The URL can be used to link to this page

09/19/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Councilmember Nancy Saxton Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Alice Steiner, Utah Transit Authority; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Gordon Hoskins, Chief Financial Officer; Natalie Gochnour, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cindy Rockwood, Council Staff Assistant; Alison McFarland, Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Kendrick Cowley, Information Management Services Chief Information Officer; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Police Chief Chris Burbank; Larry Butcher, Development Review Administrator; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Mayor' s Chief Administrative Officer; Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director; Gaylord Smith, Engineering Project Manager Consultant; Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director; Sylvia Richards, Council Research and Policy Analyst/Constituent Liaison; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Jamie Knighton, Human Resource Director; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; 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 . RECEIVE AN UPDATE BRIEFING ON DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES INCLUDING: View Attachments (a) 5 : 33 : 25 PM AN UPDATE BY ALICE STEINER, UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND TIM HARPST, CITY TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN STUDY THAT IS UNDER WAY. Alice Steiner, Tim Harpst and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler asked that another briefing be scheduled . Ms . Steiner said they could brief the Council between October and November. 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 (b) 5 : 54 : 53 PM A STATUS REPORT BY NATALIE GOCHNOUR OF THE SALT LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON THE DOWNTOWN RISING STUDY AND PROCESS . Natalie Gochnour, Doug Dansie and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handouts . (c) 6 : 10 : 43 PM A REPORT BY CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR ALEXANDER IKEFUNA ON THE STATUS OF THE PLANNING DIVISION' S REVISION OF THE CITY' S DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN TO COMPLEMENT THE FINAL VERSIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN AND DOWNTOWN RISING STUDIES AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE PUBLIC IN THE REVISION PROCESS . Alex Ikefuna, Russell Weeks and Doug Dansie briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler asked when the Council would receive an updated master plan. Mr. Ikefuna said during the summer of 2007 . (d) 6 : 15 : 01 PM A BRIEFING BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LOUIS ZUNGUZE THAT WILL INCLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF A DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION OMBUDSMAN AND A PRELIMINARY STATUS REPORT ON EXPEDITING PERMITS FOR DOWNTOWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS . Louis Zunguze and Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Mr. Zunguze said Bill Knowles, Construction Mitigation Ombudsman, could not be present tonight . Councilmember Jergensen said there had been discussion on a proposal to allow 24-hour construction permits . Mr. Zunguze said as part of the ordinance, direction would be needed from the Council as to how to handle the request if it was presented. He said he did not anticipate allowing 24-hour construction. Mr. Weeks asked if advertising for a public hearing in mid-October could be scheduled. Council Members were in favor of moving the issue along. #2 . 6 : 28 : 39 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE USE OF FIRE HYDRANTS. View Attachments LeRoy Hooton, Gary Mumford and Edwin Rutan briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler said he wanted input from the film commission. He asked Council staff to get some input and bring this issue back to a future work session. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 #3 . 7 : 10 : 10 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 .View Attachments Gordon Hoskins, Sylvia Richards, Jamie Knighton, Rick Graham, Janice Jardine, Louis Zunguze and D.J. Baxter briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Council Members were in favor of Items A-1 - Citywide Microsoft Office Upgrade ($58,000) ; A-2 - consolidation of Human Resource and Civil Service Employment Process ($49,500) ; A-3 - Garfield School Revenue ($36,000) ; A-4 - Impact fee waivers ($152 ,190) ; A-5 - Jordan River Trail - 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course ($40 ,000) ; and A-6 - Lowes property purchase ($40 ,000) . Council Members wanted to leave Item A-7 - Unity Center construction ($4 ,733,843) open for final funding amount . Council Members were in favor of Items B-1 - Utah Clean Cities Coalition grant ($30,000) ; B-2 - Utah Natural Resources - Clean Cities program grant ($30,000) ; B-3 - U.S . Department of Education - YouthCity program grant ($265,180) ; B-4 - Utah Workforce Service - YouthCity Fairmont Park grant ($30,000) ; B-5 - Utah Workforce Services - YouthCity Ottinger Hall ($23,540) ; B-6 - Utah Workforce Services - YouthCity Liberty Park ($30,000) ; and B-7 - Utah State University Interagency Outreach training ($25,000) . Item B-8 - Salt Lake County Social Services block grant - YouthCity Program grant ($20,000) was pulled from the amendment . Council Members were in favor of Items D-1 through D-14 (housekeeping items) and Items E-1 through E-5 . Council Members were in favor of Item F-1 - Mayor' s Drug Free Communities donation ($888) ; Item I-1 (A) - Gilmer Park ($131,000) and Item I-1 (B) Sugar House Business District ($51,250) . Council Members wanted Item I-1 (C) - Councilmember Saxton' s request for expansion of a District 4 Historic District, to be revisited during the next budget amendment . Council Members wanted to hold Item I-2 — Sugar House Business District economic/market analysis/study ($20,000 - $30 ,000) . Council Members were in favor of Item I-3, donation request - 2007 Rotary Convention ($50,000) and Council Members wanted more study on Item I-4 - Sugar House light rail corridor alternatives analysis ($75,000) . #4 . 8 : 42 : 08 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § § 52-4-204 , 52-4- 205 (1) (c) AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED § 78-24-8 . 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006 Councilmember Jergensen moved and Councilmember Turner seconded to enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members present voted aye . See File M 06-2 for confidential tape and Sworn Statement. #7 . 6 : 53 : 11 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 8 : 38 : 30 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . See File M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 8 : 42 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held September 19, 2006 . bj 06 - 4 A Draft VISION of VISION .. ..o DOWNTOWN RISING • 6a:w*uwv v owntown Salt Lake City is at an exciting crossroads; These attributes are supported by core principles that iinow is the time to consider what its future will be. define an ideal downtown, 13 themes that will help us Downtown Rising steering committees have identi- achieve our aspirations, and a few big ideas to get us fled four building blocks for a successful downtown — thinking. We call these building blocks, principles and beautiful, prosperous, community-focused and green. themes our Vision of Visions (see reverse). The FOUR BUILDING BLOCKS of OUR VISION K 1' Downtown Circulator pip `� 0 , ;1 — ,' --`l_., ■■M.Emp EM r i _. i Salt Lake II •' ^. . . )..t., I, 7i., i ,_.4lip __1 •?:ii i City � ` t �- Transportation ■■.�■■■■ T-� &ir... I �. Hub ■■..■■■ '�. .... With a stunning setting, downtown Salt Lake City draws in natureowntown is the commercial hub for Utah and much of the sur- as a beautiful backdrop for appealing and interesting modern and rounding Intermountain Region. With a concentration of busi- historic buildings, and the region's premier arts and entertainment dis- ness services, high-tech infrastructure, transportation choices and trict. The beauty of the surrounding environment is mirrored in green a growing supply of housing, downtown is a logical place to shop, boulevards and other amenities that welcome visitors to downtown. live and establish and grow a business. 446i1 - . . :EAUTIFUL "�a: '+ PROSPEROUS - ,2•-' ,„ • ,,44 t:.-.--- ,-#..,v,— 410-. ..,..:4700...,44,00 1 ,, ..-. ..4,.. , - .1, -_-- _ It .__ ,,;........:„.4...„......,.._ ...arkr.: ,,._ ‘ - ...-4.... r.- 4.,,i,ro, . ,54.4.7 _, . - , _. ..; • .4-‘. .;- m_s_ .,.....-_--. .., -. - 0- ,, „.....r.:irs- -,;..., .._....---...i..-.40,- _ 11 ' . - , , , .;:,-.-- ,- ...-• ---- - --NN..\.4. ..4.. . IP°A .. _ 7s...-... --t•it......_, - , __-_, ,sktr.,,sm _ -___ _, ____. - 4. r - ...„. - ., ' _I-4e:-4' ' _ - 'k- -. Vr , - may - --- i 6 i- � w--•-,.4:4‘4.*''.N--, :•.:.,4.,—.,.. ....,„„411.64-/a __, +,`-. i'.:tom Y,• -4/4.._.....,...,.1'4s„*.,•t e4..'.....",...,,."„,,,..n'.'."., ,.. -',-.,.-.,,",s'),,-::-li c,-.'. w 1 �.T 1 •� -rV 1• ,,,,,_ ---reliitt .itr"--- , .:? . • ..,:`''� 'al- }..� COMMUNITY-. GREEN *' '; . 1100. 1 f y Amanda Szot/DesignWorkshop FOCUSED Downtown Salt Lake City has easy and direct access to nature with nowntown is a welcoming place that is easy to navigate and has City Creek Canyon just steps away. It is a place that welcomes out- ifistrong connections to its surrounding neighborhoods. Downtown door recreation and creates new opportunities such as uncovering City offers a wide variety of gathering places in distinct districts. Its large Creek and letting it meander in a new path downtown. Residents and blocks and wide streets provide great opportunities to establish new and businesses are mindful of and do their part to protect our environment. unique places for people to meet, socialize, shop, work, learn and live. +6' it I mil 1 1��n:t�t ; a Iii 0 4 k4 . rf- . '::-- ti i [ le ., ,..v in 114 1 • , , lv-Z 1 r � / / i AUGUST 2006 For more information, call 801-328-5073 or e-mail downtownrising@saltlakechamber.org page 1 PRINCIPLES THEMES, and BIG IDEAS What Makes an Ideal Downtown? . CoreAPrinciples Thirteen Themes and a few big ideas.:o core principle is a fundamental truth about what makes an ideal downtown.This list of draft principles was identified by Downtown ,��^` i BIG IDEA : Rising conveners, cabinet members and technical advisors. �;,/ BEAUTIFUL -_ - Build a signature build- ' CENTRAL PLACE: Downtown belongs to all of Utah. As the heart of ing, such as a Utah 1. Downtown is aesthetically appealing World Trade Center, to Utah, downtown is the state's central gathering place, and the eco- and interesting. nomic, cultural, religious and civic core of Utah. frame the southern end 2. Downtown's arts and entertainment of downtown and • MIX OF ACTIVITIES: Downtown offers a complete place to live, district is alive 24-7. provide a southern work, shop, learn and play. anchor for additional 3. Visitors and residents receive a warm development. III NEIGHBORHOODS: Downtown living occurs in a collection of distinc- welcome as they enter downtown. p tive live/work neighborhoods where a diversity of people resides. • ECONOMY: Downtown functions as our region's economic center, ■■B BIG IDEA : r. ::�� PROSPEROUS the hub of international commerce for the region, and a great place N, to locate and grow businesses that benefit from urban amenities. Constuct lines for r ■ MOBILITY: Downtown is accessible. Transportation coordinates with a historic trolley or sleek street car to 4. Downtown is a great place for new development to provide efficient pedestrian, bicycling, public trans- and existing businesses to flourish. portation and auto mobility to and from and within downtown. connect key areas of downtown, making it 5. Downtown supports an urban concen- • EDUCATION, ARTS & CULTURE: Downtown provides intellectual, easy to get around tration of businesses and destinations. scientific, artistic and cultural opportunities. Downtown is multi- without driving. ethnic and multi-cultural, and provides an environment for life- 6. People can get to and around all parts of downtown easily. long learning. �' ■ SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION &TOURISM: Downtown offers many opportunities for people to recreate and relax in a welcoming COMMUN BIG IDEA environment. Top-notch hotels, restaurants, convention facilities, l l 1FOCUSED Create cultural and sport venues, public spaces (such as parks, plazas and monuments) ethnic districts and other amenities combine to create a fun and lively downtown. downtown, such 7. A resident population flourishes in as a Greektown, WI QUALITY DESIGN: Downtown presents a high-quality urban experi- housing throughout the downtown area. ence composed of vibrant, concentrated and beautiful places. Japantown and Downtown values its historic buildings and looks forward with new 8. Downtown's large blocks provide Little Italy. and outstanding architecture. opportunities to create vibrant, interior gathering places. ■ NATURE: Downtown contributes to a healthy environment by striv- ing to develop environmentally efficient buildings, districts and 9. A variety of distinctive districts give downtown an interesting flair. public spaces. Downtown absorbs growth, helping to conserve crit- 10. Unique wide streets are adapted to create active, ical lands and water, and improve air quality. people-oriented places. • PEOPLE: Downtown welcomes everyone and offers people the chance - 'a GREEN to meet, interact and live with others who may be different from BIG IDEA i themselves. "Daylight" City ','- • SECURITY: Downtown provides a safe and clean environment for Creek through the downtown area. 11. Capitalize on world class scenery everyone. and close mountain proximity. II FUTURE-MINDED: Downtown is a leading metropolitan center, with Develop linear and pocket parks 12. Downtown is conservation-minded. forward-thinking and tech-smart ideas and infrastructure that throughout downtown. 13. Nature is downtown. enables the city, region and state to prosper. III 9 DOWN T W N What makes an ideal downtown? Share your ideas at a s W N Chamber � `� • Utah's Business Leader www.(J o wn{.O wn/y I sing.COhn DOWNTOWN RISING AUGUST 2006 For more information, call 801-328-5073 or e-mail downtownrising@saltlakechamber.org page 2 Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Public Involvement Activities Date Event Approximate Audience Tuesday, March 07,2006 Downtown Alliance Trans Corn (Chamber) 15 Tuesday,April 04, 2006 Downtown Alliance Trans Corn (Chamber) 15 Tuesday, May 02,2006 Downtown Alliance Trans Corn (Chamber) 15 Wednesday, May 10,2006 Interview re Plan and Goals on KCPW est. 10,000-15,000 (TSG) Wednesday, May 17,2006 DA Community Leaders Forum (WFB) 125 Wednesday, May 17,2006 Open House(City Council Chambers) 20 Thursday, May 18,2006 DesNews Article on Goals Circulation 75,530 Thursday, May 18,2006 SLC Tribune Article on Plan Circulation 130,350 Wednesday, May 31, 2006 Plan presentation at Chamber Lunch (Alta Club) 65 Month of May www.slctrans.com Website Hits 252 Thursday,June 01,2006 Goals presentation to CC Chairs(C&C) 15 Being scheduled SLCTV-May 17 SLC-DTP Open House Unknown Thursday,June 15,2006 Goals presentation to SLC City Council 15 Wednesday,June 21,2006 Downtown Community Council 9 Wednesday,June 28,2006 Accessibility Services Advisory Committee Cancelled Month of June www.slctrans.com Website Hits 390 Tuesday,July 11,2006 DA Trans Committee(Chamber) 15 Month of July Individual contacts with stakeholders via e-mail, 50 phone, meetings Month of July www.slctrans.com Website Hits 819 Monday,August 7,2006 Transportation Advisory Board Update 10 Wednesday,August 23,2006 DA Community Leaders Forum (Delta Center) 100 Wednesday,August 23,2006 Accessibility Services Advisory Committee Cancelled Thursday,August 24,2006 Interview for KSL's Nightside Program 57,000 Thursday,August 24,2006 SLC Tribune Article on TRAX Loops Circulation 130,350 Monday,August 28,2006 Transportation page in Downtown Rising Circulation 205,000+ 10,000 Extras Newspaper Supplement Month of August www.slctrans.com Website Hits 1,078 Monday, September 11,2006 Transportation Advisory Board Update 6 Tuesday, September 12,2006 DA Trans Committee(Chamber) 15 Denver, Colorado Transportation Fact Sheet Basic Facts: ✓ Current metro area population is approximately 2.5 million. ✓ Downtown population is approximately 9,000 and employment is approximately 110,000. ✓ Denver has 23,875,000 square feet of office space downtown.' ✓ In the past few years, Downtown Denver has changed from a 9 to 5 office center to an all day educational center, residential neighborhood, cultural and entertainment center, and transit hub, in addition to the strong office uses. ✓ In November, 2004, the Denver metro area voters passed a major transit investment initiative, FastTracks, which will expand rail service into downtown Denver from the suburbs. The new service will include commuter rail, light rail, bus rapid transit and expanded regular bus service. All new suburban rail and bus rapid transit service coming into downtown Denver will terminate at Union Station. Pedestrian Environment: ✓ Blocks are 260 x 450 feet and streets are typically 80 feet wide. Most streets are one-way. ✓ 14% of downtown residents walk to work.2 ✓ Denver is known for the "Barnes' Dance," an all way pedestrian crossing phase at the intersections downtown. This phase adds approximately 15 seconds per cycle to the traffic signals. ✓ The Multi-Modal Access Plan, adopted in 2005, included redesigns of several downtown streets to enhance the pedestrian environment. For example, 14t'' Street is being redesigned to create more sidewalk area for outdoor dining and corner parks. One parking lane will be converted to a transit lane. ✓ Three major pedestrian bridges, built or under construction, provide easy walking access over major barriers (I-25 and railroad tracks)to downtown from the new close-in high density neighborhoods. ✓ Most streets have at least the required 16 foot minimum pedestrian zone on each side: * Merchant Zone, the 2.5' adjacent to the building, which may include furniture, space for window shoppers, etc. * Through Pedestrian Zone, the next adjacent 7.5', which should be kept free of obstructions * Furnishing Zone, the next 5', to be used for landscaping, furniture, signage, etc. * Curb Zone, the 1' next to the curb, to be used for vehicle loading and unloading ✓ The Downtown Denver Partnership collects regular pedestrian counts in major retail areas. ✓ Denver adopted a city-wide pedestrian plan in 2004. The major goal of the plan is to develop a city-wide network of pedestrian ways that connect rail stations,schools, parks, libraries and neighborhood destinations. The pedestrian ways will be built along Bus Transit Corridors (corridors with signal override, exclusive bus lanes, and special bus stops), Green Streets (landscaped streets connecting neighborhoods),and supplemental pedestrian routes. Bicycle System: Grubb&Ellis Company,Research Reports at www.grubb-ellis.com Source: Downtown Denver Partnership ✓ In 1993, Denver adopted a city-wide bicycle master plan that called for a"grid" of 22 bicycle routes criss-crossing the city at approximately 1-mile intervals. One-third of the grid bike routes cross downtown. Downtown is also connected to the city via two major bike paths. The bicycle master plan was updated in 2001. ✓ Denver conducts regular traffic counts on the bike lanes. ✓ Painted bike lanes exist (or are proposed) on two numbered streets (NW-SE) and four named streets (NE-SW) in downtown. Bicycles are