .... : .... ..: - • -t , , -----, . .. -4i• 1 () • • •• . . .A.0 . i (.. .. .... ....... ...... .:::....,...,.......„....:.:... 'i,'::::::-:.-: .!!'': f'.:.--.'..;i':!..t-::;:..,,,!'::.::::::-.:!•: :-...--: --), ........ . ." ". -• .•.•: :.... ....: .::. ...,.. ....... . :.. 1 I 1 1 . - , „i,ih.i: ;::!:.: ii;, .,,:.:..!., :.. . .• . :. :..... . :-.;,,y : .. . A .. .. . . .... s LI .0e-------p' ,i,i ‘,:v‘, !!:.,.;..,:.•i..i.;.,.!..:,...!.:.i.i.: , :„.. , 1 „tt4 :i::..... ., I Nri • .. ...... ...,, ,.. ,. ....... .. - -•• . :..... i i i!:"'i'•;: 1.!!!..'i..;i'..:::::-:.. . "• • • "•'-•• • .,..:• i - • \2 LIAM tr !'!.'!ii;"ii:R'li,:..i!:i: : 1 ... ..,-__,,,,,----__. I MEMEL...e,-..e- •'...! rare 6.0, .........,_4 0 ,,•• \17.,Filoinini 1 I Nissam Ns IiliA • ---. 4-EN. . I __ : \1,11111111 ,.., - 111 iiii, :;i: q ' • 44111Mmillilff : . ' .., II .ilizi a -.\< '_• .,' --- .1- 1 -I -, !! ii, , 0 0 i im:i ilz. ..... , kgpitillit ! , , ..,=,1 „III 1 i.. 1 ., ,1.,], ,..., .,...,„..) lomessimm 0 o 0 e JAKE GARN i 0 eteeeeee seeeoe 0 eocoo 00 0 , k. li' .-,. .t4, :. v_,, ,.; -i; T,i, -,•.-, ,..;, 0 ,•!';' R 'F,B f :.:.• :.: .. :: ' '; :4 :,1 :4 !, ;; . 56-. - ?. t =:., qi: . .:h' 4'! i•P i;' 9 .2 z !lit; I I LULT,E 200AKE UTAH.1 /I Zi. 1 a•mftin I i . . . IA:Ai:LI: I TEL 80 ."'AS:L:717A' I PBOREER.SALLI.ALP206110ECITYPRECECT IHI I co P,HITECT: I =II\ __ _ _ ______ max_== __ ___ - •: - _ r . ,__:-,-_-"-;.__-_.-____:-.____.,_---_„---f:_,:-._,4'._:,4_-'-' -=,.l,1‘.,,,-._-.,„•,s,--- --.':_.,_..7_„',I,. .-.'c,-....-=.„-'---_---_---_-__-.f i.-,„7--,--_.,--.-.---.-_-_-,_,1-2-,1-_-,._._,-,.1-,-__„__--2-___-_.-*,-__1-:_--_---_.:4--.,:,=__;•-„-••.4-_.7_-"•,,_.,-.-_-..-,--.--..-.''-,:-.-__-'-:-'-ii„,;----±_-,-—_=----‘.-_-_------:r--t--'.--:-,.---,-j:..-,_*-.-2:.--1.-'-_z_-.--_-;:-__,:._---.--_.------,--_.--.2:..-.-.....__.-_...-_'_ F - 1, a]_ - - Tom-'tea'=-s' _ _"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .:-3,r _ _ _ _� -sue:i - - "_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ -.may:- _ — _-___ _ _ __ _ _ _ - _ � - ram' __ ___ ____ __ - " _-._-i--;-„4-.,-2,.,,t--. fi"± " -- _- . .-,: ___ - ._ _ -- - _ -•ten:, 2Y: < y'E� --- <� I3-•—'�F__ a_ —_ — __- W.. } _ •o—J" ii s=Yy . 5,�' r�x iy _ 1 '' .r F [ __ _ _ - ,Wiz . - 57a -"- -_ - , _- c`k,,,,, -:_t - - =_r` -`-� -11 11 r ` ' _- - Pro osed Rezone from R-1 -700u __ . tcr:;±.--i--1';:-.-_---T_--5'-`;_-.-9,-÷A_. : . to Public Lands 1_ __ i r % -• . ...___ . ,. F_ .. ,•{- __ _ _ ,�`_-,..:tip �.t. -- _ , 1 __:„., _ ,, , ..,_ - j- `. ---: - __ - - -� - cam- "_ - _ "_-- -. - - - - - -3 -- �� _=:_-- ' - - - 7on s .. w - - :-?_-:-.-, „,.„,„,-_,,._____„. _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -„ ..* - _ - _- --- -- -- _,._ z � . pp ,` - ..�_ , ._ ram„-. "- _ - ".Xe-` _ -- -_ ram" - yam.,- - -- = Z. s s - - - - - - _ - _ _ - - _- _ [�_t _sue �'?--..,.--•2‘-.1.-,,(,,-'--,-,.7--,-71-4_-,,t-,-;-'1'Y-,,,.•----'-FN-.,-.—_,_-7•___._-.--,_-:,.-,-;_iAL--Z t'i-t:--.6=..04.',.4„3,c_;;i5a'-- O ._-_.. -.,._.. �.._�s.: - - - —gym - 9y awa -:-%-:'--,'—.`.':-'_,'''.=_.,.-_---,.-.--._--_,--`----='-•'.---'-,,'i'--.)-•%-4-----,--:,--.,---',-:, t1 _ -- _ = 7 -- -- - - .-' - -- -+"- „tea - , ,...,.>.yam . - _ __. t - _ - _ _ - - r'2 „ :$ . a pia �4F. g.F 4 43. __ -_N B9'BT42'F 4y O 383.29Cq F4 ft ), .1¢ INII c a l ' 4a ^.e 1 i ti; : I �',i H tom. ,y' k. I 1O "iS .>: it`. ' YS� S +�I �.: r -113g @4O9'g: ■ f `¢ f:. 1 _-____,--) y ;. �� \ • =1 ),I) Ail Foomi .. .Fill} , u■■Fi►v■■r` _ .- ...,., 414 i" . -.--..) r�i ■�' > 6 :I ids =� o� ; ,cri-i-i:K_______. _________„ 7 741 . �� I„ • �--- ��92s . _-- a= - - 0 D W A R D S & O `-S eY Y+,; ` 8 �� � i, � r ,' 3�"C 'y.`fi k "'rtw� '�S„ '' �_:,' Win:h" v.. - "�. :" _, r"_ice . _..._.. -i 'a:u --rrr � N ARCHITECTS vc y r s,y�,r. 1 N C. .`� -fly aiilii�" ► - PIONEER POLICE PRECINCT March12002 Exhibit 4 Other Department Comments Staff Report,Petition Number 400-02-09 March 7,2002 by Salt Lake City Planning Division SALT LAKE CITY BUILDING SERVICES AND LICENSING Zoning Review Correction Sheet Log Number: Non log Preliminary Review Date: February 20, 2002 Project Name: Pioneer Police Precinct Project Address: 1040 West 700 South Contact Person: Melissa Anderson Telephone: 535-6184 Zoning District: l -7-000 Reviewer: Ken Brown Phone#: 535-6179 Proposed PL zone Comments 1) Conditional Use approval is required for this proposal in this zone. Local Government Facilities are a permitted use in the proposed PL zone. 2) Parking lots are not permitted between the property line and the front wall of the building in this zone. This issue will need to be addressed in the Conditional Use process. This proposal meets the setback requirements for parking lots in the proposed PL zone. 3) Drive approach radius and/or design shall meet SLC Engineering requirements. 4) Expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirements by 50% shall comply with the landscaping requirements of the SLC Zoning Ordinance, 21A.48. Documentation of the percentage of Expansion and/or intensification will need to be provided. 5) Expansion or intensification of any building, structure or premises through the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, or other units of measurement specified for required parking, shall provide additional parking in the amount by which the requirements for the intensified use exceed those for the existing use. Documentation will need to be provided. 6) Front Façade Control is a requirement of this Zone and the plans arc not clear that this proposal The proposed PL zone does not have a Front Facade Control requirement. 7) Grades (identified as existing &proposed) shall be shown at 2 ft. intervals on site plan. 8) The Landscaping Plan will need further review after revisions arc made (see#2 above) and the Summary Data corrected. The Summary Data includes a lot of inaccurate and unnecessary information. 9) The Landscaping plan will need to show compliance to 21A.34.050 Lowland Conservancy Overlay District. The Landscaping plan will need to address Landscape Buffering requirements where this property abuts a residential district. 10)Parking calculations shall be provided for each principal building or use. See Zoning Ordinance Table 21A.44.060. 11)Bicycle parking required (capacity equal to 5% of required parking stalls). Show location and rack detail. Rack design shall support the bicycle frame. 12)Parking lots shall be provided with lights and lighting facilities that will provide 0.03 watts per square foot with incandescent light source, or 0.01 watts per square foot with either mercury vapor or fluorescent light source,but in no event less than 0.2 footcandle average maintained illumination on the entire parking lot surface and an average ratio of six to one. Lights shall be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent properties. 13)Public way improvements such as sidewalks, lights, trees, approaches, fire hydrants(existing & proposed), etc., shall be shown on the site plan. 14)Public way improvements such as existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches require inspection to determine replacement requirements of defective concrete. Phone 535-6169. 15)Public Utilities approval of the site drainage, etc. to be submitted to this office for permit issuance. 16)Setback dimension at the West property line to be provided on site plan. 17)Site plan dimensions do not match plat map. Provide current plat map, property descriptions, and tax ID Number(Sidwell). 18)Sign permit required. Make a note on the plans that signs are to be installed by licensed sign contractor under separate permit. 19)Street lighting to be reviewed with Gordon Haight of the Transportation Dept. 20)Subdivision issues (see#16 above). Cross easements and drainage easements may be required. Subdivision Review Screening Checklist to be submitted with permit application. 21)Tree removal or tree planting in the public way requires approval from Bill Rutherford, SLC Urban Forestry. This note will need to be added to the landscaping plans or plans submitted containing an Urban Forester approval signature. 22)Yard (front/corner side) setback does not meet Zoning District requirements of 20 feet. Also sec#2 above. NOTE: After the building permit is issued, a public way permit will be required from the Engineering Department prior to commencing any work in the public way. Anderson, Melissa From: Cordova, Linda Sent: Wednesday_ February 20, 2002 7:19 AM To: Anderson, Melissa Subject: RE: Pioneer Police Precinct OK by me. I think the re-zoning is good. Linda Cordova Original Message From: Anderson, Melissa Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad;Cordova, Linda; Olsen, Diane; Larson, Bradley Subject: Pioneer Police Precinct TO ALL, Petition #410-574, for a new police station was reviewed by each of you for a conditional use permit.The site is located at 1040 West 700 South. Due to site design considerations,the petition is now proposed for a rezone from R-1-7000 to Public Lands (PL). Local government facilities are permitted in the PL zone, so a conditional use permit is unnecessary if the rezone is granted by the City Council. If you have any comments to change or add regarding this proposal, now that the petition has changed from a conditional use permit to a rezone,please notify me by Monday, February 25,2002. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 535-6184. Thank you, Melissa Anderson, Melissa From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:45 AM To: Anderson, Melissa Subject: RE: Pioneer Police Precinct Original Message From: Anderson, Melissa Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:47 AM To: Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad; Cordova, Linda; Olsen, Diane; Larson, Bradley Subject: Pioneer Police Precinct TO ALL, Petition #410-574, for a new police station was reviewed by each of you for a conditional use permit.The site is located at 1040 West 700 South. Due to site design considerations, the petition is now proposed for a rezone from R-1- 7000 to Public Lands (PL). Local government facilities are permitted in the PL zone, so a conditional use permit is unnecessary if the rezone is granted by the City Council. If you have any comments to change or add regarding this proposal, now that the petition has changed from a conditional use permit to a rezone, please notify me by Monday, February 25, 2002. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 535- 6184. Thank you, Melissa No change in transportation issues subject to conditional use or change in zoning. Barry Walsh SALT LAKE CITY BUILDING SERVICES AND LICENSING Zoning Review Correction Sheet Log Number: Non log Preliminary Review Date: January 31, 2002 Project Name: Pioneer Police Precinct Project Address: 1040 West 700 South Contact Person: Melissa Anderson Telephone: 535-6184 Zoning District: R-1-7000 Reviewer: Ken Brown Phone#: 535-6179 Comments 1) Conditional Use approval is required for this proposal in this zone. 2) Parking lots are not permitted between the property line and the front wall of the building in this zone. This issue will need to be addressed in the Conditional Use process. 3) Drive approach radius and/or design shall meet SLC Engineering requirements. 4) Expansion or intensification of a property that increases the floor area and/or parking requirements by 50% shall comply with the landscaping requirements of the SLC Zoning Ordinance, 21A.48. Documentation of the percentage of Expansion and/or intensification will need to be provided. 5) Expansion or intensification of any building, structure or premises through the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, or other units of measurement specified for required parking, shall provide additional parking in the amount by which the requirements for the intensified use exceed those for the existing use. Documentation will need to be provided. 6) Front Façade Control is a requirement of this Zone and the plans are not clear that this proposal complies with the minimum architectural features of 10%on at least one of the frontages. 7) Grades (identified as existing &proposed) shall be shown at 2 ft. intervals on site plan. 8) The Landscaping Plan will need further review after revisions are made (see#2 above) and the Summary Data corrected. The Summary Data includes a lot of inaccurate and unnecessary information. 9) The Landscaping plan will need to show compliance to 21A.34.050 Lowland Conservancy Overlay District. 10)Parking calculations shall be provided for each principal building or use. See Zoning Ordinance Table 21A.44.060. 11)Bicycle parking required (capacity equal to 5% of required parking stalls). Show location and rack detail. Rack design shall support the bicycle frame. 12)Parking lots shall be provided with lights and lighting facilities that will provide 0.03 watts per square foot with incandescent light source, or 0.01 watts per square foot with either mercury vapor or fluorescent light source,but in no event less than 0.2 footcandle average maintained illumination on the entire parking lot surface and an average ratio of six to one. Lights shall be located, directed or designed in such a manner so as not to create glare on adjacent properties. 13)Public way improvements such as sidewalks, lights, trees, approaches, fire hydrants (existing & proposed), etc., shall be shown on the site plan. 14)Public way improvements such as existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and drive approaches require inspection to determine replacement requirements of defective concrete. Phone 535-6169. 15)Public Utilities approval of the site drainage, etc. to be submitted to this office for permit issuance. 16)Setback dimension at the West property line to be provided on site plan. 17)Site plan dimensions do not match plat map. Provide current plat map, property descriptions, and tax ID Number(Sidwell). 18)Sign permit required. Make a note on the plans that signs are to be installed by licensed sign contractor under separate permit. 19)Street lighting to be reviewed with Gordon Haight of the Transportation Dept. 20)Subdivision issues (see#16 above). Cross easements and drainage easements may be required. 21)Tree removal or tree planting in the public way requires approval from Bill Rutherford, SLC Urban Forestry. This note will need to be added to the landscaping plans or plans submitted containing an Urban Forester approval signature. 22)Yard (front/corner side) setback does not meet Zoning District requirements of 20-feet. Also see#2 above. NOTE: After the building permit is issued, a public way permit will be required from the Engineering Department prior to commencing any work in the public way. TIMOTHY P. HARPST, P.E. ` ` G. T.�Y eORPU. O 1 iI ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION January 16,2002 LI@COWL Melissa Anderson Planning Division 451 South State St,Rm.406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re:Petition#410-574 for Conditional Use permit for a new Police Station at 700 South 1040 West. Dear Melissa: The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed Police Station subject to permit plan reviews complying to current city standards.The site plan submitted has been redlined with comments as follows: Provide parking calculations noting the number of stalls,ADA stalls(one being a 16'wide van stall)and bike stalls (5%of required stalls). Indicate ADA ramps for stall access and sign locations not to conflict with pedestrian circulation,also label stalls not to exceed 2%maximum grade. Provide a detail of the bike rack to support bikes by the frame. Indicate driveway approaches to comply to APWA standard#255 with a continuous walk and 5'radii,show existing driveway and ramps to be removed. Note existing or new,ADA ramps at the intersection. Show existing power poles and street lighting,review with Gordon Haight for lighting within the public way. Coordinate with zoning for the proposed carriage walks shown along 700 South. The parking lot layout exceeds city standards for stall depth and isle width,Table 21A.44.020.Review drainage and landscape policies with Utilities and Planning. Please feel free to call me,at 535-6630 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Barry D.Walsh:-1 Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J.Young,P.E. Kurt G.Larson,P.E. Gordon Haight,P.E. Scott Weiler,Engineering Ken Brown,Permits file 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, SUITE 450, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-6630 FAX: B01-535-6019 in RECYCLED PAPER To: Salt Lake City Engineer Ron Salisbury CC: Edwards and Daniels Architects Inc. Chief of Salt Lake City Police Bill Shelton From: Alicia Orgill Salt Lake City Police CPTED Practitioner Date: September 4, 2001 Re: Job Number 200068 Salt Lake City Police Precinct 1040 West 700 South The Salt Lake City Police Precinct should reflect a welcoming appearance to the community that it serves. This can be accomplished by providing a safe environment. It should also express a good example of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles that is promoted throughout the business and residential community of Salt Lake City. One of the principles of CPTED is to build in the opportunities for Natural Surveillance, nothing should block/obstruct a sight line between the street and the building and walkways. Any trees should be planted with the idea of maintaining a height of 7 feet from the ground and shrubbery should not exceed 2 %2 feet in height. The Architectural Designs Plans that I have reviewed have elevation drops and terraced on the east and south of the building. This elevation drop and terraces reduce or eliminate perceived opportunities for natural surveillance, which makes abnormal users feel safer, making the normal user feel the uncomfortable. My recommendation to improve the Natural Surveillance is to eliminate the elevation drops and terraces, thus reducing the risk of hiding opportunities for potential attacks by perpetrators. Lighting for vehicular traffic and pedestrian level lighting should be part of the natural surveillance planned through out the Police Precinct Project. Planning in good lighting and a clear sight line can enhance the Natural Surveillance to and from the Jordan River Parkway. A small open landscape border will define and celebrate the Police Precinct. Protective anti-Graffiti coating for the west wall of the Precinct will help maintain a pleasant and safe appearance of the Precinct. For more information on this CPTED Review you may contact me at (801) 799-3445 or E-mail me alicia.orgill@cu.slc.ut.us f flt LEROY W. HOOTON, JR. A r e t w,Aut® trail ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS -" R '^pf {{MM�'---,nQn► R.,_,.-___.,'.'._ WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER ,r im E Y 11f E L7 VVVV LLL777 Illlll LLL777 1 [' � � 7 January 16, 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Melissa Anderson Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 RE: Preliminary Project Review New Police Station, 1040 West 700 South Dear Melissa, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has reviewed the above referenced project and offer the following comments: • All design and construction must conform to State, County, City and Public Utilities standards and ordinances. Design and construction must conform to Salt Lake City Public Utilities General Notes. • A preliminary Utility Plan has been provided to Public Utilities. All plan redlines as provided by Public Utilities must be addressed. The existing 3-inch water culinary water service to the building appears to be connected of the 6-inch fire service to this property. This does not meet current Public Utilities standard of having the culinary and fire service separately tapped off the public main. This existing condition must be approved by the Salt Lake City Fire Department in order for Public Utilities to accept this condition. If not approved by the Fire Department all connections must meet current Public Utilities requirements. All backflow prevention issues related to the proposed water connections must be approved by Kim Hills (799-4044). The sanitary sewer lateral servicing this building must be shown on the Utility Plan. If the existing kitchen will be utilized for food preparation, an exterior grease trap with sampling manhole must be installed to handle all grease line wastes. The grease trap must be sized according to city standards. A property representative must fill out and submit the Public Utilities' pretreatment questionnaire form PU-1 to determine if any other pretreatment requirements are applicable. The final Utility Plan must show all existing and proposed pipe routings, sizes,types, boxes,meters, detector checks, fire lines,hydrant locations, etc. All new utilities must be designed to meet minimum State and City separation standards. A minimum 10-foot horizontal and 1.5-foot vertical separation must be provided for between water and sewer pipes. 1 530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115 TELEPHONE: B01.483-6900 FAX: 801-483-581 B is r.� nccrc�eo renew • A preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan has been submitted for this development. All redlines as provided by Public Utilities must be addressed. This development will be restricted to a maximum storm water discharge rate of 0.2 cfs per acre. Drainage calculations must be submitted to Public Utilities showing that these requirements have been met. No retention facilities will be allowed. All new building pads, docks, paved areas, storm grates and on-site storm water detention must be at or above the 500-year flood elevation for the Jordan River. This must be clearly indicated on the plan relative to site survey datum. A sand/oil separator may be required prior to the discharge location for all storm drainage flows. Proposed ditch sections or detention facilities must have 3:1 or flatter side slopes with minimum two-foot bottom. Concrete roll gutters are recommended at the bottom of ditch facilities. Bubble-up inlets or sumps used as control structures in detention areas will be discouraged. Temporary and permanent erosion control within detention areas or ditches must be detailed. All construction must comply with UPDES Construction Storm Water Permits. At a minimum, silt fence must be provided along open drainage ways, hay bales must protect any existing grates or inlets and the City's clean-wheel ordinance must be followed. If applicable, a copy the proposed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan required for the UPDES permit must be submitted to Public Utilities for review and approval. • Fire Department approval will be required prior to Public Utilities approval. Fire flow requirements, hydrant spacing and access issues will need to be resolved with the fire department. • All existing and new easements must be clearly shown and described on the plat prior to final plat recordation. If a sewer lateral or water service crosses through an adjacent property, an easement for that utility must be provided. If power lines, gas lines, communication conduits, etc. exist within this the property, any relocation of these utilities and related easements must be approved by Public Utilities. No buildings, structures,trees, islands, etc. may be constructed within easements dedicated to Salt Lake City Public Utilities. • Use of existing sewer laterals and water services are subject to the condition and capacity of each. If they are not used, it is the responsibility of the developer to insure that a licensed plumbing contractor disconnect each water service at the main line and cap each sewer lateral at the property line. All removed meters must be returned to Public Utilities. All of the above mentioned work must be inspected and approved by Public Utilities. • All utility connection agreements must be coordinated with Peggy Garcia at Public Utilities (483-6727). All applicable water, sewer and drainage utility fees must be paid prior to Public Utilities construction plan approval. A drainage impact fee of $343 per quarter acre will be assessed on this development for all additional impervious area introduced from the existing condition. Public Utilities finds this project as approvable if all the above-mentioned issues are addressed. If you should need further assistance with this matter,please contact Jeff Snelling at 483-6889. Sincerely, Leroy W. Hooton, Jr. Director Cc:file p\jnL WH ^ ROCKY J. FLUHART ,�,�` '.r PA Q G. TY G I1RS S ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR PURCHASING, CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION INTEROFFICE MEMORAND , ,� Property Management , Room 245 11 17, 18 January 2002 .- I DIMS ti B TO: Greg Mikolash Planning FROM: Linda Cordova OY" Property Manager RE: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a New Police Facility 1040 West 700 South Property Management has no objection to this request. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7133 FAX:BO1-535-6190 www.ct.sl_C.UT.US/PURCHASING.HTML �� ECYCLED PAPER Anderson, Melissa From: Smith, Craig Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 1:46 PM To: Anderson, Melissa Subject: pioneer police precinct Dear Melissa- I have reviewed the site plan of Pioneer Police Precinct for the Engineering Department. All work in the public way reflected on the site plan has been approved. Please inform the developer that any construction within the public way will require a Public Way Permit issued by Engineering. Sincerely, Craig W. Smith SLC Engineering ru1 , ,.,-,. ,,.., -' `"` -, ,p.‘, A , ...•• 01:it : !..,:. •:,. ,••-- - •tp..011 1 , .. ..,),' -,,,,1 .ii . , •,4 , •prt,11 -.,..,.-- ,..,...,...„ , ..:, ,.„...,...,...„.:: :,,...........,,,, -..i., . ,.. .,, .....,, ;L%:,...,,giertraht ..::,.. ,. , ,-, cl. ''Tr ':-.! '''. . :Ho' -'WlIA IllAsel -.. '',•,;,V-,,...•".:,N,:,J. , :.!! '•,, ---•,' __ _sz: J .,. ".-:.'1. '',4 Y--',: -.:11 1 .',, i i ',, 1-10Itlzoitit -i '.i .-•,:-..) (‘-'-'- i -: _;•, ,t,„ v i -1 ••••' 2--ilii-i''H ;Vol.,:-"'A01114 --'' .i,'••:., ''kl,..01,•, ,', :---_-2 .:.- 7) imiL I le. TIM a ,__ i• ,4,1.0,..›,. \\:i .-•,, ; 1 i..• -,,___- , _. - ••s' ' ,, . 'kI111,•,.-,A.-.'_,1.a r4,--'7'.'',,',,1..,.--4'•i1i•iI1M,. .Nr.—,.7-'t,,N 0-.---..1 1,,0.'r.-0_,--.k-i.-1.,,',.:-,i;i•,.•,,.-.f-,..:.,..,,.'',:,-..:-.l. -'..p.r‘..-,,a<,.•.......-4...I1,.NOkl.-..A.•.,_•_-.,:'aiBl,i.n.1,t.,:.,.'rt.,1,;Ci,N,;1.F i.,11 e.f i_1a7v,4.,,4•'.1)4I,lY4,'1,W%1,_r,,1I4,-,4,.',..,n.:,.liZ1-1/404.l,'I.iz.lS11-.tq7iIO,_--r-f-1 Ii..N.a..i*I g1l'0,:0.1Ia4!,?,2_.,:.'_.-...S;,1.•r.,-,._.,-,,1Iii.;41mn,1Il—.iol11r,i.n•,g/gAL1,h:t'•s..it 41.N._.-s',i1,%.i..-t!1:-,.1,,,•ci.ickAl1:2',,'."..,':.`.f..:,..;,1'\..,:,'.;'l,'.2:.1.:",„.,i,,'.'.71,..,,..r.'0;,....-._41,,11.1..'!,,•.4..,:-4.7:.,:,:..:.524:....:-.R,.1....,-.1•1..,114L4..',..0-1..-4i`,,..,r*..,i,•7;.,i4..1.,,1)'1.,.i.R.r.*."_, .•....:.4'•,.,„,1..,-L..•''. .:•,i'•:,.'' v 4 1 71 nNe*10 f e t :..r -..'„ - - '1'';'''''* iriSrlf: - 1:''119• '5 ';i'' '' ••:, ;1141..._.i.:_4101.1.•-litit_la -"-:-;- ,K `,...;,..'..,i,ii,'-...... .;; ,.iii.x- it.::;,- f., ....:.•..; e..';;114111r,!tut _rjralia.‹....---...itirtainir it TOIRANir,,3.,,,407,:t ...,. :,_::.. ...,,r,z:r,,,....:,...?...4,tr, 1;jki...„:14,.,M.,....a...,..i:i.e..,,...ticiiiiiiiii,Nar- Art,,,, ,...; . 1040 .11.'*.:-:'-'- 774,A;,,,:,-.77;i:.D1::-.7-4:41,BH,...it'?.',',. '1--Aim,'"iligr:4147j7041 . .,••--;" *::'1Elti, 7r11r434.4,014.''''- : piw%7:6':• f..issi r I ,-.-.:..--.,.., ....„.orAinittrAvolvaitalowarillfr.,--.,::41....,,-,.,.1r..:,,,7.1::;.,..!.:,...,N4,.i.i.!,.7.,0,..7),....;.L .....:.....:., vi......v ..,..., :., . . ......E.,4,11ni.,...._:...._,....,,.,,,..4,._et7_ ..sy,".7.7.5.4 :;;,,rit ,,1,...,,t..,?:.•• i:.„1,.. kp .... eo* ...z5g.. ....1:: :Ji..i•42.. .,,:„,.... :tro,4 ts,.. 209 %...1.:Lca ,4,421:;. 11.0.7,....,:tir-4,- .1-4'iiiii'Nv,',Iiic: z1:•:•!*i-:- c , . :!..,:,-....,..,. ..,-.:1-1,,,-"06,- 11... Avom'Sypir4b- '':. i:•,,, ....::,•!.1•••'!..,:ti-,,zi•i,..71.Riiii,r...L •• 'Splint ! :,,. p,,,,-.. 41 -~104,111:-:.,..if..„ ,...,_,i. -,,.i.,.,',A7,:;,,,,.•,..,:--1,,,,,,:-..--,,,,,i•fr, .•?. -• •• .• ,,,,.,ii..,-.5 .., . •. -::''- :-...Z.:;.Lit,•,•0;•-'11101,01F10.16*,Itt, pitit ... Q.,.„!,ii.,..,,i.„, ;. Ir.,....,,,,,-:,,, ,, 'f.• ;--,,-..,....- .7:,..' •• lig,4111:.11,,s,i_iimilis:'.,,,,,' .,".,', ,, .,,,),.,-..4141(..i.:; ',......•:-,.,.2,i',,..':iiiittlf .:. . -.,.- Ar',.--... Asupts11104._:ii*,. • Ificaiii...rd, ,_.1 *-7;ff. ....L...4 .'i: • 1r., .- •Olv :Ii.a...fw4-4-ttirlpirir-r.'i . 3iit 0.. „ i-,(44 ,, .,. t:. ..,... .410....outotarr.4 .11*„,,rofes,. :.iww.„1,02..k...N .,„,- ,:....,... ,,A.:,....... . ;•;,.. ...„...... . ._ ..,,. 4......- tiii,,,,,, lioppt :"•er-—41lik.),...'i•-.41-1.,•,4••14,a1*--aiiiiioti1.0'.,,--.,.:.-. :....----.---,-f.7-1,•,7„.•*,. .07,i4R7.11. ou'd,t1t ti ..-:- .-- ----..-.,-,- ..0„:•:4:141Pww,v111:... .':. . aor • .1",11. i ",!"=-/k....Erg' '''3!...-.1 . •-*::::111r. 1"1, :--:- .p: Atp •.-411 ...1--- .:: i ' • ''....••-•--lit VrriliVal. '.1''.101":;••• 'r ' ' ' ' ' ' Niiiiiitt .''''..1 Ad! ., ....,„. ,,, ,.....,.,;:-..:•...,,,,,,,,,,,„10„,1 ,1:_..,,,...-5 .'IV :_--j i t''',... ''!.'',;Pi MIIIMM; .k,..4.4:111Vit.',i..sioiri .ii, ,.1)1k_ 41 ..".' .,......,..„.-).!4, '.)10,,i,-r...„-,4..:•:.- 1,:. .ri:-•..:AllokiAti . V: \116, i ,„...„.,:z,.44:0T. •1 ,..__•„„iii,i,iii.0::, ,,..i_t.,.......„,..„...„:,...„.....",7...1...,1,..r.,::,. ..::.,it.;.,:,,,,„,„......:74_iti,:„.•.:. .t ,1,,,‘41,:, ..'4 '. ' ' :. 1111 ,. .ie ,- .;.. .wi,-,.;.7 .,; &77.t...... ,- ,-• t:A.. ,,r5join.,,..;-.1 ;,. ,- ....."Nieix. \-t :: i.:,f-'• .;,iii.ozi*, • ,..-. - I. -. EL. -......: c4; -,-.,,,_:ii: •,,1,4orrea. k . .4%':...!-,... ..tii24; ' 11 :* ? -',-,:ii,..j• r '.'..,:'. .o.w....,.1.1Up-, -4' . , ,,,--ri.L.9;,.. ‘Y.-xl, i .., ! •,,i1(.10:,:•::,....trig:d!. t ,-c pit4,,, 01 1r".e./.11.11631 RE i k „.,,L... ...„:„,....„ . 4.. „ , s*Nt-git.„:11::,:.:....:.;.i.l. __-IT- • ,:._. ,:lar -...••its it ...implifAkilm:, 16 -X NON --4-001-':- • '" --•,,,,r-f-;444-4!:'-It-7,'',..':. 3, ,i17'.r'et .... ORIGINAL PETITION PETITION NO. -a 7 PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required e % 1/2 Petition delivered to Planning �-�/'�- V Petition assigned to: ` - Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date ��— — Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover 31�� Chronology V Property Description (marked with a post it note) 3/2-� Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils tAl\ ` Mailing Postmark Date Verification J79-?' Planning Commission Minutes • Planning Staff Report 3/a'2' wPr Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. /7.?/ V Ordinance Prepared by the Attorney's Office �_ � ,�✓\ Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. VIA-ajl1L Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office 44 TY ® VIO-1\ ROSS C. ANDERSON STEPHEN A. GOLDSMITH GOLDSMITH PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR PLANNING DIVISION BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR February 11, 2002 Stephen Goldsmith, Director Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State St., #406 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 RE: INITIATE A PETITION TO REZONE 1040 WEST 700 SOUTH TO PUBLIC LANDS (PL) Dear Stephen, It is my understanding that there is a new police station proposed for the site located at 1040 West 700 South. The site is currently zoned R-1-7000 residential and a more appropriate zone for the site is Public Lands (PL)based on the following reasons: 1. The PL zone is consistent with the previous as well as the proposed land use; 2. The PL zone is consistent with the future land use plan of the West Salt Lake Community Plan; 3. The PL zone is more restrictive than the Institutional zone with respect to uses and thus more harmonious for the surrounding residential uses; 4. "Local Government Facilities" such as police stations are peiiuitted in the PL zone; and 5. The PL zone will allow more site design flexibility to reuse the existing structure for the proposed facility. Please initiate a petition to rezone the property located at 1040 West 700 South from R-1-7000 residential to Public Lands (PL). Sincer , Bip Daniels, Chair Salt Lake City Planning Commission Cc: Brent Wilde Lucille Taylor 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B411 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 :: RECYCLED PAPER 41,E MAS Petition Nc0 400-02-09 By Salt Lake City Planning Commission Petition to rezone the nroperty at ]040 West 700 South from R-]-7000 residential to the Public Lands (PL) one . Proposed use as the new Salt Lake City Pioneer Precinct . Date Filed Address SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 7, 2002 SUBJECT: BUDGET FOR THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford CC: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin,John Carman, Reed Jensen, LeRoy Hooton, DJ Baxter Document Type Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Facts Preliminary budget The Metropolitan Water District The capital improvement for the Metropolitan increased its wholesale water rates master plan for the Water District of to finance a major capital Metropolitan Water District Salt Lake and improvement program. In June addresses Salt Lake City's Sandy 2001,the City Council adopted four projected water needs incremental water rate increases to through the year 2025. fund the increased water costs. The first of the City's rate increases (4%) is effective on July 1, 2002. The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy is proposing an operating budget of $7,655,580 for fiscal year 2002-2003. The proposed operating budget r presents an increase of $103,950 or 1.4%. In addition, the Metropolitan Water District is proposing a budget for debt service of $2,941,988 and a budget for capital improvements of$25,099,462. Fiscal year 2002-2003 will be the fourth year of implementing a $237 million capital improvement master plan. A $34 million revenue bond was secured in 1999 to partially fund the initial phase of the master plan. The major project is a n w water treatment plant near the Point of the Mountain in the Draper area. Projects under construction at the Little Cottonwood Treatment Plant include a new maintenance building and expansion of the Little Cottonwood Treatment Plant to increase capacity from 113 million gallons per day to 126 million gallons per day. This project includes a new intake facility to capture additional water from Littl Cottonwood Creek. Salt Lake City will be allocated all of the additional capacity of this expansion. OPTIONS The Council is not required to approve the budget or take any official action regarding the District's proposed budget. Salt Lake City, as a constituent entity of -- the District, can provide input regarding the proposed budget to the Board of Trustees. The Memb rs of the Board are scheduled to consider adoption of the budget on June 10, 2002. ANALYSIS Annual revenue from water sales is projected to increase primarily because of a rate increase from $125 to $150 per acre foot of wholesale water effective on July 1, 2002. The budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 doesn't propose any surplus water sales to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. If the drought continues, future increases to the wholesale water rates may need to be accelerated. Originally, the next rate increase was scheduled to be necessary on July 1, 2006. If the District's wholesale water rates increase again before 2006, the City's Department of Public Utilities may need to ask the City Council for an additional water rate increase to customers. At the briefing, the Council may wish to ask representatives from the Metropolitan Water District to indicate current projections of effective dates for future wholesale water rate increases. Operating costs are proposed to increase 1.4%. Capital improvements and debt service costs of$28,041,450 are proposed. Part of the capital improvement budget is proposed to be funded from prior reserves. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake &Sandy Tentative Bud•et 2002-2003 2001-2002 Proposed Difference Percent Bu. :et Bud:et C, . e Water sales 86 other o• ra. : revenue $ 7 921 180 ;::: .: + A $ 800 120 10.1 % Tax revenue 4 814 769 's, ., 43 449 0.9% Interest revenue 1 250 000 ' " 685 000 54.8% Lab Fees ••wer and miscellaneous 120 000 ,' +s...; 12 000 10.0% Central Utah Water Conservation District t. € •= :ci•ation in new treatment •lent 5,400,000 (5,400,000) (100.0)% Use of reserves 13 610 883 MaittiakE 7 809 629 57.4% Total sources of funds $33 116 832 t.,;6 7,.;;:ol $2 580 198 7.8% EnginiENECTI hidallinErgralaCkiliaNGEgraffigegn O• rations R. $ 7 551 650 5,7:,,,«!. $ 103 930 1.4% S••t water •urchase 442 000 IngtePRERN 442 000 100.0% Debt service 3 768 593 RIM:BM 826 605 21.9% Ca•ital im•rovementsEME •ui•ment •urchases 76 500 DEMEXIlil 343 980 449.6% _ O• ra: 86 maintenance •ro'ects 2 416 500 ENEEParki 2 041 000 84.5% Ca•ital •ro'ects under construction 7 536 000 giNKItiXi 6 414 000 85.1 % New ca•ital im•rovement •ro'ects 7 924 000 FETELM740 2 774 000 35.0% = - SiggialS 1 3 766 755 - Land 560 250 Milli; E „a + - - Jordan Vail Plant 28.6%owner 830 228 111111I :0 278 991 33.6% Jordan A•ueduct 28.6%owner 225 461 EIMEINEEDI 631 797 280.2% Con' .:en 1 785 650 ' ',,f 0 , r: 124 350 7.0 Total uses of funds $33 116 832 >;,.$,>L :; 'ti'' 'V $2,580 198 7.8% 2 Some of the major budget changes in the proposed fiscal year 2002-2003 budget from the current budget are as follows: • Seven additional staff positions in the engineering division are proposed primarily to be involved with the implementation of the master plan improvements. Total staffing will increase from 45 to 52 full-time employees. The capital budget includes capitalizing $766,755 of in-house engineering costs. • $ 88,200 for salary and benefit increases • $ 63,000 for a 15% increase in medical insurance premiums • $ 36,000 increase for seasonal employees and overtime payments (In fiscal year 2001-2002, seasonal employee costs were partially offset by a vacant clerk position.) • $ 46,000 for a 20% increase in property and liability insurance • $164,500 for more water treated at the Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant intended for increased demand at 21st South for Salt Lake City • $ 55,000 for improvements and increased maintenance on the Jordan Aqueduct • Operating expenses is held to 1.4% partly as a result of properly capitalizing the projects manager's fees whereas in the past these fees have been considered operating expenses. N w capital improvement projects: • $4,000,000 - Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant • $ 500,000 -Jordan Narrows Pump Station Improvements • $ 300,000 -Plant Water System • $ 250,000 -Remote Data Reporting System Master Plan • $ 100,000 -Jordan Aqueduct Separation The master plan improves redundancy in the event of a water treatment plant or aqueduct failure. Improvements include pipeline connections between the Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant, the Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant, and th Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant. This will allow flexibiliti s in shifting water between major north-south pipelines. Once the new treatment plant is operational, surplus capacity can be sold to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District and the new revenues be used to pay new capacity demand charges based on 62.5% to Salt Lake City's obligation and 37.5% to Sandy's obligation. Surplus water can be made available to the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District on an annual basis with no guarantees for future years. 3 BACKGROUND In 1935, the voters of Salt Lake City formed the Metropolitan Water District in order to enter into long-term agreements to build the Provo River Project including Deer Creek Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation built the project, and it was necessary to enter into repayment contracts to reimburse the federal government for the construction costs plus interest. The water rights for the Provo River Project consist of water diverted from the Duchesne and Weber Rivers conveyed through a tunnel and canal system from the two basins to the Provo River for use by the Metropolitan Water District and others. Some water in the Provo River is also stored in Deer Creek Reservoir and available to the Metropolitan Water District. In order to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of the Provo River Project and Deer Creek Reservoir, the residents of Salt Lake City have paid property taxes since 1935. The Metropolitan Water District continues to build dams and facilities such as Little Dell Reservoir. Sandy City became the second member of the District on February 22, 1990. Salt Lake City appoints five of the seven members of the Metropolitan Water District Board and, therefore, has a controlling interest in the District. Sandy City appoints the remaining two Board members. Utah Code Annotated, §17A-1-502, provides that constituent entities of a special district can request a meeting with representatives of a district to discuss the budget. The district also holds a public hearing to explain the budget and answer questions. The law does not prevent a special district board from approving and -r implementing a budget over protests or objections of constituent entities. 4 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT of SALT LAKE & SANDY PRELIMINARY 2002-2003 BUDGET REVENUES METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY 2002-2003 BUDGET REVENUE COMPARISON 2001-2002 2002-2003 Adopted Tentative REVENUES Budget Budget Operating Revenues Water Sales Salt Lake City $5,000,000 $6,750,000 (45,000 a.f. @$150.00/a.f.) Sandy City 2,187,500 1,941,000 (12,940 a.f. @$150.00/a.f.) Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District 731,000 0 Treatment Charges Taylorsville-Bennion/West Jordan 0 12,000 (80 a.f. @$150.00/a.f.) Aqueduct Transportation Charges 2,680 18,300 Total Operating Revenues $7,921,180 $8,721,300 Other Revenues Tax Revenues $4,689,769 $4,713,218 Assume .5% growth Prior Years'Tax Revenue 125,000 145,000 Interest(3%) 1,250,000 565,000 Laboratory Fees 10,000 12,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 110,000 120,000 Total Other Revenues $6,184,769 $5,555,218 Total Revenue $14,105,949 $14,276,518 WRJ/eb 4/8/2002 OPERATING EXPENDITURES METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY 2002 -2003 BUDGET EXPENDITURE COMPARISON SUMMARY Nine Actuals at 2001-02 2002-03 Month 75%of Adopted Tentative Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Little Cottonwood Plant General $211,639 46.7% $453,600 $440,200 Laboratory 377,439 67.8% 557,040 589,300 Operations 860,146 60.6% 1,423,795 1,342,220 Maintenance 728,109 67.6% 1,073,900 1,175,040 Information Systems 165,241 66.5% 248,440 280,190 Pilot Plant 38,550 Administration 839,526 57.9% 1,449,965 1,235,240 PRWUA 615,458 63.8% 965,000 965,000 Interest expense 1,649,440 73.2% 2,252,415 2,069,200 Jordan Valley Plant 303,933 84.3% 360,500 525,000 Jordan Narrows 208,106 51.7% 402,500 406,200 S.L. Aqueduct 167,611 71.8% 233,580 257,680 Provo Reservoir Canal 67,500 96.4% 70,000 50,000 Deer Creek Intake Station 85,455 86.1% 99,300 104,300 Jordan Aqueduct 45,000 48.9% 92,000 147,000 Terminal Reservoir 33,138 78.6% 42,180 35,200 Deer Creek Reservoir 35,500 74.7% 47,500 43,000 10 MG Reservoir 26,313 81.3% 32,350 21,460 Spot Water 42,000 9.5% 442,000 0 2000 a.f. @ 200.00/a.f. =$400,000 200 a.f. @ 210.00/a.f. = $42,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $6,461,554 63.1% $10,246,065 $9,724,780 WRJ/eb 4/9/2002 • METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY 2002-03 Operating Budget Major Budget Changes Salary Adjustment and Related Expenses. 88,700 New Cost Center(LCWTP-Pilot Plant). 38,550 No Spot water purchases funded by the District. <442,000 > More water treatment at the JVWTP due to increased demand 164,500 at 21st South by Salt Lake City. Increased maintenance and improvements on the 55,000 Jordan Aqueduct. Estimate a 20% increase in property and liability insurance. 