allowed on all downtown streets except the 16th Street Bus Mall. Bicycles are not permitted on the sidewalks. ✓ Where bus corridors and bike lanes are combined, the right lane has extra width and the bikes are to the left of the buses. ✓ In 1998, Denver adopted standards for public and privately installed bike racks and lockers. ✓ RTD provides bike lockers at the three downtown bus terminals. Transit and Downtown Circulators: ✓ 35% of commuters arriving in downtown Denver use transit for the commute trip.2 ✓ Regional bus service terminates in downtown Denver at two bus terminals—Market Street Station and Civic Center Station. * Market Street Station bus terminus will be moved to Union Station as part of the FastTracks regional transit investment plan. ✓ The l6th Street Mall Bus Shuttle connects all downtown transit. * 16th Street is a transit and pedestrian mall; no cars allowed. * The shuttle operates on a 1.25+ minute frequency during peak hours. The goal is to have a shuttle bus visible at all times from every stop. * All shuttle buses are hybrid-electric and can accommodate 75 passengers. * Shuttle service is provided from Union Station to Civic Center station with bus stops at every corner. * Average weekday shuttle ridership in 2005 was 63,000 passengers per day. ✓ Two light rail lines connect to the 16th Street Mall Shuttle. * The D-Line crosses the 16th Street Mall approximately mid-way between the Market Street Station and the Civic Center Station. * The C-Line terminates at Union Station. * In November 2006, three additional lines coming from the new Southeast Corridor will begin service to both Union Station and the 16th Street Mall. ✓ Local and Limited bus routes serve Downtown Denver on 15th and 17th streets by stopping approximately every three blocks from Lawrence to Tremont. These stops are signified as an "X", "Y", or "Z",stop with routes running down these streets serving one of the three sets of stops. ✓ The only free fare zone downtown is the 16th Street Mall, with the 16th Street Mall Shuttle. The proposed 18th and 19th Street Shuttle services will also be free. RTD will operate and maintain both circulators. Portland, Oregon Transportation Fact Sheet Basic Facts: ✓ Current metro area population is approximately 1.5 million. ✓ Downtown population, including the River District and the Pearl District is approximately 20,000; downtown employment is approximately 82,750. ✓ Portland has 17,350,000 square feet of office space downtown.' Pedestrian Environment: ✓ 4% of downtown employees walk to work.' ✓ The downtown blocks are 200 feet on a side; the downtown streets are 64 feet wide. ✓ In the 1970's, Portland eliminated a freeway along the waterfront and created the Tom McCall Waterfront Pork, a significant pedestrian corridor. ✓ Portland's approach to pedestrian street life has been multi-pronged since the 1970's: * Design review for private investment that guides what happens at the pedestrian scale * Zoning that addresses how the building meets the street; first floor uses in buildings by district, with a "retail core" district delineated; and spacing of parking garage entrances, among other concepts * Investment in the public pedestrian environment ✓ Portland adopted a city-wide pedestrian master plan and pedestrian design guidelines in 1998 and created a pedestrian planner position in 2000. ✓ The design guidelines identify four sidewalk zones: * Frontage Zone, next to the building * Through Pedestrian Zone * Furnishings Zone * Curb Zone,next to the street Bicycle Environment: ✓ 6% of downtown employees bike to work.' ✓ Portland first adopted a Bicycle Master Plan in the 1970's. ✓ The bike network in downtown Portland includes on-street bike lanes on a few streets with several other streets designated as "connecting streets." ✓ The City of Portland installs free bike racks in front of businesses if requested to do so by the owner or bicyclists. To date, Portland has installed 2,000 bike racks, city-wide. ✓ The City rents a number of keyed, bicycle lockers downtown at a cost of $25 for 3 months. ✓ Bicycle Central is a public/private partnership that arranges shower use for bicyclists on either a membership or pay-as-you-go basis with an athletic club downtown ✓ The zoning code includes bicycle parking requirements. There is a height bonus for developments that provide extra long-term bike parking and showers. ✓ The City provides extensive signage showing how bikes and motorists should interact in the shared street areas. Grubb&Ellis Company,Research Reports at www.grubb-ellis.com Transit and Downtown Circulation: ✓ 38% of commuters access downtown on transit. 2 ✓ In 1977, Portland introduced an 11 block (z3,000 feet) bus Transit Mall on SW 5th and 6th Streets to facilitate bus transfers. It was later extended to the north to the Greyhound Terminal and historic Union Station. * Bus routes are clustered into six groups according to the direction of the route after it leaves the Transit Mall (N, NE, 5, SE, SW, W). Buses stop every other block at the stop for the cluster that includes the route. * All buses that serve downtown are on a five block section of the Transit Mall. * Some portions of the Transit Mall currently permit one lane of auto traffic for a one to three block segment. * The new MAX Light Rail line serving the Northwest portion of the City will come through downtown on the Transit Mall. When the construction is complete the Transit Mall streets will include MAX Light Rail, buses,and one lane of through auto traffic. ✓ The MAX Light Rail system crosses the Transit Mall in the center of downtown. * The MAX Light Rail/Transit Mall intersection is the retail center. Department stores within one block of the transit intersection include Nordstrom's, Meier & Frank, and Saks Fifth Avenue. * The existing MAX Light Rail system has two regional routes that serve downtown. * The MAX Light Rail System also has a shuttle route that connects downtown to the Expo Center, on the other side of the Willamette River. The downtown portion of the shuttle light rail route will be relocated to the Transit Mall when construction is complete. ✓ In 1995, the City of Portland created the Portland Streetcar Company to design, build and operate a rail transit connection between two up and coming new downtown residential neighborhoods (the Pearl District and the River District), major health facilities close to downtown but not within the downtown core (Good Samaritan Hospital and Oregon Health & Science University and Medical Center), and Portland State University. * The Streetcar parallels the Transit Mall on SW 10th and llth Streets and crosses the MAX Light Rail lines on the west side of downtown. * The Streetcar runs in mixed traffic at 13 to 20 minute headways (depending on the time of day). Daily weekday ridership was z7,250 in Spring, 2006. * Zoning for residential development in the Pearl District had increasing minimum building sizes as Streetcar construction progressed. ✓ All types of transit are free within Fareless Square downtown. All riders must board buses through the front doors in Fareless Square. TriMet agreed to provide Fareless Square in exchange for Portland placing price and quantity controls on downtown parking, thus allowing greater development density in the downtown core. The parking controls included: * A cap on the total amount of parking available in the downtown area, with no minimum parking requirements for individual developments (through 2005). * Metering all on-street parking. * All public and private parking garages open to the public are pay-to-park. ✓ Fareless Square is Zone 1 in TriMet's three zone service area. In all zones, all passengers must enter the bus through the front door. 2 2005 Downtown Portland Business Census and Survey,Portland Business Alliance,2005. Vancouver, BC Transportation Fact Sheet Basic Statistics: ✓ Current Vancouver metro area population is approximately 2.1 million. ✓ Downtown population is approximately 70,000; downtown employment is approximately 124,600. ✓ Vancouver has 21,675,000 square feet of office space downtown.1 ✓ In the 1960's, Vancouver decided to rely on local streets and transit to access downtown, rejecting freeways on the downtown peninsula. ✓ In 1996,the Vancouver region adopted the Liveable Region Strategic Plan. The plan has four goals: * Protect the Green Zone * Build complete communities * Achieve a compact metropolitan region * Increase transportation choice ✓ In 1998, TransLink (officially Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority) was created so that all regional transportation planning and operations would be managed by one entity with several operating subsidiaries. TransLink's strategic transportation plans must be approved by the metropolitan planning organization. TransLink is also able to review and comment on major land use plans. ✓ Currently there is discussion about the long-term impacts of residential uses outbidding office uses for remaining downtown land. Pedestrian Environment: ✓ Blocks in downtown Vancouver are typically 450 feet long and streets are 66 feet wide. ✓ 31% of all trips to downtown Vancouver were made by walking in 1999.2 ✓ The 1991 Central Area Plan proposed a "walkable central area" where pedestrians move safely, easily and comfortably on all streets. ✓ The 1997 Transportation Plan identifies pedestrian priority areas in downtown. ✓ In 2001-2002, Vancouver conducted a pedestrian study which included pedestrian counts and an opinion survey about pedestrian facilities. They found: * On the major retail streets, the pedestrian counts were 4,000 to 5,500/hour from 10 a.m, to 6 p.m. * Over half of the pedestrians surveyed had started their trip within downtown.3 ✓ The 2002 Downtown Transportation Plan aims to improve the connectivity between neighborhoods and major destinations by making a high level of investment in pedestrian facilities, including: * Developing a system of pedestrian greenways on streets downtown * Adding mid-block crosswalks, pedestrian bulges at corners, curb ramps, and wayfinding signs. * Encourage pedestrian weather protection in building design on retail streets * Increase number of turn signals that give pedestrians priority over turning traffic * Limit above-grade and below-grade street crossings which take people off the street ✓ Vancouver has a Sidewalk Task Force to address issues related to use of sidewalks Bicycle Environment: ✓ 2.3% of all trips to downtown were made by bicycling in 1999.1 This represents 8,000 trips per day. 'Avison Young/Grugg&Ellis Global,Research Reports,www.avisonyoung.com 2 1999 Translink Trip biary Study 3 2002 Vancouver Pedestrian Study ✓ Vancouver has a combination of bicycle/pedestrian shared routes along the waterfronts, and bicycle/auto shared routes on the downtown streets. ✓ The 1988 Bicycle Master Plan proposed the integration of cyclists into the transportation network via shared use of existing roads. ✓ In 1997, the Vancouver (citywide) Transportation Plan recommended investing in downtown bicycle lanes as the top bicycle priority for the city. ✓ The 2002 Downtown Transportation Plan proposes that the city provide striped bicycle lanes (rather than a wider curb lane) on a network of streets downtown. Other bicycle facilities to be explored include: color differentiation of bicycle lanes, bike "boxes" at intersections; signal progression timed for bike speeds; continuation of providing wider curb lanes when possible on all other streets. Transit and Downtown Circulation: ✓ 40% of commuters access downtown on transit. ✓ The Granville Street Mall is a five-block (�2,500 foot long) pedestrian and bus thoroughfare considered the center of downtown Vancouver's retail and office core. Electric buses providing service to neighborhoods within the City of Vancouver are the only buses on the Mall (z.2,000 bus trips/day). * Bus Rapid Transit parallels the Mall. (Will be replaced by a Skytrain subway in 2009.) * Regional Trolley Bus Lines either parallel or cross the Mall. * SkyTrain (automated, grade-separated train system with 108 second frequencies)subway stop is on the Mall. Average weekday ridership on SkyTrain is �220,000. * During the day the Mall is restricted to pedestrians, local buses, taxis and delivery vehicles. ✓ Waterfront Station is located at one end of the Granville Street Mall. Waterfront Station is served by: * Commuter Rail (terminus; serving northeastern suburbs) * Bus Rapid Transit (terminus; serving southern suburbs; will be replaced by Skytrain subway) * SkyTrain (terminus; serving close-in eastern suburbs) * SeaBus (terminus; ferry service) * Local Buses ✓ Most local bus routes in Vancouver are routes through the downtown while the regional bus routes serving downtown terminate within the downtown core. Regional bus layovers are accommodated on- street within the downtown area. ✓ Vancouver has introduced community shuttles—bus service on smaller buses that connect neighborhoods to close-by commercial centers. The downtown neighborhoods are served by two shuttles that run at 10 to 15 minute frequencies from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ✓ The City's Strategic Transportation Planning Engineer states that z65% of downtown circulation trips are made on-foot. ✓ Vancouver does not have a transit free fare zone. All of downtown is within one fare zone. MEMORANDUM DATE: September 15, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Downtown Transportation and Development Briefing CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Louis Zunguze, Alexander Ikefuna,Tim Harpst, Gary Mumford, Janice Jardine,Jennifer Bruno, Doug Dansie This memorandum pertains to a series of briefings about the status of efforts to coordinate medium and long-term planning goals so they will cohere with each other and with construction projects that are on a more immediate horizon. No formal City Council action will be required at the City Council meeting September 19. The City Council will hear four briefings in the following order: Downtown Transportation Master Plan Study Utah Transit Authority consultant Alice Steiner and City Transportation Director Tim Harpst will summarize comments the study's team is receiving on proposals for expanded light rail and bus service that were presented at a"community leaders breakfast"earlier this summer and will note the next breakfast will be held on September 20.That breakfast will focus on ideas for a downtown circulator system, concepts about the free-fare zone, and improving the downtown for travel by foot and bicycles. The two will summarize public involvement efforts and plans to make monthly presentations to the Transportation Advisory Board and the Planning Commission.The two also will ask the City Council for its preference on the frequency of briefings similar to the Tuesday briefing. Downtown Rising Natalie Gochnour of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce will present a status report on the Downtown Rising study launched publicly in August with a news conference and the publication of a newspaper insert on August 28.Ms. Gochnour also will present information about the number and kind of public comment it has received to date. Downtown Land Use Master Plan Planning Director Alexander Ikefuna will present information about the Planning Division's preparations to make presentations to the three community councils—People's Freeway, Central City and Downtown—whose neighborhoods would be affected by revising the 1 Downtown Land-Use Master Plan. The presentations will include information from the Chamber of Commerce and Envision Utah or both to insure cohesion with the Downtown Rising study. Short-term Construction Issues Community Development Director Louis Zunguze will introduce William Knowles as the downtown construction ombudsman. Mr.Knowles, who performed similar duties for Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority during construction of the downtown to University of Utah leg of the light rail system, will act as a trouble-shooter and coordinator of issues involving construction projects downtown. For about a year, developers and agencies such as UTA have indicated that work on projects such as the light rail extension to the Intermodal Hub and the construction of a downtown office building could start in autumn 2006. In addition,Mr. Zunguze will present a preliminary briefing on issues that may be involved in a proposed ordinance that would, probably temporarily, expedite the City's processes for obtaining construction permits for large-scale construction projects such as the light rail extension and the office building. (Please see attachment.) 2 SEP 1 4 2006 Communication to 01404 • the City Council SAL, LAKE CIIY Department of Community Development To: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer Office of the Director From: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director , I Date: September 13, 2006 ► CC: Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director Tim Harpst, Transportation Director Alex Ikefuna, Planning &Zoning Enforcement Director Re: Expedited Permitting for Downtown Reconstruction Projects During the course of working with the mall developers, light rail extension planners, and representatives of other major projects being planned for Downtown, the Administration has determined that it is in the City's best interest to take a proactive r approach to addressing construction process needs and impacts that will likely result from major construction activities in the Downtown area. To that end, the Administration is proposing ordinance revisions to facilitate expedited approval processes for temporary construction-related activities. The information provided below is categorized into: 1. Issues that require immediate City Council action, 2. Issues for City Council consideration, and 3. Issues that require City Council direction. The intent of this proposal is to anticipate construction-related issues that might negatively impact the timely completion of projects and create an overall negative perception if the City is not in a position to provide an immediate response. In order to create a frame of reference, the boundaries for the area under discussion are: North: North Temple South: 600 South West: Interstate 15 East: 200 East •Page 1 wrr:+ Recommendation The Administration recommends that an ordinance be created to enable the City to grant temporary approval or regulatory exceptions for a variety of construction-related structures and activities and/or programs in the Downtown area as described above, during the construction phase of major Downtown development projects and light rail construction. • Page 4 r SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: September 15,2006 SUBJECT: Use of Fire Hydrants AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Public Utilities AND CONTACT PERSON: Jeff Niermeyer KEY ELEMENTS: Periodically the City receives requests for the use of fire hydrants for commercial purposes. These requests primarily come from contractors,film industry and private citizens. Use of fire hydrants is currently allowed by ordinance only for fighting fires and other limited City use including testing,flushing and dust control on City street projects. Use of fire hydrants by non trained individuals has the potential to damage the water system facilities from turning a hydrant on or off too fast. These uses could also introduce contamination to the water system. A vulnerability assessment in response to the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act identified fire hydrants as a potential access point for intentional contamination of the public water supply. The proposed ordinance allows some limited use of fire hydrants for purposes other than fire fighting if certain criteria are met including training,background checks,and use of a City-issued backflow prevention device. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS: The proposed ordinance provides the following criteria for use of fire hydrants for non-fire fighting purposes. 1. Requests are to be made by application to the Director of Public Utilities. Both the director and the fire marshal will review the application. 2. Training and certifications provided by the Department of Public Utilities are required for the user. The Department is to offer training at least once each month. 3. Background checks will be made prior to certification. The cost is to be borne by the applicant. Certification is to be for one year. Operation of a fire hydrant by a person other than the certified person will result in loss of fire hydrant use by the affiliated persons or entities for one year. 4. The applicant is to provide a$10,000 surety bond to protect the City against damage to the water system facilities. The applicant is also to provide evidence of insurance that meets the City's standard limits (currently$2,000,000 per occurrence with a$3,000,000 aggregate). The Council may wish to discuss the insurance requirement with the City Attorney to clarify if this high level is needed. These insurance amounts are also required of consultants or auditors doing studies for the City, which some view as excessive. 1 5. Meters and backflow prevention equipment is to be provided by the Department of Public Utilities for a$50 monthly rental fee. No other equipment is allowed to be attached to a fire hydrant. 6. The applicant is to pay for the water used at the highest rate authorized (tier three). 7. The applicant is to provide the department with at least a two-day written notice of the location and time of the intended use. 8. Equipment is to be removed from the hydrant immediately after use so that the hydrant can be accessed by the fire department. 9. The applicant is to pay an inspection fee,not to exceed$150. The Department of Public Utilities will inspect the meter,backflow prevention device and hydrant to make sure they were not damaged during the period of use. The only specifically authorized non-fire fighting uses of a fire hydrant in the proposed ordinance are: • Dust control-To fill water trucks for dust control on streets within the City's water service area in connection with public construction projects within streets. • Performance of public duties-To perform public duties,as approved by the director. Other requests may be allowed if the director determines there are no reasonable alternatives, including private sources available at reasonable rates. The following uses of fire hydrants are expressly prohibited: a. Commercial uses such as hydro-seeding,sewer cleaning,concrete and asphalt cutting grinding and mixing b. Filling swimming pools,ponds or other natural or artificial bodies of water c. Cleaning buildings, streets,vehicles (including cement trucks) d. Animal care e. Any purpose when outside temperatures are anticipated to fall below freezing during the proposed period of use f. Any purpose during times of water shortage, as determined by the director Requests from the film industry may or may not be approved depending on whether another source of water is available to meet the needs (i.e. neighbor's hose, commercial providers such as Rain for Rent). Previously, a television filming company wrote that the use of a water truck required a very noisy water pump which interfered with the actors saying their lines. The truck also took up parking space and caused more disruptions to the neighborhood. A television filming company indicated that it was willing to pay overtime for a City employee to operate the hydrant. The Department indicated it needed its employees to be available to meet on going operational and maintenance needs. Previously it was suggested that city employees be allowed to work off duty for the film company. Jeff Niermeyer, deputy director, said the Department of Public Utilities does not allow an employee to be put in a situation were the City may be liable for damages. It also blurs the line of when a City employee can conduct private work. The Department has been very strict on letting employees do private work on the City water system. The Department of Public Utilities did not solicit input from the film industry on this proposed ordinance. The Council may wish to ask representatives from the Department of Public Utilities to clarify and give examples of circumstances where production companies would be allowed to use a fire hydrant. 2 The proposed ordinance provides for a civil citation and impoundment of hydrant wrench and hose for unlawful uses of a fire hydrant. The maximum civil penalty for an individual is$1,000 and for a corporation is$5,000. The ordinance also applies to fire hydrants maintained by the City but located outside of the City's municipal boundaries. OPTIONS: Options that the Council may wish to consider include the following: 1. Forward the proposed ordinance to a future Council Meeting for consideration. 2. Request that the Administration investigate options so that certain requests for use of hydrants,such as from the film industry,could be reasonably accommodated and include these criteria in the ordinance. 3. Request that the Administration obtain input from the Utah Film Commission. • AUG 3 1 2006 SALEROY W. HOOTO N, JR. ' (' �,`a�C N C,_,O ++,PO+rre�j10 BOSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES MAYOR WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL V "17 To: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer August 18, 2006 From: LeRoy W. Hooton, Jr., Director Public Utilities L L . Re: Proposed Ordinance governing the Use of Fire Hydrants Recommendation: That the Council considers adopting the proposed Ordinance changes below to provide for an updated ordinance addressing the use of fire hydrants. Delete the following existing sections: 17.16.550 Fire Hydrants-Access for fire department and street use. 17.16.560 Fire Hydrants-Use by contractors-Fees, 17.16.570 use of water from hydrants—Applications, 17.16.580 Hydrant equipment furnished-Deposit, 17.16.590 Fire Hydrants-Charges for Water, 17.16.600 Fire Hydrants-Proper Use Required, 17.16.610 Fire Hydrants-Applicant Responsible for Damages Renumber the following sections: 17.16.620 Fire Hydrants—Unauthorized Use Prohibited: to 17.16.560 17.16.630 Unauthorized Possession of Hydrants Equipment to 17.16.570 Added the following new sections: 17.16.550 Use of Water from Fire Hydrants 17.16.580 Civil Citation 17.16.590 Impoundment of Equipment Availability of Funds: 2006/2007 Budget Discussion: The demand for using fire hydrants for purposes other than fire fighting has created a need to better define the scope and procedure for which the City will allow the use of fire hydrants for non-fire fighting purposes. The purpose of the ordinance is to balance the risk to the public drinking water system with the need to provide water for non-fire fighting uses such as dust control on construction projects. These non-fire fighting uses of fire hydrants have the potential to damage the water system facilities and introduce contamination to the culinary water system via cross connections. Additionally, vulnerability studies that have been conducted since Congress implemented 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 5 TELEPHONE: 801-483-6900 FAX: 801-483-681 B WWW.SLCGOV.COM aecrcco ac Pea the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act have identified fire hydrants as a potential access point for intentional contamination of the public water supply. The ordinance provides that all uses of fire hydrants conform to the purposes established in the ordinance and prohibit uses for which there are reasonable alternatives. All requests for uses of the fire hydrant system shall be made by application to the Director of Public Utilities and shall only use meters and backflow prevention equipment provide by the Department. The ordinance provides for training and certification of individuals operating the fire hydrants and a surety bond for protecting the City against damage to the water system facilities. A provision for conducting background checks on individuals certified to operate the Fire hydrant system is included in the ordinance. Provisions for implementing civil citations and impoundment of equipment are included for unlawful uses of the fire hydrant system. The proposed ordinance change has been reviewed by the Public Utilities Advisory Committee and they have recommended the ordinance forwarded to the administration and City Council for consideration. Contact Person: Jeff Niermeyer Deputy Director Department of Public Utilities 483-6785 Jeff.nicrmc er(ifslcov.com SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Relating to the use of fire hydrants; prohibiting certain uses; providing enforcement procedures; and related matters) * * * AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE BY REPEALING SECTIONS 17.16.550, 17.16.560, 17.16.570, 17.16.580, 17.16.590, 17.16.600 and 17.16.610, RENUMBERING SECTIONS 17.16.620 AND 17.16.630, AND ENACTING NEW SECTIONS 17.16.550, 17.16.580 AND 17.16.590; RELATING TO THE USE OF FIRE HYDRANTS; PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES; PROVIDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; AND RELATED MATTERS. * * * Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Sections 17.16.550, 17.16.560, 17.16.570, 17.16.580, 17.16.590, 17.16.600 and 17.16.610 of the Salt Lake City Code are hereby repealed: The fire department shall at all times have free access to all fire hydrants. Water may also be f • f ,__ ,,..a . ,, a t e 1 th`Y„bl (Prior code § 49 6 20) 17.16.560Firc hydrants Use by Set• a ti charged by the director, for the use of water from fire hydrants by applicants who • the water is to be used, approximate length of time the applicant desires to use the • 5 , agreeing to the conditions fog the director. (Prior code § 19 6 22) 17.16.580 Hydrant equipment-furnished Deposit. A meter, cutoff valve, outlet connection to said valve and a hydrant wrench shall to the public utilities de: emu«. • applicant shall rein returned. (Prior code § 49 6 23) 17.16.590 Fire n i 111 e fo the equipment is again delivered to the waterworks storehouse and a receipt for the same given by the de payment of any charge made for the use of water. All water used through a meter • 17.16.600 Fire Hydrants Proper Use Required: The applicant must close ' ' a' u ect the cµto ffy lve from the hydrants when not using the water-thereby' g the hydrants f e µnd llea. f r t, tl f. a ,,,.t„ „t (P, cod § 49 6 25) },uiu ivi .�Y CNN f regulations of the public utilities department and t' din.,n ofthe city governing the use of water from fire hydrants. (Prior code § 19 6 26) SECTION 2. New Section 17.16.550 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby enacted to read as follows: 17.16.550 Use of Water From Fire Hydrants: A. Preamble. Fire hydrants are installed and maintained for the primary purpose of suppressing fires and in order to protect the health and safety of residents within the water service area of the city, and preserve property. . Secondary uses have the potential for compromising the primary purpose of fire suppression by causing damage to hydrants, waterlines and other facilities, and by 2 occupying and interfering with access to fire hydrants. Secondary uses of fire hydrants also increase the risk of intentional and unintentional contamination of the public drinking water supply. Accordingly, it is the policy of the city to discourage access to fire hydrants for all purposes other than fire suppression and other limited city use. Any proposed private, secondary use of fire hydrants shall be evaluated, authorized and regulated in strict accordance with this Section 17.16.550. B. Definitions. For purposes of this Section 17.16.550, the following terms shall have the following meanings: (i) "city fire hydrant" means any fire hydrant owned, operated and maintained by the city; (ii) "department" means the city's department of public utilities; (iii) "director" means the director of the department; (iv) "fire hydrant" means any fire hydrant connected to the city's culinary water distribution system, and, unless otherwise indicated, includes fire hydrants located outside of the city's municipal boundaries; (v) "private fire hydrant" means any fire hydrant which is privately owned and maintained; and (vi) "public fire hydrant" means any fire hydrant which is not a private fire hydrant. C. Authorized private fire hydrant uses. Private fire hydrants may be used only for those purposes described in subsection E below. D. Authorized public fire hydrant uses. Public fire hydrants may be used only for those purposes described in subsections E, F, G and H below. E. Fire department access. Any public fire department or agency shall have unrestricted access to fire hydrants, including privately-owned fire hydrants, for the purpose of fire suppression and activities incidental thereto, such as testing and flushing. F. Public fire hydrants--dust control. Public fire hydrants may be used to provide water for dust control on streets within the city's culinary water service area in connection with public construction projects within such streets. 3 G. Public agency access to city fire hydrants. Employees of public agencies shall have access to city fire hydrants when reasonably required in the performance of public duties, as approved by the director. H. Other uses of public fire hydrants. Other uses of public fire hydrants not expressly authorized above shall be allowed only if the director determines there are no reasonable alternatives, including private sources available at commercially reasonable rates. If a connection with a pipe of 1.5 inch diameter or greater is located within 200 feet of the proposed place of use, and the property owner authorizes use of such connection, use of such connection shall constitute a reasonable alternative to using a fire hydrant, absent extraordinary circumstances. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no public fire hydrant use shall be authorized by the director under this subsection H for the following purposes: (i) Commercial uses such as hydro-seeding, roto-router sewer cleaning; concrete and asphalt cutting and grinding, and concrete and asphalt mixing; (ii) Filling swimming pools, ponds or other natural or artificial bodies of water; (iii) Cleaning buildings, streets and vehicles, including cement trucks; (iv) Animal care; (v) Any purpose, when outside temperatures are anticipated to fall below freezing during the proposed period of use; or (vii) Any purpose, during times of water shortage, as reasonably determined by the director. L Except for uses described in subsection E above, and except as otherwise provided below, all permitted uses of public fire hydrants shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) Application. Persons desiring to use a public fire hydrant shall make written application to the director, on forms provided by the director. Each application must be approved in writing by the fire marshall of the public entity that owns the fire hydrant. (ii) Training. All persons operating public fire hydrants shall be trained and certified by the department. The department shall offer training sessions at least once each month, on such dates and at such times as the director shall determine. Certification shall be valid for a period of one year. The certificate issued by the 4 department shall be carried by any person operating the public fire hydrant, and shall be available for inspection during such operation. Operation of a public fire hydrant by any person without proper certification shall result in loss of fire hydrant use by such person and any affiliated persons or entities for a period of one year, which loss of use shall be in addition to any other fines, penalties or other enforcement actions herein or otherwise authorized by law. (iii) Background Check. The director may conduct a criminal background check on individuals requesting training and certification, in accordance with Section 11-40-101 et seq., Utah Code Annotated, or any successor provision. The cost of any criminal background check shall be borne by the applicant. (iv) Responsibility for damage; surety bond. The applicant shall be responsible for all damage to the fire hydrant and water system caused by the applicant's use. The applicant shall provide to the department a surety bond or other security acceptable to the director, covering all such damage, in the amount of$10,000, or such higher amount as the director shall reasonably require. The bond or other security shall be in effect during the period of use, plus four months. A bond or other surety shall not be required of any public agencies applying for fire hydrant access. (v) Equipment. All use of water from a public fire hydrant shall be through a meter and backflow prevention devise provided by the department. No other equipment or device shall be attached to a hydrant. A reasonable deposit shall be made, assuring return of the equipment in good condition. All equipment shall be returned to the department immediately upon completion of use. Loss or theft of the equipment shall be reported immediately to the department. An equipment rental of$50 per fire hydrant per month shall be charged for equipment use. (vi) Notice and location of use. The applicant shall provide the department's dispatch office written notification of the location and time of the intended use, not less than two business days in advance of the use. Notification shall be delivered in the manner prescribed from time to time by the director. (vii) Non-wasting of water. During periods of non-use, the flow of water from the fire hydrant shall be shut off. (viii) Removal of equipment. Equipment shall be removed from the fire hydrant immediately after use, and the fire hydrant and 5 surrounding area shall be left free and clear of any obstructions, for access by the fire department. (ix) Inspection fee. The applicant shall pay a non-refundable inspection fee to the department. Such fee shall be in an amount necessary to recoup the city's costs of performing the inspection, together with any administrative expenses involved, as determined by the director,provided that such fee shall not exceed $150. Public agencies applying for access to fire hydrants shall not be required to pay an inspection fee. (x) Indemnification. The applicant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the city from any claims, damages and other liabilities arising from the applicant's use of a public fire hydrant. The applicant shall provide the director with such evidence of insurance that meets the city's standard limits and other requirements, as the director shall reasonably require. (xi) Charges for water. The applicant shall pay for the water used at the highest rate authorized under Section 17.16.680 of the Salt Lake City Code. A reasonable deposit shall be made in advance to assure payment of the water charge. SECTION 3. Section 17.16.620 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended and renumbered, to read as follows: 17.16.6-2&560 Fire Hydrants-Unauthorized Use Prohibited: It is unlawful for any person, oman those duly authorized, to open, connect any equipment to, or operate any fire hydrant,or to tamper or interfere with or attempt to draw water therefrom, or in any way to obstruct the approach thereto, except in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter 16. (Prior code § 49-6- 27) SECTION 4. Section 17.16.630 of the Salt Lake City Code is amended and renumbered, to read as follows: 