46,000 Estimate a 15% increase in medical insurance premiums. 63,000 Increased conservation contribution. 10,000 Provo Reservoir Canal reduced based on prior year actual. < 20,000 > Dumping fees at landfill. 12,000 Additional OT in Operations. 16,000 Seasonal employee wages not included in FY 02 budget. 20,000 Interest expense decrease. < 183,000 > Majority of Bowen Collins fees are now capitalized. < 349,500 > All other changes < 40,535 > <521,285 > METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-GENERAL Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Professional and Contract Services 12,707 23.1% 55,000 20,000 -35,000 -63.6% Utilities 99,489 42.2% 236,000 240,000 4,000 1.7% Office and Computer Supplies 668 5.0% 13,400 4,000 -9,400 -70.1% General Insurance 98,500 81.7% 120,500 156,000 35,500 29.5% Miscellaneous 275 1.0% 28,700 20,200 -8,500 -29.6% Total 211,639 46.7% 453,600 440,200 -13,400 -3.0% Budget Changes - Professional and Contract Services - Prior year budget included the removal of sludge from the drying beds. - Utilities -Heating system out of commission most of winter. - Expect small increase in utility costs. -Office and Computer Supplies -Office supply costs transferred to Admin. cost center. -General Insurance -Expect sizable increase in insurance premiums. -Miscellaneous -Small reductions in several expense categories. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-LABORATORY Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75% of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages(6 Employees) 165,325 72.4% 228,250 235,950 7,700 3.4% Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave 23,193 65.6% 35,340 39,800 4,460 12.6% Employee Benefits 90,041 73.4% 122,750 134,100 11,350 9.2% Seminars, Training and Travel 6,206 27.2% 22,800 21,700 -1,100 -4.8% Professional and Contract Services 50,475 60.8% 83,000 85,500 2,500 3.0% Repairs and Maintenance 3,699 92.5% 4,000 8,000 4,000 100.0% Chemicals and Supplies 32,685 66.0% 49,500 51,500 2,000 4.0% Vehicle Allowance 1,125 75.0% 1,500 1,500 0 0.0% Miscellaneous 4,690 47.4% 9,900 11,250 1,350 13.6% Total 377,439 67.8% 557,040 589,300 32,260 5.8% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Salary Adjustments. -Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave -Adjust prior years'accrued sick and vacation to current wage scale. -Employee Benefits - Expect increase in medical insurance premiums. -Seminars, Training and Travel - Expect travel expense to be less. - Professional and Contract Services -More samples to the State Lab. -More certification parameters. -Repairs and Maintenance -Upgrade of IC software -Chemicals and Supplies -Slight cost increases on certain chemicals. -Vehicle Allowance -No Changes. -Miscellaneous -Small increases in various line item bud amounts. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-OPERATIONS Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 %Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages(9 Employees) 325,483 72.9% 446,600 398,000 -48,600 -10.9% Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave 61,480 87.6% 70,200 57,200 -13,000 -18.5% Employee Benefits 146,826 71.3% 205,970 194,360 -11,610 -5.6% Seminars, Training and Travel 11,396 43.8% 26,000 23,600 -2,400 -9.2% Safety 1,317 17.5% 7,525 6,700 -825 -11.0% Chemicals and Supplies 306,749 47.5% 646,000 646,000 0 0.0% Vehicle Allowance 2,425 35.1% 6,900 1,500 -5,400 -78.3% Miscellaneous 4,470 30.6% 14,600 14,860 260 1.8% Total 860,146 60.4% 1,423,795 1,342,220 -81,795 -5.7% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Salary Adjustment. -$16,000 increase in over-time pay. -Management employee transferred to G &A -Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave -Management employee transferred to G &A -Employees working on a Holiday; pay will be coded to salary and wages and not to Holiday. - Employee Benefits -Management employee transferred to G &A. -Seminars, Training and Travel - Lower budget based on current year expenditures. -Safety - Lower budget based on current year expenditures. -Chemicals and Supplies -No Change. -Vehicle Allowance Vehicle expense transferred to another cost center. -Miscellaneous -Anticipate small increases. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-MAINTENANCE Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages(15.8 Employees) 297,090 64.3% 462,000 507,000 45,000 9.7% Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave 92,993 76.1% 122,150 128,000 5,850 4.8% Employee Benefits 227,663 69.6% 326,900 355,990 29,090 8.9% Seminars, Training and Travel 8,376 76.1% 11,000 11,000 0 0.0% Professional and Contract Services 9,742 60.9% 16,000 33,000 17,000 106.3% Repairs and Maintenance 45,335 55.3% 82,000 91,000 9,000 11.0% Materials and Supplies 31,306 81.3% 38,500 38,500 0 0.0% Safety 11,413 108.7% 10,500 5,000 -5,500 -52.4% Miscellaneous 4,191 86.4% 4,850 5,550 700 14.4% Total 728,109 67.8% 1,073,900 1,175,040 101,140 9.4% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Salary Adjustment. -Seasonal employee wages of$20,000 not included in FY 02 budget. Partially off set by clerk not hired. -Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave -Slight adjustment in accrual. - Employee Benefits - Expect increase in medical insurance premiums. - Professional and Contract Services -Additional$12,000 for landfill fees. -$5000 for particle counter maintenance previously budgeted in IS. -Repairs and Maintenance -Additional costs for paint and associated supplies. -Materials and Supplies -No Changes. -Safety -No SCBA replacements this year. -Purchased confined space airmonitoring equipment last year. -Miscellaneous -Small increases in various line item budget amounts. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-INFORMATION SYSTEMS Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages(2 Employees) 50,125 70.2% 71,450 80,900 9,450 13.2% Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave 7,986 64.8% 12,320 14,800 2,480 20.1% Employee Benefits 27,773 70.3% 39,520 42,090 2,570 6.5% Seminars, Training and Travel 2,389 29.9% 8,000 12,000 4,000 50.0% Professional and Contract Services 30,689 47.4% 64,700 70,300 5,600 8.7% Repairs and Maintenance 8,442 84.4% 10,000 10,000 0 0.0% Materials and Supplies 36,175 91.1% 39,700 41,800 2,100 5.3% Telephone 1,027 85.6% 1,200 7,450 6,250 520.8% Miscellaneous 635 41.0% 1,550 850 -700 -45.2% Total 165,241 66.5% 248,440 280,190 31,750 12.8% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -No Changes. -Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave - Employee accuring at a higher vacation rate. - Employee Benefits - Expect increase in medical insurances premiums. - Retirement contribution budget lower than FY-02. -Seminars, Training and Travel -Considerably more computer related training. - Professional and Contract Services -Accounting software services transferred from G&A. - Repairs and Maintenance -No Changes. -Materials and Supplies - Increase in computer supplies. -Telephone -New ADSL line. -Miscellaneous -Small decreases in various line item budget amounts. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP- PILOT PLANT Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Professional and Contract Services 25,000 Machinery and Equipment 6,500 Chemicals and Supplies 3,650 Miscellaneous 3,400 Total 38,550 Budget Changes - New cost center -Professional and Contract Services -Consulting services for experimental plan implementation. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75% of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary&Wages (6 Employees) 211,986 66.8% 317,465 355,200 37,735 11.9% Vacation, Sick, Personal Leave, Holiday 27,912 56.2% 49,700 54,780 5,080 10.2% Employee Benefits 86,648 74.2% 116,700 146,360 29,660 25.4% Seminars, Training &Travel 8,551 43.9% 19,500 37,900 18,400 94.4% Professional and Contract Services 283,390 40.9% 692,500 343,000 -349,500 -50.5% Utilities 28,027 73.8% 38,000 45,000 7,000 18.4% Repairs and Maintenance 5,915 43.5% 13,600 9,800 -3,800 -27.9% General and Office Supplies 23,225 387.1% 6,000 33,000 27,000 450.0% General Insurance 7,311 80.3% 9,100 11,800 2,700 29.7% Contributions and Memberships 79,016 94.5% 83,600 93,600 10,000 12.0% Vehicle Allowance and Expense 4,536 72.0% 6,300 5,300 -1,000 -15.9% Miscellaneous 31,322 83.5% 37,500 39,500 2,000 5.3% Allowance for safety employee 0 0.0% 60,000 60,000 0 0.0% Total 797,839 55.0% 1,449,965 1,235,240 -214,725 -14.8% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Additional employee from other cost center. - Reduction due to G.M. change. -Vacation, Sick, Personal Leave, Holiday -Additional employee. -Adjust prior years'accrued sick and vacation to current wage scale. - Employee Benefits -Additional employee. -Expect increase in medical insurance premiums. -Seminars, Training and Travel -Additional budget for Board members. -Increase for additional employee. - Professional and Contract Services -Majority of Bowen Collins fees are now being capitalized. -Accounting software services transferred to IS. - Utilities -Expect increase in utility rates. -Telephone expense running higher than anticipated. - Repairs and Maintenance - Expect reduced expenses in this category when compared to current year actual expense. -General and Office Supplies -The majority of office supplies has been transferred to G &A from other cost centers. -General Insurance -Expect sizable increase in insurance premiums. -Contributions and Memberships -State Conservation Campaign contribution increased by $10,000. -Vehicle Allowance and Expense -Expect less vehicle expense this year. -Miscellaneous -Small increases in various expenses categories. -Allowance -No Change. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY JORDAN VALLEY WATER TREATMENT PLANT Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Repairs and Maintenance 133,937 81.2% 165,000 200,000 35,000 21.2% Water Treatment Costs 169,996 87.0% 195,500 325,000 129,500 66.2% Total 303,933 84.3% 360,500 525,000 164,500 45.6% Budget Changes -Repairs and Maintenance -Increased based on prior year actuals. -Small capital expenditures under$5000 total$19,700. -Water Treatment Costs - Increased water demand at 21st South by Salt Lake City. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY JORDAN NARROWS Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages(2.25 employees) 34,323 54.5% 63,000 63,000 0 0.0% Payroll Taxes 2,686 52.7% 5,100 5,100 0 0.0% Utilities 146,439 48.7% 301,000 301,000 0 0.0% Repairs and Maintenance 900 20.9% 4,300 1,500 -2,800 -65.1% Materials and Supplies 0 0.0% 2,500 1,000 -1,500 -60.0% Canal Assessments 22,097 92.1% 24,000 32,000 8,000 33.3% Miscellaneous 1,661 63.9% 2,600 2,600 0 0.0% Total 208,106 51.7% 402,500 406,200 3,700 0.9% Budget Changes -Repairs and Maintenance -Materials and Supplies -Less maintenance scheduled this year. -General Insurance - Expect sizable increase in insurance premiums. -Canal Assessments - Budget increase is based on estimated current year actuals. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY SALT LAKE AQUEDUCT Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75% of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages (2.25 employees) 62,911 75.8% 83,000 83,000 0 0.0% Payroll Taxes 4,295 68.4% 6,280 6,280 0 0.0% Professional and Contract Services 7,741 57.3% 13,500 13,500 0 0.0% Utilities 12,326 74.7% 16,500 16,500 0 0.0% Repairs and Maintenance 2,832 21.8% 13,000 13,500 500 3.8% Materials and Supplies 5,205 104.1% 5,000 7,000 2,000 40.0% General Insurance 72,301 80.3% 90,000 116,600 26,600 29.6% Miscellaneous 0 0.0% 6,300 1,300 -5,000 -79.4% Total 167,611 71.8% 233,580 257,680 24,100 10.3% Budget Changes - Repairs and Maintenance -Expect slight increase in R&M. -Materials and Supplies -Security fencing around various vent structures. -General Insurance - Expect sizable increase in insurance premiums. -Miscellaneous -Safety expense transferred to another cost center. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY PROVO RESERVOIR CANAL Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Repairs and Maintenance 67,500 96.4% 70,000 50,000 -20,000 -28.6% Total 67,500 96.4% 70,000 50,000 -20,000 -28.6% Budget Changes -Repairs and Maintenance - Reduction based on PRWUA invoice for prior year. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY DEER CREEK INTAKE STATION Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages(.25 employees) 15,139 232.9% 6,500 6,500 0 0.0% Payroll Taxes 1,245 249.0% 500 500 0 0.0% Professional and Contract Services 56,997 73.1% 78,000 83,000 5,000 6.4% Utilities 7,164 59.7% 12,000 12,000 0 0.0% Repairs and Maintenance 4,352 334.8% 1,300 1,300 0 0.0% Materials and Supplies 558 55.8% 1,000 1,000 0 0.0% Total 85,455 86.1% 99,300 104,300 5,000 5.0% Budget Changes -Professional and Contract Services - Reduce PRWUA services by 10,000 based on prior year actuals. -Add 15,000 for acid wash and scrubber pump repairs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-JORDAN AQUEDUCT Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Repairs and Maintenance 45,000 48.9% 92,000 147,000 55,000 59.8% Total 45,000 48.9% 92,000 147,000 55,000 59.8% Budget Changes - Repairs and Maintenance -Increased based on prior year actuals of approximately$127,000. -Small capital improvements under$5000 are estimated at$16,000. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY TERMINAL RESERVOIR Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75% of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages (.5 employees) 17,428 96.8% 18,000 22,000 4,000 22.2% Payroll Taxes 1,369 99.2% 1,380 1,700 320 23.2% Utilities 2,510 58.4% 4,300 3,500 -800 -18.6% Repairs and Maintenance 11,306 75.4% 15,000 7,500 -7,500 -50.0% Materials and Supplies 525 15.0% 3,500 500 -3,000 -85.7% Total 33,138 78.6% 42,180 35,200 -6,980 -16.5%` Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Payroll Taxes -Additional work is planned for Terminal Reservoir. -Utilities - ISDN line transferred to IS cost center. - Repairs and Maintenance -Prior year budget included the purchase of two new lawnmowers and chlorine analyzers. -Materials and Supplies -Prior year budget included replacement ladders in the reservoirs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY DEER CREEK RESERVOIR Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Miscellaneous 35,500 74.7% 47,500 43,000 -4,500 -9.5% Total 35,500 74.7% 47,500 43,000 -4,500 -9.5% -Represents MWD's contribution to JTAC to ensure water quality and water shed protection in the Provo River drainage. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY 10 MG RESERVOIR Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75% of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages (.20 employees) 5,476 121.7% 4,500 6,000 1,500 33.3% Payroll Taxes 411 117.4% 350 460 110 31.4% Utilities 6,156 47.4% 13,000 13,000 0 0.0% Repairs and Maintenance 14,144 101.0% 14,000 1,500 -12,500 -89.3% Materials and Supplies 126 25.2% 500 500 0 0.0% Total 26,313 81.3% 32,350 21,460 -10,890 -33.7% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Payroll Taxes -Additional work is planend at 10 MG Reservoir. - Utilities - No Changes. - Repairs and Maintenance -Prior year budget included the replacement of the gate actuator, turbidimeter and CL2 analyzer. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY 2002-03 CAPITAL BUDGET Annual Long-Term Debt Payments PRWUA $112,788 Jordan Aqueduct Refunding Bonds (principal) 150,000 1999 Series Bonds(principal) 610,000 $872,788 Ongoing Capital Projects Backwash Tank $3,000,000 Maintenance Building 2,200,000 15000 South Pipeline 100,000 POMWTP Site Configuration Study 25,000 LCWTP Expansion 3,000,000 LCWTP Fluoride Facilities 150,000 LCWTP Drainage Separation 200,000 Salt Lake Aqueduct Replacement Study 150,000 LCWTP Interim Solids Residuals Upgrade 125,000 POM Transmission System Facilities 5,000,000 $13,950,000 New Capital Projects POM Water Treatment Plant $4,000,000 Jordan Narrows Pump Station Improvements 500,000 Plant Water System 300,000 SCADA System Master Plan 250,000 Jordan Aqueduct Separation 100,000 $5,150,000 Contingency (10%) $1,910,000 Land at POM $560,250 Engineering Department $766,755 O & M Projects Aqueduct Structure Replacement Lids $25,500 Conservation Landscaping 100,000 Dimple Dell SLA Crossing Restoration 175,000 Security-Vulnerability assessment& 75,000 Emergency Operations Plan (cofunding) $375,500 Equipment Purchases UV Spectrometer $13,200 Analytical Balance 5,000 Atomic Absorption Spectrometer 53,000 Two Polyblend Units 11,440 Chlorine Dioxide Generator 10,000 Plotter 9,000 Cisco Fiber Switch 75,000 Terabyte Tape Drive 7,500 17 Ton Boom Truck 77,900 Brush Clipper 20,190 New Boardroom Table 20,000 New Vehicle 28,750 Vehicle Replacement Cost 6,000 Replace Blazer 12,000 Mini Van 22,000 Replace Two 1988 Pickups 49,500 $420,480 Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant Monofill Phase I Construction, Raw $133,935 Water Pond Repair Landscaping Phase II 41,580 Fluoride Feed System 83,929 Lab&Office Expansion 113,143 Paint One MG Backwash Tank 84,839 Lab Equipment 51,857 Rapid Mix& Backwash Improvements 128,329 Seismic Evaluation & Modifications 57,143 New SCADA System 316,046 Unanticipated Cost Overruns 21,429 JVWCD Project Management 17,143 Landscaping Phase III 59,846 $1,109,219 Jordan Aqueduct JA-2 Cathodic Protection - Phase II $160,286 JA-Spare Parts 9,429 JA- 1 &JA-4 Pigging Design 36,300 JA-2 & JA-3 Fluoride Monitoring 7,857 JA- 1 &JA-2 Capacity Enhancement Study 15,714 JA- 1 &JA-4 Pigging Construction 544,629 JA-2 Main Line Value Modifications 23,571 JA-3 Chlorine Feed Station at 21st South 20,900 Unanticipated Cost Overruns 21,429 JVWCD Project Management 17,143 $857,258 Total $25,972,250 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY LCWTP-DISTRICT ENGINEERING Operating Budget Nine Actuals at FY2001-02 FY2002-03 % Change from Description Month 75%of Adopted Tentative $ 2001-02 Actuals Budget yr. Budget Budget Change Budget Salary and Wages (10 Employees) 138,495 79.6% 174,000 457,000 283,000 162.6% Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave 15,750 67.6% 23,300 61,200 37,900 162.7% Employee Benefits 52,367 78.4% 66,760 209,730 142,970 214.2% Seminars, Training and Travel 7,673 32.8% 23,360 11,900 -11,460 -49.1% Materials and Supplies 0 0.0% 500 13,000 12,500 2500.0% Vehicle Allowance 3,250 72.2% 4,500 7,500 3,000 66.7% Miscellaneous 1,507 35.6% 4,235 6,425 2,190 51.7% Total 219,042 73.8% 296,655 766,755 470,100 158.5% Budget Changes -Salary and Wages -Vacation, Sick, Holiday, Personal Leave -Seven additional employees. - Engineer(2) -GIS - Engineering Technician -0 & M Coordinator(2) -Secuirty Guard - Employee Benefits -Seven additional employees. -Expect increase in medical insurance premiums. -Seminars, Training and Travel - Reduction in seminars and training. - Materials and Supplies -With additional employees, anticipate an increase in supplies. -Vehicle Allowance -Anticipate additional vehicle allowance due to additional employees. -Miscellaneous -Small increases in various line item budget amounts. DISTRICT STAFFING DISTRICT STAFFING Previous Year Proposed Staffing 2002-03 Cost Center Position Title 2001-02 Staffing Administration General Manager 1.0 1.0 New Employee 1.0 1.0 Controller 1.0 1.0 Human Resources and Administration Manager 1.0 1.0 Executive Secretary 1.0 1.0 Receptionist 1.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 Engineering Chief Engineer 1.0 1.0 Staff Engineer 2.0 4.0 GIS 1.0 Engineering Technician 1.0 O& M Coordinator 2.0 Security 1.0 3.0 10.0 Operations Process Engineer 1.0 1.0 Lead Operator 1.0 1.0 System Operator 6.5 7.0 Plant Operator 0.5 Interns 1.0 1.0 10.0 10.0 Laboratory Laboratory&Operations Super. 1.0 1.0 Chemist 1.0 1.0 Laboratory Technician 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 Maintenance Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0 Lead Repairman 1.0 1.0 Planner-Estimator 1.0 1.0 Journeyman Electrician 0.75 0.75 Control System Technician 0.75 0.75 General Repairman 6.25 6.25 Repairman Assistant 2.0 2.0 Utilityman 1.5 1.5 Clerk 1.0 1.0 Seasonal Utility (lawn &gardens) 0.55 0.55 15.8 15.8 DISTRICT STAFFING Page 2 Previous Year Proposed Staffing 2002-03 Cost Center Position Title 2001-02 Staffing Information Systems IS Technician 2.0 2.0 Salt Lake Aqueduct General Repairman 2.25 2.25 Jordan Narrows Seasonal Utilityman 2.25 2.25 Terminal Reservoir General Repairman 0.5 0.5 Intake Station General Repairman 0.25 0.25 10 MG Reservoir Utilityman 0.20 0.2 Full-Time Equivalent 48.25 55.25 Full-Time Employees 2001-02 45 Full-Time Employees 2002-03 52 WRJ/eb 4/9/2002 Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy Salary Adjustment Analysis Current Payroll at June 30, 2002 $2,197,890 Proposed Payroll at July 1, 2002 $2,277,495 Proposed Net $ Increase $79,605 Proposed Net % Increase 3.6% CASH FLOW ANALYSIS METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY CASH FLOW STATEMENT 2002 -03 Source of Funds Income from Operations $8,721,300 Interest 565,000 Prior Years'Tax Revenue Collection 145,000 Lab Fees and Miscellaneous 132,000 $9,563,300 Use of Funds Operating Expenses $9,724,780 Capital Improvements Long-Term Capital Debt(principal only) 872,788 Ongoing Capital Projects 13,950,000 New Capital Projects 5,150,000 Contingency 1,910,000 Land 560,250 Engineering Department 766,755 O&M Projects 375,500 Equipment Purchases 420,480 Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant 1,109,219 Jordan Aqueduct 857,258 <$35,697,030 > Decrease in Funds before Tax Revenues <$26,133,730 > Tax Revenues& Uniform Fees $4,713,218 Use of Reserves, Bond Proceeds $21,420,512 WRJ/eb 4/12/2002 METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY ESTIMATED CASH POSITION June 30,2002 Cash Balance 3/31/02 Operations and Emergency Fund $23,096,723 $23,096,723 Plus: Accounts Receivable (3/31/02) $297,973 April- May-June Sales (estimated) 950,000 Tax Revenue(estimated) 300,000 Interest Revenue(estimated) 150,000 Land Sale-Sandy City 1,125,000 $2,822,973 Less: Expenditures(April- May-June) (estimated) $3,600,000 Jordan Aqueduct Bond Payments 117,879 1999 Series Bond Payments 589,620 Accounts Payable @ 3/31/02 50,000 15000 South Pipeline 100,000 $ (4,457,499) Estimated Cash Position at 6/30/2002 $21,462,197 WRJ/eb 4/12/2001 BOND COVERAGE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY Debt Service Coverage on Outstanding Bonds Budgeted Revenues $14,276,518 Budgeted 0& M Expenses $9,724,780 Less: Interest Expense <2,069,200 > Adjusted 0& M Expense 7,655,580 Funds Available for Bond Payments $6,620,938 Bond Payments 2,829,200 Coverage 2.34 Minimum Coverage 1.25 WRJ/eb 4/12/2002 V SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DATE: May 7, 2002 BUDGET FOR: DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Tim Campbell, Jay Bingham, Joseph Moratalla, Steve Fawcett, Susi Kontgis, DJ Baxter The Council adopted a fiscal year 2002-2003 annual budget for the Department of Airports in June 2001 as part of the biennial budget. The Council amended the budget for the Department of Airports in January 2002 to accelerate some capital projects and in April 2002 to add 11 new security positions. The Department of Airports is requesting a budget amendment for fiscal year 2002- 2003 to reflect a projected decrease in operating revenue as a result of changes in the industry since September 11th. Some reductions and changes to operating expenses are proposed. The amendment also proposes some adjustments to capital projects. w6 MATTERS AT ISSUE • The proposed amendment reflects a reduction in net operating income of $8,392,000 from the original fiscal year 2002-2003 budget. A Security Superintendent position is proposed. In the past this was provided by the Police Department on a reimbursement basis. This results in a budgeted savings for the Airport of $17,600. Total proposed full-time equivalent positions will be 564 as of July 1, 2002 if the Council authorizes this change. • Operating expenses are proposed at exactly the same level as the original fiscal year 2001-2002 budget, which is a decrease of$739,500 from the budget adopted in June 2001 for fiscal year 2002-2003. This is noteworthy since eleven new security positions were added during the year by budget amendment. • Nine security-related projects are proposed to be added to the capital improvement budget totaling$7,130,000. These projects will be 90 % funded by federal grants. • Several capital projects are proposed to be delayed because of the projected decreases in revenue. • The amendment proposes to add $20,637,100 to reserves, which is down from $24,778,300 that was originally proposed (as amended twice) for fiscal year 2002- 2003. The decrease in revenue and the added security related capital projects will result in less funds going into reserves for future capital improvements. 1 • The Department of Airports continues to refine the schematic design of a new terminal complex and continues to work with the airlines to obtain their commitments. The Council may wish to ask about the status of the new development program. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT Operating revenue is projected to be $9,131,500 less than the original fiscal year 2002-2003 budget of $102,886,800 to $93,755,300. Some of the major decreases are projected to be as follows: Projected Decreases in Operating Revenue Auto parking fees $3,178,200 Landing fees $1,470,600 Space rental $1,756,500 Flight kitchens $ 901,500 State aviation fuel tax $ 574,800 Car rental &ground transportation $ 535,900 Food &gift shop concessions $ 388,900 Auto parking fee revenue is projected to be less than originally budgeted in part because of inspections of vehicles entering short-term parking, but most of the decrease relates to fewer passengers as a result of changes in the industry since September 1 The expense budget is proposed to increase by $1,000,000 for an International Air Service Incentive Program. The Council approved this incentive program for fiscal year 2001-2002, but the program was not fully developed. Since the funds were not expended in fiscal year 2001-2002, the Department of Airports is requesting that the appropriation be transferred to fiscal year 2002-2003. The Department of Airports proposes to decrease expenses by reducing legal fees and deicing costs, and by deferring implementation of the Department's information technologies plan. Other cuts include miscellaneous reductions to materials, supplies and services. 2 A summary of the proposed budget amendment as it relates to operating revenue and expenses is as follows. OPERATING REVENUE AND EXPENSES PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Adopted Budget Proposed Proposed (as amended) Amendment Budget Operating revenue Terminal space 825,263,100 $ (207,800) $25,055,300 Landing fees 19,275,800 (1,470,600) 17,805,200 Cargo buildings&ramps 1,942,600 (22,600) 1,920,000 Fuel Farm 1,005,400 - 1,005,400 Reservation centers 1,249,200 2,900 1,252,100 Security charges 581,700 (277,300) 304,400 General aviation hangars 878,800 (50,600) 82,8,200 Auto parking 20,613,700 (3,178,200) 17,435,500 Car rental agencies 11,162,000 (432,500) 10,729,500 Office&building rental 5,618,300 (1,526,100) 4,092,200 News&gifts 3,393,200 (111,000) 3,282,200 Food service 2,311,200 (277,900) 2,033,300 Flight kitchen 1,904,800 (901;500) 1,003,300 Public Telephones 355,100 - (124;000) 231,100 Tenant telephone&paging 563,900 . • .12,900 . 576,800 Advertising 1,704,100 • 100 1,704,200 Ground transportation 562,100 - (103,400) 458,700 Vending 338,100 (17,500) 320,600 State aviation fuel tax 2,933,300 (574,800) 2,358,500 Other operating revenue 1,230,400 128,400 1,358,800 Total operating revenue 102,886,800 (9,131,500) 93,755.300 Operating expenses Salaries and benefits 31,072,900 59,500 31,132,400 Materials and supplies 5,977,900 (83,500) 5,894,400 Services 16,813,400 (357,200) 16,456,200 Other operating expenses 2,764,700 (267.600) 2,497,100 Intergovernmental charges 5,975,600 . (90,700) 5,884,900 Total operating expenses 62,604,500 (739,500) 61,865,000 Net operating income $40,282,300 $(8,392,000) $31,890,300 3 Analysis of Proposed Capital Outlay and Debt Service Budget The proposed amendment for capital outlay and debt service for the Department of Airports contains an increase of$8,152,200 from $76,600,200 to 84,752,400. CAPITAL BUDGET PROPOSED AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Adopted Budget Proposed Proposed (as amended) Amendment Budget Sources of funds Revenue from operations $40,282,300 8(8,392.000) $31,890,300 Passenger facility charges 37,694,200 $(2,420,500) 35,273,700 Grants&reimbursements 17,802,000 16,423,500 34,225,500 Interest income 5,600,000 (1,600,000) 4,000,000 Total funds available $101,378,500 $4,011,000 $105,389,500 Capital outlay&debt service Capital improvements $ 16,289,600 . $21,792,200 $38,081,800 New development program 41.126.000 (9.586,000) 31,540,000 Equipment 3.517,400 . (1,734,500) 1,782,900 Debt service 15,667,200 (2,319,500) 13.347.700 Increase to reserves 24,778,300 (4,141,200) 20,637,100 Total capital outlay,debt $101.378,500 service do increased reserves (4,011,000) $105,389,500 The major increase to the budget for capital improvement projects is for security purposes which are 90% funded by federal grants and are as follows: • $5,800,000 - Modify baggage handling systems in Terminals 1 and 2 to provide added space for explosive detection equipment that will be provided by the Transportation Security Administration • $390,000 - Move air intakes for the heating and air conditioning systems to prevent someone from using the systems to spread chemicals and biohazards • $200,000 - Construction of two vehicle-security checkpoints to screen vehicles and individuals entering secure areas of Airport property. • $200,000 - Installation of explosive detection equipment, x-ray equipment, and magnetic sensors for screening Airport employees and deliveries before entering secure areas of each terminal building • $200,000 - Vehicle sensors and software upgrade for the commercial lanes that will identify both the driver and the vehicle to prevent unauthorized drivers in front of the terminals • $174,000 - Add an 8-foot masonry wall in front of the boiler building to prohibit any vehicle access to the boilers through the glass windows • $76,000 - Install cameras and motion detectors at the east and west fuel farm storage areas to reduce the risk of security breaches • $54,000 - Add steel reinforced concrete posts spaced every five feet in front of the International Terminal Building to prohibit any vehicles from entering the — building through the glass panels • $36,000- Construct a secure storage area in each terminal for unclaimed bags 4 Proposed Amendments to Capital Outlay: The following table summarizes the proposed amendments to capital improvement projects: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Original Proposed Prop sed Project Description Budget Amendment Budget (as amended) Security Improvements (AIP grant funding) $ 7,130,000. $ 7,130,000 Land Acquisition on voluntary basis to the north(AIP) 4,413,600 4,413,600 Taxiway H Rehabilitation(AIP) 4,260,000 4,260,000 East Apron Rehabilitation(AIP) $ 2,432,300 967,700 3,400,000 Runway 16L/34R Storm Drain Improvements (AIP) 3,082,800 3,082,800 Taxiway P Extention(AIP) 2,565,300 2,565,300 Terminal Roadway Capacity-widen sidewalks adjacent 2,000,000 2,000,000 to the public lanes in front of Terminals 1 and 2 Economic Development Reserve-for tenant requests 2,000,000 2,000,000 that may require quick action Concourse A Apron Expansion(AIP) 1,540,000: 1,540,000_ Capital Improvement Program Committee Reserve- 1,500,000. 1,500,000 For unanticipated protect costs Concourse A Apron Reconstruction(ALP) 1,306,300 1,306,300 Emergency Access Road Improvements(AIP) 1,109,800 1,109,800 lboele-Land Acquisition(AIP) 970,000 970,000 Trminal 1 Annex-queuing/corridor space expansion .407,000 407,000 l axiway H Reconstruction(AIP) 325,000 325,000 De-ice Lagoon Leak Repair 300,000 300,000 Land Acquisition 250,000 . . 250,000 General Aviation Plane Wash,Sewer&Restroom 240,000. 240,000 Emergency Power to Jetways 225,000 225,000 Ice Control Chemical Storage Facility 212,200 212,200 Car Rental Lobby Expansion from 6 to 11 agencies 185,000• 185,000 Telephone Call box Replacement in Parking Lots 149,000 149,000 Triturator System-replace pit dump stations with 130,000 130,000 closed system for plane sewer discharge . . _ Deicing/Anti-icing Chemical Storage Facility 125,800 125,800 lboele-Weather Reporting Equipment(ALP) 120,000 120,000 Surface Condition Analyzer Upgrade 85,000 85,000 Airport II-Security Fencing(AlP) .50,000. 50,000 Snow Equipment Storage Building 1,654,200 .(1,654,200) Airport II-Hangar Development 1,436,200 (1,436,200) lboele-Precision Approach Systems 1,426,000 (1,426,000) Airport II-Runway 16/34 Overlay 1,247,600 (1,247,600) Lighting Control&Fixture Improvements 800,000 (800,000): lboele-Hangar Development 647,200 (647,200): Watermain Loop Extension-2200 North 389,200 (389,200) East Side Oil/Water Separator 378,400 (378,400) Runway De-Ice Access Road 373,400 (373,400) Airport Wide Fire Alarm System Integration 350,000 (350,000) North Bound Access Road Resurface 293,100 (293,100) Boiler Room Emergency Power Upgrade 250,000 : (250,000). Traveler Information Monitors 125,000 (125,000) Terminal Access Loop Resurface 102,900 (102,900) $16,289,600 $21,792,200 $38,081,800 5 New D v lopment Program Many changes have taken place since the Department of Airports completed the schematic design of a new terminal complex. The Department of Airports continues to update the design and work with the airlines to obtain their endorsements and commitments. Proposed expenditures relating to the new development program for fiscal year 2002-2003 are $31,540,000, which is a decrease of $9,586,000 from the original adopted budget. NEW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Original Proposed Proposed Project Description Budget Amendment Budget Master Architect—Design projects that will be under construction in 2002-2003 and ongoing design for new $16,400,000 $16,400,000 development protect. Mid-Concourse Pedestrian/Utility Tunnel— 9,990,000 9,990,000 Construct a tunnel connecting the west halves of the proposed north and south concourses Program Manager—Manage,direct and control the 2,850,000 design and construction of new development. $ (450,000) 2,400,000 West Apron Paving—Phase 2 Continuation of FY02 8,244,000 project to demolish existing pavement,sub-base grading, (6,744,000) 1,500,000 placing concrete pavement,constructing asphalt shoulders, and airfield electrical and drainage. Program Support—Advertising for construction bids, 470,000 530,000 1,000,000 legal services,auditing Retail Consultant-This project is to develop a 250,000 250,000 concession plan for the new facilities. Site Utilities—Install major trunk and distribution lines 5,440,000 (5,440,000) for utilities(deferred to future years) Hydrant Fueling System 4,477,000 (4,477,000) (deferred to future years) Owner Controlled Insurance Program 2,995,000 (2,995,000) Total New Development Program Budget $41,126,000 $(9,586,000) $31,540,000 6 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT OLYMPIC BUDGET ANALYSIS FISCAL YEARS 2001-02 2002-03.... ........ DATE: May 7, 2002 BUDGET FOR: OLYMPIC REVENUE AND EXPENSES STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, John Sittner, Susi Kontgis, and DJ Baxter The Administration forwarded an updated accounting of Olympic related revenue and expenditures through May 2, 2002. Olympic costs were $10,760,362, including costs in the following General Fund Departments: CED, Fire, Management Services (Olympic Planning), Police and Public Services. The following table summarizes the costs and offsetting Olympic related revenue. Salt Lake City Olympic Costs and Offsetting Revenue Salt Lake City Olympic Related Cost $10,760,362 Less reimbursements&other Olympic related revenue: UOPSC MOU (3,903,289) SLOC City Services Agreement (1,044,276) New licensing fees (180,000) Various additional grants (369,322) Sponsorship revenue (429,000) Sale of food and merchandise (438,688) Kennedy grant for the Imagination Celebration (100,000) Profit for the RDA and Gallivan Plaza (93,000) Rental income from Salt Lake Sports Complex (2,029,168) Anticipated sales tax spike from Olympic sales (1,400,000) Amount of costs not offset by Olympic related revenue $773,619 ANALYSIS OF OLYMPIC BUDGET The total quantifiable cost of hosting the Olympics was $10,760,362. The major reimbursement categories were the UOPSC (statewide public safety) MOU (memorandum of understanding) at a cost of $3,903,289 and the SLC City Services Agreement with the Olympic Organizing Committee (SLOC) at a cost of $1,044,276. Total Olympic reimbursements totaled $6,364,575. The General Fund contribution was approximately $4,395,787. 1 The approved Biennial Olympic expense budget was $13,356,152. The actual Olympic expenses totaled $10,760,362 for an expenditure savings of $2,595,790. Only one category in the Biennial Olympic Expense budget was over the appropriated budget, the Olympic Planning Office. The budgeted Biennial Olympic revenue budget was $9,177,170. The actual Olympic reimbursements and revenue received was $6,364,577, for a shortfall in anticipated revenue of $2,812,593. This shortfall amount offset with the expenditure savings of $2,595,790 results in a net fiscal impact of -$216,803. This figure is only a comparison of budgeted amounts to actual amounts. The total contribution from the City is the difference between actual Olympic expenditures and actual Olympic reimbursements and revenue. This amount is approximately $4,395,787. Th General Fund contribution amount of $4,395,787 is offset with additional one- time revenue to the City in the amount of$2,222,168. The City anticipates additional income from an Olympic Sales Tax spike of$1,400,000 resulting in a total additional one-time revenue figure of $3,622,168. The General Fund contribution amount of $4,395,787 minus the anticipated additional one-time Olympic revenue results in a quantifiable cost to the City of$773,619 for hosting the Olympics. The transmittal from the Administration contains the reimbursement to the City of $4,400,000 in sales taxes that were loaned to the Salt Lake Organizing Committe for the construction of Olympic Venues. If the Olympics were not profitable there was a chance that the loan would not be reimbursed. The reimbursement did occur to the State and the City will have this additional amount of one-time loan reimbursement money available for appropriation. All Utah cities made a similar loan and received reimbursement not withstanding whether they hosted the Olympics or had an Olympic Venue in their city boundaries. Because this repayment is actually general sales tax dollars that were held for the development of Olympic facilities, the Council may wish to consider the loan repayment as non-Olympic revenue, rather than Olympic revenue for determining total cost reimbursements and other offsets to Olympic costs. The Council Office has received a question from a constituent about how the sales tax `spike' has been calculated and has made the Administration aware of the inquiry. They will be prepared to respond to any questions the Council may have about the calculation. 2 SALE r A= -,1 -ll =CO IMO 02. IOI Ross C. ANDERSDN ROCKY J. FLU HART - - � � _ ,_�_ HIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR TO: Dave Buhler, Chair DATE: May 2, 2002 Salt Lake City Council a FROM: Rocky Fluhart ,1 ` ' ./ Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Olympic Revenues and Expenses STAFF CONTACT: Susi Kontgis, 535-6414 DOCUMENT TYPE: Memo and Spreadsheet BUDGET IMPACT: The most recent accounting of Olympic-related revenues and expenses reveals a positive economic impact of$3, 597,000 to Salt Lake City. This includes $7,993,000 in one-time revenues and an Olympic Operations loss of$217,000 (1.6% of the Olympic Operations budget). Total expenditures were $10,760,362. Of this amount, $6,364,575 came from Olympic Operations revenues, and $4,395,787 came from the General Fund. The General Fund contribution will be more than offset by$7,993,000 of one-time Olympic revenues, resulting in a net gain of$3,504,213 to the General Fund and $93,000 to the Redevelopment Agency. One-time revenues not included in Olympic budget Kennedy Grant for the Imagination Celebration $100,000.00 Profit for the RDA and Gallivan Plaza $93,000.00 Anticipated Rental Income from Salt Lake Sports Complex: $2,000,000.00 Anticipated Repayment of 1/64 cent sales tax: $4,400,000.00 Anticipated Sales Tax spike from Olympic Winter Games sales: $1,400,000.00 Total: $7,993,000.00 DISCUSSION: Given the extraordinary challenges and uncertainty involved in hosting the Olympics, an overrun of only 1.6% in the Olympic Operations budget reflects yet another measure of the tremendous success of the Games. The two most significant factors leading to the budget overrun are: 1) a substantial over- estimation of volunteer hours that would be available for Washington Square set up, take down, and operations, necessitating the use of City employees to perform these functions, and 2) a shortfall in some revenue categories. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6425 FAX: 801-53S-6190 0neeve eo PaPER ESTIMATED OLYMPIC FISCAL IMPACTS SOURCES OF FUNDS: UOPSC MOU $3,903,289.00 SLOC City Services Agreement $1,044,276.25 New Licensing fees $180,000.00 Various additional grants $369,322.00 Sponsorship revenue $429,000.00 Sale of food and merchandise $438,688.00 Total revenues: $6,364,575.25 General Fund Contribution: $4,395,787.00 Total Games Cost: $10,760,362.25 Biennial Olympic Estimated Olympic Expense Budget Expenses Expense Difference CED $196,108.00 $125,000.00 $71,108.00 Fire $2,188,645.00 $1,547,488.00 $641,157.00 Olympic Planning $5,128,650.00 $5,628,232.00 -$499,582.00 Overflow Shelter $75,000.00 $60,364.00 $14,636.00 Police $4,430,412.00 $2,145,795.00 $2,284,617.00 Public Services $1,337,337.00 $1,253,483.00 $83,854.00 Totals: $13,356,152.00 $10,760,362.00 $2,595,790.00 Estimated Olympic Biennial Olympic Reimbursements & Revenue Budget Revenues Revenue Difference CED $200,000.00 $180,000.00 -$20,000.00 Fire $2,188,645.00 $1,546,424.00 -$642,221.00 Olympic Planning $1,416,251.00 $1,836,320.00 $420,069.00 Overflow Shelter $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $0.00 Police $4,430,412.00 $2,128,687.00 -$2,301,725.00 Public Services $866,862.00 $598,146.00 -$268,716.00 Totals: $9,177,170.00 $6,364,577.00 -$2,812,593.00 NET FISCAL IMPACT FOR CITY'S OLYMPIC OPERATION: -$216,803.00 ADDITIONAL ONE-TIME REVENUES TO THE CITY: Kennedy Grant for the Imagination Celebration $100,000.00 Profit for the RDA and Gallivan Plaza $93,000.00 Anticipated Rental Income from Salt Lake Sports Comples: $2,000,000.00 Anticipated Repayment of 1/64 cent sales tax: $4,400,000.00 Anticipated Sales Tax spike from Olympic Winter Games sales: $1,400,000.00 Total: $7,993,000.00 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE MAY 7, 2002 Members of the City Council: Last year our Administration presented to the City Council our first biennial budget, the culmination of an extensive process intended to improve the City's long-term planning and enhance funding stability. This experience forced each Department to look beyond a one-year time line and reinforced our commitment to long-term fiscal health and strategic planning. Each Department was required to build from a "zero-base" for each program, to assure that our resources would be allocated to meet our immediate and long-tei in goals in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. The primary purpose of our budgeting process is to link what we need to accomplish for Salt Lake City with the resources necessary to do so. Biennial budgeting has proven to be a valuable tool in that effort and we thank the City Council for your support for this innovative and effective change in our traditional budget process. Now we are in the second year of the biennial budget, and it is time to report the adjustments made necessary as a result of the Council's mandated reductions and present our recommendations for changes required as a result of revenue fluctuations. We are projecting a net reduction in expected ongoing revenues of • MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE approximately $2.4 million, with more than $1.5 million of that coming from a decrease in motor vehicle tax revenues. We question whether the motor vehicle tax number is accurate, and we are requesting an audit. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have the results of that audit in time to affect the decisions we must make in the next few days. We are also projecting an increase of approximately $1 million in franchise taxes. At this point, we expect total ongoing revenues of $159,569,347. As you know, when the Council passed the FY2002-FY2003 biennial budget, you mandated an approximately one percent across the board cut for FY2003, proportional in each Department. Departments have made those cuts. I will mention only a few of the more notable adjustments. The Fire Department cut an Administrative Secretary, a technician, and operating expenses. The Police Department delayed the hiring of two recruit classes, cut the Community Action Team (CAT) secretary position, the community media coordinator and the mobile watch coordinator. Other proportional cuts were achieved in each Department through reductions in operating expenses, chosen by Department Heads to have the least possible impact on service levels. These cuts reduce the budget by $545,776. 2 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE Additional cuts, beyond the Council mandate, are required because of the decrease in projected revenue. We have been forced to dig deeper into each Department's budget to make cuts. This has been a difficult exercise and I deeply • appreciate the serious consideration each Department has contributed to the effort and the extremely difficult recommendations each Department has made. The cuts we, of necessity, recommend include the elimination of'4 of the 5 Youth and Family Specialists in the Police Department. These positions were previously funded by a federal grant. The remaining Youth and Family Specialist will concentrate on meth lab and other drug related issues core to our public safety mission. These cuts will save $208,000. Youth and Family Specialists serve as members of the Community Action Team for each council district. They intervene in situations where there is potential for at-risk youth to become involved in criminal activity or where children are at risk in a family or neighborhood situation. This is not a core function of the Police Department; it is a role that could and should be filled by the State Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), and the mechanism is already in place for that to occur. A DCFS caseworker currently serves on each Community Action Team, but they have taken a less than active role on the teams. DCFS, according to their own mission statement, should be involved in prevention, rather than reacting only after a crisis exists. We will 3 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE , ask DCFS to step up and assume its responsibility in coordination with the Community Action Teams. Other programs can also be used to intervene with targeted families, including the FACT program (Family and Community Working . Together) of the Salt Lake City School District. FACT workers assist families with situations that would prevent a child from succeeding in school, such as language, health, or behavior problems. The decision to cut Youth and Family Specialists will, inevitably, place additional responsibilities on the..polite officers who work with the Community Action Teams. The Police Department will also cut a community mobilization specialist, which will reduce the service level by 1/5, and a service desk technician, which will reduce the service level by 1/3. Elimination of these two positions will provide a savings of$80,000. The Fire Department recommendation includes eliminating the CERT program (Community Emergency Response Training). This reduction in service involves three firefighter positions, which will be eliminated through attrition, and the operational costs associated with CERT, for a savings of$125,000. This cut does not mean there will be no ongoing CERT Training. The Department will 4 - - MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE continue to train citizens with on-duty crews and will work with the Red Cross to teach their people the full CERT program so they can offer the training. Public Services recommends eliminating the City Impound Lot and putting the service out for competitive bid. One supervisor, four full-time employees and seasonal employees would be laid off. The contract would be modeled after the State program. Several tow companies would be hired and put on a rotating call- out to tow and store vehicles. The City would collect an administrative fee and set limits on the tow and storage fees. However, the individual companies would collect those fees and the City would be out of the business. This cut would be effective September 1, 2002 to allow sufficient time to pass necessary ordinance changes, issue an RFP, and sign contracts. This change would result in a net savings of approximately $126,000. Public Services also recommends the elimination of in-house architectural project design and inspection. Two licensed architects would be laid off, and one would be kept on staff. In the future, the City would contract out these services on a project-by-project basis and use current project managers in the Engineering Division to coordinate the architectural aspects of design and inspection. This cut would result in net savings to the City of approximately $140,000. 5 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE Public Services will further cut operating expenses by eliminating vacant positions in Streets and Engineering, and by eliminating planting and maintenance of the Peace Gardens, which will be covered by volunteers. These cuts will result in a savings of$160,000. Community and Economic Development recommends elimination of a vacant building inspector position and a zoning inspector position that will require a layoff, for a savings of$90,000. Management Services proposes the elimination of a vacant policy development position for a savings of$91,704. Finally, we recommend cutting this year's funds for the Neighborhood Matching Grants Program from $350,000 to $117,000, for a savings of$233,000. This change will not have an impact on this program because $233,000 remains unencumbered from last year. 6 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE This, as I said, has been a painful and difficult process, but a necessary one, resulting in an overall reduction to the original general fund FY2003 budget, excluding one-time money, of$2.4 million, or 1.4%. . At the same time, we are proposing some important and exciting enhancements to our service levels. I will mention a few. The Administration has submitted to the Council an ordinance that will substantially increase the effectiveness of our Civilian Review Board. This ordinance is the product of community open houses, meetings with several individuals and organizations, and on-going input from groups as diverse as the Salt Lake Police Association, the ACLU of Utah, and the Police Department Administration. The proposed ordinance will finally provide for authentic civilian review of claims against police officers, with protections for civilians and police alike. Staff support for the Board was previously provided by one of our Internal Audit staff. That position was eliminated last year. We are requesting, in anticipation of the passage of the draft ordinance, that the Council fund a staff position that will provide independent investigation and support for the Board. This-position will require $95,000 and will be part of the Department-of Management Services. 7 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE The State has announced it will close the Jordan River Parkway and Golf Course for lack of funds. We are proposing that the City take ownership, management and maintenance responsibility for the trail system along the Jordan River starting at North Temple and ending at the north end of the Rose Park Golf Course, at approximately 2200 North. In addition, we recommend that we take over responsibility for Cottonwood Park, the golf course and all facilities currently located at these sites. The State has agreed to pass "fee title" to these properties to the City at no cost, including all State land along the river corridor I described. The State has offered to pay the City $25,000 a year for a five year period as a contribution toward park and trail way maintenance. We are currently in negotiations with the State to increase that amount. If we do not step forward, the State will close these properties. This is a wonderful opportunity for the City to acquire 109 additional acres of much needed green and open space on the City's west side and save this incredible resource from neglect and abandonment. The impact on this year's budget is estimated to be $128,000 in operating and equipment costs for the trail way and park. Approximately $685,000 in capital improvements will be necessary over the next 3 to 5 years for playground repairs, restrooms, irrigation and trail way surfacing. This is an investment in our future 8 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE quality of life, and in the livability of our City. I urge the Council to support us in taking advantage of this opportunity. We propose an increase to $50 a day in the fee charged to bag a parking meter for construction or other private purposes. The current fees are so low that they encourage excessive use of bagging. The current fee for the first day is $10, days 2 through 15 is $5, and from day 16 on is $3. It is less expensive to bag a meter for a month than to buy a monthly parking permit in most cases. Our goal with this proposal, in addition to the revenue generated, is to open up our limited downtown parking meters for customers of our businesses. We expect the fee increase to generate an additional $100,000 in revenue. Our one-time revenues include a $4.4 million reimbursement from the 1/64 cent sales tax used for the construction of Olympic facilities, payment of$2 million from SLOC for rental of the Salt Lake City Sports Complex Ice Sheets, reimbursement of$1.8 million from UTA from a sales tax distribution not required to support east-west light rail, $560,000 from refinancing the City and County Building, and approximately $175,000 in our debt service account. We propose that we use $3 million of these one-time dollars to create an endowment fund for our Youth and family programs — the YouthCity Legacy 9 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE Fund. This fund will go a long way toward providing for the sustainability of neighborhood-based after-school, summer and employment programs for Salt Lake City's youth for years to come. The Fund will ensure the development of a community-wide strategy for program development and expansion. A Board of Trustees for the endowment will be foiiiied to provide advice, leadership and oversight. This Legacy Fund will allow us to devote the investment earnings to our programs and give us the security, continuity and flexibility necessary to expand on our success and impact the lives of many more of our children and families. This will give us a base to pursue matching grants from philanthropic organizations and government. There simply is no more important use for this one- time money. The Salt Lake City School District reports that more than half of its children live below the poverty level, and the Utah State Department of Human Services estimates that at least 40% of young people in the Salt Lake City area are at risk for drugs, handguns, family conflict, anti-social behavior and other troubling problems. By 2003, 59% of our children will be living in households led by either a single working parent or two working parents. The need for quality after-school programs and summer programs is obvious, as is the gap in available services. It would be easy to say this is someone else's problem or responsibility, but the needs are not being met and the emotional and even physical well being of 10 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE our children is at stake. Since we have a unique and remarkable opportunity to do something about it, we must be equal to the challenge. We are also requesting an additional $150,000 as immediate seed money for our youth program operating budget,just as the Council appropriated last year. We have provided you with a list of the accomplishments of the Mayor's Youth Programs made possible by your support in previous budgets. You wan() doubt agree that it was money well spent. We further propose $4,000,000 in one-time money for Library Square development to insure timely completion of this astounding community gathering place. We will never again have the amount of one-time funds that are available to us now. Now is the time to fund this project. The first $2.2 million will complete the first phase of development so that it will be ready when the library is completed. The remaining funds will be applied to development of amenities that • will be defined in the final plan. We propose that we invest $400,000 in one-time-money as matching funds to secure at least two of the Alan Houser sculptures remaining on Washington 11 MAYOR'S BUDGET AMENDMENT MESSAGE Square. This award will fund about half of the cost of two sculptures; the remainder of the funds will be obtained through donations. Finally, we propose an investment of$700,000 in Neighborhood Olympic Legacy Projects, an idea offered by City Council members. We envision seven unique $100,000 projects to be undertaken over the next year, following extensive community involvement in the planning process. The project might be a physical improvement, creation and placement of an art piece in the community, an enhanced park playground, or a community event. The possibilities are numerous and the decision will be led by the community, under the direction of City Council members. Our City, as a whole, has benefited tremendously from hosting the Olympics. We want to assure that every area of the City can point with pride to an "Olympic Legacy." The Administration has worked hard to present an amendment to our biennial budget that preserves and enhances our core functions and maintains our mutual vision of Salt Lake City as a safe, healthy, vibrant, prosperous, livable city in which all our people become active, equal, and welcomed participants. I thank all the dedicated City employees who have worked to prepare this document, and we look forward to working with the Council during its deliberations. — 12 YouthCity Accomplishments With the assistance of matching funds appropriated by the Salt Lake City Council and the generosity of local businesses, individuals, and foundations, the YouthCity After-School and Summer Program has accomplished the following: • Served 147 youth between ages io -14 in the Central City Community Center. • Offered sessions in music, the visual arts, filmmaking, movement, creative writing, community service, and recreation. • Increased the number of participants to 143, up 20%, at the Sorenson Center After-School and Summer Program. • Developed a strategic plan that covers the next two years for all of the Youth Programs. • Designed and implemented an evaluation strategy for all of the Youth Programs. • Mobilized the giving community effectively to match the Salt Lake City Council's $15o,000 allocation. • Hired a coordinator for the new YouthCity Employment Program, who is currently placing older teens in jobs, assisting with job skills development, and developing a mentoring component to the program. • Salt Lake City and its Youth Programs have been granted $1.2 million in discretionary funding through the US Department of Education. This award represents a great deal of collaboration and hard work by the Administration and our Congressional delegation. The funding will be allocated to expand programming—arts, technology, physical education/recreation, and employment—in Liberty and Fairmont Parks, Memory Grove's Ottenger hall, the Sorenson, Northwest Multipurpose and Central City Community Centers. We chose these areas because they, and the neighborhoods surrounding them, are natural gathering spots for young people. By providing structured supervision for children, the locations also become safer magnets for community activities of all sorts. Involved youths in the design process for the long awaited skateboard park in Jordan Park, which opened in April. - Global Artways launched the Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration as part of the Cultural Olympiad in March. • The Mural Program added a third mural along the TRAX line, and another one on Rio Grande Street. • YouthCity Government sponsored z Youth Unity Grooves. Over 50o teens from around the City gathered for two nights of music • and dancing from all of the City's high schools. Teenager bands were given a venue to play their music during both dances. The City's youth programs have established exciting and ambitious goals for zooz. They include: • Expand the YouthCity After-school and Summer Program in the current sites at the Central City Community Center and the Sorenson Center, as well as other community based sites and parks. • Establish a Youth Programs Advisory Board to assist with policies and ongoing fundraising. • Complete the evaluation of the YouthCity After-school and Summer Program. • Create more murals throughout the city. • Involve more youths in the building of a second skateboard park at Fairmont Park. • Design and establish violence and drug abuse prevention curriculum in all after-school and summer programs. • A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 ' 2000-01 1 I 2001-02 1 2002-03 1 2002-03 1 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I ; amd 1797 GIS Tech II 223 I 2.00 1 ; 3.00 _ 3.00 1 _ 4.00 11 Changed from GIS Specialist(604) 1798 Engineer Tech III 222 1 1 3.00 _1.00 ! 1.00 1 0.00 _ ;Changed to Engineering Technician IV(224) 1799 Office Technician II 219 I I 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 1.00 ;Changed from Office Technician I(216) 1800 Engineering Tech II 218 i ; 4.00 1 1 4.00 I I 4.00 III j 4.00 _' 1801 Office Tech I 1 216 ; I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 0.00 Changed to Office Technician II(219) 1802 Utility Locator Leadperson 1 119 1 ! 0.00 2.00_ ; I, 2.00 _I _I 2.00 1803 Utility Locator 116 _ ; j_ 0.00 , 6.00 ; 6.00 I j 6.00 1804 Regular PT/GIS Tech I 220R -'; I 2.40 I I 1.80 1.80 _ . I 1.80 1 1805 Regular PT/Engineering Tech 215R 1 1 0.60 I I 0.60 0.60 0.60 1806 Regular PT/Engineering Tech Trainee 215R 1 2.50 1 J 1.60 1.60 i 1.60 1807 Engineering Total _ ; 40.50 _I j 48.00 ' 48.00 1 48.00_ _ 1808 Full Time 1 35.00 ; I 44.00 44.00 1 44.00 _ 1809 Part Time 5.50 1 1 4.00 4.00 ' 4.00 1810 - 1 1811 PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TOTAL 401.80 1 400.10 400.10 400.10 1812 Full Time ! _ 381.00 ! 381.00 381.00 1 j 382.00 1813 Part Time 1 20.80 1 19.10 19.10 j 18.10 1814 1815 Water Utility Fund ; ! 273.45 269.20 ', 269.20 I 270.10 � 1816 Full Time i ! 254.90 252.00 252.00 252.90 -j - 1817 Part Time _ 18.55 , 17.20 17.20 i j 17.20 1818 1 1819 Sewer Utility Fund 103.67 102.60 102.60 1 102.20 • 1820 Full Time 100.80 ! ' 101.40 ' 101.40 1101.00 1821 Part Time 2.87 1 1.20 _ 1.20 I ; 1.20 1822 1823 Storm Water Utility Fund 28.68 I 28.30 _ 28.30 1 27.80 1824 Full Time _ 27.30 1 27.60 27.60 27.10 1825 Part Time 1 1.38 0.70 0.70 1 0.70 1826 1827 NON DEPARTMENTAL 1828 Weed Abatement Fund ! 1 - I 1829 PT/General Maintenance Worker 1 1.08' 1.08 1.08 1.08 1830 � - , 1 1831 WEED ABATEMENT FUND TOTAL 1 1.081 1.08' 1.081 1.08 1832 Full Time j I 0.001 _ 0.00', _ 0.0011 _ _ 0.00j 1833 Part Time 1.08 1.081 1.081 1.081 -I 1834 1 A BODE F C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions I Grade 1 I 2000-01 2001-02 ' ' 2002-03 1 2002-03 • Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I I I amd 1751 Regular PT Warehouse Operator 217R I 0.50 _ , 0.50 0.50 1 -- 1752 Finance Total 54.00 1 56.50 56.50 1 I 57.50 1753 Full Time j 54.00 56.00 56.00___ ' _57.00_ - 1754 Part Time - - 1 1 0.00 I I 0.50 1 0.50 0.50 1755 ; 1756 Water Quality& Treatment Administrator j 1 • • 1757 Water Quality&Treatment Administrator 005 1.00 i 1 1.00 1 ' 1.00 1.00 1758 Watershed Program Administrator 608 1.00 ' j 1.00 1.00 1.00 1759 Water Treatment Process Control Analyst 1 608 1 ; 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1 1760 Laboratory Director 608 _� 1.00 i _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1761 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor 607 3.00 _ - 3.00 3.00 I 2.00 11 Changed to Electronics Technician II(311) 1762 Storm Water Indust. Program Coordinator 605 i I 1.00 1 1.00 I 1 1.00 1.00___ i - 1763 Lab Chemist ; 312 3.00 I ' 3.00 3.00 5.00 12 Changed from Sr. Lab Analyst(309) 1764 Electronics Technician II 311 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 :Changed from Water Treatment Plant Supervisor(607) - 1765 Cross Connections Control Inspector __ 310 I 1 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 I _ 1.00 j 1766 Senior Laboratory Analyst 309 1 I - 0.00 ; 1 2.00 _ 2.00 0.00 ;2 Changed to Lab Chemist(312) 1767 Lab Analyst 308 1 _ 2.00 _ 1_ _0.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 1 - - 1768 Quality Assurance Sampler--Culinary 219 11 _ 2.00 1 I 2.00 2.00 2.00 1769 Cross Connections Control Coordinator _ F 219_ 1 J_ 1.00 1- 1.00 1.00 1.00 -- 1770 Office Tech II _ 219 j 1.00 I 1.00 1 ; 1.00 ' j _ 1.00 1771 Sample Management Clerk I - 215 1 1 1.00 1 1 - 1.00 _ 1 1 1.00 _; 1.00 1 1772 Water Plant Operator II 123 j 26.00 _ 1 26.00 1 26.00 -, _ 26.00 _ 1773 Senior Watershed Patrol Officer - 120 i1 5.00 F 5.00 1 1 5.00 1 5.00 - - - 1774 Water Plant Operator I 117 - 1 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 General Maintenance Worker II 115 0.00 1 0.00 ' 1 0.00 2.00 11 Changed from General Maintenance Worker I(111). 1 Changed from 1775 1 I IS/P.U. General Maintenance Worker II(111) 1776 General Maintenance Worker I j 111 i1 - 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 ! _j 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker II(115) - 1777 Regular PT/General Maintenance Worker IV 114R 1 0.80 - I , _ 0.80 _1 0.80 ; 0.80 _ _ _ - _ 1778 Regular PT/General Maintenance Worker I 111R I 1 0.80 1 0.80 1 0.80 0.80 - 1779 S/P.U. Maintenance Worker III I ; 3.20 F I 3.00 3.00 2.00 I1 Changed to General Maintenance Worker II (115) 1780 Water Quality& Treatment Administrator Total • 56.80 56.60 ' 56.60 56.60 - . 1781 Full Time 52.00 I , 52.00 52.00 1 53.00 1782 Part Time _ 1 4.80 4.60 _ 4.60 3.60 1783 - I , i I .1 1784 Engineering I I I I 1785 Chief Engineer--Public Utilities 005 1.00 ; , 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1786 Engineer VI 612 1 1 2.00 ; _ 2.00 3.00 1 1 3.00 1787 Engineer V 611 ' 1 1.00 1 I 1.00 1 ; 0.00 _ 11I 0-.00 III _ _ 1788 Geographical Information System Manager 611 ; I 1.00 1 I 1.00 _ ' 1.00 I : 1.00 1Changed to 611 from 610. 1789 Engineer IV 609 1 1 2.00 I 3.00 1 3.00 1 1 3.00 1790 Engineer III j 608 1- '1 1.00 1 I 0.00 0.00 1 I 0.00 1791 GIS Analyst - j 607 ; 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1 , 1.00 1792 Engineering Tech VI - 607 I. 1 _ 2.00 1 1 2.00 2.00 1_ _2.00 1793 Professional Land Surveyor 605 ; 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 I - - - 1794 GIS Specialist 604 '; I 1.00 i ' 1.00 1 1.00 1 1 0.00 Changed to GIS Technician II(223) II 1795 Engine Tech V 311 ' 1 4.00 I 4.00 1 alli4.00 j 1 4.00 _ 1796 En in Tech IV 224 1 ' 8.00 1 10.00 1W 0.00 1 11.00 'I Changed from Engineering Technician III(222) A BCDEF CH I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 ' ; 2001-02 , 2002-03 J I 2002-03 ' Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 amd 1705 Waste Water Maintenance Worker IV 123 1 7.00 _ 1 1,_ 7.00 7.00 1 1 7.00 1706 Sludge Management Operator 121 2.00 ; 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 _ 1707 Waste Water Plant Lead Operator 121 4.00 I ; 4.00 4.00 1 ! 4.00 Changed to 121 from 120. 1708 Waste Water Maintenance Worker III 120 1 1.00 ; 1 1.00 1 1.00_ i !- 1.00 1709 General Maintenance Worker IV 119 1 _1.00 ` 1.00 1 1.00 1 ! 1.00 1710 Waste Water Plant Operator 118 14.00 j 1 _14.00 14.00 14.00 1711 Waste Water Maintenance Worker II 116 1 2.00 i 1 2.00 __i_1 2.00 1 2.00 1712 Waste Water Maintenance Worker I 112 1 1.00 1 1.00 _ 1 1 1.00 1 ! 1.00 1713 Regular PT/W.W. Maintenance Worker I 112R 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 _ _ 1714 Water Reclamation Plant 1 _57.50 ! -57.50 I _57.50 L'_!_ 57.50 1715 Full Time 57.00 _ 57.00 _ 57.00 ; [ 57.00_ 1716 Part Time 0.50 1 0.50 _ , 0.50 1 0.50 1717 i 1718 Finance I � 1 - 1 1719 Finance Administrator 005 ; ! 1.00 1.00 ! 1.00 ! 1.00 1720 Financial Manager P.U. 610 1 1.00 1 1.00 , i 1.00 ' 1 1.00 - 1.00 ', 1 1.00 ! 1.00 1722 Financial&Cost Reporting Accountant 607 1 00 1 _ 721 Customer Service Manager 607 � 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 i I 1.00 I 1723 Utility Rate&Cost Analyst ! 606 _ 1 , 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 j i 0.00 ;Changed to-Water Conservation Program Coordinator(606) 1724 Water Conservation Program Coordinator _i 606 j ' 0.00 1 ! _ 0.00 1 1 0.00 1 1.00 !Changed from Utility Rate&Cost Analyst(606) __ 1725 Warehouse Supervisor _ ' 604 ! 1 0.00 1 •1 1.00 , 1 1.00_ _ I_ _ 1.00_ !_ _ _ 1726 Accountant III 1 312 1 0.00 , ! 1.00 1 1.00 • , 1.00 , 1727 Water Meter Reading Supervisor 311 1.00 ! 1 1.00 j 1.00 1 I 1.00 _ 1728 Customer Service Supervisor 309 1.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1729 Billing Office Supervisor 309 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1730 Accountant II 309 1 1 2.00 ; 2.00 2.00 2.00 1731 Assistant Water Meter Reader 308 1 1 0.00 __ ' 1 1.00 1.00 ! 1_ 1.00 1732 Sewer Service Charge Administrator 307 1.00 ! 1 1.00- j _ 1.00 1.00 1733 Senior Warehouse Operator 220 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 , _ 1734 Accounting Clerk III 219 _ ; 1.00 I I 0.00 1 0.00 ! 0.00 1735 Senior Secretary 219 1 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1736 Customer Service Accts. Collector/Investigator 219 ' 6.00 6.00 1 6.00 1 ; 6.00 1737 Office Tech II ' 219 , 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 1.00 'Transferred from Administration. Changed from Office Tech I(216) Sr. Utilities Rep.-Customer Service 219 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 11.00 2 Changed from Public Utilities Cashier(218). 9 Changed from Sr. 1738 ;I 1 ; i ;Customer Service Representative(218) 1739 Sr. Utilities Rep.-Billing 219 1 0.00 1 ! 0.00 0.00 1 1 7.00 17 Changed from Sr. Billing Technician(218) 1740 Public Utilities Cashier 218 1 2.00 1 ,_ 2.00 2.00 j 1 0.00 11,2 Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep-Customer Service(219) 1741 Senior Billing Tech p 218 3.00 I 9 00 I 0.00 7 Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep.-Billing (219) - i 7.00 7.00 _ 1742 Senior Customer Service Representative 218 1 3.00 _ 9.00 _ 0.00 19 Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep.-Customer Service(219) 1743 Warehouse Operator 217 1 0.00 1.00 1.00 L_ 1.00 1 1744 Utilities Rep. II-Customer Service 216 1 0.00 1 ; 0.00 1 ' 0.00 1 ! 1.00 I Changed from Office Technician I(216) 1745 Office Tech I ! 216 1 _1.00 1 i 1.00 _' 1 1.00 , I 0.00 •Changed to Utilities Rep. II-Customer Service(216) 1746 Billing Tech II 216 ; 4.00 1 ! 0.00 0.00__ 1 _ 0.00 1747 Customer Service Representative 216 ' 1 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1748 Senior Water Meter Reader 1 118 1.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 1749 Water Meter Reader III 115 - 2.00 ' i 3.00 ' 3.00 ' 1 3.00 1750 Water Meter Reader II 112 14.00 13.00 ' ! 13.00 ' 13.00 ' A BCDEF C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ; Grade 2000-01 I 2001-02 ' 2002-03 i 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 1 ; H amd 1659 Water System Maintenance Operator II 118 I 13.00 13.00 13.00 i ' 14.00 1 Changed from Asphalt Crew Worker(118) - - - 1660 Fleet Maintenance Coordinator j 118 1.00 1.00 1.00 I i 1.00 Asphalt Crew Worker 118 1 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 Changed to Water System Maint.Operator I(116). 1 Changed to 1661 'Water System Maint.Operator II(118) 1662 Waste Water Collection Maintenance Worker II 118 1 0.00 --I _0.00 0.00 3.00 _ 3 Changed from Waste Water Collection Maintenance Worker I(116) 1663 Water Meter Tech II 117 5.00 , 5.00 • 5.00 i 1 6.00 11 Changed from Asphalt Crew Lead Person(120) 1664 Water System Maintenance Operator I j 116 8.00 8.00 _ _ 8.00 j 9.00_ i 1 Changed from Asphalt Crew Worker(118). 1665 Waste Water Collection Maintenance Worker II 116 _ j 8.00 ' 8.00 8.00 _ I 5.00 I3 C_hanged to Waste Water Collection Maintenance Worker II (118) _ _ 1666 Waste Water Lift Station Maintenance Worker 116 , 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 - - - 1667 Utilities Locator 116 - 6.00 0.00 0.00 ; 0.00 1668 Irrigation Operator II - _ i 116 , : 2.00 2.00 ' , 2.00 1 - 2.00 I - - - 1669 Landscape Restoration Lead Worker I 116 _ _ 0.00 I ;__ 0.00_ 0.00 1.00 1Changed from Landscape Restoration Worker(114) 1670 Landscape Restoration Worker 114 I 1.00 I, I 1.00 I 1.00 0.00 1Changed to Landscape Restoration Lead Worker(116) 1671 Facility/Building Maintenance Worker 114 2.00 f ' 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 Y 1 - -- 1672 Water Distribution Value Operator __ 1 113 11 _ 8.00 ; I _8.00__ 8.00 8.00 , 1673 Water Maintenance Worker I j 111 I 2.00 . 1 2.00 I I 2.00 2.00 1674 Regular PT/Sr. Communication C ordinator P.t. 219R I 0.00 _ ; I 0.00 - ; o 0.00 - 0.75 .75 Changed from Regular PT/P.U.Communication Coordinator(216R) 1675 Regular PT/Custodian II 107R 1.00 L 1 I 1.00 , ; 1.00 ' 1.00 1676 Regular PT/P.U. Communications Coordinator) 216R L ; 1.50 I, ! 1.50 _ 1.50 ;- 0.75 .75 Changed to Senior Communication Coordinator(219R) 1677 Regular PT Warehouse Operator 217R f ; 0.50 1 0.00 0.00 1 I 0.00 1678 S/P.U. Maintenance Worker III - I 7.00 ; 4.00 4.00 3.00 '1 Changed to S/P.U. Irrigation Worker. - 1679 S/P.U. Irrigation Worker !- 0.00 I I 3.00 3.00 I I _ 4.00 11 Changed from S/P.U. Maintenance Worker III 1680 Maintenance Total jI 171.00 1 I159.50 i ; 159.50 j ; 159.50 : - -- - 1681 Full Time ; 161.00 I ' 150.00 150.00 ' 150.00 ' 1682 Part Time 10.00 ; ; 9.50 ' ' 9.50 1 ; 9.50 I 1683 1684 Water Reclamation Plant - I - ; I I . _ - 1685 Water Reclamation Manager 613 1 _ 1.00 -1 1 1.00 _ _ 1.00 I ' 1.00 [ 1686 Wastewater Operations/Maintenance Manager 609 ; _I _ 1.00 I I 1.00 I 1 1.00 ; : 1.00 _ - 1687 Waste Water Plant Maintenance Engineer 609 I 1.00 1 _,_ 1.00 1.00 1_1 _1.00 - _ 1688 Process Control Specialist _ j 609 I j 1.00 1 ; 1.00 1 1.00 ! ' 1.00 1 _ 1689 Waste Water Business Manager 608 1 ; _ 1.00 I ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to 6.08 from 6.06. - - 1690 Waste Water Maintenance Supervisor 606 I ; 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1691 Pre-Treatment Administrator I 605 I '1 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 0.00 'Changed to Pre-treatment Compliance Coordinator(312) 1692 Electrical System Program Supervisor 313 [ 1, 1.00 I 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1 1693 Pre-Treatment Compliance Coordinator 312 I 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 1 1.00 _Changed from Pre-Treatment Administrator(605) - 1 1694 Electrical System Tech II - 311 1.00 ' 1 2.00 _I ' 2.00 I ; 2.00 - _ 1695 Waste Water Plant Senior Operator - i 310 j 4.00 4.00 4.00 I 1 4.00 j 1696 Pre-Treatment Inspector - 309 - I 1.00 1 I 1.00 I , 1.00 _ ' 0.00 [Changed to Quality Assurance Sampler-Wastewater(219) 1697 Electrical System Tech I 309 : ! 1.00 i I 0.00 0.00 1 I 0.00 _ 1698 Waste Water Plant Computer Operator 306 _ 1.00 1.00 1 ' 1.00 i I 1.00 1699 Field Supervisor 305 j H. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1700 Departmental Assistant 304 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1 1.00 I 1701 Senior Warehouse Operator 220 ' I 2.00 I I 2.00 r 2.00 2.00 1702 Quality Assurance Sampler-Waste Water 219 , ; 2.00 j j 2.00_ , 2.00 _ [ 3.00 11 Changed from Pre-Treatment Inspector(309) 1703 Office II 219 1 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 I I _ 1.00 - _ _ ill 1704 MaintP Flctrician IV 125 2.00 2.00 W2.00 ' 2.00 ' A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade , ' 2000-01 ' 1 2001-02 ' 2002-03 I I 2002-03 I Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I amd 1613 Full Time ' 1 _ 22.00 j 22.00 22.00 21.00 1614 1 1615 Maintenance 1616 Maintenance/Operations Superintendent 613 1.00 I 1.00 I ; 1.00 1.00 • 1617 Computer Operation Manager _ - p p age 611 I � 1.00 1.00 i_ 1.00 J 1.00 , 1618 Water Distribution System Manager 611 I i _ 0.00 0.00 __ __1.00 1.00 _;Changed from Water System Manager(610) 1619 Water System Manager j 610 I j 1.00 - ' 1.00 _ _ 0.00 _ 1 I 0.00 Changed to Water_Distribution System Manager(611) 1620 Maint Support Manager 610 1 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1621 Waste/Storm Water Collection Manager 610 1 J 1.00 1 ' 1.00 - ' _ 1.00 _'I !__ 1.00 1 Changed to 610 from 609. Water System Maintenance Supervisor 607 5.00 ; ' 5.00 5.00 j 3.00 Changed to 607 from 606. 1 changed to Water Service Coordinator 1622 (604) 1 Changed to Water Meter Maintenance Supervisor(606) 1623 Water System Operation Supervisor 607 !-j 2.00 I j 2.00 2.00 j J 2.00 ,Changed to 607 from 606. 1624 Chief Maint Electrician 606 ' 1 1.00 j 1 1.00 I j 1.00 1.00 1625 Irrigation System Supervisor 606 i j 1.00 j j 1.00 1 I 1.00 1.00 1626 Water Meter Maintenance Supervisor 606 i 0.00 1 1 0.00 ' I 0.00 1.00 Changed from Water System Maintenance Supervisor(607) 1627 Drainage Maintenance Supervisor 605 I 1 1.00 j I 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1 1628 Water Service Coordinator 604 1 ' 0.00 0.00 ' 1 0.00 1.00 'Changed from Water System Maintenance Supervisor(607) 1629 Warehouse Supervisor 604 I 1.00 _ 1 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 1630 Electrical System Program Supervisor 313 1.00 I , 1.00 1 I _ 1.00 i 1 1.00 _ 1631 Electrical System Tech II _311 _ 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 ! I 2.00 ' 1632 Waste Water Collection Supervisor 311 I , 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 Changed to 311 from 310. 1633 Lift Station Maintenance Supervisor 310 ; I _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ;Changed to 310 from 309. _ 1634 Maintenance Office Supervisor 309 j j 1.00 1.00 1.00 I _ 1.00 _ . _ 1635 Senior Warehouse Operator 220 , 1.00 0.00 0.00 ! 0.00 1636 Sr. Utilities Rep. Office/Technical 219 0.00 ; • 0.00 1 0.00 3.00 I3 Changed from Office Tech. II(219) 1637 Office Tech II 219 , I 3.00 j 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep. Office/Technical(219) 1638 Sr. Communications Coordinator-Public Utilities 219_ 0.00 0.00_ _ ' 0.00 I _5.00 15 Changed from Public Utilities Communications Coordinator(216) 1639 Warehouse Operator 217 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1640 Public Utilities Communications Coordinator r 216 ' 1 5.00 5.00 5.00 1 _0.00 15 Changed_to Sr.Communications Coordinator(219) 1641 Maintenance Electrician IV 125 , I 5.00 1 5.00 1 5.00 1 5.00 1642 Senior Water Distribution System Operator ! 123I 1 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 1643 Senior Water System Maintenance Operator _j 123 ' I 13.00 13.00_ 14.00 14.00 [Changed to 123 from_122. 1 Changed from Metal Fabrication Tech. 1644 Pump Maintenance Worker 122 1 I 2.00 _ 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 ' _ 1645 General Maintenance Worker V 122 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 ; _ 1.00 I _ 1646 Drainage Maintenance Worker IV 122 1 ' __3.00 i ' 3.00 _ 1 3.00 _ I I 3.00 I 1647 Metal Fabrications Tech _ 122 ! , 4.00 _ 4.00 4.00 _ 3.00 11 Changed to Senior Water System Maintenance Operator(123) 1648 Waste Water Line Inspector 122 j ; 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 Changed to 122 from 121. : 1.00 1649 General Saint Worker Concrete Finisher IV 121 4.00 j 0.001.001.00 i 1650 Senior Irrigation Operator 121 4.00 1 4.00 1 f 4.00 1651 Waste Water Collection Lead Maint Worker 121 3.00 _ j _ 3.00 _ 3.00 I .' 3.00 __'Changed to 121 from__120. 1652 Waste Water Lift Station Lead Worker 120 I, j 2.00 I 2.00 , 2.00 1 T. _ 2.00_ 1653 1654 Senior Meterech Person 120 2.00 Asphalt '�, 2.00 2.00 1 _2.00_ i Changed to Water Meter Technician II(117) - Water. Meter Drainage Maintenance Worker III 119 I j 8.00 1 ; 8.00 '_' 8.00 I 8.00 1656,General Maintenance Worker IV _j 119 ; _1.00 , I 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 1657 Utilities Locator Leadperson I 119 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 I I 0.00 I 1658 Senior Facility/Building Maint Worker ' 119 1.00 ' ' 1.00 1.00 ' 1 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 2000-01 1 2001-02 1 2002-03 i 1 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 II ' I amd 1567 Full Time _; 374.00 ! 431.00 427.00 ! 433.50 1568 Part Time j 180.92 1 193.23 194.59 • 187.67 1569 1570 General Fund i 355.47 I i 428.43 429.79 , 427.85 1571 Full Time 228.70 I ; 290.30 , 290.30 293.90 1572 Part Time 126.77 ; 138.13 139.49 133.95 1573 ! ! ' ' 1 ' 1574 Fleet Management Fund 50.00 ' ' 44,00 40.00 40.00 1575 Full time , 50.00 44.00 • 1 40.00 40.00 1576 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1577 1578 Golf Fund 89.59 i I 90.92 90.92 ; 93.94 1579 Full Time 51.00 ' 1 52.00 1 52.00 ! 54.90 1580 Part Time 38.59 38.92 I 38.92 ; 39.04 1581 ! 1582 Refuse Fund 59.86 ; 60.88 60.88 j 59.38 1583 Full Time 44.30 44.70 ' • 44.70 i 44.70 ' 1584 Part Time j 15.56 1 i 16.18 _ 16.18_ ;I 1___14.68 1585 j _ _ 1586 PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 1587 Administration I ' I ! _ 1588 Director--Public Utilities 002 j 1.00 I ; 1.00_ 1.00 i 1.00 1589 Deputy Director 003 1.00 1 j 1.00 1.00 11.00 1590 Engineer VI 612 , 1.00 _ j j 1.00 , . 1.00 I - 1.00 1591 Engineer V 611 0.00 _ I I 1.00 _1.00 1.00 1592 Engineer IV j 609 1.00 ', , __0.00 0.00 j ! 0.00 1593 Safety Program Specialist 606 I ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1594 Hydrologist 606 I 1 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 j 1.00 1595 Utility Planner 605 ; , 1.00 I_j 1.00 '-I 1.00 1.00 _ 1596 Management Support Coordinator II 603 i 1.00 J 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1597 Assistant Hydrologist 311 1.00 i 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 [ 1598 Contracts and Connection Supervisor 310 1.00 ; I 1.00 1.00 ',_ 1.00 1599 Canyon Water Rights/Property Coordinator 309 ' r 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1600 Construction Contracts Coordinator 307 0.00 0.00 0.00 i 1.00 :Changed from Contracts Technician(220) 1601 Officer Facilitator II 307 ' ; 1.00 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1602 Engineering Tech IV 224 j j 3.00 3.00 3.00 j 3.00 1603 Contracts Tech 220 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ j 0.00 ,Changed to Construction Contracts Coordinator(307) Sr. Utilities Representative-Contracts 219 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 11 Changed from Contracts Service Rep.(216), 1 changed from 1604 I Contracts/Connection Rep(219),_1 Changed from Office Tech II(219) 1605 Office Tech II 219 i 0.00 [ 1.00 1.00 I _ 0.00 ;Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep.-Contracts(219) 1606 Contracts and Connection Representative 218 1.00 I 1.00 I 1.00 0.00 'Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep.-Contracts(219) _ 1607 Contracts Service Representative 216 j I 1.00 : - 1.00 1.00 0.00 _ 'Changed to Sr. Utilities Rep.-Contracts(219) 1608 Office Tech I 216 ; 2.00 1.00 1.00 1 0.00 :Transferred to Finance. Changed to Office Tech. 11 (219) 1609 Utilities Representative I-Contracts _ 213 1 ! 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 i I 1.00 :Changed from Clerk II(213) 1610 Clerk II j 213 j 1.00 J 1.00 1.00 ' i 0.00 I Changed to Utilities Rep. I-Contracts(213) 1611 Custodi0 107 ' 1.00 1.00 00 I i 1.00 1612 Admini on Total 1 1 22.00 ' ' 22.00 ' W.00 - ! 21,00 I • A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade ; 2000-01 ' 2001-02 ' 2002-03 2002-03 : Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 1521 Senior Engineering Project Manager 613 ; 1 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 1522 Engineer VI 612 1 ! 2.00 I I 2.00 I 12.00 2.00 1523 Project Management Consultant 612 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 , i 1.00 1524 Senior Architect II 612 ' ; 1.00 ' ' 1.00 1.00 I L 1.00 1525 Landscape Architect Project Manager 612 ! j 1.00 I ; _1.00 1.00 1 _ 1.00 1526 GIS Manager 610 0.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1 i 1.00 1527 Licensed Architect 609 2.00 1 1 2.00 1 1 2.00 i 1 2.00 _ _ _ 1528 Engineer IV 609 3.00 I 3.00 3.00 - ! I 3.00 1529 Downtown Construction Project Manager 608 j 1.00 _ I I 0.00 ' ' 0.00 0.00 1530 City Surveyor 608 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 ; ; 1.00 1531 Engineer III _ 608 _1 2.00 2.00 2.00 I ; 1.00 I 1 Position Eliminated 1532 Landscape Architect III 608 ' 2.00 I j 2.00 2.00 ! ; 0.00 j2 Positions Eliminated 1533 Software Developer j 608 1.00 1 L 0.00 ; I 0.00 0.00 1534 Construction Coordinator 607 1 -' 0.00 1.00 1.00 j 1.00 1535 Engineering Pavement Systems Manager 607__ ; 1.00 1 ;__ 1.00 ! 1.00 1 1 1.00 GIS Analyst 607 • 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 j 1 1.00 1536 , I , j 1537 Planning and Programming Manager 607 I 1.00 1.00 1 j 1.00 1 1.00 1538 Engineer II 607 j C 0.00 j1_'_ 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1539 Engineering Tech VI 607 ' 7.00 1 8.00 I 8.00 II - 8.00 i 1540 Architect Associate V 607 1.00 0.00 : , 0.00 ! I 0.00 1541 Professional Land Surveyor/GIS Specialist 606 4.00 J ; 4.00 4.00 4.00 1542 Professional Land Surveyor ; 606 0.00 I : 0.00 0.00 I ! 0.00 1543 Software Developer 606 0.00 0.00 0.00 ; 1 0.00 1544 GIS Specialist 604 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 L 1.00 1545 Architect Associate IV 311 0.00 ; I 0.00_ 0.00 1 ! 0.00 1546 Engineering Tech V 311 1 1 _ 7.00_ 1 6.00 _I 6.00 j i 6.00 1547 Engineering Administrative Support 310 __0.00 j 1 1.00 , I 1.00 1.00 1548 Engineer Records Supervisor 309 1 i 1.00 1 ' 1.00 1 , 1.00 I 1.00 • 1549 SID/Special Project Coordinator 309 I : 1.00 ! I 0.00 0.00 1 ( 0.00 1550 Office Facilitator II 307 ; 1.00 _' 1.00 1.00 _ 1 :_ 1.00 1551 Assistant Special Improvement District Coord 306 1 j 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 , 1 0.00 1552 Engineering Tech IV 224 1 j 5.00 ' j 6.00 ; ' 6.00 ! I _ 6.00 1553 Survey Party Chief 224 I i 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 ; I 1.00 1554 GIS Tech II 223 ; 1 1.00 ; 1.00 1.00 ; I 1.00 1555 Engineering Tech III 222 ! 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1556 Surveyor III 222 j 1.00 _ ' ; 1.00 I 1.00 ; I 1.00 1557 Engineering Records Tech II j 219 2.00 2.00 2.00 I 2.00 1558 Office Tech II 219 I 2.00 -i 1 2.00 2.00 F I 2.00 1559 Engineering Records Tech 217 , j 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 1560 Office Tech I 216_ ! 0.00 1 i 0.00 ; _I 0.00 ; ! 