17.16.E &570 Unauthorized Possession Of Hydrant Equipment It is unlawful for any person(s), without proper authority, to have in their possession any wrench or other equipment necessary to operatefor a fire hydrant or water valve. (Prior code § 49-6-28) SECTION 5. New Section 17.16.580 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby enacted to read as follows: 6 17.16.580 Civil Citation. A person who violates any provision of this Chapter 16 shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not exceeding the amounts set forth under Section 1.12.050 of this Code. Any civil citations issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to adjudication pursuant to Chapter 2.75 of this Code. Such civil citations may be issued by any city police officer, and by any other city employee so authorized by the director. In the event a citation is issued pursuant to this Section 17.16.580, the city may not prosecute the individual in a criminal proceeding for the same conduct. In all cases where equipment is impounded under authority of Section 17.16.590, the city shall either (a) prosecute the person under Sections 17.16.560 or 17.16.570, or(b) pursue a civil citation under this Section 17.16.580. SECTION 5. New Section 17.16.590 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby enacted to read as follows: 17.16.590 Impoundment of Equipment. A. In addition to, or in lieu of, the issuance of a criminal citation pursuant to Sections 17.16.560 or 17.16.570, or civil citation pursuant to Section 17.16.580, the police officer or authorized city employee observing the illegal conduct may impound any equipment used in the violation, or illegally in a person's possession. B. In the event any equipment is impounded, the person in possession thereof(and the owner thereof, if the person in possession is not the owner, and the city knows or can reasonably ascertain the name and contact information of the owner), shall be notified of the following: (i) That the equipment has been impounded; the location where the equipment is stored; that impound processing and redemption fees shall be assessed; that storage fees shall be assessed and shall accrue on a daily basis; and the manner in which the equipment may be redeemed; (ii) The person's right to an administrative hearing to determine whether there was probable cause to impound the equipment, upon the filing of a written request with the director for such a hearing within ten (10) business days after the person has learned of the impoundment of such equipment, or within ten (10) business days after mailing the notice, whichever occurs first; and (iii) That the equipment shall be sold at auction, or otherwise disposed of in a manner not prohibited by law, as determined by the director, not earlier than the date set forth in the notice (which shall 7 be not less than fifteen (15) days after mailing of the notice), unless the equipment is earlier redeemed. C. Hearings Concerning Impoundment. (i) A hearing shall be conducted before a hearing examiner designated by the city within forty-eight (48) hours of receipt of a written demand for such hearing as provided above, Saturdays, Sundays and city holidays excepted, unless the person requesting the hearing waives the right to a speedy hearing. (ii) Hearing proceedings shall be conducted in an informal manner and shall not be subject to formal rules of evidence or procedure. The person requesting the hearing shall be accorded the essential elements of due process of law, including notice, and an opportunity to be heard and defend such person's position. (iii) The hearing examiner shall determine whether the city had probable cause, pursuant to city, state and federal laws, to impound the equipment in question and, in appropriate cases, whether fees and charges should be reduced in the interest of justice. (iv) At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall prepare a written decision, and a copy of such decision shall be provided to the person requesting the hearing. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final, unless an appeal is allowed by law as a matter of right. (v) Failure of a person to request or attend such a scheduled post- seizure hearing shall be deemed a waiver of the right to such hearing. (vi) The hearing provided for in this subsection C shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any hearing before an administrative law judge or other authorized hearing office in connection with any civil citation issued pursuant to Section 17.16.640, and the findings made by the hearing officer hereunder shall not affect such other civil proceedings. D. Redemption of Equipment. Within fifteen (15) calendar days after the required notice is delivered or mailed, the person to whom such notice was mailed, or such person's representative, may redeem the equipment by paying the following amounts to the director: (i) an impound processing fee of$100; 8 (ii) a storage fee of$10 per day; and (iii) a redemption fee of$500; provided that (A) the redemption fee paid shall be recognized as a credit against any fine or penalty imposed under Sections 17.16.560, 17.16.570 or 17.16.590, and (B) will be refunded in whole or in part to the extent it exceeds any fine or penalty imposed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city may elect to retain the equipment as evidence, and relinquish the equipment upon redemption only after completion of any proceedings under Sections 17.16.560, 17.16.570 or 17.16.580. E. If at the expiration of fifteen (15) days after delivering or mailing written notice provided for herein, or such longer period as may be stated in the notice referred to in paragraph B above, such equipment is not redeemed, , the director or his or her designee shall proceed to sell the same, at private auction. F. Disposition of Sale Proceeds. The money received from the sale of any such equipment shall be applied first to pay all outstanding fees assessed under this Section 17.16.590, then to pay the actual costs of advertising the notice of sale and of auctioning the equipment, and then to pay the outstanding amount of any civil penalty imposed under Section 17.16.580. The balance, if any, shall then be paid into the city's water enterprise fund. At any time within one year from and after such sale, the former owner of the equipment sold, upon application to the director and upon presentation of satisfactory proof that he or she was the owner of the equipment sold, shall be paid the remaining proceeds of such sale. In the event the equipment commingled with other equipment and sold together with such other equipment, the director shall allocate the sales proceeds to all items so sold in a reasonable manner, as determined by the director. G. Other Disposition of Equipment. In the event there are no bidders at the auction, the city may retain the equipment for its own use, may destroy the equipment, or dispose of the equipment in any other manner not prohibited by law. H. No Claim Against City. In the event the equipment is not redeemed as provided for herein, and in the event any excess sale proceeds are not claimed within the time period herein provided, the former owner shall have no claim whatsoever against the city with respect to such equipment or such proceeds. I. Records of Impoundment. The director shall keep and maintain all records relating to impounded equipment, including a description of the equipment, the date and place of impoundment, the name of the city employee who impounded the equipment, any hearing held and the outcome thereof, any 9 sale at auction, the amount and disposition of any proceeds of sale, and any other disposition of the equipment. Such records shall be kept and maintained for such period as may be required from time to time by the city's records retention schedule. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. 1� Published: \\SLCiNAS2`,l iome\BC6753\DOCS\Fire Hydrant Ordinance 8-3-06 legislative draft.doc 10 I SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT #1 - FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: September 15, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #1 STAFF REPORT BY: Sylvia Jones CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Luann Clark, Chief Querry, Chief Burbank, LeRoy Hooton, Louis Zunguze, Rick Graham, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Susi Kontgis, Kay Christensen, Gina Chamness The proposed budget amendment contains 39 adjustments including 15 relating to grants. The Administration proposes the use of fund balance for one of the amendments, for a total decrease in fund balance of $152,190 (not counting encumbrance carryover, which was previously considered in projecting remaining fund balance). Some Council Members have suggested additional possible budget items, which would require appropriations of fund balance (see items I-1 through I-4). Council staff is projecting fund balance at slightly above 10.0% of general fund revenue or about $325,000 greater than 10%, including the reduction for items proposed in this budget amendment by the Administration, but not including items requested by Council Members. It also does not include a possible appropriation toward the Westside Railroad Re-alignment project of $2.7 million that was contemplated during the annual budget discussions. The Council requested that a current-year revenue forecast be included with each budget amendment. The Administration has prepared a brief response. Please see attachment. The public hearing for this budget opening is tentatively planned for October 3, 2006. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, the Administration has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows: A. "New" - those items that are new issues. B. "Grant requiring existing staff resources" -- those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Employees involved with these projects may have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) C. "Grant requiring additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. D. "Housekeeping" -- those items classified by the Administration as strictly accounting actions that do not have policy implications. Page 1 E. "Grants requiring No New Staff Resources" - those grants that provide funding for costs that are not associated with positions. F. "Donation" -- those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. G. ""Cost Overruns" - those CIP items that have exceeded the appropriation. H. "Follow-up on Previously Approved Items" - those items that were approved in a previous budget amendment but require some additional adjustments. I. "Additions from the Council" - items added by council staff for the Council's consideration. MATTERS AT ISSUE The Administration classified the following as: New Items: A-1: Citywide Microsoft Office Upgrade ($58,000 IMS Fund) source: IMS surplus balance The City uses the Microsoft Office program citywide to support email, word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations. Other programs are available but according to the Administration, Microsoft Office is the industry standard. Using one standard system allows employees to communicate and work on documents without major complications. Three years ago, the City purchased the licensing agreement program for Microsoft Office, which allowed the City to receive upgrades and patches for the program through October 2006. Microsoft is scheduled to release a new version of Microsoft Office during the first quarter of 2007, and, according to the Administration, the City can save by extending the license agreement now as opposed to upgrading later when the costs for the upgrade may have increased. The new version has been released for testing only and exact pricing is not available, so it is difficult to determine the amount that the City would save by renewing now instead of purchasing the product later. If the City does not renew now, new software licenses will need to be purchased when the City decides to upgrade to the new version. If the City chooses to renew now, there will be no additional charges for any software upgrades for the next three years since all upgrades are included in the agreement. The total cost for the license agreement renewal is approximately $120,000 per year. IMS budgeted $62,000 in FY 2006-07; however, the total cost for the next three year extension is significantly higher than what was budgeted. A-2: Consolidation of Human Resource & Civil Service Employment Process ($49,500 - transfer 1 FTE from Police Department to Human Resource Management) source: transfer within General Fund In 1995, the human resource function for divisions and departments was centralized, and the Human Resources Management Division was established under the Department of Management Services. A Human Resource Consultant from the Human Resource Management Division is currently assigned primarily to the Police Department. In addition, the Police Department manages its own entry level recruitment and testing processes, which is inconsistent with City policy. The Civil Service Commission oversees and approves processes related to entry level testing and recruitment, and Human Resource staff provide administrative support. Human Resources, with the support of Chief Burbank, is requesting to re-establish centralized human resource administration Page 2 which will allow for consolidation of all HR and Civil Services employment processes. The Police Department has agreed to transfer one vacant FTE from the Police Department budget to the Human Resources Management Division. The Police Department position is a 309 Police Employment Coordinator. The new position in HR will be a 603 Human Resource Associate. The Administration indicates that this individual is going to be working a majority of the time at the police department on police department projects, and that entry-level police recruiting, testing and selection processes require knowledge and experience in employment law, discrimination law, and HR practices. In addition, this position will assist with promotional processes and other HR related issues as workload permits. The net effect is moving one FIE from the Police Department to the division of Human Resource Management. The Council may wish to clarify whether the funds transferred from the Police Department to Human Resources represent full funding for this position or whether the change from a 309 level to a 603 level will necessitate an increase in funding for this position in the next budget year. A-3: Garfield School Revenue ($36,000- CIP Fund) source: Rental Revenue The City recently purchased the Garfield School property. The existing tenants pay a total of approximately $3,000 per month in rent, which means $36,000 of rental revenue this year. The Administration proposes to use the funds for one-time improvements including repair of concrete steps, addition of a security system, recore of outside locks, repair of air conditioning units, boiler and ventilation systems, and renovation of irrigation system. This request allows the establishment of the budget so that revenues can be spent. A-4: Impact Fee Waivers ($152,190- General Fund) source: Fund Balance The Community Development Department has received and processed requests from four �Jc entities for impact fee exemptions, totaling $152,190 for 171 housing units. City ordinance grants a one hundred percent exemption for non-rental/rental housing, for which the annualized mortgage/rental payment does not exceed 30% percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals 80% of the median income for Salt Lake City as determined by HUD. The applicants and the amount of exemptions are as follows: Community Development Corp. of Utah - $1,780 (2 units; 922 & 952 Cannon Oaks) Neighborhood Housing Services - $3,560 (4 units; 163-165 S 1000 W & 1001-1007 Euclid) The Housing Authority of Salt Lake - $89,000 (100 units; Sunrise Apts., 600 S 500 W) Cowboy Partners - $87,850 (65 units; Liberty Midtown Apartments) The Council has previously held discussions on whether to continue this exemption for low- income housing impact fees. The Council may wish to discuss whether to continue with the automatic exemption, or whether to discuss this issue further in conjunction with the Housing Policy discussion. A-5: Jordan River Trail 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course ($40,000 - CIP Fund) source: transfer from another project The Jordan River Trail Project (Rose Park Golf Course Bridge to Redwood Road) was off- awarded $100,000 during the FY 2005-06 CIP process for design and construction improvements to the trail. This section of the trail was recently included in the scope of work to be funded with a Federal Highway Enhancement Grant (which requires a match from the City). According to the Administration, the Federal Highway Enhancement Grant will fund the remainder of costs for this portion of the project, which leaves a balance of $71,220 remaining in the CIP budget for this project. Page 3 During the FY 2004-05, CIP process, $200,000 of Impact Fee funds were awarded to the trail from 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course for design and construction improvements, and there is a balance of $152,917 currently remaining for this project. The estimated project costs including design is $300,000, due in part to the need to design several sections of retaining walls to keep the Jordan River from encroaching into and destroying the trail right-of-way. The Administration proposes using the remaining $71,220 from the Rose Park Golf Course Bridge to Redwood Road combined with the remaining $152,917 from the 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course budget to fund the 1000 North to Rose Park project. The Administration is requesting an additional $40,000 from CIP Cost Overrun Account due to increased construction costs. The match for the Federal Highway Enhancement Grant, according to the Administration can be met from the $300,000 originally allocated to these two projects. A-6: Lowes Property Purchase ($40,000 - CIP Fund) source: Surplus Land Sales Account The Transportation Division would like the City to purchase land from Lowes to accommodate a future right hand turn lane for vehicles traveling north on 300 West Street turning eastbound onto 1300 South Street. The City originally sold the property to Lowes at $15 per square foot and has negotiated to buy a portion back at the same cost per square foot. Funds are available in the Surplus Land Account. This account has a balance of $353,598 before considering this budget amendment. The Council has previously been made aware of this request and did not indicate an objection. A-7: Unity Center Construction ($4,733,843 - CIP Fund) source: prior years' donations and interest earnings Funds for the Unity Center project are needed to allow the City to commit to a construction contract. The project will be put out to bid mid-September. According to the Administration, the City must demonstrate that the full amount of funding is available prior to bidding out the project and starting construction. Funding opportunities continue to be pursued which would bring in additional construction and operation funds for the project, according to the Administration. Possible new market tax credit funding would allow the construction of two extra classrooms and other interior building enhancements, including a sound system, cabinets, curtains and enhanced lighting. Any remaining tax credit funding would be used for operational expenses. If the credits are not received, the City will revert to the design of the $5.3 million base budget, according to the Administration. During the annual budget process the Council indicated a desire to have the computer clubhouse located within the Unity Center for aesthetic purposes as well as to facilitate staffing. The Council may wish to confi,in with the Administration whether adequate space is available at the Unity Center. The Council may also wish to ask for further information regarding the potential for new market tax credit funding. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources B-1: Grant- Utah Clean Cities Coalition ($30,000 - Grants Fund) Page 4 r Typically the City receives $60,000 per year from the State to pay for the Clean Cities Coordinator and other costs of the Clean Cities program. This year the grant was reduced to $30,000 (see item B-2). To make up the difference, the City has obtained an agreement with the Utah Clean Cities Coalition to reimburse Salt Lake City for the other half of the costs associated with the salary, benefits, supplies etc. of the Clean Cities Coordinator. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration believes that similar reimbursements will be available in future years or whether the Council may be asked in the future to fund all or a portion of the Clean Cities Program from the General Fund. The Administration is requesting that the Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and accept and sign additional contracts or awards relating to this grant. B-2: Grant- Utah Natural Resources - Clean Cities Program($30,000- Grant Fund) The Mayor's Office has received a continuation of the Clean Cities program grant but at a reduced amount. The Utah State Department of Natural Resources Energy Office awarded this grant to help offset a portion of the Clean Cities Coordinator's salary and benefits, as well as other operational expenses associated with the Clean Cities program. The Clean Cities program is organized to promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuels. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for half of the salary and wages of an existing FTE. B-3: Grant - U.S. Department of Education - YouthCity Program ($265,180 - Grant Fund) In Fiscal Year 2003-04, the Public Services YouthCity Program was awarded a Congressional Appropriation of$894,150 from the U.S. Department of Education for a five- year period from FY 2004-2008 to continue and expand current YouthCity programs. This request creates a budget in the amount of$265,180 for year four of the five-year award. Funding in the amount of $255,680 will continue to fund the salary and benefits of the manager, site coordinators and hourly PTE (part-time) teacher positions during this fiscal year. $3,000 has been awarded for travel, $4,000 for supplies, and $2,500 for other expenses. YouthCity sites include Fairmont, Liberty, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and Glendale Middle School. No match is required and no additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to facilitate this grant. A resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign the grant and any additional grants or agreements related to this grant. B-4: Grant - Utah Workforce Service - YouthCity Fairmont Park ($30,000 - Grant Fund) t Public Services YouthCity program received a $30,000 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Youth Connections Grant Program. These funds will pay the salary and benefits of seasonal positions at Fairmont Park, including the program assistant and two program facilitators. These positions were previously paid for through the Department of Education Grant. The City is required to provide a 100% match which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Director's salary and benefits and other associated costs, such as facility Page 5 maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage budgeted within Public Services YouthCity's budget. The grant is renewable annually for a 3 year period. YouthCity will continue to apply as funds are available. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to sign any additional agreements awards related to this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. B-5: Grant - Utah Workforce Services - YouthCity Ottinger Hall ($23,540 - Grant Fund) Public Services YouthCity program received a $23,540 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Youth Connections Grant Program. These funds will pay the salary and benefits of seasonal positions at Ottinger Hall, including the program assistant and two program facilitators. These positions were previously paid for through the Department of Education Grant. The City is required to provide a 100% match which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Director's salary and benefits and other associated costs, such as facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage budgeted within Public Services YouthCity's budget. The grant is renewable annually for a 3 year period. YouthCity will continue to apply as funds are available. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to sign any additional agreements awards related to this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. B-6: Grant - Utah Workforce Services - YouthCity Liberty Park ($30,000 - Grant Fund) Public Services YouthCity program received a $30,000 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Youth Connections Grant Program. These funds will pay the salary and benefits of seasonal positions at Liberty Park, including the program assistant and two program facilitators. These positions were previously paid for through the Department of Education Grant. The City is required to provide a 100% match which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Director's salary and benefits and other associated costs, such as facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage budgeted within Public Services YouthCity's budget. The grant is renewable annually for a 3 year period. YouthCity will continue to apply as funds are available. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to sign any additional agreements awards related to this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. B-7: Grant - Utah State University Interagency Outreach Training ($25,000 - Grant Fund) The Salt Lake City Police Department's Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) has received a continuation grant from Utah State University. This grant supports the Police Officer Crisis Intervention Team certification and training program which provides officers with crisis mediation and intervention skills necessary in dealing with individuals who have serious mental illness or developmental disabilities who are involved in law enforcement issues. These funds will be used to continue the City's program in providing training to police Page 6 officers statewide. The City charges a fee to participants from outside agencies. Trainings are conducted in collaboration with the SLCPD, Valley Mental Health, Utah State Division of Mental Health, University of Utah Emergency Room, University of Utah Neuropsychiatric Institute, and other related agencies. Overtime will be used only if an officer/coordinator must attend training during his/her off-duty hours. Additionally, the grant will pay for training supplies as well as travel, training and technical services provided by mental health agencies. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and additional grants or agreements that result from the original grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant B-8: Grant - Salt Lake County Social Services Block Grant - YouthCity Program ($20,000- Grant Fund) Salt Lake County awarded the Salt Lake City Foundation $20,000 of Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for YouthCity programming. The funds will help to pay for the salary and benefits of the program assistant and part time teachers at Ottinger Hall. As of 9/15/06, the contract documents from the County had not arrived for this grant, so this item will be pulled and added to the next budget amendment, per the Administration's request. The Administration classified the following as: Housekeeping D-l: E-911 Encumbrance Carryover($287,813 - Special Revenue Fund) On June 30, 2006, unexpended appropriations lapsed in accordance with State law (with the exception of the Capital Improvement Projects Fund). The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the appropriations for outstanding purchase orders relating to E-911 equipment upgrades (Wright Line $273,103, Qwest Communications $8,295, and Vectra Solutions $6,415). D-2: Special Revenue Budget Carryover($17,038,621 - Special Revenue Fund) On June 30, 2006, unexpended budgets in special revenue funds lapse in accordance with State law. The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward or "carryover" the balances for the existing special revenue funds as follows: (Attached is a listing of each carryover project.) $6,545,038 Grant Funds - Housing Trust Fund, Revolving Loan Fund, and other grant cost centers with remaining amounts $1,254,270 Donation Fund - remaining cash balances in several trust funds $2,010,896 Community Development Block Grant - projects previously approved by the Council $5,828,444 Housing Program Funds $1,399,973 Other Special Revenue Funds - Neighborhood Matching Grant Program, Weed Abatement Fund, Demolition Fund, Police Evidence Fund, and Police Reward Fund. D-3: IMS PROMS Grant Carryover($22,000-IMS Fund) In 2003, the Police Department received a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose of encouraging enforcement of protection orders. A portion of the grant was made available to the City's Information Management Services (IMS) Fund to develop a web service that linked Salt Lake City's protective orders to the State of Utah's data systems and other non-profit agencies for the purpose of tracking protection orders and violations of protection orders. The goal is to have fewer instances of where cases are Page 7 delayed due to the defense not having the discoverable documents. This will also reduce the time required for the prosecutor to create the discoverable document packet. Because BCI, the security company that runs the background checks, could not participate due to breech of their security/privacy policy, (an original contractual component of the grant), the funds originally allocated to BCI were distributed to the other contractual service providers as eligible within the grant guidelines. IMS was awarded an additional $22,000 to continue their service in adding the Prosecutor's Office to the link. The Administration requests that $22,000 of the allocation be appropriated to the IMS Fund. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and additional grants or agreements that result from the original grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment. D-4: Zoo and Aviary Bond Proceeds ($98,956 - CIP Fund) General obligation bonds were issued in April 2004 for improvements at the Hogle Zoo and Tracy Aviary. The bonds were sold at a premium of$89,330 relating to the Zoo and $9,626 relating to the Aviary. The Administration is suggesting that the premium amounts be made available to the Zoo and Aviary for additional improvements. The language in the propositions put forth before the voters was general enough to allow for any capital improvements for the Zoo and Aviary. According to the bond documents and election language, the bond proceeds for the Hogle Zoo are to be used for "acquiring, improving and renovating facilities for Hogle Zoo." The bond proceeds for Tracy Aviary are to be used for "improving and renovating Tracy Aviary." Therefore, remaining cash can be used for improvements to any exhibit or part of the Zoo and Aviary. Another option is to use the available cash to pay interest on outstanding bonds by transferring this money to the debt service fund to reduce the amount that the City will request from the County to come from property tax payers. D-5: General Fund Encumbrance Carryover($2,818,431 - General Fund) In order to limit spending to appropriation amounts, the City's accounting system charges purchase orders and contracts to the budget year in which the goods or services are ordered. If the goods or services are not received until the following fiscal year, the Council has routinely carried the appropriations over to the following year so that the same expenditures are not charged once to the prior year budget and once again to the new fiscal year budget. A list of the carryover by department is included in the Administration's transmittal. D-6: Refuse and Fleet Encumbrance Carryover ($604,998 - Refuse Fund; Fleet Management Fund) On June 30, 2006, unexpended appropriations lapsed in accordance with State law (with the exception of the Capital Improvement Projects Fund). The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the appropriations for outstanding purchase orders for vehicles relating to the City's lease-purchase program. The amendment request will appropriate funds in the Refuse Fund of$225,000 and in the Fleet Management Fund of$379,998. D-7: Yale Avenue Street Lighting Legal Fees ($3,250 - CIP Cost Overrun Account) The Yale Avenue Street Lighting District was not created due to protests from property owners; however, public notification costs, engineering fees and legal fees for services Page 8 rendered pertaining to public hearings and notice of intent were assessed and billed to the Transportation Division. These fees are typically charged to the project after the SID is created, but since the SID failed, Transportation has to pay the legal fee costs from their budget. The first billing of approximately $6,500 was paid for during FY 05-06. Transportation recently received a final billing in the amount of $3,250. This request would reduce the CIP Cost Overrun Account by $3,250 and create a budget from which the legal fees could be paid. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary adjustment to facilitate the payment of the project fees. D-8: Recapture CDBG CIP Funds ($181,911 - CIP Fund) This request decreases the remaining budgets and/or cash for ten completed, closed CDBG CIP-funded projects totaling $181,911.24, and increases the budget and/or cash of the same year's CDBG cost overrun account which will be reprogrammed during the next CDBG process. (Please see the Administration's transmittal for a detailed list.) The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary budget adjustments to the CDBG Program. D-9: Recapture CIP Funds ($222,870 - CIP Fund) This request decreases the remaining budgets and/or cash of twelve completed and closed CIP projects totaling $222,870, and increases the budget and/or cash of the 2006 cost overrun account. It also decreases the remaining cash and/or budget in two Class "C" funded projects totaling $5,147, and increases the budget and cash in the Class "C" cost overrun account. This request reflects the tentative decision by the Council to reduce the traffic calming carryover for projects recently discussed. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary adjustments to the CIP budget. (Please see the Administration's transmittal for a detailed list of projects.) D-10: Impact Fee Revenue ($2,367,545 - CIP Fund) Each year the City traditionally adjusts the budget in the impact fee cost centers to reflect actual fees collected and interest earned. The Administration tracks these funds separately by police fire, parks and streets. Impact Fees Police: $573,979 (total cash available $942,564) Impact Fees Fire: $653,228 (total cash available $1,814,163) Impact Fees Parks: $223,969 (total cash available $359,032) Impact Fees Streets (westside): $916,369 (total cash available $2,111,917) D-11: YouthCity Program Income ($39,418- Grant Fund) The YouthCity programs funded under the U.S. Department of Education grant have received program income generated from fees received for services provided at Fairmont Cottage, Ottinger Hall, Liberty Park and Center City YouthCity sites. This request merely establishes the budget for those funds and allows the program income to be reallocated back into the individual programs for continued programming. (Funds Page 9 were received in FY 2005-06.) The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary increase for these budgets. D-12: Land Purchase ($31,O80 - CIF Fund) In addition to the Surplus Land Account there is cash set aside in a CIP account for appraisals, title reports and other real estate services in connection with land purchases. There is available cash of $65,835 but a budget of $34,755. The Administration is proposing to increase the budget to equal that cash amount. Actual expenditures in fiscal year 2004 were $6,213; expenditures in fiscal year 2005 were $5,503; and expenditures in fiscal year 2006 were $71. CIP appropriations don't lapse at the end of a fiscal year. Another option would be to appropriate funds for appraisals and other real estate services within the Property Management cost center of the General Fund, which would free up about $60,000 for other Council priorities. Another option would be to appropriate the average expenditure of funds. D-13: Garfield School Purchase ($109,237- CIP Fund) The annual budget included $2,000,000 for purchase of the Garfield School. In May, the Administration notified the Council that $136,000 more would be needed because the appraisal was a little higher. The Administration said that the $136,000 could be taken from the surplus land sales account, which had sufficient cash. However, it turned out that there was not sufficient budget to authorize the cash to be spent. Council staff notified Council Members by email just before the purchase to see if there was any objection to using an existing appropriation in the Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) Warehouse account as a temporary source for $109,237 of the purchase amount until the budget amendment. The proposed budget amendment is to move cash of $109,237 from the Surplus Land Sales account back to the FTZ Warehouse account and increase the budget in the FTZ account by this same amount. The Council will receive a briefing in the upcoming weeks on the Foreign Trade Zone. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether restoration of these funds to the Foreign Trade Zone account is necessary. D-14: Salt Storage - Steiner Aquatic Center($380,020 - CIP Fund) For the past several years, the Streets Division has stored salt in Rotary Glen Park. It has now been determined that since federal funding was used to purchase the property, salt storage is not allowed and will be discontinued after this winter. The Department of Public Services has explored alternatives and has identified the south parking lot of the Steiner Aquatic Center as the only feasibly site without hauling salt for long distances during snow removal. The Department followed a public process for notifying the neighborhood and obtaining feedback and understanding including an August meeting with the Yalecrest Community Council. This site will not include a salt dome because it is not considered permanent. The parking lot will be available for the Steiner Aquatic Center in the spring and summer. The parking lot is also being reserved for possible future expansion of the Steiner facility. Funding is needed to create a retention area to capture water runoff and meet current regulations. Access through the University's parking lot needs to be improved. Money is available from remaining funds in the Salt Dome Bonneville Boulevard project. Previously Council staff had understood that this project could wait untilthe next fiscal year. The Council may wish to ask for clarification regarding the timing of the funding equest for this issue. Page 10 r � The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Grant- Utah Department of Health EMS Grant($80,688 - Grant Fund) Each year the Fire Department receives this grant from the State Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, to purchase medical equipment and supplies, which include pharmaceuticals and health and safety supplies such as gloves, masks, safety glasses, and for paramedic and new recruit training. The training portion of the grant requires a 50% match ($4,500) and is budgeted for within the Fire Department's budget. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. A resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements related to the original grant. E-2: Grant - Utah Department of Public Safety Emergency Services and Homeland Security ($32,084 - Grant Fund) In Fiscal Year 2003-04, the Fire Department received this grant from the State of Utah's Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security. The Fire Department was notified that they were awarded an additional $32,084 of reprogrammed funds. A 50% match is required which is budgeted for within the Fire Department's budget. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate the additional funds received. E-3: Grant - Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice - Honda Theft Prevention ($7,000 - Grant Fund) The Police Department received a $7,000 grant from the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice in support of a Honda Auto Theft Prevention program. A video production company will produce three public service announcements to be aired on local television and on the City's Channel 17. Grant funds will also be used to print brochures for distribution. A $778 match will be met with overtime hours to implement the program. (According to the Administration, over the years, there has been a high theft rate of Hondas built during 1990-2000. This grant will focus on prevention of all auto theft, but will have some emphasis for Hondas.) E-4: Grant-Law Enforcement-Justice Assistance Grant($320,311 - Grant Fund) The Police Department receives this grant annually to provide operational support and services in the eligible areas of law enforcement, crime prevention and drug courts. Prior to the past couple of years, this grant was called the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Salt Lake City was awarded Salt Lake County's portion of the grant and will act as the lead agency. The City's portion is $199,722 and the County's is $120,589. The Police Department proposes to fund the following projects/programs at the levels indicated: Page 11 $ 15,722 Directed community policing overtime -This allows the patrol and investigative division to focus on community issues and direct overtime in order to work with the community. $ 91,000 Purchase of equipment (tasers and crime analysis system) $ 40,000 Supplemental training for civilian and sworn personnel $ 30,000 Contract with Salt Lake County for Criminal Justice system $ 12,000 Continuation of Peer Court program $ 9,000 Continuation of McGruff program $ 2,000 Printing of crime prevention pamphlets and brochures No match is required. The Council previously passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any future grants or agreements stemming from the original grant. E-5: Grant - Utah Department of Health -EMS Dispatcher Training ($5,488 - Grant Fund) The Police Department received a continuation grant from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services for dispatcher training. The grant covers the cost of new and/or continued certification in continuing medical education for police dispatchers. State law requires the dispatchers to maintain their certification by receiving at least 40 hours of training over a two-year period. The Administration classified the following as: Donations F-1: Mayor's Drug Free Communities Donation ($888 - Donation Fund) Private donations were received by the Mayor's office totaling $888 for the continued efforts and support of the Mayor's Drug Free Coalition, which will increase the budget for the Drug Free Communities Grant. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate expenditure of the donations. The Administration classified the following as: Cost Overruns None The Administration classified the following as: Follow-up on Previously Approved Items None Additional Items that the Council May Wish to Consider including in the amendment: I-1 Gilmer Park, Harvard/Yale, Westmoreland Place, Sugar House Business District Potential Historic/Conservation District Survegs ($131,000) (source: Fund Balance) A. Council Member Jill Love has requested funding for the Administration to hire a consultant to undertake reconnaissance and intensive level architectural historic Page 12 building surveys in the Gilmer Park area. Council Member Love indicates that she regularly receives requests for historic or conservation district designation from residents of this area, as well as inquiries from the Harvard/Yale area and the Westmoreland Place area. 1. The reconnaissance-level survey would identify buildings constructed prior to 1961 that should be surveyed at the intensive level. Information from the National Park Service notes: a. All architectural surveys collect basic information regarding structures over 50 years old including basic conditions, integrity, form of the structure and identifying features. b. Reconnaissance surveys take a more cursory look at buildings collecting only the minimum of data. c. Intensive level surveys would involve investigating a structure's interior (may be optional), associated features, as well as the background and history of a structure or group of structures. 2. The Harvard/Yale area would include properties generally located from Michigan Avenue to Laird Avenue and from 1300 East to 1500 East. 3. The Westmoreland Place area would include properties within the existing Westmoreland Subdivision generally located from 1300 South to Harrison Avenue including Westmoreland Drive, Glenmare Street and Sherman Avenue. 4. Specific building details relating to the Harvard/Yale and Westmoreland Place areas are not available at this time. 5. The neighborhood of Gilmer Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. The district is roughly bounded by 1100 East, 900 South, 1300 East, and Harvard Avenue. Two-hundred and forty-five (245) buildings are located in the district; 218 were considered contributing in 1996. 6. In order to list the neighborhood at the local level, intensive-level surveys would need to be undertaken of every property. The rate paid to consultants is $450 per building for intensive-level survey work, exclusive of floor plans (floor plans are likely not feasible for every building, nor necessary in order to understand the significance of individual properties or the district as a whole). The total amount to conduct an intensive-level survey of the district would be approximately $111,000. 7. In addition, the City's existing Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts would need to be updated. The cost to prepare this update would be $20,000. The total for surveying Gilmer Park and updating the design guidelines is approximately $131,000. B. Council Member Soren Simonsen has requested funding for the Administration to hire a consultant to undertake reconnaissance level and intensive level architectural historic building surveys in the Sugar House Business District. 1. The reconnaissance-level survey would identify buildings constructed prior to 1961 that should be surveyed at the intensive level. The Planning Division Staff notes, in a cursory review of the most recent GIS maps, that approximately 85 buildings in the CSHBD 1 and CSHBD2 Zoning Districts were identified. The reconnaissance-level survey would cost approximately $1,000 for all 85 buildings. 2. The Planning Division Staff anticipates that approximately 45 buildings could meet the intensive level survey criteria, for a cost of$20,250. 3. Design guidelines, specifically tailored for a historic preservation district, would need to be developed and adopted. The preparation of design guidelines for the Sugar House Business District would cost approximately $30,000. Page 13 4. Costs for a reconnaissance survey, an intensive level survey, and updating the Business District design guidelines would be approximately $51,250. C. Council Member Saxton has also recently received a request for expansion of a District Four Historic District. The Council may wish to request further information from the Administration on the potential cost Co survey the District Four area in addition to the two areas suggested by Council Member Love for which we do not have numbers. 1-2 Sugar House Business District Economic/Market Analysis/Study (Council/RDA funds, use internal funding in Council Office budget) (Estimate: $20,000 - $30,000) !source: Fund Balance) Council Member Soren Simonsen has requested funding to hire a consultant to undertake an economic survey and market analysis for the Sugar House Business District. Community Development Department staff provided a very rough estimate of$20,000 to $30,000 that would be needed for this study. The study would include, at a minimum, A. An economic survey and market analysis: 1. Evaluate growth trends over the past 2 decades, projected local and regional growth over the next 20 years. 2. Evaluate the potential commercial/residential absorption rate for the Sugar House Business District based on the amount of property currently zoned Sugar House Business District 1 (approximately 80 acres), and Sugar House Business District 2 (approximately 27 acres), given current trends and development patterns in greater Salt Lake City and neighboring communities.. 3. Provide an estimation of the magnitude of development that could be successfully absorbed in the Sugar House Business District and Salt Lake City as a whole. B. Identifying options, beyond zoning, to help maintain affordable rents for current and future small businesses and local merchants in the area. C. Quantify the potential impacts of zoning on property values and affordable housing. The funding options include fund balance, funding from within the Council Office budget study and consulting funds, or possibly joint funding with the Redevelopment Agency since the issues relate to a Redevelopment area. The Council has previously discussed with consultant Frank Gray the question of whether the zoning in the east central area of the City anticipates more retail than is realistic. The Council could consider this study a model upon which future analysis of other areas could be based. The $20,000- $30,000 is a very rough estimate, and the Council may wish to consider a higher dollar amount to create a model for future analysis, particularly depending on the scope of the analysis. 1-3 Donation Request- 2007 Rotary Convention ($50,000) (source: Fund Balance) The 2007 Rotary International Convention Host Organization Committee has requested that the City Council consider its request for $50,000 to assist in hosting the 2007 Rotary International Convention in Salt Lake City. The event will be held June 17 - 20, 2007. The Committee states that over 1.2 million Rotarians and their families, representing 30,000 Rotary Clubs in 168 countries are being invited to attend. They anticipate that the convention will bring 18,000 to 22,000 visitors to Salt Lake City. Council Members may remember that Salt Lake City was originally selected for the 2011 Rotary convention, but because New Orleans will be unable to host the convention in 2007, Rotary International asked Salt Lake Rotary to host the convention in 2007. The $2,150,000 budget for the host committee includes fundraising of $850,000 from government and corporate sponsorships. Contributions are subject to a benefits study and Page 14 public hearing. The benefits study has been written by Council staff and is on file in the Recorder's Office. The study is attached to the staff report for your reference. The University of Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research estimates that convention attendees will spend an average of$871 at any given three-day convention. The Host Committee maintains that Rotarians constitute an unusually-high income dmographic and are likely to spend more during their stay. The Host Committee estimates a total of$22 million in spending for the local economy. 1-4 Sugar House Light-Rail Corridor Alternatives Analysis ($75,000) (source: Fund Balance) The Utah Transit Authority obtained a rail corridor and railroad bed that runs westbound behind the Granite Furniture Block and south of 2100 South Street to the UTA commuter rail corridor. UTA obtained the property as part of the agreement with Union Pacific Railroad to buy the commuter rail corridor. District 7 City Council Member Soren Simonsen and the Administration have worked with the Transit Authority and the City of South Salt Lake to prepare an "alternatives analysis" to establish the purpose and need to develop mass transportation on the Sugar House corridor and determine what transit modes would best serve Sugar House and South Salt Lake. UTA has indicated that it would pay half of the estimated $150,000 cost of the analysis and manage the entire process for the alternatives analysis. Although South Salt Lake has indicated an interest in helping fund the remaining $75,000 for the analysis, Council Member Simonsen has indicated that it would be in Salt Lake City's best interest to appropriate the entire $75,000 to start the alternatives analysis, given the likely development on the horizon in the Sugar House area and given that the street system in Sugar House is operating at capacity. The Administration has prepared a memo regarding this funding request. It is attached to the staff report. Page 15 • MEMORANDUM TO: ROCKY FLUHART, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: STEVE FAWCETT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DATE: 9/15/2006 RE: AUGUST REVENUE FORECAST In compliance with Council Resolution#59, of 2003, I'm providing an FY2007 revenue update. This update is in conjunction with Budget Amendment#1. The Finance Division analyzes revenue each month and provides written updates each month beginning with the September analysis. July and August revenue collections are 95% booked into prior year (FY2006) because of accounting rule. As we have looked at the remaining 5% areas of revenue, we can say at this point that our collections appear to be consistent with projections, with a couple of exceptions. Telecommunications Taxes appear to be below projections; we believe this is a collection issue. We are still analyzing this issue. Also, interest income appears less than budgeted and most likely will continue. This is because of an allocation issue recently discovered where the interest owed to the Airport was not being properly and fully allocated to them. This problem is corrected but will result in a difference between actual interest income and budgeted interest income. As is always the situation at this time of the fiscal year, projection analysis prepared for the December amendment will be more precise and complete. PROPOSED BUDGET CARRYOVER AMOUNTS Initiative D-2 CDBG Budget Carryover Heritage Foundation $ 100,000 Neigh. Self Help Grants 684 Sugarhouse Master Plan 9,686 SLC Housing Match Funding 9,841 Multi-Family Housing 201,422 Urban Emphasis-Boy Scouts 54,485 Central Community Master Plan 9,279 Lead-based Paint Training 14,550 SL Housing Match Funding 65,000 Westminster Master Plan 3,955 CPPD Housing Match 90,000 SugarHouse Sm Bs area plan 569 CPPD Housing Match 100,000 Habitat for Humanity 28,315 SL CDC-Acquisition & Rehab 27,290 CPPD Housing Match 75,000 Neighborhood Self Help Grants 9,736 St Mary's Home for Men 19,702 SLC HAND Emergency Repair Fund 9,601 Odyssey House 7,975 Friendly Neighborhood Center 120,000 TURN Community Services 897 Indian Walk-in Center 18,000 Wasatch Plunge Feasibility Study 882 Holding Account for Recaptured Amounts 246,674 Finance Support 16,824 HAND 11,876 HAND rehab 78,725 ASSIST 55,703 SL CDC-Acq &Rehab 75,000 Capitol West Boys/Girls-pain 6,471 CPPD Housing Match 75,000 Wasatch Community Garden 1,250 Weigand Homeless Day Center 2,545 Family Support Center 2,500 VOA Detox 100,370 Mobile Neighborhood Watch 1,859 People Helping People 1,250 Neighborhood House 17,300 Sarah Daft House 700 Utah Alcoholsm Fndtn-SouthTm 26,617 Neighborhood Self Help Grants 10,000 Wasatch Homeless Health Care 5,000 CCS-Adm bldg 9,900 CCS-St Vincent steam kettle 2,736 Utah Alcoholism Fndtn-Dougla 3,400 Utah Alcoholism Fndtn-21 I S 16,975 HAND emergency repair fund 10,000 Community Svcs Council 62,982 Odyssey House 59,400 Salvation Army- rehab 60,000 Clean &Secureing Vacant Property 72,970 Total CDBG 2,010,896 1 Grants Budget Carryover Haz Mat Emgcy Preparedness Pln 3,000 Citizen Corps Council 357 Emergency Manager Salary 18,000 VAWA-Courts 4,168 EMS Citizen Corps Council 10,366 VAWA-Justice Court Clerk 39,928 Local Emergency Planning Commi 2,500 Emergency Manager Salary 24,000 UDAG Revolving Payback 302,933 LLEBG 2004 28,675 Justice Assistance Grant 05 149,873 2005 SHSP Grant 1,877 JAG - County portion 5,874 State VOCA Grant 13,497 Public Safety Buffer Zone Gran 113,993 Law Enforcement Technology Gra 193,567 VAWA 2006 11,229 State Health Dept CIT 43,582 ICD Crime Analysis 34,920 2006 RMHIDTA 44,833 Hear our Voices 16 Arts in Education 1,549 Intel Computer Clubhouse 1,563 Miscrosoft Unlimited Potential 3,870 Cemetery Historic Survey 2,500 Kennedy Center Imagination Cel 7,500 Global Artways- EDGAR Grant 97,123 Home Administration-25th Year 2,961 NHS-CHDO 145,000 Utah Nonprofit Housing -27 Yr 1,150 Pioneer Pk Use Plan 892 Historic Planning - survey 84 Historic Property- PR Campaig 1,483 NHS-CHDO 11,086 CDC-Construction New Hsg 52,350 VAWA 17,069 Pedestrian Crossing Design Corn 33,222 SLC Hand 463,404 Historic Preservation-Sugarhse 500 Citizen Corp Council 12,416 Safe Street Program 1,167 Home contingency 14,015 CDC -Construction-Acq &Con 74,115 Lead Based Paint County CDBG 324,726 Home administration 29th 52,867 HOPWA 27,435 Grants to Encourage Arrest 70,425 Grants to Encrge Arrest- Payr 65,942 EDGAR Grant-Youth City 743 Project Safe Neighborhood- PR 7,583 ESG Holding 2,048 HOPWA holding 72,073 Historic Preservation-Yalecrst 12,000 NHS-CHDO 186,722 CDC - Home ownership 33,500 SL CAP-TRBA 37,926 The Road Home-TRBA 7,500 2 Workforce Services 273 Project Safe Neighborhood 10,000 Home Administration 145,504 Utah Alcoholism Foundation 28,036 HOPWA 12,962 HOPWA-State 105,203 EMS plan 2,875 EDGAR grant 4,914 Critical land inventory 1,000 EDI 9th &9th 53,665 NHS-CHDO 370,479 CDC-Home Ownership Asst 75,000 CAP-TRBA 63,803 Utah Non-profit Housing CHDO 5,957 ESG 3,422 Home Administration 137,384 Weed &Seed Payroll 93,516 Weed &Seed 41,655 HOPWA 90,633 EDI Pioneer Park 496,000 VAWA prosecutors office 16,875 EDGAR Grant-Passthrough 8,710 Water Efficiency-EPA 350,000 Water Efficiency-other citie 180,000 Project Safe Neighborhood WVC 20,000 YaleCrest Nomination 10,000 Drug Free Communities- PR 20,672 EDGAR Grant Boxing Bldg Refurb 6 EDGAR 3rd year 29,452 MMRS Grant 855 EMS State Grant 25,374 EMS Grant 97,930 UDOT Traffic Mgmt Grant 12,052 EMS Medical Equipment 43,315 EMD Dispatch Equip&Train 4,568 State Homeland Security Grant(See item E-2: new grant to reimburse City) (20,330) Homeland Security 4,689 MMRS 55,555 EMD Dispatch Equip/Training 58,985 Fire Prevention/Safety Progms 7,645 MMRS 131,490 Metro Fire Investigation Task 15,000 FEMA Emergency Preparedness 1,072 MMRS 227,592 Fire Fighter Assistance 108,719 HOME Program Income Receipts 294,634 Parley's Tunnel St Dept Resrce 100,000 Solar Roof Partnership 21 Clean Cities 26,687 SLC Green Enviro&Economic 13,761 Drug Free Communities 23,731 Solar Roof 40,000 Total Grants 6,545,037 Other Special Revenue Budget Carryover Neighborhood Matching Grant 323,573 Demolition Fund 39,562 Weed Abatement Fund 211,938 3 Narcotics Evidence Trust Fund 15,301 General Evidence Trust Fund 226,049 Vice Evidence Sp. Rev. Fund 7,056 Federal Asset Forfeiture 29,448 Police Reward Fund 14,400 Narcotics Evidence Account 229,818 Vice Evidence Fund 22,733 Gangs Evidence Account 22 Narcotics Restitution Account 55 Vice Restitution Account 6,689 Narcotics SB 175 273,331 Total Other Special Revenue 1,399,973 Donation Budget Caryover Public Services Recycling Fund 5,239 Youth City Programs 30,447 Child Abduction Fund 12,626 Cycle Salt Lake 2,611 Access Salt Lake City 20,506 Parks &Rec. Maint. Donations 33,431 Development agree.Hughs Invst. 