0.00 1561 Engineering Aide 212 1.00 I f 1.00 1 1.00 1 i - 1.00 _ L 1562 City Engineering Division Total 1 64.00 I I, 63.00 I 63.00 60.00 1563 Full-Time f 64.00 I 63.00 63.00 ; i 63.00 1564 Part Time I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1565 1 1566 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL I 554.92 ' ' 624.23 ' 621.59 621.17 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ! Grade 1 , 2000-01 2001-02 , 2002-03 I 2002-03 j Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 1478 Senior Warehouse Operator j 220 2.00 2.00 I 2.00 1 2.00 1479 Warehouse Operator 217 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 - 1480 Fleet Management Division Total i 50.00 ; 44.00 _ 40.00 40.00 1481 Full Time 50.00 44.00 1 40.00 1 40.00 - 1482 Part Time - 0.00 _'L 0.00 0.00 _ , I, 0.00_ 1483 _ - • 1484 Gallivan&Events Division 1485 General Fund 1486 Gallivan Utah Center j I 1487 Plaza/Community Events Manager_ j 607 l I 0.80_ 0.80 ' 0.80 I ' 0.80 - 1488 Maintenance Supervisor Plaza 601 I 1.00 _ 0.00 1 - 0.00 i-I _ 0.00 - - - 1489 Facility Maintenance Supervisor 309 0.00 1L 1.00 1.00 j ; 1.00 - - 1490 Program Supervisor--Plaza 309 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1491 Events Supervisor 309 • 0.00 0.31 0.31 I 0.31 1492 Facility Rental Supervisor 309 0.00 ; I _ 1.00 1.00 j - 1.00 - - - - 1493 Program Assistant Supervisor--Plaza 307 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1494 Office Tech II 219 0.00 _ 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 - - 1495 Office Tech I _ I 216 I , - 1.00 ! 0.00 . ; 0.00 0.00 Recreation Coordinator 214 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 1496 - - - -i I 1 - 1497 Maintenance Worker 112 j j 3.00 J - 3.00 ; ! 3.00 -; 3.00 I - 1498 PT/Recreation Coordinator - -� I _ 1.52 , , 1.21 I -i 1.21 1 I - 1.21 - 1499 PT/Groundskeeper I 1.78 1.78 1.78_ _! I 1.78 - 1500 PT/Ice Rink Attendant 1.38 _ 1_ 1.34 _ H 1.34 1.34 _ 1501 PT/Ice Rink Cashier j j 0.62 0.60 ' _ 0.60 ' 0.60 1502 PT/Recreation Coordinator Assistant - 0.41 ' I - 0.40 - 0.40 0.40 _ 1503 PTNisual Art Instructor - _ 0-.00 i I - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 1504 Community Events I t_ I I _ _ 1505 Plaza/Community Events Manager 607 l 0.20 I 0.20 0.20 i 0.20 - - Events Supervisor 309 0.00 '� 1.69 I 1.69 ' 1.69 ; I 1506 ' 1507 Program Asst Supervisor--Recreation 307 I 1.00 I 0.00 0.00 ; _ 0.00 1508 Recreation Coordinator 214 1.58 _• 1.00 1.00 ; i 1.00 1509 PT/Recreation Coordinator ; 0.72 I 0.78 0.78 ' 0.78 -- - 1510 PT/Server I 0.01 • 0.01 0.01 0.01 _ 1511 PT/Cashier I 0.03 0.03 _ 0.03 0.03 1512 Gallivan&Events Division Total - _ 17.47 ! _ 17.15 17.15 17.15 - 1513 Full Time 1 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 - 1514 Part Time 6.47 6.15 6.15 6.15 1515 - ,- - - - - - H ' I I -- 1516 City Engineering Division � L__ _ _-_____ 1517 City Engineer 003 -I 0.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1518 City Engineer i 004 I _ 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1519 Engineer VII 614 3.00 II ; - 3.00 ; ' 3.00 3.00 - 1520 GIS Ep r Project Manager 1 613 0.00 I i 0.00 .00 I 0.00 A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 1 2000-01 ; 2001-02 2002-03 ! 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 ; it 11 amd 1431 PT/Groundskeeper 2.07 I 2.07 2.07 ' 2.07 1432 PT/Parking Attendant 1.19 1.23 1.23 _1 1.23 1433 PT/EMT ' _0.59 j 1 0.59 0.59 0.59 1434 PT/Event Security j 1.38 ! 1 1.19 _ _ _1.19 _1.19 1435 PT/General Maintenance Worker I 0.73 _ 0.73 j 0.73 0.73 1436 Central Business District i _ _ i 1437 Business District Maintenance Coordinator 606 j 1.00 l 1.00_ , _ 1.00 I 1.00 1438 Facility Maintenance Supervisor 312 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 : I 1.00 1439 General Maintenance Worker V 122 1 0.00 1: 0.00 I L 0.00 1 I 0.00 1440 General Maintenance Worker IV 121 0.00 1.00 ' 1.00 I 1 1.00 1441 General Maintenance Worker IV 120 1.00 ! ' 0.00 0.00 i 1 0.00 1442 General Maintenance Worker III - j 115 5.00 1 ! 5.00 5.00 I I 5.00 1443 Sanitation Operator II 115 1 1.00 I, I 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1444 General Maintenance Repairer II 115 I 2.00 j 2.00 2.00 1 I 2.00 1445 General Maintenance Repairer I 112 1 1.00 I 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1446 General Maintenance Worker I 111 I 1.00 ! 1.00 ' 1.00 1 1 1.00 1447 Parks Groundskeeper 110 , 1.00 I 1 1.00 1.00 i I 1.00 1448 Beautification Maintenance Worker 109 ; 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1449 PT/Groundskeeper 0.35 0.81 1.26 1 1 1.26 '', 2.33 2.33 1450 PT/General Maintenance Repairer I 2.331LI 2.33 i 1451 Facility Management Division Total I j 50.36 50.86 ! 51.31 1 1 51.31 1452 Full Time 1 38.00 1 1 _ 38.00 __. 38.00 ! T 38.00 1453 Part Time 12.36 1 1 12.86 1 13.31 ; 13.31 1454 - - 1455 Fleet Management Division 1 _ - 1456 Fleet Fund 1457 Fleet Management Director 610 1.00 , 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1458 Fleet Business Manager 605 1.00 1.00 1 _' 1.00 1.00 1459 Administrative Secretary 306 I 1.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 1460 Office Facilitator I ! 306 1 0.00 1 _ 1.00 I. 1.00 _ 1.00 1461 Office Tech II 219 ! 2.00 j 1 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1462 Fleet Operations - P Manager 608 ! j 1463 Fleet Operations 0.00 l 0.00 ; I 0.00 ! j 0.00 1464 Fleet Service Manager 605 1 2.00 1 2.00 1 j 2.00 ; ! 2.00 1465 Fleet Customer Service Advisor _ 308 I _j 1.00 _1.00 I 1.00 j I 1.00 1466 Senior Radio Tech--Fire 308 1 1.00 1 1.00 0.00 I I 0.00 1467 Senior Fleet Mechanic _ 123 1 I 6.00 1 5.00 5.00 5.0.0 1468 Senior Fleet BodyRe air/Painter 123 1.00 P 1.00 0.00 I , 0.00 � 1469 Fleet Motorcycle/Light Equipment Mechanic 123 1.00 _ 'i1 1.00 1.00 ! ; 1.00 1470 Fleet Mechanic ] 121 1 1 24.00 1 _ 22.00 I I 22.00 1 1 22.00 1471 Fleet Body Repair/Painter 121 ! i' 2.00 2.00 I 1 0.00 1 I 0.00 1472 Fleet Service Coordinator 11.9 j 1 0.00 _ j 1 0.00 _' 0.00 !_1 0.00 1 _ 473 Mechanic Trainee II 1161.00 I 1.00 1 = 1.00 _ 1.00 1474 Fleet Tire Maintenance Worker _ 114 1 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 i 0.00 1475 Fleet Services Worker 113 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1476 Fleet Warehouse I : I - j j 1477 Warehouse Supervisor 604 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 ' 1.00 A B C D El F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade ' 2000-01 2001-02 I ' 2002-03 1 ; 2002-03 : Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 ! I amd 1384 Compliance Division Manager 608 I 1.00 1 1.00 _ 1.00 i ! 1.00 1385 Administrative Secretary I 306 I 1.00 0.00 I ; 0.00 i 0.00 1386 Office Facilitator I 306 ! _ 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1387 Incident Response 1388 Incident Response Team Supervisor 310 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 1389 Incident Response Team Member 118 2.00 ' 0.00 ; ' 0.00 _ 0.00 1390 Parking Enforcement 1 _ 1391 Parking Enforcement/Command Center Coord, 309 I I 0.00 __; 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1392 Senior Parking Enforcement Officer j 114 6.00 ; j 6.00 6.00 i 6.00 1393 Parking Enforcement Officer 113 1 1 2.00 I _ 7.00 7.00 I 7.00 1394 Parking Enforcement Officer Trainee 111 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1395 PT/Parking Enforcement Officer 12.57 - 2.57 2.57 1 2.57 1396 Crossing Guards . � 1397 Crossing Guard Supervisor 307 _ ; 1 1.00 1.00 _1.00 1.00 1398 PT/Senior School Crossing Guard 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1399 PT/School Crossing Guard 1 28.59 128.59 28.59 ' 28.59 1400 Impound Lot 1401 Impound Lot Supervisor 307 1.00 I j 1.00 1.00 1.00 1402 Impound Lot Attendant Helper 115 I 4.00 I ; 4.00 4.00 _ ; 4.00 1403 PT/Impound Lot Attendant Helper I 1.83 1 I 1.83 1.83 0.70 1.13 Positions Eliminated (Out source program)-_ 1404 Compliance Division Total 56.49 ! 1 54.49 54.49 , 53.36 1405 Full Time 1 23.00 1 I 21.00 I 1 21.00 ' 21.00 1406 Part Time 33.49 1 ' _ 33.49 33.49 I 1 32.36 1407 j 1408 Facility Management Division - 1409 General Fund i 1410 Facilities Manager 611 I 1.00 1 1 _ 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 ' 1411 Senior Facility Maintenance Supervisor 607 1 ; 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1412 Support Services Supervisor ! 605 I , 1.00 I I 0.00 0.00 0.00 1413 Facility Maintenance Supervisor 312 2.00 I 1 2.00 2.00 1 2.00 1414 Facilities Office Manager 306 I 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1415 Office Facilitator I 306 0.00 1.00 1.00 '_ 1.00_ 1416 Maintenance Electrician IV i 125 ' _ 1.00 1 I 1.00 1.00 , I 1.00 1417 General Maintenance Worker V 122 1 _ 1.00 j 1.00 1.00 1.00 1418 Carpenter II 121 1.00 I 1.00 _ 1.00 1 1.00 1419 Painter II 121 I 1 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1420 General Maintenance Worker IV 119 5.00 5.00 5.00 1 _ 5.00_ 1421 Senior Building Maintenance Worker 119 3.00 3.00 1 3.00 3.00 1422 Building Equipment Operator II 119 3.00 h ; 3.00 , 3.00 3.00 1423 Building Equipment Operator 117 0.00 I I 0.00 0.00 I , 0.00 1424 Maintenance Custodian 114 I 1.00 1 ! 1.00 ' 1.00 I I 1.00 1425 General Maintenance Repairer I 112 1.00 1.00 1.00 j 1.00 1426 PT/General Maintenance Worker 1 1.80 1 1.73 i 1.80 1.80 �, 1427 Franklin Quest Field 1 , 1428 Stadium Operations Manager 607 1.00 1.00 _' 1.00 _1.00 1429 PT/Jani I j 1.39 1.51 •.60 .51 1.51 1430 PT/Us' I ' 0.60 1 1 0.60 I 1 0.60 1 III ' A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 I 2000-01 i ! 2001-02 ' 2002-03 ! ! 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I 1 ! amd 1337 PT/Pro Shop(Starter, Marshall, Range) 1 18.90 1 18.53 I ' 18.53 1 1 18.53 1338 PT/Groundskeeper&Watermen _ 19.30 19.70 19.70 j ; 19.82 .12 New Position(Jordan River Trail) 1339 PT/Equipment Mechanic 0.39 0.69 , __0.69 l _ 0.69 1340 Golf Division Total 89.59 90.92 ' 90.92 I 1 93.94 1341 Full Time 51.00 52.00 _ ' 52.00 54.90 1342 Part Time I i 38.59 _ 38.92 38.92 39.04 1343 1 1344 Golf Operations Division , 1345 Golf Fund 1 1346 Golf Director 611 0.00 ! 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 I 0.00 1347 Head Golf Professional 610 _- 0.00 0.00 ' I 0.00 0.00 1348 Golf Professional 608-610 0.00 I ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1349 Administrative Secretary '1 306 i 0 00 _ 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 1350 Assistant Golf Professional 305 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1351 Office Tech II 219 0.00 L 1 0.00 1 0.00 ; ( 0.00 I 1352 Golf Starter ! 213 0.00 1 ; 0.00__ r_,_ 0.00 0.00 _ 1353 Regular PT/Golf Starter 1 0.00 1 , 0.00___ ' 1 0.00 I 0.00 1354 PT/Pro Shop(Starter, Marshall, Range) 1 0.00 1 I 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 I 0.00 1 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 355 Golf Operations Division Total i 1356 Full Time 1 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 1357 Part Time 0.00 '; 0.00 0.00 0.00 1358 1 1359 Golf Maintenance Division 1360 Golf Fund ' 1361 Golf Maintenance Manager 607 1 1 0.00 ; 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 • 1362 Golf Course Superintendent--36 holes 604 ' ' 0.00 _ I ; 0.00 0.00 0.00 1363 Golf Course Superintendent--18 holes 603 i _ _0.00 1 ; 0.00 , - 0.00 I 0.00 1364 Golf Course Superintendent--9 holes 602 ; I 0.00 1 : 0.00 • 0.00_ 1 0.00 1365 Administrative Secretary 306 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 ! i 0.00 1366 Office Tech II 219 : ' 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 1 1 0.00 _ _ 1367 Equipment Mechanic Supervisor 123 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 ; 0.00 1368 Equipment Mechanic II 119 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 ' I 0.00 1369 Assistant Golf Course Superintendent 119 , I 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 - 1 0.00 1370 Golf Course Maint Worker 117 1 0.00 0.00 ' ' 0.00 0.00 1371 Equipment Mechanic I 115 0.00 ! 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 1372 Golf Course Groundskeeper 114 ; I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1373 PT/Groundskeeper J _ 0.00 ;-1 0.00 j ' 0.00 1 0.00 1374 Golf Maintenance Division Total ! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1375 Full Time ) 0.00 ;_ 0.00 0.00 J1 0.00 1376 Part Time 0.00 _I ; 0.00 0.00 % [ 0.00 1377 1378 Golf Fund Total 89.59 1 i 90.92 90.92 93.94 1379 Full Time 1 51.00 1152.00 1 52.00 54.90 1380 Part Time I I 38.59 ! 38.92 38.92 39.04 � 1381 1 1 _ ' 1382 Compliance Division 1383 General Fund , 1 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 , , I amd 1307 PT/Youth Facilitator 1 0.00 _ 1.00 _ _ ' _1.00 1.00 1308 PT/Computer Lab Asst-Technology Center ' ! _ 0.00 ! ' 0.50 0.50 i 0.50 1309 PT/Clerk II 0.40 _,__; 1.29 1.29 1 1.29 1310 PT/Recreation Program Coordinator 2.93 2.40 2.40 2.40 1311 PTNisual Art Instructor i i 2.67 I I 2.62 _ ! ! 2.62 2.62 1312 PT/Youth/Family Sports Asst I I 0.00 ! 0.81 0.81 _ 0.81 1313 PT/Boxing Instructor 1 ' 0.64 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ 1314 Youth&Family Programs Division Total 18.39 23.37 ' 23.37 , 24.37 1315 Full Time : 11.00 11.00 _11.00 , _12.00 1316 Part Time 7.39 12.37 , 12.37 12.37 1317 1318 Golf Division _'__ _ _ 1319 Golf Fund ;_ 1320 Golf Manager 611 1 1.00 1 1.00 i 1.00 1.00 ' 1321 Golf Professional 608-610!, 5.00 ' 1 5.00 5.00 5.00 1322 Golf Course Superintendent--36 holes 604 1 ; 1.00 1 2.00 2.00 _ ' _ 2.00 , 1323 Golf Course Superintendent--18 holes 1 603 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 _', i 4.00 1324 Golf Course Superintendent--9 holes 314 I ! 1.00 I 11 0.00 ' _ 0.00 ; 0.00 1325 Accountant III 312 1 0.00 I I 0.00 1 0.00 ; 0.90 !Transferred from General Fund Finance and Administration 1326 Events Supervisor 1 309 1 0.00 ; i 1.00• 1.00 1 1.00 1327 Assistant Golf Professional ! 307 I 7.00 ; [ 7.00 _ 7.00 7.00 1328 Administrative Secretary 306 j 2.00 0.00 0.00 1 i 0.00 i. 1329 Office Facilitator I 306 10.00 I 1 _ 1.00 11.00 1.00 1330 Office Tech II 219 I 1.00 1 ; 2.00 , I � � 2.00 I ; 2.00 1331 Golf Starter 213 1 !_ 5.00 1 5.00 ' _ 5.00 _! 5.00 1332 Equipment Mechanic Supervisor 123 11.00 1 1 1.00 , 1 1.00 1.00 1333 Equipment Mechanic II j 119 I 2.00 ' 2.00 2.00 2.00_ 1334 Assistant Golf Course Superintendent 119 8.00 8.00 1 8.00 8.00 1335 Golf Course Maintenance Worker 117 1 , 4.00_ I i--.- 4.00 4.00 I _ 4.00 1336 Golf Course Groundskeeper 114 1 ' 9.00 1 1 9.00 9.00 11.00 12 New Positions ' i 1 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ; Grade 1 2000-01 I 1 2001-02 2002-03 1 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 11 amd 1260 Refuse Collection ; _ 1 1261 Refuse Collection Manager 606 ; 0.80 ' I 0.80 0.80 0.80 • _ 1262 Senior Sanitation Operator j 118 _ ; 3.00 ' ; 3.00 3.00 • 3.00 1263 Sanitation Operator II 116 ' 11.00 ' 13.00 13.00 13.00 : _ 1264 Sanitation Operator I _ - 114 1 2.00 1 0.00 _ ' 0.00 ' ' 0.00 1265 Container Maintenance Worker 113 1 1 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 I1 1.00 1266 Regular PT/General Maintenance Repairer - I j 0.00 , I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 1267 PT/General Maintenance Repairer j 1 2.76 j 2.77 __ 1 : 2.77 1 2.77 1268 Neighborhood Cleanup 1-1 , 1 -_ 1269 Sweeping and Cleanup Manager 606 1.00 - 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 _ 1270 Senior Cleanup/Broom Operator 120 1 2.00 I 2.00 2.00 ; 2.00 1271 Cleanup Operator II - 118 , - 4.00 1 ' 4.00 4.00 , 4.00 1272 Cleanup/Broom Operator 116 I 1 11.00 i ' 11.00 11.00 , 11.00 1273 Concrete Program Assistant 307 i 1 0.00 _1 ' 0.40 0.40 0.40 j 1274 PT/General Maintenance Worker 1_- 3.17 1- 1 4.07 _ , __ 4.07 , 1 4.07 1275 PT/Cleanup/Broom Operator 1 9.63 7.84 7.84 I 7.84 1276 Subtotal for Refuse Fund j1 59.86 -! ; 60.88 60.88 ' ' 59.38 1277 Full Time 1 44.30 ! 44.70 ' 44.70 44.70 1278 Part Time 15.56 ! 1 16.18 _ . 16.18 1 14.68 1279 1280 Streets Division Total 143.31 ' 145.93 145.93 ' 144.18 1281 Full Time i 113.00 r 115.00 115.00 114.75 1282 Part Time j 30.31 30.93 30.93 ' L 29.43 1283 , 1284 Youth&Family Programs Division -- - 1285 General Fund 1 1 I 1286 Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center 1 i 1 1 1287 Youth& Family Programs Director 006 I 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 j 1 1.00 1288 Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center Manager 607 ' 1 1.00 -'-' 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1289 Technology Center Manager _ 605 _' 1 0.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1 1 1.00 1290 Art Education Manager - 605 I ; 1.00 1.00 H 1.00 I 1 1.00 _ __ _ 1291 Youth& Family Programs Coordinator 309 1 1 1.00 - 1 1.00 - 1.00 i 1 1.00 1292 Youth& Fam Prgms Sports Programs Coord 309 1 , 1.00 I _1.00 1.00 ' I 1.00_ 1293 Global Artways Program Instructor - 309 1 _ 1.00 _ -' - 1.00 ' , 1.00 ; ; -1.00 _ 1294 Programs Assistant Supervisor I 307 I I 0.00 11 1.00 I : 1.00 1.00 1295 Recreation Center Coordinator 307 1 1 _1.00 I 1. 0.00 1 1 0.00 _i _0.00 I 1296 Administrative Secretary I 306 1 1.00 1 ! 0.00 • 0.00 ! 0.00 1297 Office Facilitator I _ 306 I ! 0.00 1 I, 1.00 1.00 II 1.00 1298 Computer Club House Coordinator 305 1 1 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 1 ! 1.00 ;Mid Year budget amendment 1299 Youth&Facilities Coordinator j 218 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.00 ' 1 1.00 1-1 1.00 1 _ 1300 Program Coordinator--Boxing 217 ' 1 1.00 I 1 0.00 , 1 0.00 I 0.00 1 _ _ 1301 Customer Service Representative J 216 1 0.00 ' 1 1.00 1 , 1.00 1 1.00 1302 Head Receptionist 1 215 I J 0.00 i I 0.00 _ 0.00 1 0.00 1303 Receptionist 1 213 ' 1 _ 0.00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1304 Clerk II 213 1 1 1.00 ' 1 0.00 I 1 0.00 1 0.00 _ 1305 Regular PT/Recreation Program Coordinator j ! _ 0.00 1 3.00 _ I 3.00 3.00 _ 1306 Regular PT/Amateur Boxing Coach 1 1 1 0.75 ' 1 0.75 0.75 ' 1 0.75 A BCDEF C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ! Grade 1 2000-01 2001-02 , 2002-03 , 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 I 1 I . , amd 1213 Field Supervisor 305-309 1 I 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1214 Asphalt Construction Asst 123 1 1 1.00___ _ 1.00 _ 1.00 _1 1.00 1215 Senior Asphalt Equipment Operator 121 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 1216 Asphalt Equipment Operator II 118 i 1 12.00 ! 15.00 15.00 I 1 14.00 1 Position Eliminated 1217 Asphalt Equipment Operator I 114 1 I 5.00 i' 2.00 2.00 j 2.00 1218 Incident Response Team Member 118 0.00 1 2.00 2.00 1 _ 2.00 1219 PT/Equipment Operator II j ' I 3.24 3.24 3.24 j I 3.24 1220 PT/General Maintenance Worker ! j 1._ 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 _ 1221 PT/Asphalt Equipment Operator I 1__1 5.74 5.74 ! 5.74 ' ! 5.74 1222 Concrete Maintenance ! _ _I 1223 Concrete Program Coordinator _ 603 I j 0.00 0.00 1 I 0.00 1 0.00 1224 Field Supervisor 305-3091 1 3.00 I 1 3.00 . , 3.00 I 1 3.00 1225 Concrete Program Assistant 307 1 1_ 1.00 1 I 0.60 1 1 0.60 1 ; 0.60 1226 General Maintenance Worker Concrete Finishe` 121 10.00 i 11.00 I 11.00 I f 11.00 1227 General Maintenance Worker IV 119 1 2.00 1 3.00 3.00 1 ; 3.00 1228 General Maintenance Worker III ; 115 2.00 1 j 0.00 0.00 1 ; 0.00 1229 PT/Asphalt Equipment Operator I 1 2.69 1 2.69 2.69 _ i 2.69 1230 Street Signing/Marking/Signals j i . _!_ 1231 Traffic Signal Supervisor 606 ; 0.00 1 j 0.00 0.00 0.00 1232 Transportation Shop Manager 605 I ! 1.00 1 ' 1.00 _ 1 j _ 1.00 1.00 1233 Senior Traffic Signal Tech 311 1 2.00 j 2.00 1_ 2.00 __! 2.00 _ _ _ 1234 Traffic Signal Tech II _ 224 1.00 1 1 1.00 ! j 1.00 1.00 1235 Traffic Signal Tech I 220 1 j 3.00 3.00 I 3.00 3.00 1236 Senior Parking Meter Mechanic 119 ; 1.00 1.00 I , 1.00 1.00 ! 1237 Senior Transportation Maintenance Worker 118 1 1 4.00 j 1 4.00 1 I 4.00 1 I 4.00 1238 Transportation Sign Shop Tech 116 j 1 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1 ! 1.00 1239 Transportation Maintenance Worker II 115 2.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 1240 Transportation Maintenance Worker I 1 113 I 2.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 1241 PT/Transportation Maintenance Worker _ 1.51 , 1.51 1.51 1.51 1242 PT/Traffic Signal Maintenance Worker- 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 1243 Subtotal for General Fund 83.45 __i 85.05 _ 85.05 _ _: 84.80 1244 Full Time ; 68.70 70.30 70.30 ' 70.05 1245 Part Time i 14.75 14.75 1 14.75 14.75 1246 1247 Refuse Fund 1248 Streets/Sanitation Director 612 0.50 I 0.50 0._50 _ j 1 0.50 1249 Administrative Secretary 306 j 0.50 f 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1250 Office Facilitator I 306 0.00 1 0.50 1 I 0.50 1 I 0.50 1251 Office Tech II j 219 1 1.50 1 1 1.50 1 1.50 1. 1 1.50 1252 Forestry ' 1 1253 Urban Forester 607 1.00 j 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1 -- ; 1.00 1254 Urban Forestry Crew Supervisor 309 1.00 1.00 1.00 P I ' 1 � 1255 Urban ForestryTech 220 � 1.00 'I 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 1256 Office Tech II" 219 I I 1.00 1 j __ 1.00 1.00 I 1 1.00 1257 Arborist III ! 121 I 1 _ 2.00 1 ' _ 2.00 • 2.00 i 2.00 1258 Grourtd rist 116 ' 0.00 1 _ 0.00 00 W 2.00 1.5 Changed from PT/Ground Arborist(116), .5 Ne ition _ 1259 PT/Gro ,rborist 116 1 0.00 1.50 W1.50 ' I 0.00 'Changed to Ground Arborist(116) • • A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I , I amd 1168 PT/Crew Supervisor I 6.59 j ; 6.60 1 6.60 t I 6.60 1169 PT/Groundskeeper ! 28.68 I 33.87 34.78 I ' 30.37 14.41 Positions Eliminated(No support to Peace Garden plant maint) 1170 PT/Skate Park Supervisor 0.00 _ I I _ 0.34 _ _0.34_ I I 0.34 • 1171 PT/Skate Park Attendant 0.00 I 1.86 I ! 1.86 1.86 1172 PT/Children's Garden Supervisor I 0.34 ' _ 0.34 0.34 0.34 1173 PT/Children's Garden Attendant_ 1 1.86 _I ; 1.86 1.86 1.86 1174 Property Maintenance _i__ I 1175 Field Supervisor ; 305-309 I 2.00 ' I 2.00 2.00 j 2.00 ' 1176 Graffiti Response Coordinator 309 1 1.00 1 _ 1.00 __ ' • _ 1.00_ I I _ 1.00 1177 Graffiti Response Office Tech 214 1.00 I j 0.00 I 0.00 j _ 0.00 _ I- 1178 Metal Fabrication Tech 122 I 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1179 General Maint Worker V _ 122 I 1 1.00_ I ; 1.00 __ 1.00 I ' _1.00 1180 General Maint Worker IV 120_ 1 I 3.00 3.00 ' __ 3.00 I 1 3.00 _ 1181 General Maint Worker III 115 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1182 General Maint Worker II 115 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 ! I 1.00 1183 Graffiti Response Field Tech 112 ' I 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1184 PT/Groundskeeper _ _ 1 1_ 1.20 - I 0.00 I_ _ 0.00_ j 0.0 0 1185 Cemetery Maintenance 1_ 1186 Cemetery Sexton/Maintenance Supervisor 606 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1187 Office Tech I 216 1 0.00 ! 2.00 1188 SecretaryII 216 2.00 2.00 1.00 I I 0.00 0.00 ; { 0.00 1189 Secretary I _213 1.00 j 0.00 0.00 0.00 1190 Assistant Maintenance Supervisor 121 I 1.00 ; I_ 1.00 _ ' 1.00 1.00 1191 General Maintenance Worker III 115 I 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 Senior Park Groundskeeper 115 3.00 I I 5.00 5.00 5.00 1192 1 i 1193 Equipment Operator II 114 1 I 1.00 I I __0.00 ' _ 0.00 _ , 0.00_ 1194 Vehicle Operator II _ 111 1.00 _ ' 0.00 _0.00 0.00 1195 PT/Crew Supervisor 1.94 ' ' 1.94 I 1.94 1 ! 1.94 _ 1196 PT/Groundskeeper I 11.07 ` 11.07 I 11.07 ' 11.07 1197 1198 Parks Division Total 1 114.68 119.88 120.79 . 119.38 1199 Full Time 63.00 _I 62.00 _ 62.00 _ 65.00 1200 Part Time 51.68 57.88 58.79 54.38 1201 I -- i 1202 Streets Division i 1203 General Fund - 1204 Streets/Sanitation Director _ 612 0.50 I I 0.50 10.50 I 0.50 1205 Administrative Secretary 306 __ 0.50 11 0.00 1 0.00 ; 1 0.00 1206 Office Facilitator I 306 0.00 I I 0.50 0.50 0.50 1207 Office Tech II 219 __I 0.50 0.50 0.50 ,I 0.50 1208 RPT Office Tech I 218 j 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 Mid Year budget amendment 1209 Street Maintenance I I i 1 1210 Construction Manager I 607_ 0.20 I 0.20 I 0.20 0.20 1211 District Streets Manager 606 1.00 I _1.00 1.00 __; j 1.00 _ 1212 Asphalt Construction Project Supervisor 606 I ' 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 I ; 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions i Grade 1 , 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 ! 2002-03 ; Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 I amd 1121 ' 1122 Administrative Services Division - 1123 General Fund 1124 Finance and Administration _ _T 1125 Administrative Services Director I_ 005 1.00 I- I - 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 j - 1126 Finance Manager 1 610 I ; 1.00 1 0.00 _ • ' 0.00 ' j 0.00 1127 Program Development Manager 610 ' 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 ' - 1.00 - - 1128 Technical Planning Manager 609 , F - 2.00 I 2.00 I ; 2.00 2.00 - 1129 Management Analyst - 604 , ' 2.00 - 1 I 2.00 2.00 2.00 1130 Accountant III 312 3.00 I 3.00 1 3.00 J I 2.10 .90 Transferred to Golf Division 1131 Personnel and Payroll Administrator 308 1.00 , ' 1.00 • ' 1.00 1 1.00 _ - 1132 Administrative Secretary I I 306 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 , I 0.00 1133 Office Tech II I 219_ I 1 1.00 1 1, 1.00 1 1.00 1 1 - 1.00 I 1134 Office Tech I 1 216 ' _ 0.00 - I I 0.00 0.00 J ; 0.75 Mid year budget amendment 1135 Regular PT/Office Facilitator II ! ; 1 _ 0.63 _ I ! 0.63 ' ; 0.63 I . 0.63 - 1136 Administrative Services Division Total 11.63 I 11.63 11.63 11.48 J 1138 Part Time I 'i 0.63 1' 11.00 � 11.00 i ,-._-- 10.85 1137 Full Time 1 11.00 0.63 0.63 1 It 0.63 i - 1139 _ _1 1140 Parks Division I I j 1 1141 General Fund - ! F 1142 Park Administration 14Supervisor i 611 1.00 1.00 1.00_ _ I I 1.00 1 3 Park Maintenance I � _ _ 1144 Assistant Park Maintenance Superintendent 1 605 !_ 0.00 - 1_ _ 0.00 - , 1 0.00 _' 1 0.00 _ -- 1145 Administrative Assistant-Parks 309 I 1 1.00 j 1 __0.00 I _0.00 I I 0.00 I 1146 Office Facilitator I 306 I I 0.00 I_I 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 _ - 1147 Customer Service Representative - 216 0.00 I, I-- 1.00 1 1.00 1 _ 1.00 -- 1148 Office Tech II 216 I 1 0.00 ! 1 2.00 F 2,001 2.00 ' 1149 Secretary II 216 1.00 1 I 0.00_ _ 0.00 1 0.00 - 1150 Secretary I 213 ' 2.00 1 1 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 1151 Park Warehouse I 1 1152 Park Warehouse Supervisor 604 ' 1.00I 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1153 Senior Warehouse Operator 220 1.00 1 1 1.00 ' , 1.00__ 1 1.00 --- 1154 Equipment Maintenance 1 I i ;_ II 1155 Equipment Mechanic Supervisor I 123 , 1.00 , - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1• _ 1156 Equipment Mechanic II 119 1 1.00 �i I _ 1.00 1.00 , 1 1.00 1157 Equipment Mechanic I 115 1 1 1.00 I I _ 1.00 1 1.00 ; i 1.00 - 1158 Park Maintenance I ' ! _ 1159 Park District Supervisor - _ I 605 - 2.00 - 1 I_ 2.00 1 1 2.00 - 2.00 1160 Greenhouse Supervisor I 309 1 1 0.00 ; 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1161 Plumber II I 122 1 1 5.00 j _ 5.00 ' 5.00 �_ 5.00 1 1162 Asst District Supervisor 121 1 _ 4.00 ' I 4.00 I 4.00 4.00 I 1163 Senior Florist 119 I 1.00 _ 1 ' 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 I 1164 Florist III 117 11, 1.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 ' 1165 General Maintenance Worker III I 115 I 1 1.00 1 I - 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 1 1166 Senior Pis Groundskeeper_ 115 13.00 '_ ' 13.00 1 Ak13.00 _ 16.00 ,3 New positions(Jordan River trail&Cottonwood P io 116.7 Florist I 115 1 ' 2.00 I 2.00 .00 2.00 A BODE F C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade I I 2000-01 1 I 2001-02 ; 2002-03 I ! 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 1095 Technical Support Specialists 220 1 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1096 Senior Secretary 219 1 l 1.00 ; 1 _ 0.00 0.00 _0.00 1097 Office Tech II 219 I 1 4.00 _ 1 _ 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1098 Senior Police Clerk 216 I 1.00 __ ; 0.00 0.00 I 1 0.00 1099 Police Records Clerk 215 1 1 28.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 ; ; 0.00 1100 PBX Operator 214 _ ' 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 ; ; 0.00 1101 Grants Acquisition/Project Specialist 606 1 1 0.63 , 0.00 0.00 ; 1 0.00 1102 PT/Hourly Police Specialist I 1 4.92 _' 0.00 ! 0.00 0.00 1103 Technical Services Bureau Total j 118.55 ' 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 1104 Full Time ! 113.63 ' 0.00 I 0.00 I i 0.00 1105 Part Time 4.92 ' ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1106 1107 POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 577.78 l I 581.28 586.65 : 576.65 1108 Full Time I _ 572.63 j 1 575.63 581.00 1 571.00 1109 Part Time 5.15 5.65 5.65 I fl 5.65 -- 1110 I I 1111 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1112 Office of Director 1 1 1113 General Fund I I ; _ _ 1114 Administration r 1115 Public Services Director 002 ; 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1116 Deputy Director--Public Services 003 _ 1.00 ! _ 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1117 Administrative Secretary II 307 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1118 Office of Director Total 1 1 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1119 Full Time 3.00 I 1 3.00 , 3.00 3.00 1120 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 ' A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 , 2002-03 1 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 1048 Alarm System Response Coordinator 308 1.00 : I 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 , 1049 Engineering Tech III 224 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1050 Senior Secretary 219 5.00 : ; 4.00 1 ' 5.00 ' 1 4.00 1 Position Eliminated - 1051 Mobile Watch Tech j 216 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ - 1052 PT/Police Chaplain _ 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1053 Operations Bureau Total 292.23 250.00 255.00 I i 245.00 1054 Full Time ' 292.00 250.00 255.00_ , 245.00 1055 Part Time 0.23 0.00 0.00 j 0.00 ' 1056 - 1057,Investigative Bureau 1058 Captain--Police - - j 830 I 2.00 i 1 4.00 - 2.00 2.00 1059 Lieutenant--Police 821-822 ' 3.00 __ : 3.00 3.00 3.00 1060 Sergeant--Police 811-813 ; ' 15.00 1 I 21.00 19.00 1 1 19.00 1061 Crime Lab Manager 606 _ i j 1.00 1 I - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1062 Police Officer 501-510 1 1 90.00 ', 130.00 130.00 I 130.00 ', 1063 Victim Program Coordinator - 313 ' _ 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 J 1.00 1064 Meth Project Coordinator j 311 0.00 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1065 Youth&Family Specialist 311 0.00 I I 0.00 0.00 I ; 1.00 ,Changed from Youth_&Family Specialist(310) 1066 Meth Intelligence Analyst 310 1 0.00 ; I 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 _ 1067 Youth&Family Specialist _ 310 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 ;Changed to Youth& Family Specialist(311) 1068 Victim Advocate j 310 3.00 1 1, 4.00 _ 4.00 _ I 4.00 1069 Crime Lab Night Shift Supervisor 310 ; ; 1.00 I 1_ 1.00 _ 1.00 _ 1.00 1070 Crime Lab Tech II 225 I ' 3.00 3.00 _ 3.00 3.00 1071 Crime Lab Tech I I 221 6.00 , ' 6.00 8.00 8.00 1072 Evidence Tech 221 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1073 Senior Secretary j 219 ' ' 6.00 j _ 7.00 7.00 7.00 1074 Office Tech II 219 2.00 2.00 I 2.00 2.00 1075 Police Records Clerk 215 2.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 1076 Volunteer Coordinator 1 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 ' 1077 Victim Advocate 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 _ 1078 Investigative Bureau Total 139.00 190.50 188.50 188.50 1079 Full Time 139.00 190.00 188.00 ' 188.00 1080 Part Time ; 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 1081 I ' i 1082 Technical Services Bureau 1 _ , _ ' 1083 Airport Chief of Police 004 1.00 0.00 0.00 , , 0.00 1084 Lieutenant--Police j 821-8221 2.00 ' ' 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1085 Sergeant--Police - 1811-813 1 1_ 3.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1086 Support Services Director 609 1.00 ; 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1087 Communications Operations Manager i 608 1 1.00 I j 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1088 Records Operations Manager - j-- 606 ' 1.00 1 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 1089 Police Dispatch Supervisor 606 , 7.00 ; 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 1090 Police Officer i 501-5101 3.00 ' _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 1091 Senior Tech Support Specialists 311 , , 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1092 Communications Tech j 308 1.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 ' 1093 Informaystems Supervisor 308 5.00 i 0.00 00 0.00III _ _ 1094 Police cher 1 221 48.00 I 0.00 1 W.00 0.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 ' 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 i ! I amd I 1003 Lieutenant--Police _ 821-822 I 6.00_ 2.00 _ 2.00 2.00 _ 1004 Sergeant--Police 811-813 I 6.00 1 1 7.00 1 7.00 1 1 7.00 1005 Manager of Administrative Services 610 J j 1.00 _ 1 j 1.00 1.00 1.00 1006 Communications Operations Manager 608 i , 0.00 I 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1007 Records Operations Manager _ 606 0.00 ! , 1.00 ! _ 1.00 ' i 1.00 1008 Grant Acquisition Project Specialist _ 1 606 0.00 0.63 1.00 ; ; 1.00 ' 1009 Police Officer 501-510: ' 3.00 - ' , 7.00 - 7.00 _9.00 Transferred from Operations Division 1010 Police Dispatch Supervisor _j 312 0.00 ', _7.00 7.00 1 7.00 _ 1011 Senior Tech Support Specialist 311 j 0.00 1 I 1.00 1.00 i 1 - 1.00 j Sr Communication Tech 310 1 1 0.00 ; j 0.00 0.00 1 ; 2.00 'I Changed from Communication Tech(308), 1 Changed from Police Info 1012 ! Spec(215) 1013 Information Systems Supervisor 310 I I 0.00 1 ' 0.00 - 0.00 ! ' 5.00 Changed from Information Systems Supervisor(308) 1014 Police Employment Coordinator 309 ', i 1.00 _ ' ' 1.00 1.00 ' ' 1.00 1 1015 Communication Media Specialist - 309 1 f 0.00 I 0.00 1.00 I 0.00 IPosition Eliminated 1016 Personnel Payroll Administrator_ _ 308 j 1 1.00 _ 1 1 1.00 _J 1.00 ' 1.00 1017 Communication Tech 308 I ; 0.00 - 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,1 Changed to Sr Communication Tech(310) 1018 Information Systems Supervisor 1 308 1 I 0.00 5.00 j 5.00 ' 0.00 1Changed to Information Systems Supervisor(310) 1019 Administrative Secretary II _ 307 1 I _ _1.00 __ 1.00 , j 1.00 ! 1 0.00 jChanged to Administrative Secretary II(UO2) 1020 Administrative Secretary II UO2 '1 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 1.00 (Changed from Administrative Secretary II(307) 1021 Accountant I - 307 I _ 1.00 _ 1 _ 1.00 I 1.00 _ 1 _ 1.00__ _ 1022 Administrative Secretary I 306 1 1 1.00 _ 1.00 I ; 1.00 1.00 1023 Office Facilitator I 306 I 1 0.00 _ 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 ' 1024 Engineering Tech III 224 _ 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1025 Police Dispatcher 221 1 0.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 1026 Technical Support Specialists 220 '; 0.00 _', , 5.00 5.00 _, 5.00 1027 Office Tech II _ _ 219 ! 0.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1 Changed to Police Info Specialists(219), 1 Position Eliminated _ 1028 Senior Secretary 219 ' 2.00 1 5.00 5.00 5.00 Police Information Specialists 215 i 0.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 1 Changed from Office Tech(219), 1Changed to Sr Communication 1029 ;_ j - Tech(310) 1030 P/T Hourly Police Specialist ! 0.00 , ; _ 4.92 4.92 I 5.15 .23 Changed from P/T Police Chaplain 1031 P/T Police Chaplain 0.00 1 J 0.23 0.23 _ 0.00 Changed to P/T Hourly Police Specialist 1032 Administrative Bureau Total _ _28.00 ' , 140.78 1 143.15 , 1 143.15 1033 Full Time 28.00_ ' ' _135.63_ ' 138.00 ' 138.00_ 1 _ 1034 Part Time - 0.00 5.15 5.15 5.15 I 1035 - 1036 Operations Bureau 1037 Airport Chief Of Police _ 004 ' 0.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.00 ,Position transferred to Airport 1038 Captain--Police - 830 3.00 ' ! 2.00 1 2.00 2.00 1039 Lieutenant--Police _ 821-822 J 4.00 j ! 10.00 10.00 ' __ 10.00 _;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1040 Sergeant--Police _ 811-813 1 27.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 1041 Police Officer _ _ _ 501-510 i 239.00 ; j_ 198.00 I 201.00 198.00 2 Positions transferred to Administrative Bureau, 1 Position Eliminated 1042 Planning Analyst 313 ! 1.00 I 1 1.00 1.00 1 1 1.00 1043 Youth&Family Specialists 311 0.00 I ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1Changed from Youth& Family Specialists(310), Positions Eliminated 1044 Youth& Family Specialists 310 1 4.00 _1 I _4.00 4.00 ! ' 0.00 ;Changed to Youth&Family Specialists(311) 1045 Data/Information Specialist j 310 1_' 2.00 _ _2.00 _ ' 2.00 2.00 1046 Community Mobilization Specialists _ 310 , J 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1_ 4.00_ Changed from Crime Mobilization Specialist(308), 1 Position Eliminated 1047 Crime Mobilization Specialist 308 1 1 4.00 4.00 5.00 • 1 0.00 Changed to Community Mobilization Specialists(310) A BODE F C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ' Grade ! 2000-01 ; 2001-02 2002-03 ' ' 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 957 Help Desk Tech 311 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 - 958 Communication Specialist III 311 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 959 Information Technology Specialist 310 1 i 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 960 IMS Accountant/Office Manager 309 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Office Facilitator 11(307) 961 Office Facilitator II _ 307 ' _ 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 _ 0.00 Changed to IMS Accountant/Office Manager(309) 962 Office Facilitator I 306 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 2.00 'Changed from Senior Secretary(219) 963 IMS Inventory&Accounts Coordinator 306 , 0.00 1 0.00 _ 0.00 1 1 1.00 Changed from Network Technician II(306) 964 Senior Secretary 219 2.00 ' ' 2.00 _ 2.00 ' , 0.00 'Changed to Office Facilitator I(306) 965 Information Management Services Total __ _ 55.90 J _ 57.90 57.90 _ 1 58.90 966 Full Time ! ! 55.90 57.90 57.90 i_ 58.90 967 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 968 I 969 City Recorder _ - 970 CIO/City Recorder 003 1 , 0.00 ' _0.00 0.00 0.10 Changed from City Recorder(003) 971 City Recorder 003 ; 1 0.10 0.10 _ _ 0.10 I - 0.00 'Changed to CIO/City Recorder(003) 972 Chief Deputy Recorder 607 1 1 1.00 1 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 973 Records&Elections Coordinator 311 1 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 974 Deputy Recorder 223 _ , 0.00 1i 3.00 3.00 , ' 3.00 975 Deputy Recorder 221 i 3.00 0.00 1 0.00 i 0.00 976 Recorder Clerk 216 1 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 977 Clerk II - 213 1 1 _ 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 ' ' 0.00 ' 978 City Recorder Total 6.10 i 1 6.10 _ 6.10 6.10 ; 979 Full Time - 6.10 6.10 6.10 6.10 980 Part Time 0.00 ; ' _ 0.00 - 0.00_ 0.00 - 981 , , 982 MANAGEMENT SERVICES TOTAL 149.88 ' 1 188.30 181.30 183.30 ' 983 Full Time - 147.00 ! i 183.00 ' 176.00 ' 178.00 984 Part Time 2.88 1 5_.3.0 5.30 5.30_ ' 985 ' 986 General Fund 90.39 ' 126.81 119.81 ; 120.81 987 Full Time 87.51 i 121.51 114.51 , , 115.51 988 Part Time 2.88 5.30 5.30 I 5.30 989 1 990 Information Management Services Fund l 55.90 57.90 57.90 ' _ 58.90 991 Full Time 55.90 57.90 - 57.90 ' 58.90 _1 992 Part Time 0.00 ! 0.00 0.00 0.00 993 ! -! - ' 994 Risk Management Fund I 3.59 3.59 _ 3.59 I 3.59 995 Full Time I 3.59 I_ 3.59 I_ 3.59 _3.59 996 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 997 I ; 998 POLICE DEPARTMENT 999 Administrative Bureau 1000 Chief of Police 002 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1001 Assistant Chief of Police 004 , ; 2.00 3.00 3.00 , I 3.00 1002 Captain lice 830 ' I 2.00 1.00 .00 2.00 1 • A BODE F CH I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions I Grade 2000-01 ' 2001-02 • 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 956 Network Service Tech II 311 1.00 ' ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade , 2000-01 ' ' 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 amd 910 Property Control Agent 309 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 911 Buyer II 307 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 ' 912 Administrative Secretary I 306 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' , 1.00 913 Admin Specialist Contract Management 306 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 ;_ I 1.00 914 Contracts Process Coordinator 220 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 915 Senior Secretary 219 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 916 Property Control Tech 219 1.00 j ' _ 1.00 1.00 1 j _ 1.00 ' _ 917 Office Tech I 216 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1 1_ 1.00 ' 918 Purchasing Clerk 215 j 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 919 RPT/Contract Writer 1 0.50 ! 1 0.50 0.50 i 0.50 _ 920 Purchasing Total 18.50 ' 18.50 18.50 ' ' _18.50 921 Full Time 18.00 18.00 18.00 18.00 , 922 Part Time 0.50 0.50 I 0.50 0.50 ' 923 , 924 Information Management Services ; _ 925 CIO/City Recorder 003 , 1 0.00 1 ' 0.00 0.00 _ 0.90 Changed from City Recorder(003) 926 City Recorder j 003 i j _ 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.00 _ Changed to CIO/City Recorder(003) 927 Deputy Director Information Management Svcs 614 1 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 928 Software Engineering Manager 614 1 ! 1.00 1.00_ _ 1.00 , j 1.00 929 Technology Consultant 613 I ' 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 930 Data Base Manager 611 1.00 J 1.00 _ _ 1.00 I _1.00 931 UNIX Administrator 611 1 1 1.00 1 : 1.00 1.00 1.00 932 Network Services Manager 611 I 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 933 Special Projects Manager 611 5.00 , 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 934 Chief Systems Engineer 611 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 _ ' 3.00 Changed from Senior Software Engineer(610) 935 Document Management Project Manager 611 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 936 Senior Systems Manager 611 0.00 _1 j 0.00 1 0.00 1.00 Changed from Technology Consultant(613) 937 Senior Software Engineer 610 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 'Changed to Chief Systems Engineer(611) 938 Account Manager 610 ' 4.00 I ' 4.00 4.00 2.00 Changed to Software Developer(606)& IT Project Manager(609) 939 Systems Service Manager 1 610 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 940 Systems Manager 610 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 941 Corporate Web Master 1 609 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 942 Web Producer 609 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Office of Director Web Producer(609) 943 Help Desk Customer Service Manager 609 , 1.00 ' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 944 Senior Network Administrator 609 2.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 945 IT Project Manager 1 609 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 Changed from Account Manager(610) 946 Maintenance/Support Manager 608 j 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Network Administrator II(608) 947 Software Engineer 608 ' 1 6.00 ; ' 6.00 6.00 _ 4.00 Changed to Software_Developer(606) 948 Multi-Media Software Engineer _608 1.00 , , 1.00 1.00 1.00 949 Network Administrator II 608 ' , 8.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 'Changed to Network Administrator I (312) 950 Software Developer F 606 0.00 ; I 1.00 1.00 3.00 (Changed from Software Engineer(608) 951 Senior Data Trainer 605 j 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1Changed to IMS Training Coordinator(605) 952 IMS Training Coordinator 605 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 Changed from Senior Data Trainer(605) 953 Senior Network Services Specialist 314 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I Network Administrator I 312 3.00 ' ' 3.00 3.00 5.00 'I Changed from Sr. Help Desk Tech(312), 1 Changed from 954 1 _ Maint./Support Manager(608) 955 Senior Desk Tech 312 i 1 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Changed to Network Administrator I(312) • A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ' Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 1 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 i1 1 amd 863 Full Time 9.00 7.00 7.00 1 7.00 _ 864 Part Time 1 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 865 ' 866 Human Resource Management _ 867 Human Resource Management Director 004 - 0.66 0.66 0.66 1 ! 