58,625 Sorenson Ctr Afterschool/Summe 3,668 Sorenson Ctr.Arts Program 10,858 Sorenson Center Sports 11 Sorenson Technology Center Trs 9,867 Rainy Day Gallivan Donations 301,551 SLC Classic Donations 18,863 Salt Lake City Fndation 501-C3 10 SLC Fire training center Donat 145,034 Eccles SLC Foundation Donat. 572 SLOC Tornado Pins 13,715 Junior Golf donations 4,952 SLC Tree Replacemnt Torna 1999 116,990 Physical Fitness of Cities 4 Greek Sculpture installation 10,000 Police Equipment Endowment 17,341 Fire Equipment Endowmnt Hansen 77,134 Anna Palmer Reward Fund 5,484 Cannon Farms Indemnification 1,960 Park Plaque 8,177 Youth City Employment 1,074 Gilgal Garden Donations 11,108 Sugar House 13th East Crossing 2,579 Spotlight of Excellence 3,707 Council Misc. Donations 35 Memorial House Maintenance 11,895 Equipment Purchase Donations 3,284 Environmental Donations 25,448 Service dog donations fund 2,600 Safe Neighbors Project 10,353 Cannon Frms.Strip Indemnificat 3,838 SLC Library Paver Replacement 166,998 CIT Scholarship 4,137 Steiner Acquatic Trust 86,274 Newspapers for Trees 11,267 Total Donation Accounts 1,254,270 4 Housing Budget Carryover Program Income Renter Rehab. 834,526 HED 609 ADDI 76,058 HAND 617,649 HOME 341,784 ADDI 37,292 HOME Program Income Loans 420,668 UDAG Housing Trust 2,136,818 Transitional Housing 39,613 RDA Grant Housing Trust Fund 633,016 River Park Program Income 690,411 Total Housing 5,828,444 Grand Total $ 17,038,621 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Grant to 2007 Rotary International Convention Host Organization Committee: Study to Comply with Utah Code Section 10-8-2 CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Ed Rutan, Alison McFarlane, Sam Guevara, Louis Zunguze, Gary Mumford, Larry Spendlove This memorandum pertains to a proposed$50,000 grant to the 2007 Rotary International Convention Host Organization Committee. The grant would be used by the international service organization to hold its 2007 convention in Salt Lake City. The convention is scheduled to be held June 17-20. The grant is subject to a written study and a public hearing required under Utah Code Section 10-8-2. After the public hearing the City Council will consider a resolution authorizing the proposed grant. The required study starts with the next paragraph. Utah Code Section 10-8-2 allows municipalities to appropriate money"for corporate purposes only." The section considers a"corporate purpose"as"any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body,provides for the safety, health, prosperity,moral well-being, peace, order,comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality." However, before a city's legislative body can make a decision to appropriate money for a corporate purpose, it must hold a public hearing for public comment on a study that shows: 1. An identified benefit the city would receive in return for any money or resources appropriated. 2. The city's purpose for the appropriation, including an analysis of the way the appropriation will be used to enhance the safety,health,prosperity,moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality. 3. Whether the appropriation is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the municipality in the area of economic development,job creation, affordable housing,blight elimination,job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. (Italics: City Council staff.)' To meet the law's requirements, the study has been available in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415, City&County Building, 451 South State Street since September 7. The City Council will hold a public hearing on whether to adopt a resolution approving the proposed grant. The public hearing will be held October 3, 2006, and after the public hearing the City Council would consider two potential motions: 1 Potential Motions • I move that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing a$50,000 grant to the 2007 Rotary International Convention Host Organization Committee to help the international service organization hold its 2007 convention in Salt Lake City. • I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda. Background/Discussion The 2007 Rotary International Convention Host Organization Committee is seeking the donation for three reasons: • Utah Rotarians would like to use part of the grant to help pay to promote the convention so more Rotarians will attend it.2 • Utah Rotarians would like to use part of the grant to help pay for general budget expenses for the convention when it is held.3 • Utah Rotarians would like to use the grant to approach"additional funding sources with the evidence of enthusiastic support from Salt Lake City."' In strictly commercial terms, a rough, conservative estimate of what Salt Lake City might realize from making the proposed$50,000 grant would be at minimum about$156,780 over the length of the convention.The estimate is based on the following factors: • The Rotary International Convention Host Organization estimates that the convention will attract a minimum of 18,000 Rotarians to Salt Lake City.5 • The convention will last four days.6 • The Host Organization quotes a University of Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research estimate that people attending conventions in Salt Lake City spend on average $871 for any three-day convention.'(It should be noted that more recent estimates are slightly higher.) • Salt Lake City collects a 1 percent sales tax on purchases and a 1 percent local transient room tax for hotel rooms. Given that the $871 estimate does not differentiate between obtaining hotel rooms and other purchases, one can conservatively predict that Salt Lake City would realize at least 1 percent of the average spending estimate of$871. • One percent of$871 equals$8.71. $8.71 times 18,000 people attending the convention equals $156,780. That estimate has the potential to increase for the following reasons: • The convention is scheduled to last four days. In addition, the convention will be preceded three days of meetings of members of Rotary International's young adult programs.8 • The Convention Host Organization estimates that the convention could draw as many as 22,000 people, and—if the grant is approved—possibly more than that many.9 • The Convention Host Organization notes that"Rotarians ... constitute an unusually high-income demographic ... and are likely to spend more during their stay."1° 2 Given the above, it appears that Salt Lake City would receive an identifiable benefit from appropriating$50,000 to grant the Rotary International Convention Host Organization. It might be noted that the Convention Host Organization anticipates $250,000 in financial aid from the Utah Depth liuent of Tourism for the convention." The other two requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2 involve a statement of purpose "for the appropriation, including an analysis of the way the appropriation will be used to enhance the safety,health,prosperity, moral well-being,peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality,"and whether the"appropriation is necessary and appropriate to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the municipality in the area of economic development,job creation, affordable housing,blight elimination,job preservation,the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose." It should be noted that the Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown adopted in 2003 contain four points of what Salt Lake City —particularly the downtown—means to its community and Utah. The points are: • Salt Lake City is Utah's commercial and financial center. • Salt Lake City is the seat of state government. • Downtown remains the focal point of arts, culture and entertainment in Utah. • Downtown is the focal point of Utah's convention business. More recently, the City Council crafted a statement for inclusion in the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce's Downtown Rising initiative. The statement read in part: The Salt Lake City Council wants everyone who lives in Utah to feel a sense of pride and ownership in Utah's capital city. It is central to Utah's history, and as a focal point of art and culture,business,entertainment, government, and education in the region, is critical to Utah's future as well. We believe that the Salt Lake Chamber's Downtown Rising initiative will help make downtown a place where Utahans enjoy their past and present and look forward to the future. Salt Lake City—particularly the downtown—is the focal point of art, culture, entertainment and conventions in Utah. The question is, then: Is it reasonable that financially helping the Rotary International Convention Host Organization would benefit Salt Lake City residents and would enhance their safety,health,prosperity, moral well- being,peace, order, comfort, or convenience?" According to the Rotary International Convention Host Organization, the planned convention will be the largest convention held in Salt Lake City since the 2002 Winter Olympics. Of the estimated 18,000 to 22,000 people expected to attend the convention, two-thirds are projected to come from places inside the United States and one-third from about 165 other nations. The convention has the potential to attract a number of people who have never visited Salt Lake City or Utah. If visitors are treated well, and the convention is successful, the convention may help solidify Salt Lake City's position as a destination for conventions—something the City and Salt Lake County have striven to do since at least the early 1960s. 3 Two more points are worth noting. First, Salt Lake City originally was scheduled to be host to the Rotary International convention in 2011. However, damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita left New Orleans—the original site of the 2007 convention— unable to hold the event.The international organization asked Salt Lake City to move its 2011 date to next summer. If Salt Lake City holds a successful convention,having had to work quickly; that also could reinforce Salt Lake City as a convention destination. Second, The Rotarian magazine, "a monthly publication sent to all Rotarians' homes in one of six languages,"will feature Salt Lake City from September 2006 to May 2007. The October issue will include an 11-page feature about Salt Lake City and Utah.12 Even though Utah recently has increased funding to market Utah,it is probable that local and state marketing campaigns would have difficulty reaching the number and economic demographic that The Rotarian will reach each month for nine months. One also must consider the amount of good will the City might generate for itself, for Utah, and possibly even the United States.Rotary International has 1.2 million members world-wide. According to the Rotary International Convention Host Organization's funding proposal, 36-percent of Rotary International's members live in North America, 26 percent live in Europe,25 percent live in Asia, 8 percent live in Central and South America; and 5 percent live in other areas.There is a good chance, then, that, if one-third, of the people attending the convention come from outside the United States, the people in that group can see for themselves that Salt Lake City and the United States remain places of good will with gracious hosts. The event could showcase the things the 43 clubs in Rotary District 5420 have done to help their communities. In Salt Lake City that would include helping undertake the annual Chili-open Golf Classic at Wheeler Farm,building Rotary Park in City Creek Canyon and Rotary Glen in Emigration Canyon,helping renovate Ottinger Hall near the mouth of City Creek Canyon,building a special playground in Liberty Park for children with disabilities, and routinely taking part in exchange programs and health programs undertaken by Rotary International. 'Utah Code 10-8-2(3)(d&e). 2 Rotary Funding Proposal,Page 2. 3 Ibid. °July 11 letter from Robert Graham,Vice Chair,Rotary Host Organization Committee. 5 Rotary Funding Proposal,Page 2. 6 ibid. Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 'o Ibid. "Rotary Funding Proposal,Page 5. 12 Rotary Funding Proposal,Page 2. 4 r.y} r r ROSS C. "ROCKYY"ANDERSON SAE:lr Q ��©me IL MOFFICE OF THE MAYOR MEMORANDUM To: Salt Lake City Council From: D.J. Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor 61 Re: Sugar House Transit Line—Funding Request Date: September 14, 2006 Council Member Simonsen and members of the Administration have been working with UTA and South Salt Lake to initiate a formal study process for the Sugar House transit line. The first step in the process to study, design, and construct transit improvements is an Alternatives Analysis, which will identify the nature and degree of transit service needed, establish goals for the project, and recommend a preferred transit mode and alignment. We would like to initiate this analysis as quickly as possible, and we therefore support Councilmember Simonsen's request that the Council authorize funds for Salt Lake City's share of the Alternatives Analysis. UTA believes the Alternatives Analysis will cost $130,000-$150,000. Of that amount, UTA is willing to pay 50%, leaving up to $75,000 for Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake to cover jointly. Representatives of South Salt Lake will be making a similar request of their City Council, and are confident their Council will appropriate a share of the funds needed, likely around $30,000. Therefore, we support the request for Council authority to expend funds on this project, and recommend authorization for up to $45,000, which would enable Salt Lake City to cover the entire "gap," if the study cost comes in at the $150,000 level. Because of the imminent nature of several large development projects in the Sugar House Business District, time is of the essence. These projects have the potential to impact traffic patterns and volumes in Sugar House, both during and after their construction. Accelerating the construction of a transit line would help not only to lessen the impacts of construction and additional traffic in the area,but could also help shape those projects to be more transit-oriented, as some projects are early enough in their design process that they could take into account the transit line if it were a known quantity. Cc: Rocky Anderson Rocky Fluhart Louis Zunguze Tim Harpst Dave Oka 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com SEP 0 5 2006 ROCKY J. FLU HART SAW t;,..Qom '- " ) ORATION! -..g- ,� .� - ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chair Salt Lake City Council i Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rocky J. Fluha-t, DATE: August 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 1 Recommendation: We recommend that on September 19, 2006, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on October 3, 2006 to discuss Budget Amendment No. 1. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on September 5, 2006. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 23B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6426 FAX: B01-535-6190 !'A SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2005-2006) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF 2006 WHICH ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND ORDINANCE NO. 57 OF 2006 WHICH RATIFIED AND RE-ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2006 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2007. PREAMBLE On June 15, 2006, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. On August 8, 2006, the City Council ratified and re-adopted the final budget. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No.32 of 2006 and Ordinance No. 57 of 2006. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2007, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APP P,OVED AS . It Lake City /Attttc:r.,:=;''i Oaicco f 131£ — (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Budget\Budget Amendment#1 2006-2007.doc 3 FY 2007 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #1 — October FY 2007 FY 2007 Gen.Fund Initiative Gen. Fund Fund Initiative Name FTE Amount Impact Balance Impact Section A New Items 1. Microsoft Office Upgrade $58,000.00 2. Consolidation of HR& $49,500.00 $49,500.00 Civil Sery Employment Processes 3. Garfield School Revenue $36,000.00 4. Impact Fee Waivers $152,190.00 $152,190.00 ($152,190.00) 5. Jordan River Trail 1000 $40,000.00 North to Rose Park Golf Course 6. Lowes Property Purchase $40,000.00 7. Unity Center $4,733,843.00 Construction Section `B Grants For Existing Staff Resources 1. Utah Clean Cities $30,000.00 Coalition 2. State—Natural Resources $30,000.00 —Clean Cities Program 3. Department of ED Grant $265,180.00 4th Year Appropriation 4. State—Workforce $30,000.00 Service—Youth City Fairmont Park 5. State—Workforce $23,450.00 Service—Youth City Ottinger Park 6. State—Workforce $30,000.00 Services—Youth City Liberty Park 7. Utah State University $25,000.00 Interagency Outreach Training 8. County- Social Services $20,000.00 Block Grant-Youth City Program Section C Grants For New Staff Resources Section D Housekeeping 1. E-911 Encumbrance $287,813.00 Carryover FY 2007 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #1 —October FY 2007 FY 2007 Initiative Gen. Fund Gen. Fund Initiative Name Amount Impact Fit Fund Balance Impact 2. Special Revenue Budget $17,038,621.31 Carryover 3. IMS—PROMIS Grant $22,000.00 Carryover 4. Zoo and Aviary Bond $98,956.00 Proceeds 5. General Fund $2,818,431.00 $2,818,341.00 ($2,818,431.00) Encumbrance Carryover 6. Refuse and Fleet $604,998.00 Encumbrance Carryover 7. Yale Ave Street Lighting $3,249.78 Legal Fees 8. Recapture CDBG CIP $181,911.24 Funds 9. Recapture CIP Funds $222,870.18 10. Impact Fee Revenue $2,367,545.04 11. Youth City Program $39,417.96 Income 12. Property Mgmt CIP $31,080.35 Land Purchase 13. CIP—Garfield School $109,236.67 Purchase 14. Salt Storage—Steiner $380,020.39 Aquatic Center Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. State Dept of Health $80,688.00 EMS Grant 2. State Dept of Public $32,084.00 Safety Emergency Serv. And Homeland Security 3. State Commission on $7,000.00 Criminal - Honda Theft Prevention 4. Law Enforcement— $320,311.00 Justice Assistance Grant 5. State Dept of Health - $5,488.00 EMS - Dispatcher Training Grant Section F Donations 1. Mayor's Drug Free $887.80 Communities Donation 2 Initiative Name: Microsoft Office Upgrade Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #A-1 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: Microsoft office is used citywide to support email, word processing, spreadsheets, and presentations. As a City we standardized on this product to provide consistency, reduce training and support costs and provide a tool that meets the needs of City Departments. This has been a great success, city workers are able to communicate and work on documents without major complications. Microsoft Office is still the industry standard and continues to maintain the largest market share. There are other suites available however