0.66 868 Labor Relations Director 611 1.00 ! 1 1.00 1.00 1 I 0.00 Changed to EEO Program Manager(610) 869 EEO Program Manager__ 610 1 , 0.00 _ 0.00 - ' 0.00_ 1.00 ;Changed from Labor Relations Director(611) 870 Classification/Compensation Program 610 I 1 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 871 TQ Program Manager 610 ' 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 872 Labor Relations Specialist 608 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 873 Senior Human Resource Consultant 608 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ; 874 Human Resource Consultant j 606 _3.00 3.00 ;- 3.00 3.00 875 Human Resource Associate i 603 _ ' ' 3.75 ' 1 _ 3.75 3.75 _ 3.75 I _ 876 Human Resource Info System Coordinator 311 1 ! 0.00 , ' 1.00 1.00 1 1 _ 1.00 1 _ 877 Dept. Personnel/Payroll Administrator 308 j 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 878 Office Facilitator I 306 j i 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 1 _ 0.00 1 879 Office Tech II 219 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 I 880 RPT Office Facilitator 306R , I _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ! ' 0.50 Changed from PT Office Tech 881 PT/Office Tech 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 Changed to RPT Office Facilitator 882 Human Resource Management Total 15.91 15.91 _ 1 15.91 15.91 883 Full Time 15.41_ 15.41 15.41 ' 15.41 884 Part Time 1 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 885 ;-i 886 Employee Insurance 887 Human Resource Management Director 004 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 ; 888 Employee Benefits Administrator 606 1 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 , - 889 Human Resource Associate 603 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 890 Employee Benefits Specialist 307 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 891 Office Tech II 219 1.00 1 1.00 _ 1.00 ' 1.00 892 Employee Insurance Total 3.59 n 3.59 3.59 n 3.59 ' 893 Full Time _ - 3.59 3.59 3.59 __ 3.59 _ 894 Part Time 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 895 896 Purchasing - 897 Chief Procurement Officer U07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Chief Procurement Officer(611) 898 Chief Procurement Officer 611 1 1 1.00 _1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Chief Procurement Officer(U07) 899 Real Property Manager 608 ' 1 1.00 , 1 1.00 1.00 1 I 1.00 _ I 900 Contract Manager • 608 0.00 ' ' 0.00 _ 0.00 I i 0.00 _' 901 Senior Purchasing Consultant 606 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 1.00 902 Real Property Agent 1 605 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 903 Purchasing Consultant 604 1.00 1 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 904 City Contracts Administrator 312_ 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 ' _ 1.00 905 Procurement Specialist 311 ! 1.00 1 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 906 Senior Buyer 309 ! 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 907 Contract Development Specialist 309 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 908 Technical Writer 309 1.00 _ 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 909 Contract Buyer 309 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ' 0.00 A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 ; 2000-01 I 2001-02 2002-03 I ; 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 amd 860 RPT/City Violations Coordinator 1 0.00 1 0.00 _ 0.00 I _ 0.00 861 PT/Traffic School Clerk 0.00 1 ' 0.00 0.00 _ r I 0.00 _ 862 Treasurer's Office Total 9.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 1 • A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 ' 2002-03 2002-03 1 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 , , ' amd 818 Supervising Cashier 308 0.00 1.00_ 1.00 0.00 Changed to Lead Payment Processor(222) 819 Supervising Small Claims Clerk 308 ' 0.00 ' _ 1.00 i 1.00 0.00 _Changed to Small Claims Lead Clerk(222) 820 Legal Secretary 302 1.00 ! 1.00 1.00 1.00 821 Hearing Officer/Violations Coordinator II 222 _ 5.00 8.00 8.00_ 1 ' 8.00 822 Lead Payment Processor _ 222 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 :Changed from Supervising Cashier(308) 823 Small Claims Lead Clerk 222 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 'Changed from Supervising Small Claims Clerk(308) 824 Criminal Section Lead Clerk 222 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Criminal Case Clerk(220) 825 Criminal Case Clerk 220 , 0.00 7.00 7.00 ' ;_ 0.00 1 Changed to Criminal Section Lead Clerk(222),6 Changed to Crimina 826 In Court Clerk 220 0.00 4.00 __ 4.00 0.00 'Changed to Criminal Section Clerk(218) 827 Arraignment Clerk 220 , 0.00 1.00 1.00 _ 0.00 :Changed to Criminal Section Clerk(218) 828 Calendaring Coordinator/Clerk 220 0.00 1.00 1.00 ' ' 0.00 Changed to Criminal Section Clerk(218) 829 Small Claims Clerk 220 0.00 j ! 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Small Claims Clerk(218) 830 City Payment Processor 220 1 0.00 0.00 __0.00 3.00 ;Changed from Cashier(219) _ 831 Hearing Officer/Violations Coordinator _ 219 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 832 Cashier 219 0.00 3.00 3.00 i ; 0.00 ,Changed to City Payment Processor(220) 833 Small Claim Clerk 218 _, 0.00 J ! _ 0.00 _ 0.00 2.00 !Changed from Small Claims Clerk(220) Criminal Section Clerk 218 ' 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 12.00 6 Changed from Criminal Case Clerk(220), 1 Changed from I Calendaring Coord Clerk(220),4 Changed from In Court Clerk(220), 1 834 1 'Changed from Arraignment Clerk(220) 835 Admin Enforcement Office Clerk 215 0.00 j 0.00 0.00 ; 1 2.00 Changed from Processing Clerk(215) 836 Processing Clerk 215 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 ',Changed to Admin Enforcement Office Clerk(215) 837 RPT/City Violations Coordinator 0.60 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 838 RPT/Small Claims Clerk 0.00 0.60 0.60 _0.60 ' 839 PT/Interpreter Clerk I 0.00 0.50 _0.50 0.50 840 PT/Small Claims Clerk 0.00 _ 2.00 2.00 , _ 2.00 • 841 PT/Traffic School Clerk 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 842 Administrative Enforcement/Justice Court Total 12.68 43.10 43.10 _ , 43.10 843 Full Time 1 12.00 40.00 __' ' 40.00 40.00 __' 844 Part Time 0.68 3.10 3.10 3.10 845 846 Treasurer's Office 847 City Treasurer 005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 848 Cash Management/Investment Analyst 608 ' 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 Senior Budget Analyst/Special Assessment 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 849 Coordinator , 850 Violations Program Administrator _ 606 ; ; 0.00 0.00 ' ' 0.00 _ 0.00 ' 851 Cashiering Resources Coordinator 603 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 852 Assistant Violations Program Administrator 602 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 853 Special Assessment Coordinator 309 1.00 , ' 0.00 0.00 , i _0.00 854 Office Administration Associate 307 1.00 _ I 1.00 1.00 1.00 __ 855 City Violations Coordinator 220 0.00 0.00 . I 0.00 ' 0.00 _ 856 Hearing Officer 220 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 City Payment Processor 220 I 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 2.00 11 Changed from Finance Cashier(218), 1 Changed from City Payment 857 I , i Processor(219) 858 City Payment Processor 219 _ 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 I_ 0.00 Changed to City Payment Processor(220) 859 Finance Cashier 218 : 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 'Changed to City Payment Processor(220) A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions 1 Grade ' 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 816 Assistant Violations Program Administrator ' 602 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 817 Court Accountant III I 312 ' 0.00 1 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 1 2000-01 . 1 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 1 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 772 Administrative Aide 307 0.00 2.00 0.00 I 0.00 ' 773 Administrative Secretary II 307 • 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 774 RPT/Emergency Management Assistance ; 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 _ 775 RPT/Office Tech II _; 0.50_ I , 0.50 0.50 ! 0.50 776 Office of the Director Total -- , I 13.50 1 22.00 15.00 12,00 ! - 777 Full Time 13.00 1 ; 21.00 ; 14.00 _ I _11.00 - 778 Part Time 1 ; 0.50 . _;_ 1.00 1 1.00 'I 1.00_ 1 _ 779 , , 780 Finance 781 Finance Director 004 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Controller(005) 782 Controller _ I 005 __ 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 0.00 'Changed to Finance Director(004) _ 783 Controller I 612 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Deputy Controller(610) 784 Deputy Controller 610 _ ; 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.00 __Changed to Controller(612) 785 Budget&Reporting Manager _ 610 ; 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 ; 1.00 iChanged from Senior Financial Reporting Accountant(608) y 609 , 1.00 I 3.00 3.00 ' I 3.00 786 Revenue Analyst&Auditor 787 City Economist 609 -j j 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 !Moved from Office of the Director City Economist(609) _ 788 Senior Financial Reporting Accountant 608 1.00 • ' 1.00 1.00 - I 0.00 !Changed to Budget&Reporting Manager(610) Senior Budget/Policy Analyst/CIP Coordinator I 608 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1.00 !Moved from Office of the Director Sr Budget/Policy Analyst CIP Coord 789 1 (608) 790 Senior Budget Analyst ! 607 0.00 i ; 0.00 _; 1 0.00 0.00 , 791 Systems Support Administrator 1 607 I1 1.00 1.00 ' ' 1.00_ , 1.00 Grants Acq/Project Coordinator 606 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 2.00 1 Moved from Office of the Director Grants Acq/Project Coord (606), 1 792 Moved from Dept of Comm.& Econ Dev.Grants Acq/Project Coord 793 Capital Budget Administrator - 606 1 i - 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 794 Accountant III • 312 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 795 Payroll and Special Projects Coord. 1 310 , I 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 796 Accountant II 309 1 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 I 797 Staffing& Position Control Specialist I 310 I 0.00 1.00 , 1.00 1 1 1.00 798 Financial Records Supervisor 218 1.00 1.00 1.00 ; : 1.00 • Regular PT/Payroll and Special Projects ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 799 Coordinator 800 PT/Cont. General Ledger Accountant 0.50 , ' 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 1 801 PT/Payroll and Special Projects Coordinator- I - 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 802 Finance Total 14.70 1 14.20 1 14.20 1 18.20 803 Full Time ! 1I_ 14.00 14.00 _ _ 14.00 1 ' _ 18.00 i _ 804 Part Time 0.70 0.20 0.20 ' 0.20 805 1 - 806 Administrative Enforcement/Justice Court ' • _ 807 Administrative Law Judge 006 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 808 Criminal Court Judge 006 I I 0.00 i 4.00 4.00 _ 4.00 1 809 City Courts Director 1 U06 __ 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 1 ; 1.00 'Changed from City Court Director(610) 810 City Courts Director 610 , 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 _ 'Changed to City Court Director(U06) 811 Criminal Court Manager _ 608 0.00 : ;_ 1.00 1.00 i I 0.00 ,Changed to Criminal Section Manager(607) 812 Criminal Section Manager _ 607 I I 0.00 0.00 0.00 , I 1.00 ;Changed from Criminal Court Manager(608) 813 Violations Program Administrator 606 ! I 1.00 ' 0.00 0.00 11 0.00 814 Admin Enforcement Program_Spec _ 1 606_ 1 __0.00 -_ ' ; _0.00__ _ _0.00 1 1 1.00 'Changed from Civil Court Manager(606) _ 815 Civil Court Manager 1 606 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Admin Enforcement Program Spec.(606) A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions • Grade I 2000-01 I 2001-02 2002-03 ' 2002-03 ! Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 727 Office Tech II 219 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 0.00 position Eliminated 728 Office Clerk III 215 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 - 0.00 729 Office Clerk II 213 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 730 Fire Prevention Totals 18.00 _-20.00 20.00 16.00 731 Full Time 18.00 : 1 20.00 - 20.00 ' 16.00 732 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 733 , , , 734 FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL ' 366.00 1 , 366.00 365.00 ; 360.00 ' 735 Full Time 366.00 , 366.00 - 365.00 360.00 ' -- 736 Part Time 0.00 0.00 , I - 0.00 0.00 I 737 738 INTERNAL AUDIT 739 740 Internal Audit Manager - 611 - ; 1.00 i 1.00 - 0.00 ' - 0.00 Internal Auditor III 609 1.00 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 741 I . 1 742 Internal Auditor II 607 2.00 1 0.00 0.00 _ __0.00 743 OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT TOTAL 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 - 744 Full Time I 4.00 _ ' 2.00 _ 0.00 0.00 745 Part Time 0.00 I 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 746 747 MANAGEMENT SERVICES 748 -- - 749 Office of the Director 750 Chief Administrative Officer I 001 I I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 751 Deputy Director 003 I I 1.00 I 1 1.00 . ' 1.00 I 1.00 752 Olympic Opportunity Director 006 ; , 1.00 I I 1.00 ' ' 0.00 I ' 0.00 ' 753 Senior Environmental Advisor 611 I I 0.00 _ 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 754 Environmental Management Specialist 611 ' ' 1.00 I i 0.00 0.00 0.00 755 Senior Administrative Analyst 610 0.00 I 2.00 2.00 2.00 ' 756 Administrative Analyst 609 0.00 2.00 2.00 • 2.00 757 Policy Development Specialist 609 3.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 _ 0.00 758 City Economist 609 _i 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 - ' 1 0.00 ;Moved to Finance Division City Economist(609) 759 Web Producer F 609 1.00 I ' 1.00 I 1.00 0.00 - I Position moved to Information Mgmt Services Division 760 Citizens Review Board Facilitator ' 609 0.00 0.00 _ _' 0.00 _ 1.00 I New Position 761 Revenue Planner I 608 II, F _ 0.00_ ' 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 762 Senior Budget/Policy Analyst/CIP Coordinator 608 I 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 :Moved to Finance Division Sr Budget/Policy Analyst CIP Coord (608) 763 Emergency Program Manager - 607 I I 1.00 1.00 _I ' 1.00 1.00 764 Data/Demographic Planner 606 I I 1.00 I I 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 765 Grant Acq./Project Coordinator 606 I I - 0.00 I I--- 1.00 1.00 0.00 I Moved to Finance Division Grant Acq/Project Coordinator(606) 766 Corporation Communications Analyst 605 _ ; I 1.00 ', F. 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 1 - 767 Communication Media Coordinator I 313 _ 0.00 1,; 0.00 0.00 , _ 0.00 I 768 Administrative Assistant/Appointed I UO3 I ' 0.00 1 '; 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Administrative Assist/Appointed (310) 769 Administrative:assistant/Appointed 310 j , 1.00 ; ; 1.00 1.00 , _ 0.00 _'Changed to Administrative Assist/Appointed (UO3) 770 Events Supervisor I 309 1 I -- 0.00 1 I 2.00 0.00 0.00 771 Comm tions Tech 308 0.00 1 2.00 100 0.00 III A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 1 2000-01 1 ' 2001-02 2002-03 1 1 2002-03 I Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended i � I 1 I , amd 680 Fire Fighter 415-423 2.00 2.00 2.00 1 I 2.00 681 Office Facilitator II 307 ' _ 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 _ I 1.00 682 Office Facilitator I 306_ 1 _0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 683 Training Total 7.00 1 7.00 7.00 7.00 - 684 Full Time _I : 7.00 7.00 j 7.00 7.00 685 Part Time 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 686 ; ; - ' • --- j ' --- - - --- - - ---- - -- 687 Operations -- j - _ 688 Battalion Chief 902 4.00 7.00 _ i 7.00 , 7.00 689 Captain 901 63.00 64.00 _ 65.00 j _ 65.00 690 Fire Fighter - ' 415-423 234.00 231.00 230.00 I 230.00 691 Operations Total - , 301.00 i 302.00 302.00 302.00 692 Full Time - 301.00 ,; 302.00 302.00 j 302.00 693 Part Time - r j 0.00 j_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 694 I ' 695 Special Operations 1 696 Battalion Chief 902 1.00 1 _ 0.00_ , 0.00 '_' - 0.00 _ 697 Captain - 901 1.00 I I 0.00 0.00 , i 0.00 - 698 Fire Fighter 415-423 I 0.00 I 1.00 ' 1 1.00 1.00 699 Special Operations Total 2.00 I _ _1.00 1.00 _ ; I 1.00 ; - - - -- 700 Full Time 2.00 j _ 1.00 1 _ __1.00 _ 1.00 701 Part Time 0.00 j 0.00 0.00 1 j 0.00 702 • 703 Emergency Medical - 1 704 Battalion Chief 902 , ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 705 Captain 901 2.00 1 ' 1.00 1.00 1 ' 1.00 706 EMS Program Manager f 607 : ' - 1.00 ; : 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ - 707 Pathway Program Manager 607 ' ' 0.00 i ' _ 0.00 0.00 ' 1 0.00 708 Fire Quality Control Tech 603 ' 0.00 _ • 0.00 _ 0.00 ; 0.00 709 Fire Fighter 415-423 1.00 ! 1.00 i. 1.00 i 1 1.00 710 Office Facilitator II _ _307 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 711 Office Facilitator I 306 0.00_ _I '_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ 712 Clerk III j 215 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1 1.00 713 Billing Tech II 213 I 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 714 Emergency Medical Total 1 _7.00 1 1 5.00_ _ ' _5.00 I_ 5.00 715 Full Time - j 7.00 j j 5.00 1 _ 5.00 _j I 5.00 716 Part Time J 0.00 ' 0.00 j J 0.00 I 1 0.00 717 ! i i 718 Fire Prevention _ ;_i j 719 Battalion Chief 902 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 _1, 1.00 720 Captain 901 1 2.00 ' 2.00 _ ' 2.00 1 L 2.00 721 Deputy Fire Marshall j - 609 I i 1.00 ; I 1.00 1.00 ' _ 1.00 722 Fire Code Enforcement Supervisor 609 I 0.00 i 0.00 ' . 0.00 I j 0.00 723 Fire Fighter 415-423 ' 9.00 ' I_ 11.00 11.00 I , 8.00 __3_Positions Eliminated 724 Fire Prevention Specialist 410_ i 2.00 I 2.00 2.00 _2.00__ 725 Office Facilitator I - 306 1 _ 0.00 L ' 1.00 1. ; 1.00 1.00 1 726 Fire Hazardous Material Inspector 224 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions ' Grade , 1 2000-01 ' 2001-02 ' 2002-03 , 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 646 Administrative Secretary II 307 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 0.00 ,Position Eliminated 647 Office of the Fire Chief Total - 1 1 5.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 - 648 Full Time _ ' 1 5.00__ 7.00 6.00 5.00 1 649 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 650 651 Administration Division _ 652 Battalion Chief 902 1.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 653 Assistant Financial Manager ! 607_ j ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 654 Department Personnel Payroll Administrator 308 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 655 Office Facilitator II 307 0.00 _1.00 1.00 1.00 656 Administrative Secretary I 306 1.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 657 Office Tech II 219 0.00 I 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 658 Accounting Clerk III - 219 ' 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 659 Supplies/Inventory Tech - 216 0.00 _ 0.00 I 0.00 _ ; 0.00 660 Clerk II 213 0.00 0.00 ; _ 0.00 j _ 0.00 ' 661 Administration Division Total , 5.00 4.00 - 4.00 j 4.00 662 Full Time 5.00 _ 4.00 4.00 _ i 4.00 663 Part Time 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 664 ; 665 Communications Division 1 1 666 Battalion Chief 902 _ , 1.00 l l _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 667 Operations Manager 608 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1 1.00 - - 668 Tech Support Services Manager 608 1.00 1.00 1.00 i I 1.00 669 Fire Dispatch Supervisor 312 4.00 - 4.00 4.00 4.00 ' 670 Data and Information Administrator 311 _ 1.00 _' _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 671 Communication Tech 308 1 1.00 1.00 _1.00 i 1.00 ' 672 Fire Dispatcher 221 12.00 12.00 - 12.00 I I 12.00 673 Communications Division Total 21.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 674 Full Time _21.00 20.00 20.00 1 i 20.00 _ 675 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 676 ` 677 Training ' 678 Battalion Chief j 902 1.00 i 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 ' 679 Captain 901 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 A BCDEF CH I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade ' 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 1 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 amd 599 Engineer IV 609 ; ! _ 3.00 I ; - 0.00_ ! , 0.00 ' ; 0.00 - 600 Downtown Construction Project Mgr 608 , 1.00 - 0.00 1 0.00 I 1 0.00 601 City Surveyor 1 608 ' 1.00 I _ -- 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 602 Engineer III 608 ' 2.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 603 Landscape Architect III - 608 ;- 2.00 1 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 604 Software Developer - - 608 1.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 605 Engineering Pavement Systems Mgr I 607 I - 1.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 I 606 GIS Analyst I 607 1 1.00 ; 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 607 Planning and Programming Mgr 607 I 1.00 I 0.00 j _0.00 0.00 608 Engineer II 607 i I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 609 Engineering Tech VI 607 I I 7.00 I 0.00 - ' , 0.00 0.00 610 Architect Associate V 607 I I 1.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 611 Professional Land Surveyor/GIS Specialist 606 I I 4.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 612 Professional Land Surveyor - 606 I 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 613 Software Developer 606 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.00 614 GIS Specialist 604 I 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 615 Architect Associate IV - 311 - I I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 616 Engineering Tech V 311 I I 7.00 ' 1 0.00 ' ; 0.00 0.00 617 Engineer Records Supervisor 309 I I 1.00 0.00 I I 0.00 _ 0.00 618 SID/Special Project Coordinator 309 I ' 1.00 , I 0.00 0.00 0.00 619 Office Facilitator II 307 1 ! 1.00 ; j 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 620 Asst Special Improvement District Coord 306 , 1.00 I I 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 621 Engineering Tech IV 224 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 622 Survey Party Chief I 224 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 623 GIS Tech II 223_ 1.00 I I 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 624 Engineering Tech III 222 I ; 1.00 0.00 0.00 _- 0.00 625 Surveyor III 222 1 I 1.00 0.00 I 0.00 - 0.00 626 Engineering Records Tech II 219 ; 1 2.00 i 0.00 _ _ 0.00 0.00 627 Office Tech II 219 _ 2.00 I 1 0.00 I 0.00 I 0.00 628 Engineering Records Tech_ ' 217 1 1 0.00 , ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 629 Office Tech I 216 , 0.00 1 1 _ 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 _ 630 Engineering Aide I 212 _ I 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 631 City Engineering Division Total 64.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 632 Full Time 1 64.00 1 ' 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 633 Part Time 0.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 634 I I 635 COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEV. TOTAL 1 192.00 I 130.00 ' 129.00 i 125.00 636 Full Time 1 192.00 130.00 129.00 H 126.00 ' 637 Part Time _ I I 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 638 I i � - - - - , i 639 - - - FIRE DEPARTMENT 640 Office of the Fire Chief 1 641 Fire Chief 002 I 1.00 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 642 Deputy Chief 004 1.00 I I 2.00 2.00 2.00 643 Captain 901 I I 1.00 ! I 1.00 0.00 I _0.00 644 EMS Program Manager 607 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 645 Fire Fighter 415-423 1.00 I I 1.00 1.00 r 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade ' 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 ' amd 552 Building Inspector I 221 ' 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 1 Changed to Building Inspector II(224), 1 Position Eliminated 553 Zoning Compliance Assistant _ _ I 220 1 3.00 3.00 3.00 _ 3.00 554 Office Tech II ! 219 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 555 Senior Secretary i 219 , _ 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 556 Apartment License Clerk 219 0.00 ' [ 0.00 0.00 0.00 557 License/Permit Clerk 216 I 1 1.00 1 0.00 _ 0.00 1 0.00 558 Housing&Neighborhood Development Division Total I_ 41.00 ! 41.00 40.00 37.00 559 Full Time 1 41.00 41.00 40.00 _ 38.00 560 Part Time I _ I ! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 561 • 562 Transportation Division , 563 Transportation Engineer 1 005 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 564 Engineer VII _ j 614 3.00 ; 3.00 3.00 , ' 3.00 565 Engineer VII I 613 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 566 Engineer VI 611 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 567 Engineer V 611 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 568 Engineer IV 609 2.00 1 3.00 3.00 3.00 569 Engineer IV 608 ' _ 0.00 ' ' 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 570 Traffic Control Center Director 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 571 Engineer Tech VI 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 572 Engineering Associate 605 0.00 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 ' 573 Traffic Safety Analyst 605 1.00 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 574 Traffic Calming Coordinator 603 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 1.00 575 Transportation Office Mgr 309 ' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Office Facilitator II (307) 576 Traffic Control Center Operator 308 i ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 577 Office Facilitator II 307 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Transportation Office Manager(309) 578 Senior Traffic Tech II 224 I ' 2.00 ' ' 2.00 2.00 2.00 579 Senior Traffic Tech 221 ' 3.00 ; ' 3.00 3.00 3.00 580 Street Lighting Specialist 221 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 581 GIS Tech I _ 220 1.00 _ i_ 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 582 Transportation Administrative Tech 220 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.00 Changed to Office Tech II(219) 583 Street Lighting Specialist 219 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 584 Office Tech II j 219 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 1.00 Changed from Transportation Administrative Tech.(220) 585 Transportation Division Total 19.00 ' 19.00 19.00 , ; 19.00 586 Full Time I 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 587 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 588 589 City Engineering Division - - 590 City Engineer 004 1.00 '_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 591 Engineer VII 614 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 592 GIS Engineer Project Mgr 613 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 593 Senior Engineering Project Mgr 613 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 594 Engineer VI 612 ' 2.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 595 Project Management Consultant 612 1.00 I 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 ' 596 Senior Architect II 612 ' ' 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 597 Landscachitect Project Mgr 612 1.00 _ 0.00 0 0.00 598'Licensed itect 609 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 III A BCDEF C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 , 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd Planning Program Supervisor 608 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 1 Changed to Deputy Planning Director(611),2 Changed to Planning 507 _ _ Program Supervisor(609) 508 Senior Planner 608 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 509 Zoning Administrator 608 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 510 Planner III/Development Review Specialist 606 1 1.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 Principal Planner 607 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 7 Changed from Principal Planner(606), 1 Changed from Board of 511 Adjustment_Coordinator(605) 512 Principal Planner I 606 8.00 7.00 7.00 _ 0.00 Changed to Principal Planner(607) 513 Board of Adjustment Coordinator 605 0.00 1.00 1.00 I __0.00 Changed to Principal Planner(607) 514 Associate Planner 309 2.00 I 3.00 3.00 ' , 3.00 515 Assistant Planner 307 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 516 Administrative Secretary 306 , 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _, 517 Planning Research Assistant 220 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 518 Senior Secretary 219 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 519 Planning Total 24.00 23.00 , _ 23.00 _ 23.00 ' 520 Full Time 24.00 23.00 23.00 _23.00 521 Part Time • 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ 1 0.00 522 I . I 523 Housing&Neighborhood Development Division ' 524 Director, HAND 005 I 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 ',Changed from Deputy Director, HAND(610) 525 Deputy Director, HAND 610 1.00 1.00 _ _ 1.00 0.00 Changed to Director, HAND(005) 526 Housing/Zoning Administrator 608 I 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 __ 527 Capital Planning & Program Administrator 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 528 Housing Program Manager 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 529 Grants Financial Monitoring Specialist 606 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 530 Grants Acquisition/Project Coord. Specialist 606 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Management Services Department 531 Comm. Development Block Grant Planner 606 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 532 Special Projects Grant Monitor 1 606 ' I 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1 _ 533 Economic Develop. Initiative Grant Admin. 606 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 534 Housing Specialist 606 1 I 1.00 1 ; 1.00 1.00 1.00 535 Project Manager 606 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 536 Housing Rehab Supervisor 606 ' ; 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 537 Grant Comp./Data Management Specialist I 604 1.00 I ; 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 538 Comm. Development Program Specialist 602 0.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 539 Senior Housing/Zoning Inspector 1 313 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 540 Housing Rehab Specialist II 310 ' 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 541 CDBG Specialist i 309 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 542 Rehab Loan Officer 309 1.00 _ , ' 1.00 1.00 I 1 1.00 543 Legal Investigator 308 ; , 1.00 0.00 0.00 _ I I 0.00 _ 544 Housing Rehab Specialist I 308 _' 0.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 545 Administrative Secretary I 306 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00 546 Housing Financial Svcs Supervisor 225 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 547 Building Inspector III 225 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 548 Building Inspector III (Apt License Inspector) 225 , 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 549 Building Inspector II(Apt License Inspector) 224 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 550 Building Inspector II 224 _ ' 1.00 ' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Building Inspector I(221), 1 Position Eliminated 551 Building Inspector I (Apt License Inspector) 221 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 462 463 Building Services and Licensing , 464 Building/Housing Division Manager 005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 465 Assistant Manager Building &Housing _ 610 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 466 Development Review Administrator 608 , _ 1.00 _ ' 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 467 Chief Plans Examiner 607 1.00 ' 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 468 Inspection Program Administrator 1 607 0.00 1.00 _ _ 1.00 1.00 469 Construction Supervisor 1 607 1.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 470 Chief Plans Examiner 606 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 471 Construction Supervisor 606 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 472 Business License Administrator 605 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 473 Plans Examiner 605 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 474 Plans Examiner 604 _ 0.00 f __ 0.00 0.00 0.00 475 Senior Building Inspector 313 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 , , 1.00 , 476 Senior Development Review Planner 312 0.00 , j 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 , 477 Senior Development Review Specialist 312 1.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 478 Senior Building Inspector 311 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 479 Planner II/Development Review 311 2.00 _3.00 3.00 3.00 480 Planner II/Unit Legalization 311 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 481 Planner I/Unit Legalization _ 308 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 482 Planner I/Development Review 308 1.00 ! 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 483 Administrative Secretary 306 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 484 Building Inspector III 225 4.00 I 4.00 4.00 3.00 '1 Changed to Building Inspector II(224) 485 Business License Inspector 224 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 486 Building Inspector II 224 ' 6.00 1 8.00 8.00 8.00 '1 Changed from Building Inspector III (225), 1 position eliminated 487 Business License Enforcement Officer 221 2.00 , • 2.00 2.00 : ' 2.00 488 Development Review Combination Processor 220 i 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 _ ' 1.00 :Changed from Permit Processor(219) 489 Senior Business License Processor 220 ' I, 1.00 , 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 490 Senior Permit Processor 220 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 491 Business License Processor 219 2.00 ; ' 2.00 2.00 2.00 492 Permit Processor I 219 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1 Changed to Development Review Combination Processor(220) 493 Permit Processor Trainee 216 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 494 License/Permit Clerk 216 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 495 Building Inspector III 125 0.00 , ' 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 496 Building Inspector II 124 0.00_ 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 497 Business License Enforcement Officer 121 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 ' 498,Building Services and Licensing Total 33.00 35.00 35.00 34.00 , 499 Full Time 33.00 35.00 35.00 34.00 500 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 501 502 Planning Division 503 Planning &Zoning Division Manager 004 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 , Deputy Planning Director 611 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 Changed from Supervisor Advanced Planning(610), 1 Changed from 504 Planning program Supervisor(608) 505 Supervisor Advanced Planning i 610 I 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 0.00 :Changed to Deputy Planning Director(611) 506 Plannin gram Supervisor 609 1 ' 0.00 1 ' 0.00 ' �.00 2.00 Changed from Planning Program Supervisor(608) • A BCDEF C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 , 2001-02 2002-03 ' 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd ' 416 Risk Management Fund 417 Risk Manager I 611 1 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 418 Risk Management Specialist 1 605 1.00 _ 0.00 1.00 _ ' 1.00 Changed from Risk Mgmt.Admin.Asst.(306) 419 Risk Management Administrative Assistant 1 306 1 1.00 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 Changed to Risk Mgmt. Specialist(605) 420 Legal Secretary II 304 • 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 421 Legal Secretary I 302 0.50 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 422 Subtotal of Risk Management Fund 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 423 Full Time 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 _ 424 Part Time i 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425 426 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL ' 36.44 37.44 37.44 37.44 427 Full Time 1 36.00 1 , 37.00 37.00 37.00 428 Part Time 0.44 , 0.44 0.44 0.44_ ' _ 429 I 430 COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC_DEVELOPMENT I431 Office of the Director 432 Director 1 002 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 433 Deputy Director 004 • 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 1 434 Administrative Services Officer 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 r _0.0-0 ' 435 Economic Development Project Coordinator 607 1 0.00 _ 1 0.00 . 0.00 1.00 Changed from Architect.Associate V(607) 436 Architect Associate V 607 1 . 0.00 _ _ ' 1.00 1.00 0.00 'Changed to Economic Development Project Coordinator(607) 437 Administrative Assistant/Appointed UO3 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 Changed from Administrative Assistant/Appointed(310) 438 Administrative Assistant/Appointed 310 1 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Administrative Assistant/Appointed(UO3) 439 Administrative Secretary I 307 1 1.00 0.00 1 0.00 • 0.00 440 Software Engineer 608 1 1.00 [ • 1.00 1.00 1.00 441 Office of Director Total 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 442 Full Time '_ 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 443 Part Time 0.00 , _0.00 0.00 0.00 444 I 445 Business Services _ 446 Deputy Director, DCED 004 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Economic Development Manager(U05) 447 Economic Development Manager U05 0.00 ! 0.00 _ 0.00 ' 1 1.00 •Changed from Deputy Director, DCED(004) 448 Construction Coordinator 607 0.00 1 1 0.00 _ • 0.00 i 0.00 _ _ 449 Arts Council Executive Director 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 450 Arts Council Assistant Director 606 I 1.00 1 ' 1.00 1.00 ' ' 1.00 ' 451 Arts Council Program Coordinator [I 605 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 452 Special Event Administrator • 605 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 • 1.00 Changed from Special Events/Film Site Coordinator(602) 453 Special Event/Film Site Coordinator 1 602 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 •Changed to Special Event Administrator(605) 454 Special Event Administrative Assistant 304 0.00 _' I 0.00 0.00 I 1.00 Changed from Office Tech(216) 455 Senior Secretary 219 1.00 1.00 1.00 [ I 1.00 456 Office Tech 1 216 0.00 I ; 1.00 1.00 0.00 'Changed to Special Event Administrative Assistant(304) 457 Secretary 216 1.00 I , 0.00 1 0.00 __ ' • 0.00 458 Regular PT/Special Events Assistant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 459 Business Services Total _ 7.00 1 7.00 7.00_ ! 7.00 460 Full Time 7.00 _ _ 7.00 _ 7.00 I 7.00 _ 461 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 412 Legal Suppo►t Total 32.64 33.64 33.64 33.64 413 Full Time 1 32.20 33.20 33.20 33.20 414 Part Time 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 ' 415 ' I A BCDEF CH I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 , Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 367 Office Manager 309 _ 0.00 0.60 0.60 __ 0.60 Changed from Office Manager(308) 368 Office of City Attorney Total 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 369 Full Time I 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 ' 370 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 371 372 Legal Support , 373 General Fund ' 374 Deputy City Attorney 002 1.00 ! , 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 375 City Prosecutor _ 004 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1.00 376 Appointed Senior City Attorney U08 4.65 4.65 6.35 6.35 1.7 changed from_Senior City Attorney(613) 377 Senior City Attorney 613 2.00 2.70 1.00 1.00 1.7 changed to Appointed Sr. City Attorney(614) 378 Assistant City Attorney II 1 609 ; 0.00 1.00 _ 1.00 0.00 Position Eliminated 379 Senior City Prosecutor 612 4.00 __ 7.00 5.00_ 5.00 2 changed to Associate City Prosecutor(607) 380 Assistant City Prosecutor 609 4.00 ! ' 0.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Associate City Prosecutor(607) Associate City Prosecutor 607 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 i2 changed from Sr. Pros(612), 1 changed to Asst. Pros(609), 1 New 381 _ Position 382 Office Manager-Prosecutor's Office 308 1.00 ' ' 0.00 1 0.00 ' , 0.00 Changed to Office Manager-Prosecutor's Office(309) 383 Office Manager-Prosecutor's Office 309 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Office Manager-Prosecutor's Office(308) 384 Paralegal • 308 1.00 1.00 1 2.00 1 _ 2.00 1 changed from Legal Secretary II(304) 385 Legal Secretary I 302 _ 1.20 0.20 1.00 1.00 .2 changed to Legal Sec. II(304), 1 changed from Secretary II(216) 386 Legal Secretary II 304 2.00 1 2.00 1.20 1.20 .2 changed from Legal Secretary 1(302), 1 changed to paralegal(305) 387 Secretary II i 216 , ; 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Legal Secretary 1(302) 388 Secretary I 1 213 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 ;Changed to Pros. Office Tech. 1(216) 389 Clerk III 215 ' , 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 ,1 changed to Pros. Office Tech. II(219), 1 changed to Office Tech. 390 Clerk II 213 3.00 1.00 0.00 I ' 0.00 ,Changed to Pros. Office Tech. I(216) 391 Prosecutor Office Tech. II 219 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Clerk III(215) Prosecutor Office Tech. I 216 0.00 0.00 3.00 i 3.00 1 changed from Sec. 1 (213), 1 changed from Clerk III (215), 1 changed 392 ,from Clerk 11(213) 393 Regular Part-Time/Clerk II 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 _ 394 Part-Time/Clerk II 0.44 0.44 _ 0.44 0.44 395 Subtotal of General Fund 27.29 28.99 28.99 _28.99 396 Full Time 26.85_ _ 28.55 28.55 28.55 _ 397 Part Time 0.44 0.44 0.44 1 0.44 398 , 399 Governmental Immunity Fund , 400 City Attorney 001 0.30 0.30 0.30 1 1 0.30 401 Deputy City Attorney ! 002 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' _1.00 402 Appointed Senior City Attorney 1 614 1.35 _ 1.35 1.65 1.65 _ .3 changed from Senior City Attorney(613) 403 Senior City Attorney 613 11.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 .3 changed to Appointed Sr. City Attorney(614) 404 Office Manager 308 ' 0.40 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 Changed to Office Manager(309) 405 Office Manager 309 , 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 Changed from Office Manager(308) 406 Legal Secretary II 304 0.80 0.50 _1.30 , ' 1.30 .8 changed from Legal Secretary 1(302) 407 Legal Secretary I 302 ; 0.50 0.80 0.00 0.00 _ .8 changed to Legal Secretary 11(304) _ 408 Subtotal of Gov Immunity Fund 5.35 _4.65 4.65 4.65 409 Full Time 5.35 4.65 4.65 4.65 410 Part Time , 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 411 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 ' I amd 325I 326 Administration and Commercial Services Director Administration and Commercial Svcs 003 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 327 I 328 Information Technology Manager 613 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 329 Deputy Director of Commercial Services 612 _ 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 330 Commercial Manager 1 610 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 331 Programmer 1 610 J 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 332 Airport Tech Systems Mgr I 609 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 Changed from Electronic Systems Manager(608) 333 Property Manager 608 0.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 334 Network Administrator II 608 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 335 Electronic Systems Manager 608 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Tech Systems Mngr(609) 336 Airport Telecomm/Information Manager 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 337 Safety/Training Program Manager 608 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 338 Contracts Manager 607 0.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 339 Customer/Tenant Relations Coordinator 604 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 340 Property&Contracts Specialist II 603 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 341 Telecommunications Manager 313 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 ,Changed to Airport Telecomm/Information Manager(608) 342 Electronic System Program Supervisor 313 ' 0.00 _3.00 3.00 3.00 343 Network Administrator I 312 0.00 2.00 3.00 1 2.00 1 Position Eliminated 344 Telecom Analyst II 311 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 345 Telecom Fiber Tech ! 311 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 1 0.00 Position Eliminated 346 Electronic Systems Tech II 311 0.00 ' _ 2.00 _2.00 5.00 3 Changed from Electronic Systems Tech I(309) 347 Property Liabilities Specialist II 310 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' ' 1.00 Changed from Property&Contracts Specialist I(308) 348 Electronic Systems Tech I 309 0.00 5.00 5.00 _ 2.00 3 Changed to Electronic Systems Tech II(311) 349 Employee Program Coordinator 309 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Employee Program Coordinator(307) 350 Property&Contracts Specialist I 308 _ 0.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1 Changed_to Property Liabilities Specialist II (310) 351 Employee Program Coordinator 307 ' 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Employee Program Coordinator(309) Administrative Secretary I 306 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Director's Office; Changed from Administrative 352 Assistant(308) 353 Office Facilitator 306 1 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Office Technician I 216 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Director's Office; Changed from 2 Regular Part-Time 354 Office Technicians(206) Administration and Commercial Services 355 Division Total , , 0.00 34.00 36.00 36.00 356 Full Time 0.00 34.00 36.00 36.00 ' 357 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 358 359 SLC DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL 1 529.80 559.80 563.80 562.80 ' 360 Full Time 520.00 ' 1 550.00 554.00 554.00 361 Part Time 9.80 9.80 9.80 1 8.80 362 363 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 364 Office of City Attorney , 365 City Attorney _ 001 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 366 Office Meer 308 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Office Manager(309) 11111 A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 308 Shuttle Driver II 112 34.00 44.00 44.00 43.00 1 Changed to Transportation Team Trainer(115) 309 Shuttle Driver I 110 1 11.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 310 Regular Part-Time/Paging Operator 3.80 _ 3.80 3.80 3.80 311 Operations Division Total 128.80 1 _ 205.80 206.80 206.80 312 Full Time I 125.00 202.00 203.00 ' 203.00 313 Part Time 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 ' 314 315 Police Division _ 316 Manager Airport Police&Landside Services 607 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 317 Airport Police Supervisor 311 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 318 K-9 Supervisor/Trainer 311 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 319 Office Tech II 219 , ! 2.00 I ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 320 Office Tech I 216 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 321 Airport Police Officer I 122 : I 39.00 0.00 0.00 _ i 0.00 322 Police Division Total 1 50.00_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 323 Full Time 50.00 ; 1 0.00 0.00 I 0.00 324 Part Time ' ' 0.00 0.00 ' ' 0.00 0.00 A BCDEF C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 ' 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 11 amd 267 Director of Airport Operations 097 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 268 Superintendent of Airport Security Services U07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from SLC Police Dept. 269 Airport Operations Superintendent 611 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 270 Airport Terminal Services Superintendent 1 610 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 271 Airfield Operations Superintendent 610 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1_ 272 Airport Duty Manager 609 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 273 Airport Emergency Manager 609 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 , 274 Airport Duty Manager 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 275 Manager Airport Police&Landside Services 607 ' 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 276 Commercial Trans Manager 607 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Terminal Services Manager(604) 277 Airport Emergency Manager _ 606 0.00 ' _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 278 General Aviation Manager ' 606 0.00 1 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 279 Asst Superintendent of Airport Operations I 606 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 280 Airport Security Compliance Manager 606 1 , 0.00 I 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 _Changed from Access Control Supervisor(309) 281 Transportation Team Manager 605 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 282 Airport Operations Support Manager 605 1.00 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 283 Airfield Manager 605 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 284 Airport Terminal Services Manager 604 ' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Commercial Trans Manager(607) 285 General Aviation Manager 604 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 286 Airport Police Supervisor 311 ' 0.00 1 6.00 6.00 6.00 287 K-9 Supervisor/Trainer 311 0.00 I 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 288 Airport Communications Coordinator 309 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 289 Access Control Supervisor 309 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 0.00 !Changed to Airport Security Compliance Manager(606) 290 Transportation Team Shift Supervisor 307 _ 5.00 ' 1 5.00 5.00 5.00 291 Administrative Secretary I 306 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 292 Access Control Supervisor 306 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 293 Transportation Team Shift Supervisor 305 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 294 Airport Communications Coordinator II 220 12.00 12.00 12.00 13.00 1 Changed from Airport Communication Coordinator I(218) Senior Secretary 219 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Transferred 1 Position to Director's Office; Changed to Administrative 295 Secretary(306) Office Tech II 219 4.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 2 Changed to Office Tec I (216); 1 Changed to Terminal Services 296 Officer(119) Airport Communications Coordinator I 218 ' 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1 Changed to Airport Police Officer(122); 1 Changed to Airport 297 Communication Coordinator II(220) 298 Office Tech I 216 5.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 2 Changed from Office Tec II(219) 299 Paging Operator 213 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 Airport Police Officer 122 0.00 39.00 39.00 43.00 3 Changed from Airport Operations Safety Specialist(117); 1 Changed 300 from Airport Communications Coordinator I(218) 301 Airfield Officer 121 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 302 Terminal Services Officer 119 13.00 _' 14.00 15.00 16.00 1 Changed from Office Tec II(219) Airport Operations Safety Specialist 117 0.00 11.00 11.00 23.00 15 Changed from Curbside Safety Specialist(116); 3 Changed to Airport 303 'Police Officer(122) 304 Transportation Team Leader I 116 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 6.00 16 Changed from Lead Shuttle Driver(116) 305 Lead Shuttle Driver 116 ' 5.00 ' ' 6.00 6.00 ! 0.00 6 Changed to Transportation Team Leader(116) 306 Curbside Safety Specialist 116 0.00 15.00 15.00 ' I 0.00 15 Changed to Airport Operations Safety Specialist(117) 307 Transpo n Team Trainer 115 : 0.00 ' 1 0.00 41,00 1.00 Changed from Shuttle Driver ll(112) • A BCDEF CH I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 222 Regular Part-Time/Custodian I 107 ' 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 223 Maintenance Division Total 231.00 , 227.00 228.00 228.00 ' 224 Full Time 230.00 2.26.00 227.00 1 227.00 225 Part Time 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 226 227 Engineering Division ' 228 Director of Engineering 1 615 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 229 Deputy Director of Engineering 614 1.00 _ ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 230 Engineer VII 614 1 ; 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 231 Airport Architect 614 __ 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 232 Engineer VI 612 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 233 Senior Architect II ! 612 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 234 Engineer V _ i 611 3.00 3.00 3.00 _ 3.00 _ _ 235 Senior Architect ! 611 1.00 : 1.00 1.00 1.00 236 Geographic Information System (GIS)Manager 610 1.00 ; I 1.00 1.00 1.00 237 Engineer IV 609 1.00 , ; 1.00 1 1.00 G 1.00 _ 238 Licensed Architect 609 • ' _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 239 Engineer III 608 I 0.00 0.00 • ' 0.00 0.00 240 Construction Mgr 607 ' ; 2.00 2.00 2.00 _ 2.00 241 Engineering Tech VI 607 4.00 4.00 4.00 _ 4.00 242 Engineering Tech VI 606 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00_ 243 Construction Scheduler 606 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ ' 1.00 244 Professional Land Surveyor 605 I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 245 GIS Specialist 604 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 246 Professional Land Surveyor 604 j 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 247 Engineering Tech V 311 I ! 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 _ 248 Architectural Associate IV 311 1.00 I ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 249 Engineering Tech V 310 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 250 Architectural Associate IV 310 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 251 Project Coordinator II _ 308 3.00 , 3.00 3.00 3.00 252 Administrative Assistant 308 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Administrative Secretary I (306) Administrative Secretary I 306 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 Changed from Administrative Assistant(308); 1 Changed from 253 I Administrative Support Secretary (305) 254 Administrative Support Secretary I 305 ! 1.00 I ; 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Administrative Secretary I(306) 255 Engineering Tech IV 224 10.00 ; 9.00 _ 9.00 , 10.00 11 Changed from Engineering Tech III(222) 256 Architect Associate 224 1.00 j I 1.00 1.00 1.00 257 Surveyor II 224 1 0.00 ' i 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Engineering Tech IV(224) 258 Engineering Tech III 222 1.00 ; ; 1.00 1.00 0.00 259 Surveyor II I 221 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 260 Engineering Records Coordinator 220 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 261 Senior Secretary 219 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 262 Engineering Division Total 48.00 48.00 48.00 _ 48.00 _ 263 Full Time 48.00 . 48.00 48.00 48.00 264 Part Time 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 265 ' 266 Operations Division 1 A BCDE F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade ' 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 , amd 175 ARFF System Simulator Specialist 313 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 176 Electronic Systems Program Supervisor 1 313 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 177 Telecommunications Manager 1 313 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 178 Facility Maint Supervisor 312 • 13.00 13.00 13.00 22.00 9 Changed from Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor(311) 179 Fleet Service Supervisor 312 , 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 180 Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 311 9.00 1 9.00 9.00 • 0.00 9 Changed to Facility Maintenance Supervisor(312) 181 Electronic Systems Tech II 311 3.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 182 Telecommunications Analyst II 311 , 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 183 Facility Maintenance Coordinator 310_ ; 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 184 Facility Maintenance Contract Coordinator 310 ; , 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 185 Airport Procurement Specialist 309 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Automated Inventory Accountant(307) 186 Electronic Systems Tech I 309 5.00 _ _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 187 Fleet Customer Service Advisor _ 308 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 188 Automated Inventory Accountant 307 i 1 0.00 1.00_ _ 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Procurement Specialist(309) 189 Purchasing Services Officer 307 0.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 190 Administrative Secretary I 306 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 191 Senior Warehouse Operator 220 1 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 192 Senior Secretary 1, 219 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 193 Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 218 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 13 Changed from Warehouse Operator(217) 194 Warehouse Operator 217 0.00 4.00 4.00 , ; 1.00 '3 Changed to Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport(218) 195 Airport Electrician 1 125 14.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 1 New Position 196 HVAC Tech II 1 124 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 197 Senior Fleet Mechanic 123 1 1 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 _ 4.00 198 General Maintenance Worker V 122 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 199 Airport Maintenance Mechanic II 122 1 1 6.00 _ 6.00 6.00 6.00 200 Airport Maintenance Electronics Technician 122 2.00 1 2.00 3.00 2.00 1 Position Eliminated 201 Plumber II 122 • 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 202 Locksmith Technician 1 122 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 203 General Maintenance Worker IV 121 4.00 1 4.00 4.00 4.00 204 Airport Sign Maker II 121 3.00 4.00 4.00 I 4.00 205 Carpenter II 121 9.00 ' • 9.00 9.00 9.00 206 Painter II 121 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 207 Airfield Maintenance Equipment Operator IV ; 121 1 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 208 Fleet Mechanic 121 1 15.00 1 15.00 ' 15.00 ' 15.00 209 Body and Paint Repairer _ 121 1 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 210 Airport Sign Maker I 119 2.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 , 211 Facility Maintenance Senior Repair Tech 119 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 212 Fleet Service Coordinator 1 119 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 213 General Maint Worker III 119 _ _ 0.00 1 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 214 Senior Florist 119 3.00 L 3.00 3.00 3.00 215 Airfield Maint Equipment Operator III 118 51.00 51.00 _ 51.00 • 51.00 1 _ 216 Airfield Maint Equipment Operator II 116 ; 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 217 Fac Maint Contracts Repair Tech II 1 115 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Repair Tech II(115) 218 Repair Tech II 115 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 I Changed to Fac Maint Contract Repair Tech II(115) 219 Florist II. I 114 , _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 220 Fleet Ser ' s Worker _ 113 2.00 2.00 00 2.00 221- Fac Mai tracts Repair Tech I 1 112 ! 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00 • A BCDEF C H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade I 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 1 amd 130 Financial Analyst-Debt Management 608 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' ' 1.00 , 131 Senior Auditor • 608 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132 Lead Internal Auditor 608 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1 1.00 133 Property Manager 608 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 134 Network Administrator II 608 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 135 Budget and Revenue Analyst 608 ' 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 136 Contracts Manager 607 _ 1.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 ' 137 Auditor 606 0.00 I , 0.00 0.00 0.00 138 Internal Auditor I 606 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 139 Accounting Analyst 606 ' 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 140 Warehouse Supervisor 604 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 141 Customer/Tenant Relations Coordinator 604 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 142 Property Liabilities Specialist II 603 0.00 1 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 143 Property&Contracts Specialist II • 603 1.00 _ 0.00 0.00 _ i_: 0.00 144 Accountant III 312 3.00 3.00 3.00 ' ' 3.00 145 Network Administrator I 312 3.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 146 Accountant II 1 309 2.00 _ 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 Changed from Accountant I(307) 147 Payroll Administrator 1_ 308 1.00_ 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 148 Property& Contracts Specialist I 1 308 4.00 1 0.00 0.00 ! ' 0.00 ' 149 Accountant I 307 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 '1 Changed to Accountant II(309) 150 Automated Inventory Accountant 307 1.00 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 151 Purchasing Services Officer 307 1.00 0.00 0.00 - i 0.00 Administrative Secretary I 306 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Director's Office; Changed from Administrative Support 152 Secretary(305) 153 Senior Warehouse Operator I 220 1.00 0.00 0.00 ' ' 0.00 154 Warehouse Operator 217 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 155 Regular Part-Time/Accountant 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 -I 1 0.00 156 Part-Time/Accounting Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Regular Part-Time/Properties Contract 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 157 Specialist , 158 Finance Total I , 42.50 19.50 19.50 ' ' 20.50 159 Full Time 42.00 ' ' 19.00 19.00_ _ 20.00 160 Part Time I 0.50 1 : 0.50 0.50 r 0.50 161 162 Maintenance Division _ _ .I 1 163 Director of Maintenance 1 613 _I ; 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 _ _ 1.00 164 Airport Maintenance Superintendent 611 3.00 1 3.00 3.00 3.00 165 Airport Fleet/Warehouse Manager 610 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 Changed from Fleet Superintendent(609) 166 Fleet Supervisor 609 1.00 1.00_ 1.00 0.00 ;Changed to Airport Fleet/Warehouse Manager(610) 167 Electronic Systems Manager 608 1.00 J I 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 168 Senior Facility Maint Supervisor 607 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 _ _ 169 Computer Maint Systems Supervisor 1 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 1 1.00 170 Facility Maintenance Contract Administrator • 607 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 171 Senior Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 1 607 _ 4.00 4.00 4.00 ' ' 4.00 ' 172 Fleet Manager 1 607 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 173 Management Analyst I 604 1 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 174 Warehouse Supervisor 1 604 1 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 A BCDEF G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 1 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I ' amd 85 Air Service Marketing I ' Separated from Executive Director's Office 86 Director Air Service and Marketing 612 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 87 Air Marketing Service Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1 1.00 _ 88 Full Time 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 , ; 1.00 __ 89 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90 91 Public Relations : I Separated_from Executive Director's Office 92 Director Public Relations 612 1.00 1.00 1.00 I 1.00 93 Public Information Coordinator 311 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 1.00 Changed from Public Information Supervisor(309) 94 Public Information Supervisor 309 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 95 Public Information Officer 1 218 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 ; 3.00 Changed from Public Information Officer(216) 96 Regular Part-Time/Public Information Officer 1 218R 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 ' ' 3.00 ,Changed from RPT Public Information Officer(213) 97 Regular Part-Time/Office Tech I 216 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration and Commercial; Changed to 1 Full Time 98 Public Information Officer 1 216 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Changed to Public Information Officer(218) 99 Regular Part-Time/Public Information Officer 213 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 Changed to RPT Public Information Officer(218) 100 Public Relations Total 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 101 Full Time 1 6.00 6.00 6.00 1 5.00 102 Part Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 103 104 Planning and Environmental 1Separated from Executive Director's Office 105 Planning and Programming Director 613 ' 1.00 1.00 n 1.00 ; 1 1.00 106 Environmental Program Manager 609 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 _Changed from Environmental Program Manager(608) 107 Aviation Planning Manager 608 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 ' 108 Environmental Program Manager 1 608 ' 1.00 n 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Environmental Program Manager(609) 109 Aviation Planner III 606 ' 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 _' 110 Planning and Environmental Specialist 1 313 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1Changed from Planning and Environmental Specialist(312) 111 Planning and Environmental Specialist 312 i 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Planning and Environmental Specialist(313) 112 Administrative Secretary I 306 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 1.00 Transferred from Operations; Changed from Senior Secretary(219) 113 Environmental Tech 221 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Environmental Tech(220) 114 Environmental Tech 220 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Environmental Tech(221) 115 Planning&Environmental Total 1 1 9.00 9.00 9.00 _ 10.00 116 Full Time 1 9.00 __ 9.00 9.00 10.00 117 Part Time 1 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 118 _ 119 Finance , 120 Director Finance and Administration 004 1.00 1 ' 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 121 Director of Finance 003 0.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Deputy Director of Finance and Administration- 612 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 122 Finance Deputy Director of Finance and Administration-I 612 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 123 Commercial 1 124 Commercial Manager 610 1.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 _ 125 Financial Analysis Manager 610 1 1.00 1 1 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 126 Contract Compliance Audit Manager _ 610 1 1 0.00 1 0.00 _ 0.00 n 1.00 Changed from Audit Manager (610) 127 Audit Manager 610 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Contract Compliance Audit Manager(610) 128 General ounting & Reporting Manager 610 1.00 1 1.00 aki.00 i 1.00_ 120 Inform ystems Manager 609 1.00 0.00 W.00 0.00 IV:___ . A BCDE F G H 1 J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade ' 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 amd 42 Community Affairs I 43 Director Youth Programs 006 ' 1.00 ' ' 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 44 Community Affairs Analyst 606 • 0.00 - 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Community Relations Coordinator(606) 45 Community Affairs Manager 608 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ __ 46 Director of Community Action Teams 1 608 ' 0.00 ; , 0.00 0.00 0.00 47 Community Affairs Analyst 1 606 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 Changed from Community Relations Supervisor (608) 48 Mayor's Youth Program Coordinator 605 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Neighborhood Services Coordinator/ 307 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 49 Community Affairs Assistant •• 50 Constituent Services Specialist 306 1.00 • _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 51 Constituent Services Specialist-Need Line 305 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 7 1.00 52 Assistant Constituent Services Specialist 304 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53 Executive Office Assistant 304 • 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54 Administrative Assistant-Minority Affairs 608 _0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55 Minority Affairs Liaison - 606 0.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 56 Community Affairs Total ; 8.00 1 7.00 7.00 ' I 7.00 57 Full Time 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 58 Part Time - • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 1 60 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOTAL _ i 20.00 19.00 19.00 1 _19.00 i _ _ 61 Full Time 1 - 20.00 1 19.00 ' 19.00 ' 19.00 62 Part Time ' , 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63 64 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 65 17 i 66 Office of the Executive Director 67 Executive Director OEX 0.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 68 Administrative Secretary II UO2 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 : 1 1.00 ;Changed from Administrative Secretary 11(307) 69 Executive Director 099 ; • 1.00 • 0.00 0.00 0.00 70 Deputy Executive Director 098 1 1 1.00 1 0.00 0.00 i ' 0.00 i 71 Safety/Training Specialist - 606 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72 Management Support Coordinator 11 603 1 1.00 1.00 •_ 1.00 1.00 _ 73 Property and Contract Specialist 308 • 0.50 0.50 0.50 I 1 0.50 1 Administration Assistant 308 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' ' 0.00 (Transferred to Administration and Commercial; Changed to 74 1 1 Administrative Secretary 1(306) 75 Administrative Secretary II 307 1.00 1.00 i 1.00 !_1 0.00 1Changed to Administrative Secretary II(UO2) 76 Employee Program Coordinator 307 _ 1.00 0.00 0.00 1 1 0.00 77 Office Facilitator 306_ 1 I 1.00 l ; - 0.00 _ 1 0.00 _ _ 0.00 78 Administrative Support Secretary 305 ! 1.00 j - 1.00 - 1 1.00 0.00 -'Transferred to Finance;Changed to Administrative Secretary 1(306) 79 Legal Secretary II • 304 ' ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 I I 1.00 80 Office Tech II 1 219 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81 Executive Director's Office Total 1 10.50 6.50 _ 6.50 4.50 ' 82 Full Time 9.00 _ 5.00 5.00 4.00 _ 83 Part Time I 1.50 1.50 1.50 0.50 84 - - - - - A B C D E F G H I J K Biennial 2002&2003 Positions Grade 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 Changes from FY 2002-03 and FY 2002-03 amended 1 I , amd 2 CITY COUNCIL 3 City Council 4 Council Person xxx 1 7.00 _ 7.00 7.00 _ 7.00 5 Executive Director 002 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 6 Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor i, 004 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 Associate Deputy Director/Administrative Mgr . 610 1.00 1.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 Changed to Research & Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison(U04) 8 Associate Deputy Director/Budget& Policy 610 1.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 9 Budget& Policy Analyst _ U06 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 10 Policy Analyst U06 1.00 I ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 11 Planning& Policy Analyst U06 1.00 __ 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 12 Research&Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison, U04 _ ' 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 4.00 1 Changed from Associate Deputy Director/Budget&Policy Analyst 13 Council Staff Assistant UO3 2.00 2.00 2.00 ; 1 2.00 14 RPT Administrative/Constituent Liaison UO3 _ 1 1 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 RPT Council Staff Asst UO2 1 1 0.00 : I _ 1.00 _ 1.00 1 1.00 16 CITY COUNCIL TOTAL 18.60 19.00 19.00 1 1 19.00 17 Full Time i 18.00 1 18.00 18.00 18.00 ' 18 Part Time 0.60 1.00 _ 1.00 - 1.00 19 20 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 21 City Administration I - 22 Mayor xxx 1.00 1 _ 1.00 _ ' 1.00 ! 1.00 23 Chief of Staff 003 1.00 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 Senior Advisor 003 ' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25 Executive Assistant to the Mayor 003 i 1 1.00 _ 0.00 _0.00 0.00 26 Communication Director i 006 ; 0.00 ; j 1.00 , , 1.00 1.00 - 27 Administrative Assistant for Environmental& 608 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 28 ADA CoordinatorNolunteer Specialist 604 1 1.00 j 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 Policy and Research Analyst 604 0.00 i 1.00 1.00 1 r 1.00 30 Executive Secretary to the Mayor 309 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 31 Assistant to the Mayor 309 0.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 32 Office Manager Mayor/Community Affairs j. 309 1.00 i 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 33 Office Facilitator II 307 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34 Executive Office Asst I 304 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ , 1.00 35 Mayor's Office Staff Assistant 306 , 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 36 Mayor's Youth Program Coordinator 307 , 0.00 _ , 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 37 Director of Youth Programs 006 , 0.00 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 38 City Administration Total 12.00 _ 12.00 12.00 ' 12.00 ' 39 Full Time 12.00 12.00 12.00 _ 12.00 40 Part Time 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41 ,._ - i - - - - - FY 2002-2003 Initiatives in Budget Amendment - May FY 2002 FY 2003 Initiative Gen. Fund Gen. Fund Initiative Name Amount Impact FTE Impact FTE 1. Personal Services changes S26,371 -0- -14,629 -0- 2. Revenue Adjustments S1,017,196 $6,429,168 -0- $135,824 -0- 3. Prosecutor $3,435 -0- $3,435 1.00 4. Assistant City Attorney -S62,000 -0- -$62,000 -1.00 5. EIectricity -$50,000 -0- -$50,000 -0- 6. Building Inspector -$47,000 -0- -$47,000 -1.00 7. Zoning Inspector -$42,000 -0- -$42,000 -1.00 8. Operational Adjustment- -S30,063 -0- -$30,063 -0- DMVIS 9. Civilian Review Board $90,500 -0- $90,500 1.00 Investigator 10. CERT Program -$125,000 -0- -$125,000 -3.00 11. Youth and Family Program -$208,000 -0- -$208,000 -3.00 12. Community Mobilization -$49,000 -0- -$49,000 -1.00 Specialist 13. Police Service Desk -$31,000 -0- -$31,000 -1.00 Technician 14. Impound Lot -$126,627 -0- -$126,627 -7.08 15. Architects -$139,762 -0- -$139,762 -2.00 16. Miscellaneous Changes- -$161,203 -0- -$161,203 -5.09 Public Services 17. State Parks-Jordan River $128,468 -0- $128,468 3.00 Parkway 18. Library Square $4,000,000 -0- $4,000,000 -0- 19. Neighborhood Legacy $700,000 -0- $700,000 -0- Projects 20. Houser Sculpture $400,000 -0- $400,000 -0- 21. CIP Adjustments -$1,879,552 -0- -$1,879,552 -0- 22. Youth Endowment Account $3,150,000 -0- $3,150,000 -0- and Youth Operating 23. Risk Insurance-Take Home -$200,000 -0- -0- -0- Vehicle Insurance Correction 24. Risk Insurance-Salary and $41,000 -0- $41,000 -0- Benefits Adjustment 25. Insurance Premiums $180,000 -0- $30,000 -0- 26. IMS-Outsourcing Invoices $60,000 -0- -0- -0- 27. Airport Adjustments $3,271,500 -0- -0- -0- 28. Golf Staffing Adjustments $-0-net -0- -0- -0- 29. State Parks-Jordan River $223,990 -0- -0- -0- Parkway Golf Operation 30. Refuse Fund Adjustments $207,604 -0- -0- -0- 31. Water Utility Fund S9,829,430 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 32. Sewer Utility Fund $20,003,400 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 33. Stormwater Utility Fund -$2,971,000 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 34. CDBG Grant Fund -$210,700 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 35. ESG Grant Fund -$2,000 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 36. HOME Grant Fund -$4,000 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 37. HOPWA Grant Fund $41,000 -0- -0- -0- Adjustments 2 Salt Lake City Corporation , Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Alf General Fund Departments 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Personal Services Big03-01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number isca mpact o -ropose• ange - Biennial-Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04- 1. General Fund Total ', 2. Internal Service Fund Total '. 3. Enterprise Fund Total ', 4. Other Fund Total '. B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund City Attorney 26,239 CED (64,036) City Council 0 Fire Department (118,962) Management Services (253,930) Mayor (17,201) Police 266,501 Public Services 146,760 Total $0 ($14,629) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Risk Management and Insurance Fund 41,000 Total $0 $41,000 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 1. Salaries and Wages (6,629) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 33,000 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 $26,371 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount See complete staffing document update attached Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization The combined estimated change to personal services decreases. F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria:The FY2003 budget for personal services was estimated using a general percentage change of 3%. Condition: Several factors contribute to a needed change. The State Legislature passed new retirement rates for the State Pension Fund, the Police Public Safety Pension Fund, and the Fire Pension Fund. Insurance rates will change as the result of actuarial calculations that indicate an increase is necessary to keep our self insurance account managed by PEHP solvent. Negotiations are being conducted with the Fire group and AFSME,and the second year of the Police contract is factored in at the actual contractual amount. Effect: The overall impact to the General Fund for the retirement changes adopted by the State Legislature is a reduction to budget of $410,719. The overall impact to the General fund for the insurance changes as recommended by the City Employee Benefit Committee and the self insurance actuarial is an increase to budget of$838,068. This is an 11%premium increase,that will be shared by the City and employees.The overall impact to the General Fund for the total cost of salary and other benefit increases is $3,365,100. All of these changes combined compared to the current adopted FY2003 personal services budget allows for an overall decrease in the budget of$6,629 Cause:It will be necessary to amend the budget to reflect the changes in personal services. Recommendation: It is recommended that these changes be implemented to reduce the current approriation and to provide the salary and benefit changes as negotiated or agreed upon per memorandum of understanding or other compensation ordinance. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment General Fund 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Revenue Adjustments BIG03-02 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1.General Fund property taxes (1.617.708) motor vehicles (939.765) franchise taxes 1,023,709 sales taxes 1,107,495 payments in lieu of taxation 59,368 licenses and permits (850.129) intergovernmental (178,807) charges and fees for services (549.924) fines,forfeitures and parking meter 114,349 interest income (350,500) administrative fees charged to other funds (207.008) transfers 54,258 miscellaneous (44,925) one time funds from debt service reserve 177,957 one time funds from CIP debt restructure 567,591 transfer of one time funds from 1/64th sales tax reimbursement from FY2003 to FY2002 4,159,305 (4,159,305) additional one time funds from 1/64th sales tax reimbursement 240,695 use of fund balance generated by 1l64th sales tax reimbursement 4,400,000 one time funds from UTA from sales taxes held for Light Rail project 1,800,000 transfer of one time funds from SLOC reimbursement of Salt Lake Sports Complex from FY2003 to FY2002 2,300,000 (2,300,000) adjustment of SLOC reimbursement for the Salt Lake Sports Complex due to change in the value in kind contribution (270,832) use of fund balance generated by SLOC reimbursement for Salt Lake Sports Complex 2,029,168 Total $6,429,168 $135,824 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund debt service excess in CIP Fund(fund balance) 567,591 excess reserves in the debt service reserve fund (fund balance) 177,957 Total $0 $745,548 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund debt service excess in CIP Fund transfer to General Fund 567,591 excess reserves in the debt service reserve fund transfer to general fund 177,957 Total $0 $745,548 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other:Transfers 745,548 Total $0 $745,548 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service.Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact I Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. • Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Revenue budgets are established based on estimated activity and formulas. Most revenue amounts are established by City Ordinance or State Statute or enabling legislation. Condition: Factors contributing to the change include an adjustment in real property taxes and motor vehicle fees resulting in the change in actual FY2002 revenue because of a reevaluation by the County. Additionally, sales taxes remain strong and we expect slightly more growth than originally projected. Effect: The overall impact of property taxes and motor vehicle fees adjustments is a negative $2,557,473. Sales Taxes should grow by an additional $1,107,495. Building and other permit revenue is projected to decline by $1,249,794. Interest income is down by $350,500 reflecting the continuing decline in our earning power due to low interest rates. Changing the cost of bagging meters to $50 pe• day would generate an additional $100,000 and should reduce the total number of meters bagged. This is assuming some who currently pay for bagging would not bag because of the higher fee. All other sources combine for a total reduction of ongoing revenue of$2,379,587. All of these predictions are changes to the current FY2003 revenue levels projected a year ago. One time money of$177,957 frcim the debt service reserve account would be used for a one time expense, and we will shift the $2,300,000 budget that SLOC will repay for the Salt Lake Sports Complex from FY2003 to FY2002 and adjust the amount to relfect the value in king contribution. This adjustment will align the payment from SLOC with the fiscal year it was received. These funds will then be appropriated from fund balance and used as one time funds. Similarly, the reimbursement from the State for the 1/64th sales tax adjustment will be moved from FY2003 to FY2002, and the amount adjusted to reflect the expected amount to be received and will be appropriated from fund balance and used as one time funds. One time money of $567,591 from the savings generated from the debt restructuring of the City and County Building issue will be transferred from the CIP fund to the General Fund and used as one time money. One time money from UTA held from Sales Taxes they have collected relating to East West Light Rail that now should go to the City will be used as one time funds. Cause: It will be necessary to amend the current budget to reflect these changes in revenue. Recommendation: It is recommended to make the necessary changes to the revenue estimates based on the revised forecast. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment City Attorney 2003 Department Fiscal Year Prosecutor BIG03-03 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sim Gil 535-7727 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2004-0 Pt 2002-03- - EY-2003-04-._ 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Associate Prosecutor 57,535 Process service (54,100) Total $0 $3,435 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail- 1. Salaries and Wages 43,260 2. Employee Benefits 14,275 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services (54,100) 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other Insurance Premiums Total 1 $0 I $3,435 I I $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE: Grade/Step Amount Associate City Prosecutor 1.00 607 57,535 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.if an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria The Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Division has one of the highest new filings caseload compared to other sister jurisdictions when compared with like filings (criminal misdemeanor, infraction and driving under the influence cases). Far example, during calendar year 2001, Sandy City(2 prosecutors, 1 full-time, 1 part-time, approximately 1.75 FTEs)filed 2,149 new cases (approximately 1,228 cases per prosecutor); Murray (3 prosecutors, 1 full-time, 2 part-time, approximately 1.5 FTEs) filed 2,749 new cases (approximately 1,833 cases per prosecutor); South Salt Lake (2 prosecutors)filed 2,030 cases (1,015 cases per prosecutor); and West Valley City (4 prosecutors) filed approximately 4,000 new cases (approximately 1,000 cases per prosecutor). In addition both Murray and West Valley are in the proce>s of requesting an additional full-time prosecutor. * In contrast, Salt Lake City (10 prosecutors) averages between 15,000 to 16,000 new case filings per year(1,500 to 1,60) cases per prosecutor). Thus, the average caseload of other cities is approximately 1,269 cases per prosecutor, compared to the City's average caseload of approximately 1,500 to 1,600 per prosecutor. ** Condition The City's move to the justice court system in July 2002 will require the Prosecutor's Office to process and prosecute the existing caseload already in place at the Third District Court(a caseload of some 15-20,000 cases). On July 1, 2002 a parallel City justice court will begin, requiring the Prosecutor's Division to process and prosecute cases in two separate forums. Given these transition needs, combined with the required management and processing of cases, an additional prosecutor would greatly assist the Division in the delivery of service. Effect The creation of a justice court system will require the prosecution of cases in two separate forums. Those increases in demand, without an increase in staffing, will impact our ability to deliver service in an efficient and productiv manner. The heavy caseload and the change from simply processing cases to prosecuting cases have also made a tremendous demand on the time available to devote to these cases. For example this change in approach has increased the number of jury trials from less than 14 in 1999 to over 100 in 2001. Cause The creation of a City based justice court and the increase in the number of new case filings are the causes that impact the need for an additional prosecutor. An additional cause is the fact that the City Prosecutor has set minimum thresholds of performance and accountability, which have increased productivity, but have also required more time to be able to prosecute the cases as necessary. Recommendation It is recommended that City authorize the hiring of one additional full-time prosecutor to assist in maintaining the level of quality prosecution in our community. *** *This information was compiled by the City Prosecutor **The Coopers & Lybrand Management Review of The Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office (1996) noted that the City Prosecutor does not handle a full caseload along with the other prosecutors because the City Prosecutor administers the division and coordinates other office and community obligations. The bulk of the City Prosecutor's time is taken up with administrative duties, community responsibilities, committee work as well as case prosecution. *** This recommendation is based upon a request from the City Prosecutor, which request is supported by the Mayor Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment City Attorney 2003 Department Fiscal Year Assistant City Attorney BIG03-04 Initiative Name Initiative Number Lyn Pace 535-6613 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal-Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02- --FY 2002-03— FY-2003-04__ 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund assistant city attorney (62,000) Total $0 ($62,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages and Benefits (62,000) 2. Operating and Maintenance Supply 3. Charges and Services 4. Capital Outlay 5. Other Total $0 (S62,000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Assistant City Attorney -1.00 607 62,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: An additional position was inadvertently approved during the FY2002-2003 Biennial budget. Condition: This position has never been filled and should not have been approved. Effect: This change will have no impact on current operations. Cause: It is unknown how this addition was inadvertently added to the budget. This action will correct the issue. Recommendation It is recommended that City reduce this position. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet , for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Reduction in Power Budget BIG03-05 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: ___.__ 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 I $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Electricity budget (50,000) Total $0 ($50,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C Expenditure Impact Detail. 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply (50,000) 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 (350,000)I . $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact 1 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization _ No impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The City pays for the power costs to light street lights. Condition: The current FY2003 budget anticipated a rate increase and received a $50,000 increase in the power budget to pay for this anticipated cost. Effect: The rate increase did not pass and the additional budget is not needed at this point. Cause: The budget is now not needed and will be eliminated. It is possible a rate increase could come during the fiscal year period. If that occurs, the City will need to consider an increase to cover tP e cost increase. Recommendation: It is recommended that the budget reduction be implemented. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Building Inspector Elimination BIG03-06 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Building Inspector (47,000) Total $0 ($47,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (47,000) 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 1 i 6. Other (Specify) Total $0 (S47,000) I $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Building Inspector -1.00 224B -47,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Fewer inspections, both for called-in inspections and over-due inspections, will be made on a daily basis. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. There is a vacant building inspector position and building activity has decreased recently, therefore the elimination of this position has been proposed. Losing this position may put the department back in the situation of not being able to meet demand for requested inspections within 24 hours. Overdue inspections will also not be resolved as quickly as the department would like. Recommendation: Eliminate this postion. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet , for , Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED FY2003 Department For Fiscal Year Zoning Inspector Elimination BIG03-07 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Zoning Inspector 42,000 Total $0 $42,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 42,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $42,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Zoning Inspector -1.00 221 -42,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Fewer inspections, both for called-in inspections and over-due inspections, will be made on a daily basis. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The elimination of a housing inspector has been proposed. This elimination will reduce the inspections completed. !Recommendation: Eliminate this position. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Operational Adjustments BIG03-08 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal-Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FX 200-4-02 FY 2002-03 FY-2003 04 - 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Justice Court-various operational reductions (34,937) Treasurer-parking meter collectors rate change 4,874 Total $0 ($30,063) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services (30,063) 5.Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total! $0 I ($30.063)1 I $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization No impact on service delivery F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Management Services Divisions made adjustments that will not impact service level delivery. Condition: The Justice Court is a new program scheduled to begin in June 2002. Most of the preliminary hiring, and training has begun. After evaluating the current FY2003 budget, it was determined that a reduction could be made in the estimate of need for FY2003. The Treasure's Office was recently notified by the Police Department that the cost of collecting parking meters would increase because the methodology that Police uses for billing for these services is changing from an average billing rate to an actual billing rate. Effect: There should be no impact of reducing the budget for the Justice Court. There is not sufficient budget to absorb the changes in the rate of parking meter collections. If the increase is not approved, another program will have to be impacted to cover the difference. Cause: Without a change in the payment policy of parking meter collections, there would be no budget problem in FY2003. Recommendation: It is recommended that this reduction and new estimate be made. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Civilian Review Board BIG03-09 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impactof Proposed Change _Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year RY 2001-02 FY 2002-03- FY 2003-04--- 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Civilian Review Board staff postion 90,500 Total $0 $90,500 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 85,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 1,500 4. Charges and Services 2,000 5. Capital Outlay 2,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $90,500 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Civilian Review Board Staff 1 U06 $85,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This will be a new position in this organization. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The City Council will approve an ordinance dealing with the Police Civilian Review Board. The ordinance requires the City to provide an independent Investigator for the Board. Condition: There is no longer a function to review these actions. An internal auditor position previously provided an audit of these cases but the position was eliminated as part of the FY2003 budget. The new position will provide to the Board an independent investigation concurrent with the Internal Affairs investigation. The Investigator will participate in the Internal Affairs interviewing sessions, and will evaluate the Police Department process of addressing the complaint. If Internal Affairs has already reviewed a case the Investigator will have access to Internal Affairs files and will make a determinatior about the process and disposition of the case. The Investigator will be able to request additiona investigations. question witnesses, and request that the Internal Affairs Unit representatives interview specific witnesses or collect evidence. Effect: The Investigator will add to the city budget approximately $85,000 for salary and benefits and some operating costs for computer, supplies, office space, etc. Cause: The board review conducted by the Internal Auditing staff was found to be insufficient. Recommendation: Fund an additional position. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment FIRE FY 2002-2003 Department For Fiscal Year Eliminate CERT Training BIG03-10 Initiative Name Initiative Number John Vuyk 799-4210 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year —FY 2001-02 FY-2002-03- - - FY 2003-04 1. General Fund CERT participation fee (15,000) Total $0 ($15,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Dedicated CERT Team (125,000) Total $0 ($125,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (88,845) 2. Employee Benefits (29,700) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply (2.455) 4.Charges and Services (4,000) 5.Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 ($125.000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Eliminate 3 firefighter positions 3.00 415 A (118,545) Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The department would no longer have dedicated firefighters to train individuals from the community in Community Emergency Respone Team (CERT) technics. This training gives members of the community the leadership training and disaster response skills to respond in the event of an emergency.Trained CERT members are able to take care of self, family and immediate neighbors after tis they will then respond to assist as directed by the paid emergency responders. Elimination of this training would mean the city would lose a valuable asset in times of emergency because there would not be a trained section of the population ready to assist in any emergency. The positions would be eliminated through attrition. Condition: The city currently has 21 trained CERT coordinators with 2,507 trained volunteers. The department currently trains around 200 individuals per year and helps to maintain the current teams through ongoing training and events. Effect: The department would train individuals from the community in Community Emergency Respone Team (CERT) technics on a limited basis using on-duty firefighters. The training would not be as detailed and the department would no longer assist the 21 trained teams through training and events. The city would lose a valuable asset in times of emergency because there would not be a trained section of the population ready to assist in any emergency. Cause: Reduction of the fire department budget. Recommendation: If the department must make a significant budget cut the elimination of CERT training would be the solution that would have the least amount of impact on the ability of the fire department to respond in an emergency. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Decrease Youth & Family Coverage BIG03-11 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal impact of Proposed Change Biennial-Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st-Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 2001-02- - FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Youth and Family program (208,000) Total $0 ($208.000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (159,576) 2. Employee Benefits (48,424) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(C.I.F. Fund) Total $0 ($208.000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail FTE Grade/Step Amount Youth & Family Specialist -4.00 311 X (208.000) Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Four specialists are assigned to one of four quadrants of the City. One specialist deals with illegal drug activity. Eliminating four specialists will eliminate the service provided to each quadrant. The Police Department officers will from necessity become more involved in dealing with the calls that come in from family members dealing with these youth issues. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Salt Lake City received a federal grant in 19_to help combat the potential for at-risk youth t become involved in criminal activity. The program targeted families where the potential existed. In the FY2002-2003 biennial budget the grant expired and five positions were moved from grant funded to funded by the general fund. This funding mechanism has been in place for one year. Condition: The FY2003 budget year has experienced a reduction in estimated revenue and an increa 3e in some estimated expenses. It is necessary to reduce expenses. Non core programs of the Police Department were considered to eliminate or reduce to help in the budget balancing. Youth related issues that teeter on criminal activity arise in families that require counseling by Youth and Family Specialists even when no criminal charges have or will be filed. No other State or County or School program provides the same service level. Effect: There is no measurable data to determine if the Youth and Family program is effective or not. This is not a core program of the Police Department, it is a social program that is usually completed in Salt Lake City by a State or County agency. The functions provided by the Youth and Family Specialists will mostly have to be covered by the FACT program of Salt Lake School District, the only program that does something similar. It is not the same program because the Youth and Family Specialists are part of the FACT program but it is similar. The cost savings to the City of eliminating 80% of the program is $208,000. The four positions are filled so there will be four employee layoffs. They will be given all layoff rights as prescribed in City Policy. The remaining position is deemed core because it deals with fighting drug related issues, not family ily issues more social in nature. Cause: When funding a program outweighs the benefits it is fair to the taxpayers to eliminate that program. Recommendation: It is recommended to eliminate the four Youth and Family Specialists and this program because it is not a core function of the Police Department and because it will save the -- taxpayers $208,000. The FACT program can provide some assistance to replace the assistance currently provided. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police FY03 Department For Fiscal Year Decrease Community Specialist Coverage BIG03-12 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03- FY 2003-04. 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Community Mobilization Specialists (49,000) Total $0 ($49,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (37,650) 2. Employee Benefits (11,350) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(C.I.P. Fund) Total $0 ($49.000) $0 I � Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Community Mobilization Specialists -1.00 310X (49.000) Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization Five Community Mobilization Specialists are assigned to the city and work within the general areas of council districts. This position was funded by a grant and was included in the Fy 03 two year adopted budget as being absorbed in the general fund. This specialists position is a member of the Community Action Team and provides direct community service. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Condition: The FY2003 budget year has experienced a reduction in estimated revenue and an increa 3e in some estimated expenses. It is necessary to reduce expenses. This core program of the Police Department was considered to reduce it's level of service. Effect: Working with others in the problem solving process this position facilitates resolution of those problems by coordinating and focusing resources. Working with patrol officers, community groups anc other government services agencies, neighborhood problems are identified and long term solutions ar: implemented. The decision as to which council district would be further combined (as not all council districts have the advantage of their own specialists) would be based on need and demand. Training and community involvement with the department would decrease and problem spots within the city would be prioritized and addressed as time and resources allow. Recommendation: It is recommended to eliminate one Community Mobilization Specialists due to revenue restrictions. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Decrease Service Desk customer service BIG03-13 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source:. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001--02- -FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 - 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Service Desk (31,000) Total $0 ($31,000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (21,900) 2. Employee Benefits (9,100) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(C.I.F. Fund) Total $0 ($31.000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Office Technician I -1.00 216A -31,000.00 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The service desk window provides direct customer service to citizens requesting copies of police activity reports, licensing, fingerprinting, photo I.D., vehicle impound verification and release. Operati hours are from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Condition: The FY2003 budget year has experienced a reduction in estimated revenue and an increase in some estimated expenses. It is necessary to reduce expenses. This core programs of the Police Department were considered to reduce but not eliminate customer services. Effect: Three individuals have allowed direct window service to continue while one technician balanc=. the day's financial activity, coverage for lunch or when an employee is taking vacation or other leave. In addition, back up is available if serious health or accident require the extended absence of a technician. Waiting lines for police service would increase and coverage for lunch and extended absences would need to be taken from the Records unit. The is unit cannot afford the loss of person -I to keep up with other regular record keeping duties. There would be a decrease in efficiency as balancing the cash drawer and processing release of impounded vehicles is specialized and those duties would wait until the remaining two qualified individuals were available. Recommendation: It is recommended to decrease customer services at the Service Desk by one position due to revenue restrictions. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Impound Lot BIG03-14 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change - Biennial Period Proposed _ A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source:_ 1st Year 2n&Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Impound Lot (260,009) Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund 0 Impound Lot (386,636) Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (151,929) 2. Employee Benefits (65,112) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply (12,672) 4. Charges and Services (156,923) 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 ($386,636) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Seasonals-submitted as SLI for FY0203 on 19 April 02 (0.71) n/a (15,996) Seasonals (1.37) n/a (31,546) Impound Lot Attendants (4.00) 115 (130,593) Impound Lot Supervisor (1.00) 307 (38.907) Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. This cut represents the outsourcing of Impound Lot activities. One supervisor (307), four full-time Impound Lot Attendants (115), and 1.83 seasonal employees would be laid off. The outsourced program would be modeled after the State program where several tow companies would be hired and put on a rotating call-out to tow and store vehicles. The City would collect an administrative fee (for example $10 per vehicle) and set limits on the tow and storage fee but the individual private companies would collect those fees and the City would be out of the business. Vehicles meeting the criteria for auction would remain City property and would be towed to a private auctioneer and the City would collect the sale of vehicle revenue less any auction costs. This cut would be effective September 1, 2002 to allow sufficient time to change ordinances, issue an RFP, and sign contracts. Other departments involved in the impound process or who are served by the City program, such as Police, would need to evaluate the changes and make appropriate accommodations on their own. Recommendation: Outsource impound lot operations. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY02-03 Department For Fiscal Year In-House Architectural Project Design & Inspection BIG03-15 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st-Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 200142- FY-2002-03--- FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I-1 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund 0 0 Architects (139,762) Total $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (97,833) 2. Employee Benefits (41,929) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 (S139,762) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Licensed Architect (1.00) 609 (68.896) Licensed Architect (1.00) 609 (70.866) Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. This cut reduces the City in-house program that provides architectural design and inspection. Two Licensed Architects (609) would be laid off. The Senior Architect II (612) would remain. In the future the City would contract out the majority of the services on a project-by-project basis and use current Project Managers along with the remaining Senior Architect II in the City Engineering Division to coordinate the architectural aspects of design and inspection. The ramifications of this cut are that CIF. and CDBG projects in the future will need to include architect costs. The City may need to review current approved projects and seek budget amendments if they were relying on the in-house program to provide these services. The City may also need to contract with laid off employees for a period of time for projects in process. In addition the loss of two of the three members of this inspection team Aill slow down the design and construction process because the amount of work will not decrease but the number of employees managing the work will decrease. Recommendation: Eliminate 2.00 Licensed Architect positions. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year General Fund - FY0203 Budget Amendment BIG03-16 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535x6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial_Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02-- - FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund 0 0 0 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund (161,203) Various operational changes Total ($161,203) 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages (330,901) 2. Employee Benefits (36,762) 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply (2,208) 4. Charges and Services 208,667 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 ($161.203)1 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for . Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Seasonals -Impound Lot 0.95 n/a 21,328 Seasonals ---> RPT-Youth & Family - various 12,578 Accountant III Transfer Portion to Golf 0.37 312 (14,500) Engineer III (1.00) 608X (56,340) Seasonals- International Peace Garden (4.41) n/a (54,696) Retirements - n/a (230,900) Asphalt Equipment Operator II (1.00) 118 E (45,132) (367,663) t Salt Lake City Corporation { Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization See justifications below. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Public Services FY2003 budget was set by adoption of the FY2002-2003 Biennial Budget in June, 2001. Condition, Effect, and Cause: The following are proposed changes to the existing service levels: 1. Eliminate business graffiti removal ($19,928). Public Services will continue to do residential and public spaces but not private business. This cut reduces the materials and supplies and charges and services associated with this cut. Employee staffing hasn't been reduced because this program relies on free labor from trustees who need supervision. If there were a reduction in employees, it would ha'e a multiplied effect on free trustees that would reduce service below the level to be able to handle residential and public space graffiti. 2. Signal Electrical Power ($39,624). We have been upgrading the traffic signals with new, more efficient LED (Light Emitting Diode) components. We anticipate we will save this amount due to the implementation of these innovations. 3. Hazardous Waste Removal ($24,996). At the time of the transfer from another department of an employee with background in management of environmental issues, Public Services inherited several projects requiring environmental mitigation and/or consulting and therefore budgeted for such needs. By and large these projects have been finished or resolved and the city has taken a new direction in environmental compliance so this is not necessary in our budget. The only risk is that future projects that come up will need funding and we won't have the money. The city would need to budget for thes contingencies in the city environmental program. 4. International Peace Gardens Seasonal ($54,696). This would eliminate the Greenhouse Workers t t assist in maintaining the Peace Garden. We would have enough staff available to grow the vegetati for the Garden and we would be able to plant them but we would need to turn over the maintenance t the various international hosts to maintain their own gardens. Some hosts may not do this at the sam level as others so the Peace Garden's may suffer some from lack of maintenance but it would still continue to be open and available to the public. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 5. Transfer G.F. Portion of Accountant III to Golf ($14,500). Currently an employee in the Public Services General Fund provides accounting services to the Golf Fund. The accountant assigned to them also handles many General Fund issues and other Public Services Divisions. The need for accounting in the Golf Fund has increased to the point that this position could be allocated to an even greater extent to the Golf Fund. The incremental cost to the Golf fund and saving to the General Funi is this amount. 6. Removal of early retirement budget ($230,900). $230,900 was put in the budget early in the proce•s to cover our estimates and weren't removed after the decision was made to cover these costs in another manner outside our general fund budget. We were anticipating we would use them to cover retirements we projected to occur but would not need them if we don't have to cover those costs. 7. Asphalt Equipment Operator II position ($45,132). Existing crews will have to operate more efficiently. This is currently a vacant position. 8. Elimination of Engineer III position ($56,340) This is a currently vacant position. 9. Water $83,000. Due to increases in water rates over the past few years and in conjunction with weather patterns, we find that our water costs have become in excess of budget even though usage i• down as we implement conservation methods. We estimate that at year-end and for next year the nerd 'of an additional $83,000 for this. 10. Waste Disposal Fees in Parks $20,531. In conjunction with our study of the Refuse Fund and rate charged, it was determined that the tipping fees for Park refuse was being billed to the Refuse Fund. These fees are now billed directly to Parks and are in addition to our currently adopted budget. 11. CBI Security $27,514. The security contract was out to bid last year and the new contract awarde after the Council had already adopted the biennial budget. The new contract (which was low bid) requires an increase in costs of this amount. 12. Electrical and Natural Gas — Facilities $90,963. The costs of electricity and natural gas have risen by this amount. Usage should be down in traditional places of use due to cost saving measures. In any event, we do know that our costs are coming in projected over budget by this amount. 13. Gateway Water and Maintenance $24,000. An amount was requested in the budget for increase• costs for maintenance at the Gateway public space. This amount was cut based on the understandin.! that Gateway would pay for it. The agreement made, however, was for Public Services and Gateway to share in the cost at 50% each. This represents our 50% share of the water and maintenance cost. 14. Seasonal $33,905. For safety, security and customer service reasons costs for seasonal employees have risen by this amount. To not have these seasonal employees either puts employees at risk or reduces service levels beyond what we anticipated. 15. As part of the most recent budget amendment, a transfer of$45,000 from the Police Department for increased janitorial was approved. That appropriation will need to shifted from Police to Public Services as well for FY03. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council approve these changes. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year State Parks-Jordan River Parkway BIG03-17 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number FiscaC Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period - Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1-st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 - 1. General Fund Contribution from the State 25,000 Total $0 $25,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 •$0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Jordan River Parkway operations 128,468 Total $0 $128,468 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 52,768 2. Employee Benefits incl 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 11,700 4. Charges and Services 17,000 5. Capital Outlay 47,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $128,468 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Senior groundskeeper 1.00 115B 31,197 Seasonal groundskeepers 2.00 21,571 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization See justification below. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: City ownership will create some economy of scale savings that doesn't currently exist under State ownership. Condition: The State of Utah as a result of a budget reduction is required to either close or sell off its park properties along the Jordan River between North Temple and the north Salt Lake City boundary. Included in this area is a five-mile stretch of trailway along the Jordan River, twenty acres of formal park called Cottonwood Park, approximately 60 acres of informal land along the Jordan River. Effect: The city proposes to assume ownership, management, and maintenance of these properties. The city will maintain the trail in its similar fashion to its current trail along the river, and Cottonwood Park will be maintained and managed as a community park for the residents of the Fairpark community. The transfer of this park property comes to the City with acquisition cost. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council approve this action. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CIP 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Library Square Development BIG03-18 Initiative Name Initiative Number DJ Baxter 535-7735 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: -1st Year 2nd-Year 3rd-Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Transfer to GIP Fund (fund balance) 4,000,000 Total $0 $4,000,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund(CIP) Transfer from General Fund (one time funding) 4,000,000 Total $0 $4,000,000 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund 4,000,000 Total $0 $4,000,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund (CIP) Phase II Library Plaza East project:concept refinements,construction documents,preliminary construction,and landscape"shaping" design 605,380 construction 1,594,620 Phase Ill: final plantings and garden areas 1,100,000 Phase IV: bandshell (total estimate$1,000,000) 700,000 Total $0 $4,000,000 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 4,000,000 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 $4,000,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization — F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysrs cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In othe cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The construction of the new downtown library offers a rare opportunity to provide much needed open space in the east central area of downtown. Combined with the new library and the dedication of the existing library as a center for art, culture, and science education, a significant City open space will make the block a magnet for community interaction and activity. A versatile space that can support large periodic gatherings, festivals, and concerts will serve to activate the block, and provide a central civic gathering space for the neighborhood and the community at large. Properly designed and programmed, the space will support a variety of activites, from small, informal, and impromptu gatherings to organized events. When not used for larger events, the space should provide a quiet, serene area suitable for walking, reading, and recreational and educational activities. A versatile space like this will help to attract housing and other development to the area. Condition: The space is currently empty and undeveloped. Cause: Funding of this proposal will lead to development of a valued community gathering space where previously there were only court buildings and pavement. Effect: The decision to relocate Third District Court to the Matheson Courthouse has allowed the City to reclaim the entire block for the construction of the new library and an adjacent open space. Recommendation:Provide a commitment of City resources to construct and fund ongoing maintenance and programming of the library block open space. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CIP 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Olympic Legacy Projects in Neighborhoods BIG03-19 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted byFund-and-Source: --- 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund (one time funding) 700,000 Total $0 $700,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 4. Other Fund (CIP) Transfer from General Fund (one time funding) 700,000 Total $0 $700,000 I $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund 700,000 Total $0 $700,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I I $0 4. Other Fund (CIP) Olympic Legacy Projects in Neighborhoods 700,000 Total $0 $700,000 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 700,000 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 $700,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analyses cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In othe cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. City neighborhoods can benefit from CIP projects completed from money generated by hosting the Olympics. These projects can remain a lasting legacy of the Olympic Winter Games. Recommendation: Fund at least seven projects throughout city neighborhoods from one time money generated from Olympics. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CIP 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Houser Sculpture BIG03-20 Initiative Name Initiative Number Steve Fawcett 535-6399 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed _ : A.Revenue Impacted by Fund andSource: - -1st.Year-- 2ncYear 3rdYear F1C2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund (one time funding) 400,000 Total $0 $400,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 1 $0 4. Other Fund (CIP) Transfer from General Fund (one time funding) 400,000 Total $0 $400,000 $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund 400,000 Total $0 $400,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 4. Other Fund (CIP) Houser Sculptures on Washington Square 400,000 Total $0 $400,000 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 400,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $400,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analyss cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In othe cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Several Alan Houser sculptures were displayed on Washington Square before and during the Olympics. Responding to a citizen group who wanted to keep one or two of the pieces, it is anticipated to use some one time money to purchase one of the pieces. A donations effort is under way to contribute a like amount, which will enable the City to keep two of the pieces. Recommendation: Use one time funds to purchase at least one Alan Houser sculpture piece. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment General Fund 2003 Department For Fiscal Year CIP Adjustments BIG03-21 Initiative Name Initiative Number Randy Hillier 535-6353 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02- - FY 2002-03- FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 I $0 - 4. Other Fund CIP Fund adjustment to 9% of General Fund Revenue (1,879,552) Total $0 ($1,879,552' $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund General Fund transfer to CIP (1,879,552) Total $0 ($1.879,552) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Fund adjustment to 9% of General Fund Revenue ($1,879,552) Total $0 ($1,879,552) $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay (1,879,552, 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 ($1,879.552; $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Critertia: Each fiscal year, CIP issues must be addressed within the city. The Council has committed to provide at least 9 percent of ongoing General Fund revenue to needed CIP upgrades or additions. Condition:At the beginning of Salt Lake City's first biennial budget,the CIP budget totaling $22,445,067 was adopted for FY2003. This budget included debt service for CIP projects as well. Effect: As new revenue numbers have arrived, it has become necessary to reduce the CIP budget to $20,565,515, a reduction of $1,879,552. Although it has been necessary to make a reduction in CIP spending,the City has stayed within the bounds of the nine percent committment made by the Council. The Mayor has also reviewed the current listing of CIP projects for FY2003 and made some changes. These changes are delineated in the attached spreadsheet. Cause: As stated above, the cause for this action has been due to the City receiving less revenue for FY2003. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt the CIP budget with a reduction of $1,879,552 in order to accommodate the reduction in revenue slated to be received by the City in FY2003. FY 2002-2003 CIP Listing/with the New GF Revenue Numbers ProjectName 200?-2003 Budget 2002-2003 Budget Mayor's Board Staff Project Description (Current) (Mayor's Proposed) Ranking Ranking Ranking j On-Going General Fund 1992-93 CIP Bond Debt Tenth-year debt service payment on a twenty-two-year commitment for a bond $5,004,872 Service used to complete various capital improvements throughout the City. $4,775,126 NA NA NA City&County Building Twelfth-year debt service payment on a twenty-year commitment for a bond $2,428,496 $2,428,496 NA NA NA Debt Service used to rehabilitate and refurbish the City&County Building. Library GO Bond Debt Fourth year debt service on Libra /MHJ Block Renovation. $6,817 883 Service y ry $6,817,883 NA NA NA Justice Court Bldg Bond First year debt service on the Justice Court Building. $150,693 $150,693 NA NA NA Debt Service Impact Fee Projects Construct various Police,Fire,Park,Road capital improvement projects $750,000 $650,000 NA NA NA identified in the!impact fee analysis,Capital Facilities Plan. Continuation of Phase II of reconstruction of perimeter road including curbing, Libert Park striping and signage. Install new concrete bike path and other concrete walks in $2,170,000 1 1 1 y the park. Replace existing storm drain system,sanitary sewer system,and $2,170,000 water service cyst Amount Moved to FY 02 $400,000 Amount Remaining After Move $1,770,000 ADA Ramps/Corner Construct various ADA pedestrian ramps and related repairs to corners, $350,000 $350,000 2 2 2 Repairs including sidewalk,curb,and gutter. Amount Moved to FY 02 $200,000 — Amount Remaining After Move $150,000 Public Safety Radio Radios and dispatch equipment p for the Police and Fire Departments. $541,000 Communications $541,000 3 4 4 Install traffic calming devices such as bulb-outs,speed humps,raised Traffic Calming crosswalks,traffic circles and medians on streets where these types of devices $250,000 $250,000 4 5 4 are approved and deemed appropriate. Amount Moved to FY 02 $250,000 Amount Remaining After Move $0 Playground Safety& Install new playground equipment that meets ADA standards. Provide resilient ADA Compliance surfacing to make the playground equipment accessible to all,and add seating $100,000 $100,000 5 7 4 Popperton Park(1350 (benches)and other appropriate fumishings. East 11th Ave.) Donner Trail Park Replace the old playground equipment which is dilapadated and doesn't meet Playground ADA guidelines with new playground equipment,bringing the palyground into $0 $100,000 6 3 3 compliance with ADA standards New Street Lighting Install additional lighting where needed throughout the City. $50,000 $50,000 7 17 1 Installation Washington Park Add ADA standard playground equipment. Park does not currently have a $0 $100,000 8 6 5 Playground playground. Concept plans have been done. 1 FY 2002-2003 CIP Listing/with t ew GF Revenue Numbers 2002-2003 Budget 2002-2003 Budget Mayor's Board Staff Project Name Project Description (Current) (Mayor's Propo$ed) Ranking Ranking Ranking I ADA Transition Plan/ To correct ADA deficiencies throughout in park sites city wide. Will address on $0 $50,000 9 8 6 Citywide a priority basis the most urgent needs first as defined in the inventory process. Local Street Reconstruction of deteriorated local streets to include replacement of street $2 872 123 Reconstruction pavement,defective sidewalk,curb and gutter,and to improve drainage. $1,500,000 10 9 5 Amount Moved to FY 02 $1,500,000 Amount Remaining After Move $0 Pedestrian/Bike Path Develop,design and construct pedestrian and bike paths,routes and facilities $50,000 $50,000 11 NR 6 Development throughout the City. Percent for Art Provide enhancements such as decorative pavement,railings,sculptures, $60,000 $60,000 NA NA NA fountains and other works of art. 1%of project cost is allocated for art projects. Contingency The amount set aside to cover unanticipated cost overruns on funded projects. $200,000 $272,317 NA NA NA Sugarhouse Business Construct new shop and storage facility. $100,000 $100,000 13 19 1 District Storage Shop Public Safety Building Major upgrades in carpet,blinds as well as garage roof maintenance. $0 $50,000 14 20 2 Upgrades Remove existing traffic signal equipment,and upgrade the intersection with Traffic Signal Upgrade mast arm poles,new signal heads,improved loop detection,and left turn $550,000 $0 No NR 1 phasing. Excess Funding that may be applied to additional CIP projects $0 Subtotal-General Fund $22,445,067 $18,215,515 One-Time Money To design and construct a versatile open space on the east side of the Library Library Square Legacy block that can support large periodic gatherings,festivals,and concerts and will $4,000,000 Park serve to activate the block,and provide a central civic gathering space for the neighborhood Contingency Set-Aside Funds which will be set aside to address currently unforseen needs. $724,716 Washington Square Alan To provide for the purchase of up to two of the Alan Houser sculptures(with Houser Sculpture Project matching funds from donations)which were exhibited on Washington Square $400,000 prior to,and during the Olympics. Olympic Legacy Projects To provide for various Olympic related CIP projects within city neighborhoods. $700,000 in Neighborhoods Subtotal-One-Time Money ' ' $5,824,716 Funding Sources General Fund On-Going Funding $21,945,067 $18,215,515 One-Time Money $5,824,716 Total $21,945,067 $24,040,231 2 FY 2002-2003 CIP Listing/with the New GF Revenue Numbers Amount Amount Funded by Mayors Board Staff Project Name Project Description Requested Council Ranking Ranking Ranking I Jordan River Parkway- Extend the Jordan River Trail System under 1-80,allowing for the connection of $860,000 $0 13 2 1-80 to NT existing segments of the trail throughout the county. Jordan River Parkway- Design and construct a new security lighting system to enhance and protect the $100,000 $0 14 8 Security Lighting trail during the night. This will be a continuation of lighting segments currently complete,or under construction to complete lighting throughout the Jordan River Trail syste Fairmont Park- Design and construct a new irrigation system to replace the existing manual $300,000 $0 15 7 Irrigation System system in the park. Street Lighting Replace the existing street lighting system along 700 E.from S.Temple to 2700 $300,000 $0 16 2 Upgrades 700 E.to ST S. 900 E&900 S. Rehabilitate streetscape infrastructure at intersection of 900 E and 900 S to $300,000 $0 18 3 Streetscape Upgrade include removal and replacement of deteriorated curb and gutter sidewalk,on street parking area and intersection paving. Public Safety Building Major upgrades in carpet,blinds as well as garage roof maintenance. $50,000 $0 20 2 Upgrades Amount Amount Funded by Mayors Board Staff Project Name Project Description Requested Council Ranking Ranking Ranking Poplar Grove Request is to introduce traffic calming,as well as other methods to create a $30,000 for Study 10 20 Boulevard/Poplar more walkable community.Additional and upgraded street lighting was also Grove Lighting requested and would be looked at by the study. Poplar Grove Lighting Please see request above. $0 NA NA Yalecrest Triangle Park Request is to replace curb and gutter around the triangle,replace the sprinkling $84,000 11 21 system as well as relandscape. Popperton Park Request is to expand the parking infrastructure between Popperton Park and $341,619 12 22 Parking Shriner's Hospital to accommodate parking for both. Library Block Funding for the four phases of park construction on the East side of the Library $4,400,000 21 23 Improvements block. These will entail filling the hole,adding grass and irrigation,building walls,sidewalks,stairs and ramps and building an amphitheatre. Children's Museum Request is to replace the existing stucco on the exterior of the Children's $69,159 22 24 Facade Museum(Wasatch Plunge). Lowell Avenue Request is to replace existing sidewalk,install curb and gutter,resurface street. $170,000 23 25 Yalecrest/Military Requested that a roundabout be placed at the intersection of Yalecrest and $30,000 24 26 Roundabout Military to control traffic. Board feels signs will be sufficient. Projects requested,but unfunded for FY 03 ',`'Projects which were newly requested for FY 03 3 I Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Non Departmental 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Endowment Account for Youth Services and Youth Services one year funding BIG03-22 Initiative Name Initiative Number Janet Wolf 535-7712 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd-Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund One time funding 150,000 One time funding 3,000,000 Total $0 $150,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund One time funding transfer in 3,000,000 Total $0 $3,000,000 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Youth Services matching account 150,000 Youth Services Endowment Account transfer 3,000,000 Total $0 $3,150,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Youth Services Endowment Account transfer 3,000,000 Total $0 $3,000,000 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 3,150,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $3,150,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount no impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This will be a new position in this organization. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The YouthCity 2002 Olympic Legacy Fund The 2002 Olympic Winter Games brought our community together in celebration of the potential of young people. To continue this legacy, we propose the dedication of three million dollars for an endowment fund to support and sustain ongoing youth programs in Salt Lake City and to serve as an investment in our community's most important asset. These funds will come from a one-time reimbursement of taxes deferred to support the construction of Olympic venues.The endowment fund will provide accrued interest to supplement the City's youth-programs budget. The Amateur Athletic Foundation was created as an endowment with surplus funds from the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Games began with 94 million dollars. This endowment serves youth with sports programming in the City of Los Angeles. The foundation is currently valued at 180 million. As was the case in Los Angeles, an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to assure long-term sustainability for youth programs is now upon us. The YouthCity 2002 Olympic Legacy Fund will provide for the sustainability of neighborhood-based after-school, summe and employment programs for Salt Lake City's youth for years to come. The Fund will ensure the continuation of a community-wide strategy for program development and expansion, fostering collaboration between all stakeholders and assuring long-term program availability and excellence. Learning from the successes of numerous youth programs in cities across the United States, Salt Lake City will continue is expand state of the art programs that engage our young people. Programs that stimulate youth will assure a future where adult citizens care about their community and understand that civic engagement enhances everyone's quality of life. Salt Lake City has been developing quality out-of-school-time programs for Salt Lake City's young people since 2000. B many measures,the programs have enjoyed an extraordinary start. The YouthCity After-School and Summer program off:,s a broad range of challenging and enriching youth development programs in community service, leadership development, visual and performing arts,recreation, technology, and, most recently, career development and employment. The need for quality after-school and summer programs is well documented. National research indicates that young peopl; face numerous obstacles in achieving healthy life goals. Youth violence,juvenile crime, teen pregnancies, drug and alcoh 1 use and other problem behaviors peak in the unsupervised hours after school and during the summer. Conversely, the U. S Depailanent of Health and Human Services indicates that children and young people who participate in extracurricular activities one to four hours weekly are 49%less likely to use drugs and 37% less likely to become teen parents than studen s who are not involved in after-school programs. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet , for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Local public opinion reflects a strong interest in the youth programs initiated by the Mayor. In a Dan Jones resident surve in November 2001, 87% thought after-school programs run by the City were very or somewhat important. Ninety-one percent thought summer programs were very or somewhat important. Despite this public support, Utah Kids Count report that there are only enough after-school slots for roughly 10%of children who have working parents in Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City's young people face serious challenges.By 2003, 59 percent of Utah children under the age of 13 will live i households led by either a single working parent or two working parents. The Salt Lake City School District reports that more than half of its children live at or below the federal poverty level($18,100 for a family of four; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Year 2002 Data). The Utah Department of Human Services estimates that at least 40% of Sal Lake City's young people are at risk for drug abuse,handgun violence, family conflict, anti-social behavior, academic failure, and sensation-seeking behaviors. Additionally, the state suicide rate for youth, ages 15— 19, has risen by nearly 150% in the last twenty years. Utah now ranks tenth in the nation for this extremely troubling problem. From 1995— 199 the suicide rate for both genders in Utah was 21.1 per 100,000. Clearly, the physical and emotional health of our youth is jeopardy. The YouthCity programs have been developed based on the most current research with a strong regard for what youth wan and need. YouthCity has also developed in areas where gaps in service are greatest. The early success of our endeavor speaks to the need for quality programs in every quadrant of the city. City governments may be tempted to think of after-school programs as someone else's responsibility. Nonetheless, the cit is uniquely positioned to create the framework for community-wide collaboration upon which genuine and lasting progress depends. Our success to date is a reflection of strong partnerships between city and county departments, community leade schools, community organizations and foundations. Funding for youth programs will support opportunities for youth between the ages of 11 and 17 to participate in a wide variety of interesting and productive activities after-school and during the summer. Young people who participate are able to work on art projects, improve their computer skills, develop and implement community service projects, participate in the youth employment project,participate in our college readiness program, participate in our sports program, and learn strategies for avoiding the dangers of substance abuse. Youth programs will be located in buildings in three city parks and in three community centers around the city. The locations include: Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Memory Grove,Central City Community Center,Northwest Multi-Purpose Center and the Sorenson Center. The program will be available to young people during after-school hours and on the weekends. We are also working to engage the parents of these young people in all aspects of the program. The specific types of activities that will be offered re listed below: Arts—Arts education through Global Artways,a program that provides instruction in music, dance, literature, visual art, theater and film. It is sponsored by Salt Lake City Corporation, in partnership with educational, corporate,public and private entities. Technology—Computer literacy and access to computers. Community service—Opportunities for youth to have input on public policy decisions and to design service projects in t,e community. Employment—Offering older teens access to our youth employment project that will provide apprenticeship opportunitii s, connections to jobs and the opportunity to develop youth run micro-enterprises. College readiness—College Bound, a partnership between Salt Lake City and the University of Utah that will give low- income youth college scholarships if they fully participate in a program of tutoring and mentorship, and maintain a 3.0 GPA in high school. Sports—Opportunities to participate in organized recreation programs (basketball,baseball, volleyball, etc.)as well as "outsider" sports such as skateboarding, in-line skating,bouldering, and bike riding. Substance abuse prevention education—Research-based prevention programs will be offered to all attendees to after- school and summer programs. A Board of Trustees for the endowment will be formed. The Board will provide leadership to the City's youth programs; advise the Mayor and City Council on priorities and strategies for programs; ensure broad access to the programs; nurture relationships among stakeholders and keep the public informed of the City's efforts. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment City Attorney/Risk Insurance 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Take Home Vehicle Insurance BIG03-23 Initiative Name Initiative Number 8787001-2543 Jeff Rowley 535-7727 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Revenue Object Code 197401 Cancel transfer of $200,000 from general fund. (200,000) Total $0 ($200.000) $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund 8787001-2543 Cancel fund transer for Take Home Vehicle Policy. (200,000) Total $0 ($200,000) $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6.Take Home Vehicle Policy (200.000) Total $0 ($200,000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization: As this program would have been new to the City, ther is no impact resulting from the choice to not fund the program. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: $200,000 was initially scheduled to be transferred from the General Fund to the Risk Fund for fiscal years 2003, '04, '05, and '06 to create a self-insurance pool to cover liability from off-duty vehicle accidents. Condition: The Council chose not to fund this program. Effect: As the program was not funded, the fund transfer must be eliminated from the budget plans. Cause: As explained, the Council chose not to adopt this approach to the take home vehicle liability issue. Recommendation: Cancel the fund transfer from the General Fund. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet ' for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 1 City Attorney/Risk Insurance 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Salary Adjustment BIG03-24 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jeff Rowley 535-7727 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial-Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Transfer from General Fund 41,000 Total $0 $41,000 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund 8787001-211101 Budget increase for salary adjustment. 41,000 Total $0 $41,000 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 41,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other Insurance Premiums Total $0 $41,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization: A market survey of the Risk Management Specialist position resulted in an increase in salary to a current employee. This increase does not change the function, structure or organization of the Division, but more appropriately reflects the professional service rendered by individuals in the position. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria: The City compensates employees with appropriate compensation for the job duties established. Condition: Prior to a recent market survey and revision of the job description, the Risk Assistant was performing professional type services while working under a job description and salary range designed for clerical work. Additionally, projections of the General Fund share of compensation adjustments based on contracts with employee groups predict an increase of$33,000 is necessary. Effect: A market survey was conducted revealing a need to upgrade the Risk Assistant position to Risk Specialist with an accompanying grade change and a salary increase of just under $8,000 per year. Cause: Over the last few years the Risk Management Division has taken on new responsibilities requiring greater skills and more professional services. The resulting work flow and services performed resulted in the need for a change in job description. Recommendation:As the job description has now been changed, a corresponding budget increase is needed. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment City Attorney/Risk Insurance 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Insurance Premiums BIG03-25 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jeff Rowley 535-7727 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period- Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund General Fund 20% of insurable value 30,000 Total $0 $30,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Airport 60% of insurable value 90,000 Public Utilities 20% of insurable value 30,000 Total $0 $120,000 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Transfer to Risk Insurance 30,000 Total $0 $30,000 $0 2. Internal Service Fund 8787001-2549 Insurance premium increase 150,000 Total $0 $150,000 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other: Insurance Premiums 150,000 Transfers 30,000 Total $0 $180,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization: Granting this budget increase will allow the City to continue to carry the insurance policies currently in place. The City's insurance coverage is considered to be minimal as the City self-insures many risks that are often transferred through the purchase of insurance. Unfortunately, although our premiums are increasing this year and will further increase over the next few years, some of the coverages we now enjoy will likely be limited or removed from our policies. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Through this fund, Risk Management purchases all of the insurance policies (other than employee benefit related policies) for the City. These policies include Commercial Property, Commercial Crime, Excess Workers' Compensation, Public Officials Bond and a Treasurers Bond. In the past, these policies have been deemed by the administration a necessary part of the City's risk management program. Premium increases due to a hardening insurance market were expected. Condition: Insurance premiums have increased beyond the amounts projected creating a budget short fall. Effect: Risk Management will be working on cutting the insurance costs through a variety of methods including changing our deductibles, marketing our account, working directly with the underwriters and reducing coverage. However, these efforts are not expected to offset the premium increases. Cause: Insurance market conditions have taken a significant turn for the worse since 9/11. Insurance buyers are facing either policy cancelations or renewal premiums with increases from 20% to 300%. Premium increases are expected to continue for the next several years, however they are not expected to be so extreme. The City is expected to experience an overall premium increase of about 40% this year. Recommendation:We request and recommend that an addittional$150,000 be added to this budget to account for the premium increases. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services IMS FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Outsourcing Invoices BIG03-26 Initiative Name Initiative Number Daye Abbott 535-6343 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund-and-Source: 1st-Year 2nd Year 3rd Year- FY 20(11-02- -- FY 2002-03 FY-2003414 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Set up off-setting revenue for the direct sale and billing 60,000 of out-sourcing invoices Total $0 $60,000 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Set up off-setting expense for the direct sale and billing 60,000 of out-sourcing invoices Total $0 $60,000 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 60,000 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $60,000 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE GradelStep Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization 2) Sales Account: Comparison of expense invoice must relate to a revenue billing for the department generating the request. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The use of out-sourcing for special services and requests of city customers was not anticipated in the original budgeting system. This has become a continuing item in FY 01 and FY 02. Condition: Out-Sourcing of specific customer requests allows the Copy Center to insure that all requests are serviced and customer satisfaction is met. Currently, these jobs are special requests and account for approximately $5 Effect: The effect incurred is an increase in revenue, and the off-set in expense. This contributes to the condition described in 1), and it results in explanation in the Financial Statements. Cause: IMS's internal Customer Satisfaction goal has driven the copy center to increase the type of services offered. This requires the copy center to negotiate with out-source vendors for best wholesale rate on specific specia Recommendation: It is IMS's recommendation that the budget opening be approved, so that current conditions can be properly projected in FY02 through FY04 budgetary processes. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Department of Airports FY 2002-2003 Department For Fiscal Year Airport Budget Amendment BIG03-27 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jay C. Bingham /Joseph Moratalla 575-2918 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal-Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: - 1st Year -2nd Year - 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Airport Enterprise Fund Airport Improvement Fund - Revenues -10,731,500 Airport Improvement Fund - PFC -2,420,500 Airport Improvement Fund -State Grant 30,400 Airport Improvement Fund -aip FAA Grant 16,393,100 Total $0 $3,271,500 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 - $0 $0 B. Ex•enditures Im•acted b Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Airport Enterprise Fund 3,271,500 Total $0 $3,271,500 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 41,600 2. Employee Benefits 17,900 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply (83,500) 4. Charges and Services (715,500) 5. Capital Outlay 0 10,471,700 6.Other( Debt service&decrease of reserves) (6,460,700) Total $0 $3,271,500 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount 1.Assistant Police Chief(transfer form SLC PD) 1 UO $ 123,400 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The Department of Airport's fiscal year 2002-2003 budget as part of the City's biennial budget was adopted in June 2001. During fiscal year 2001-2002, this budget was amended to accelerate some capital projects and to increase the Airport's staff by 11 new positions. Condition: The September 11th event brought various change of practices in the aviation industry. Significant decline of passengers reduced the Airport's revenues and new or additional security procedures increased our operating costs. Effect: The fiscal year 2002-2003 amended budget will be increased by $7,412,700. Operating revenue is reduced by $9,131,500 primarily due to a decline in concession revenues. Operating expenses are projected at the same level as in fiscal year 2001-2002, reducing the fiscal year 2002- 2003 budget by $739,500. Several capital equipment items worth $1,734,500 were deferred to future years. Due to additional security requirements on-going capital projects is increased by $21 ,792,200 most of these projects are assumed to be funded by Federal grants. With the current negotiations with the airlines and the review of the schematic design, New Development Program budget is reduced by $9,586,000. Cause: The impact of the September 11th event changed the behavior of the traveling public. Compliance to new security regulations is driving the increase in operating expenses. Recommendation: This amendment was approved by the Airport Board on its March 2002 meeting and was subsequently reviewed with the representatives of the airlines on March 26,2002. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for ` Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY02-03 Department For Fiscal Year "Bid" Budget Amendment for Golf Fund BIG03-28 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY-2001-02- FY-2002-03 FY-2003-04 1. General Fund 0 0 0 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund 0 0 0 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund (Golf) 0 0 0 New position 34,091 operating costs (34,091) Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C:Expenditure Impact Detail- 1. Salaries and Wages 27,273 2. Employee Benefits 6,818 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply (34,091) 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Groundskeeper 1.00 114B 34,091 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization - F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The standard of course conditions at Forest Dale Golf Course must be kept at the high level that historically has been achieved. Condition: An extraordinary burden has developed for the crew for Forest Dale Golf Course. For fiscal year 2000-2001 a consolidation of superintendent positions took place and one of the two superintendent positions over Nibley and Forest Dale was eliminated. At that time it was decided to try the consolidation and evaluate the decision's success over time. Although this strategy has been effective for duties that a superintendent normally handles, this hasn't permitted the type of consistent, ongoing coverage at the groundskeeper level at Forest Dale. The superintendantin the past, with only one course to oversee, had been in a position to provide support and backup when needed for groundskeeperduties. In addition,the Nibley golf course, with an aging, manually-irrigated course, has demanded an increasing amount of attention. The superintendent covering both courses has had to work many extra hours to keep on top of the regular maintenance and the extraordinary repairs at Nibley. Effect: The crews, particularly the superintendent over Nibley and Forest Dale golf courses, have had to work many extra hours to try to keep up with maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Cause: Staffing levels have been inadequate at Forest Dale subsequent to the consolidation of superintendent positions of a couple of years ago. Recommendation: Add a groundskeeper position at Forest Dale Golf Course to provide ongoing, consistent coverage for groundskeeping duties. The budget for this additional position will be covered by other operating and maintenance supplies line items that have more-than-adequate budget, largely retail merchandise. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY02-03 Department For Fiscal Year State Parks-Jordan River Golf Course BIG03-29 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed- A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY2002-Oa FY 2003 04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund (Golf) Golf Fund green fees 80,000 Golf Fund fund balance 93,990 Transfer from General Fund 50,000 Total $0 $223,990 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Transfer to Golf 50,000 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund (Golf) Operating costs 223,990 Total $0 $223,990 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 83,440 2. Employee Benefits incl 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 13,550 4.Charges and Services 30,250 5.Capital Outlay 96,750 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 $223,990 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Increase in current pro's paygrade 4,420 Seasonals to help in pro shop 25,000 Increase in superintendent's paygrade 7,020 Salaried groundskeeper 42,000 Seasonal groundskeepers 5,000 Total 83,440 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The State of Utah is forced to either close or sell off its nine hole par 3 golf course at 1200 N. and Redwood Road. This is a 24 acre site that includes a parking lot building pro shop, restrooms, tennis court, and multipurpose sports field. This golf property shares a common fence line with the driving range of the City's Rose Park Golf Course. In order to preserve the green space for current and future public use, the City's Golf Division is proposing to take over the ownership, management, and maintenance of the golf course. Condition: This golf course will be managed by the professional and the golf course superintendent of the Rose Park Golf Course. Effect: City ownership will create some economy of scale savings that doesn't currently exist under State ownership. Cause: Historically, over the last three years the 9 hole rounds have ranged from 16,000 to 18,000 rounds per year. Recommendation: Take over operation of this program and assets. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Refuse Fund - FY0203 Budget Amendment BIG03-30 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535x6397 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennia(Period Proposed _ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Recycling (180,763) Fund Balance 388,367 Total $0 $207,604 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund (Refuse) Changes if operating expenses 207,604 Total $0 $207,604 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 64,762 2. Employee Benefits 16,191 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 210,938 5. Capital Outlay (84,287) 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $207,604 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Ground Arborist, RPT to Full Time 0.50 115 24,953 Seasonals -Container Maint+ Transport 2.04 nia 56,000 80,953 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria, Condition, Effect, and Cause for the following items: Revenue: During FY2002 automated curbside recycling was implemented. The increase in recycling activity has decreased the number of weekly pick up containers by around 900 cans. As a result, revenue from weekly pick up cans and from the landfill will decrease. Personal Services: During FY2002 two RPT ground arborist were added to Forestry. As the year has progressed it has become apparent that the two ground arborist are needed full time. When the ground arborists are not available to support the arial arborist, the two trimming teams must then combine into one trimming team. This in effect reduces the work load which the full time staff can complete. Having both ground arborists work full time would increase the trimming capacity of the existing staff. In the area of can transporation and maintenance, additional seasonals are needed because of the increase in recycling cans. Recycling thus far has added 32,000 additional active cans to the inventory which must be maintained. Charges & Services: During FY2002, the cost of maintaining the refuse fleet increased. A budget amendment for FY2002 was submitted which outlined the major causes of this increase. The cost for FY2003 for fleet maintenance also needs to be increased for the same reasons. The broad implementation of recycling has reduced the weekly pick up tonnage. Therefore, the tipping fee expense is being reduced. Capital: The lease purchase agreement with GE for FY2002 is less expense than was originally budgeted. Therefore, the lease payment budget is being reduced. Recommendations: Implement the changes. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilties-Water Utility Fund 2003 Department For Fiscal Year Adjustment to Five Year Capital Improvement Plan BIG03-31 Initiative Name Initiative Number 510001 Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Phone Number iscal Impact of -roposed Change Biennial-Period - Proposed A.Revenue Impacted-by Fund and-Source fst Year _ 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Donations by Developers 500,000 Water Utility Reserve Funds 9,329,430 Total $0 $9,829,430 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements 9,803,430 Postage 26,000 Total $0 $9,829,430 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 26,000 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 9,803,430 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $9,829,430 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The Water Utility must amend the CIP program for changes that were not anticipated when the budge was approved last year. The majority of the change relates to the financing of the improvements to th City Creek Water Treatment Plant. Preliminary estimates were calculated at $5 million dollars when the budget was prepared last year. The new calculations from our consultant estimated the construction a: 11.2 million without seismic upgrade to the plant. This requires the Department to request additional funding for this project in the amount of$6,292,745 to allow us to begin this project. Other increase relate to additional water line replacement projects and upgrades to our existing pump stations and wells. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analyses cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In othe cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: The required adjustment amounts to $9,829,430 which will be mostly funded from reserve funds, which are available.This adjustment will allow the department to meet its goals and continue to build the needed construction projects. A major portion relates to the construction of the City Creek Water Treatment Plant. This budget adjustment also allows us to expand our water main replacement program and install over 60,000 feet of replacementwater lines next year and average over 40,000 feet of pipe over the next five year period. Condition: The cost of projects budgeted came in higher than originally estimated. Effect: Delaying the proposed projects would increase cost and service interruptions to our customers.. Cause: Projecting the capital needs in the system does not always coincide with the funding requirements anticipated during the budget process. Recommendation: We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilties-Sewer Utility Fund 2003 Department Fiscal Year Adjustment to Five Year Capital Improvement Plan BIG03-32 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal-impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period- Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001;-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Increase in customer sewer revenue 654,000 Donations by Developers 500,000 Bond issue 25,000,000 Transfer to reserves for future improvements (6,150,600) Total $0 $20,003,400 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Capital Improvements 21,503,400 Debt Principle& Interest (1,500,000) Total $0 $20,003,400 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 21,503,400 6. Other(Specify) Debt Service (1,500.000) Total $0 $20,003,400 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The Sewer Utility must amend the CIP program for projects at the reclamation plant that were delayed by consultants requiring funding for 2003 for$21,503,400. This also delayed the issue of the $25,000,000 revenue bond, which was to be used specifically for the treatment plant upgrade. Due to the delay in issuing debt, we were able to reduce our debt service by $1.5 million. GASB 34 required by the accounting profession increases revenue by $500,000 for donations from developers. Customer sewer collections are expected to increase $654,000 from the sewer rate restructure that was effective in January 2001. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analyss cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In othe cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Considerable funds are needed for this fiscal year and four years into the future to accomplish our five year capital plan needs. The sewer treatment plant requires several upgrades to meet the expected flow into the plant. We expect to bond for $25,000,000 to build the additional $22 million in treatment plant upgrades. Accounting standards require us to show the increased donations as income. The sewer rate restructure placed many businesses in categories that generate greater revenue than under the older flat rate. We anticipate no need to change our normal operating budge.. Condition: The planning process for our consultants to complete a review of our plant needs took longer than anticipated and is reflected in the budget. Cost estimates to compete the needed treatment plant projects continues to increase. Completing these projects as soon as possible will cost less in the long run. Effect: Without funding the requested projects for the treatment plant may lead to plant failures in processing the growing volume of waste loadings. This would create fines, penalties and significant excess costs to repair and replace worn equipment and to increase plant capacity. Following accepted accounting procedures will ensure a better financial report to the public. Cause: Projecting the capital needs in the system does not always coincide with the funding requirements acticipated during the budget process. Availability of consultants and the large number of projects in all three utility funds has greatly increased the engineering workload and projects do not always meet with our financial expectations. Recommendation: We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects that will upgrade the sewer reclamation plant and provide the necessary funding to accomplish it. — Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilties-Stormwater Utility 2003 Department Fiscal Year Adjustment to Five Year Capital Improvement Plan BIG03-33 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period_ Proposed A.Revenue Empactedby Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund (Storm Water) Donations by Developers 500,000 Additional Stormwater Sales 296,709 Stormwater Utility Reserve Funds (3,767,709) Total $0 ($2,971,000) $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund (Storm Water) Capital Improvements debt service (2.971,000) Total $0 ($2,971,000) $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay (2,446,000) 6.Other(Specify) Debt Service (525,000) Total $0 ($2.971.000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization The Stormwater Utility is delaying a major storm drain project to allow us to coordinate with Public Services. Public Services has a street project that will fit with our storm drain project scheduled for next year. This change will drop our expected capital program by $2.4 million. We also delay issuing bonds and saving interest and principle payments of$525,000. We have also included a revenue adjustmert to contributions of$500,000 which is offset by the donation in capital of the same amount. This chanc e is required by newly implemented government accounting regulations. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analyses cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In othe cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into managemer t Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: It is the policy of Public Utilities to look for ways to minimize the impact of construction to the public and coordinate and work effectively with other City, County or State agencies to save both our department and others unneeded cost and repairs. Effect: Delaying the current stormwater project may increase some construction costs but the benefit both to the public and Public Services should save money and minimize citizen complaints or disruption of normal activities. The delay will also allow funds earmarked for construction to be placed in the utilities reserve funds. Condition:Although the completion of the 900 south storm drain is needed,it will be better to coordinate with Public Services to limit the amount of disruption to our customers. Cause: Our engineering section works effectively with the City Engineering Division to work effectively in areas where we have mutual benefits. Recommendation:We recommend approval of the budget amendment decrease which would allow our reserve funds to improve and be available to pay for the project in the future. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED 2003 Department For Fiscal Year CDBG Big03-34 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year and Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG (210.700) Total $0 ($210.700) $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG (210,700) Total $0 ($210,700) $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail" 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services (210.700) 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total' $0 I ($210,700)I I $0I Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Q. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Revenue forecasts for the federally-funded CDBG program were estimated higher than what will actually be received in FY2003 Recommendation: Adjust the budget accordingly. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED 2003 Department For Fiscal Year ESG Big03-35 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number iscal Impact of -roposed ange Biennial Period Proposed A. Revenue fmpactedbv Fund-and-Source: - tst Year - 2ndYear - -3rd Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund ESG Grant (2,000) Total $0 ($2,000) $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund ESG Grant (2,000) Total $0 ($2,000) $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services (2,000) 5. Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 ($2,000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Revenue forecasts for the federally-funded ESG program were estimated higher than what will actually be received in FY2003 Recommendation: Adjust the budget accordingly. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED 2003 Department For Fiscal Year HOME Big03-36 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal ImpactofProposed Change Biennial Period- _ - Proposed A. Revenue Impacted-by Fund and Source: - fist Year - 2ndYear and Year FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund HOME Grant (4,000) Total $0 ($4,000) $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund HOME Grant (4,000) Total $0 ($4.000) $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services (2,000) 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 ($2,000) $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Revenue forecasts for the federally-funded HOME program were estimated higher than what will actually be received in FY2003 Recommendation: Adjust the budget accordingly. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED 2003 Department For Fiscal Year HOPWA Big03-37 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Biennial Period -- Proposed A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year- 3rd Year FY2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04- 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund HOPWA Grant 41,000 Total $0 $41,000 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund HOPWA Grant 41,000 Total $0 $41,000 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 41,000 5. Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) Total $0 $41,000 I I $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Revenue forecasts for the federally-funded HOME program were estimated lower than what will actualy be received in FY2003 Recommendation: Adjust the budget accordingly.