none of them compete successfully with Microsoft in meeting the City needs. Microsoft Office is the best suite that contains all the features needed in the City. Three years ago when Microsoft first initiated their Software Assurance program we purchased this licensing agreement program for Microsoft Office. This'allowed us to receive any upgrades, ' patches, etc. for Microsoft Office through October 2006. It appears that Microsoft'is ready to release the new version of Office in the first quarter of 2007. The City can save by renewing our current Software Assurance Program currently in place. We are currently testing the beta version of this product. This testing will take a few months to complete; however, we suspect that most City users will want to take advantage of the new features. These are just a few of the features we have discovered so far in our testing. FY 2007 Budget Amendment# October I I I I Microsoft Office Upgrade Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#A-1 j 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Management Services / IMS Administrative J! Department Type of Initiative Mike Freeland 535-6115 Prepared By I I Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue':Impact Bvund 1stYear 2nd Year :FY2006 07 ' FY 2D07 08: _ General Fund Total; $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 ! $0 Enterprise Fund I j � i I Total I $01 I $0 Other Fund I I I 1 1 — I, -------_-- Total I 0 I $01 Baffina Impact:. :. (New Number of FTE's 01 OI Existing Number of FTE's j 0 0 Total 0I Oj - - 'Description ' I I BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#A-1 IMS Microsoft Upgrade8/22/200610:19 AM , FY 2007 Budget Amendment# October I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA-#If ApplicableRevenue 1 Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount IIMS Fund Balance Expenditure • - • , - „:„ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 65-03100 I 2328 58,000.00 H Additional Description: Grant Information Grant funds employee positions? NIA -1 Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?1 NIA ;Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 1Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ;eliminated? N/A ,Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A 1 1 BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#A-1 IMS Microsoft Upgrade8/22/200610 19 AM Initiative Name: 0 Consolidation of all HR and Civil Service employment processes Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #A-2 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: Prior to 1995, management responsibility for the Human Resource function was decentralized and many departments had their own human resource office with staff reporting directly to Department Administration. In November of 1995 the City made a policy decision to centralize administration of the human resource function. Employees working in individual departments were transferred to City Human Resource, currently in the Department of Management Services.The decision was based on the need for consistency in employment and selection processes across the City. The Police Department is currently managing their own entry level recruitment and testing processes. This is inconsistent with the policy decision for centralized human resource support. The Civil Service Commission has the responsibility to oversee and approve processes related to entry level testing and recruitment. City Human Resource staff are responsible to provide this administrative support to the Civil Service Commission. The division of human resources is requesting to re establish centralized human resource administration which will allow for consolidation of all HR and Civil Services employment processes. The Police Chief is supportive of this initiative and has agreed to transfer one FTE from the Police Department budget to Human Resources Mgmt Serv. Department. The HR Division will use the FTE to hire a Human Resources Associate. The position the Police Department is giving up is a 309 Police employment coordinator and the new position in HR will be a 603 Human Resource Associate. The salary and benefits for the 9 months in 2006-07 is 849,500, and the salary and benefits for 2007-08 is $66,000. 1 � 1 Consolidation of all HR and Civil Service employment processes Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#A-2 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mgmt Serv. HR Division New Department ( 1 1 Type of Initiative Jamey Knighton 535-6307 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By'Fund: .1st Year 2nd Year FY 2006-07 • FY 2007-08 (General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total 1 $01 I $01 Enterprise Fund Total $01 $0, Other Fund Total 0 I $0 Staffing Impact: . New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 01 0 Description 309 Police Employment -1 FTE _ Coordinator Position 603 Human Resource Associate 1 FTE Position 1 I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: - - - -- -- Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1 Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02-00075 2111-01 (49,500.00) 16-00070 - 2111-01 49,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant InfOrmation: Grant funds employee positions? N/A !Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A !If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? F N/A !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Ilnitiative Name: Garfield School Revenue Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #A-3 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: The Garfield School' property was recently purchased by the City. This property has two existing tenants which pay approximately $3,000 per month in rents. Property Management expects to received approximately $36,000 of rental revenue over the next year. These funds will be used for one time improvement costs to include repair of concrete steps, add security system, recore outside locks, restore ALC units, boiler and ventilation systems, and renovation of irrigation system. This request will`provide $36,000 of' budget to; receive the expected revenue. Garfield School Revenue---- __ -- — -- l Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #A-3 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND New Department I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact I _ Revenue-Impact By Fund: =1st Year` 2ndYYear FY 2006-07 • FY 2007-08 ;General Fund I I Total $01 $01 ;Internal Service Fund Total; $0 $01 ;Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 83-07097 Rental Income $ 36,000.00 Total $ 36,000.00 $0 Staffrna Imoactc New Number of FTE's 0 01 --- ---- --- --- Existing Number of FTE's Total 0.001 0; Description I - 1 I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#Jf Applicable: NA Revenue: — — - Cost Center Number ( Object Code Number _ Amount 183-07097 1807 1l $ 36,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number ; Amount 183-07097 2700 1 $ 36,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Object Code Number Amount Grant`Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA L __ Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA ;Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,eliminated? I -1 NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or11 Non-profit sector? NA -1 I ! I I Initiative Name: Impact Fee Waivers Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #A-4 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: During FY 05-06, the Community Development Department has processed five (5) requests for impact fee exemptions, totaling $152,190 for 171 housing units. Community Development Corporation of Utah received two exemptions for 2 units at 922 and 952 W. Cannon Oaks; Neighborhood Housing Services received exemptions for 4 units at 163 and 165 So. 1000 West, and 1001 and 1007 Euclid; the Housing Authority of Salt Lake received an exemption for 100 units for the Sunrise Apartments at 600 So. 500 West; Cowboy Partners received an exemption for 65 units for the Liberty Midtown Apartments at 231 So. 300 East. As outlined in the current City Ordinance, a one hundred(100) percent exemption shall be granted for non-rental/rental housing, for which the annualized mortgage/rental payment does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the annual income of a family whose annual income equals eighty(80) percent of the median income for Salt Lake City as determined by HUD. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the appropriate action to increase the non- departmental budget from fund balance to facilitate the necessary payment of the Impact Fee exemptions. • I L - - Impact Fee Waivers Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #A-4 2006-07 Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year L_ Community Development(HAND) New Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-61361535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp. ($152,190), Revenue'Impact By Fund: 1st Year " 2nd Year. FY.2006-07 FY 2007-08 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund _ Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Fund 84 Transfer from GF $ 152,190.00 Total $ 152,190.00 $0 Staffinq:Impact: , , New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 1 0 _Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA.#If Applicable: NA Revenue: :_.- I Cost Center Number Object 84 84 Code Number Amount__ - - 001 1974-01 $ 35_910 00 84-84002 , 1974-01 $ 40,185 00 84-84003 -- -, — 1974-01 ---- ---- 76,095 00 $ 152,190.00 1 Expenditure:: Cost Center Number I T Object Code Number Amount 09-00700 2910-01 $ 152,190.00 184-84001 2700 $ 35,910.00 84-84002 2700 $ 40,185.00 184-84003 2700 $ 76,095 00] Additional.Accounting.Details Community Development Corp of Utah 890.00 922 W. Cannon Oaks 1 Units @ 890.00 per unit iCommunity Development Corp of Utah 890.00 952 W. Cannon Oaks 11 Units @ 890.00 per unit (Neighborhood Housing Services 3,560.00 j 163& 165 So. 1000 W. & 1001-1007 Euclid 14 Units @ 890.00 per unit Housing Authority of Salt Lake City j 89,000.00 (Sunrise Apartments ,100 Units @ 890.00 per unit I 1 lCowbo_y Partners, LC 57,850.00 J 1 Liberty Midtown Apartments 165 Units • 890.00 per unit Grant Information: (Grant funds employee positions? N/A 1 Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?I N/A 1 1Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? 1 1 N/A ;Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? T 1 N/A ----------- Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? I N/A Initiative Name: Jordan River Trail, 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #A-5 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: The Jordan River Trail, Rose Park Golf Course Bridge to Redwood Rd. project was awarded $100,000 during the FY05/06 CIP Process. Funds were allocated for the design and construction improvements to this section of the trail. However, this section of the trail was recently included in the scope of work to be funded with a Federal Highway Enhancement Grant. For this reason, Engineering is proposing to use the remaining balance of $71,220.14 in this project for the section of trail from 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course. The trail section from 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course was awarded $200,000 of Impact Fee Funds during the FY2004-2005 CIP process for design and construction improvements. There is a current balance of $152,917.33 remaining for this project. The estimated project costs including design is $300,000, due in part to the necessity of.designing several sections of retaining walls to constrain the Jordan River from encroaching into and destroying the trail right-of-way. The $300,000 originally allocated to these two (2) projects can also be used to meet the match requirement of the Federal Highway Enhancement Grant. Including funds that have been expensed for the design portion of the two sections of trail. Because of the federal grant Engineering wants to add the remaining budget from the Rose Park Golf Course.Bridge to Redwood Rd to the 1000,North to Rose Park Golf Course Project. In addition, Engineering has received the final construction estimate and because of the increase in construction cost of this portion of the trail, an additional $40,000 will be needed to bid and construct the project. Engineering is proposing that the additional $40,000 be allocated to,the project from the CIP cost over-run account. - - J ' I Jordan River Trail, 1000 North to Rose Park Golf Course I Initiative Name SA#1 FY2007 Initiative#A-5 I 2006-07 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND New Department ,, j Type of Initiative I[ LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By ] Telephone Tele Contact 1 Revenue 1mpacf$v-Fund: 1st_Year. 2nd'Year • FY 2006-07 ` ,. FY2007 08 (General Fund 1 Total 1 $01 1 $0 Ilnternal Service Fund II I j Total), $01 $01 !Enterprise Fund I Total $0 ( $0 _ ,Other Fund j i� Total 0 I $0 Staffing Imaact:• __ _ 'New Number of FTE's 0 0 ;Existing Number of FTE's 1 01 ;Total i 0.00 0 I Description i I i I 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue: - - • 7 - - Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount ii Expenditure Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 183-05099 2700 (40,000.00) 83-06024 2700 40,000.00 1 Additional Accounting Details: Object Code Number Amount General Fund CIP Impact Fees must be tracked separately from GF projects. Do not combine cost centers. Name change and $40,000 budget increase to cost center 83-06024 Grant Information:" • . Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue'? N/A -- - If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A - - Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Lowes Property Purchase Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #A-6 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: The Lowes Store on 300 West and 1300 South is now complete and open. The Transportation Division has determined that a right hand turn lane at the intersection of 300 West and 1300 South will be necessary in the near future, to accommodate the excess traffic and allow for a more even traffic flow in the intersection. The City originally sold the property to Lowes at $15.00 per sq. ft., and has negotiated a buy back at the same amount to facilitate constructing the right hand turn lane. The right hand turn lane will be north bound on 300 West, turning east bound onto 1300 So. The purchase price of the property with closing costs is approximately $40,000. Property Management has adequate cash in the Surplus Land Sales fund to purchase the property, but does not have adequate budget to spend the cash. This request is to create an additional $40,000 of budget in the Surplus Land Sales fund to purchase the property from Loaves and facilitate the purchase. Lowes Property Purchase Initiative Name BA#1FY2007 Initiative#A-6 2006-07 Initiative Number L 1 Fiscal Year --J Community Development- HAND Housekeeping Department _ Type of Initiative L_ LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By � � Telephone Contact r .Revenue-Impact BY Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 General Fund ' Total $0 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 $0 Other Fund � I Total 1 $01 I $0 Staffinq'Impactc° New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00 0 Description - -- I I I I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#1f Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount ---- ---------- 183-81100 Fund Balance 1 l - 1 Expenditure: . Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount 83-81100 ! j 2700 $ 40,000.001 I i j I _ Additional Accounting Details.. Object Code Number Amount Grant Information: !Grant funds employee positions? N/A j Is there a potential for grant to continue? NIA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NIA ,Does grant duplicate services provided by rivate or Non-profit sector? I ! NIA Initiative Name: Unity Center Construction - Bidding Stage to Construction Completion Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #A-7 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: Funds for the Unity Center project were received from the Affiance for Unity, private donations, and interest earnings. Budget is needed to carry the Unity Center project through construction. Funds are drawn`/ transferred from the Unity Center Trust as needed. Two transfers of.$300,000 each have already been done to cover the cost of design. At that time it was stated that funds for construction would be requested in a future budget amendment. At the present time, the Unity Center project is in 100% design review. Construction will be put out to bid the middle of September. An appropriation needs to be established so the. City can commit to a construction contract. The City Administration continues to pursue a funding opportunity that, would bring additional construction and operation funds to the project. The Center was designed in a way that the scope can be changed if new market tax credit funding doesn't come through. The number- of education/technology classrooms will be changed according to the funding. The new market tax credits could bring in another $1.6M from an equity investment partner. The credit funding would go toward the construction of two extra classrooms and; other building enhancements, and whatever is left would go toward ongoing operational expenses. If the credits aren't received, the City will revert to the design of the $5.3M base budget. Unity Center Construction - Bidding Stage to Construction Completion Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#A-7 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Services Department New Item Department Type of Initiative Greq Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 General Fund Total $0i $0 Internal Service Fund Total, $0I $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 Other Fund 83 Fund Transfer From Special $ 4,733,843.00 Revenue Fund Total 4,733,843.00 I $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's I 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183-04020 _ 1974-77 $ 4,733,843.00 � I 7 i - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount _77-77141 2910-01 $ 4,733,843.00 ,83-04020 2700 $ 4,733,843.00 --- i i Additional Accounting Details: -- - ---- --- — - --- -�- I � � Grant Information: I _ Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? i, N/A _- - t e -- -, If grant is fundinga position is it expected theposition will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A TWill grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A grantimpact once the grant funds are -- - N/A Will the �eliminated. Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Sorenson Unity Center Project # 660306 Preliminary Project Budget Summary 19 9/1/2006 . T Base Bid w/ 2 add' clssrms Construction Costs (Bid) $ 3,819,011 $ 3,968,521 Construction Contingency 5% $ 190,951 $ 198,426 FF&E '� � $ 360,000 $ 396,000 Total Constructi on & FFE $ 4,369,962 $ 4,562,947 Permits $ 34,836 ' $ 36,032 --i Public Utilities Fees $ 25,000 $ 25,000 , Testing/Special Inspection $ 24,000 $ 25,000 Design Fees i- - $ 386,5507 $ 386,550 Programming- $ 54,300 'Schematics 1 -- - $ --_44,000 DD, CD, CA $ 217,000 FF&E $ 23,100 LEED admin $ 20,000 _ I ,Addt'I survey $ 2,000 eotng ;h Ip --- - gnntin study I$ 11,000 $ 4,700 i - LEED regis. $ 450 DOE I I Modeling 10,000I Engineering/Administration/Misc ministration/Misc $ 112,000 ' $ 112,000 Survey 1 $ 15,116 ' $ 15,116 Phone/data/equip.q p. $ 90,000 I 1 $ 90,000 1 - --- ,500 $ 42,500 Commisioning Agent LEED 0 for Arts ! $ 42 I , 2003 Public Meetings $ 12 030 $ 12,030 Zonin Fees 9 2,765 1 $ 2,765 Pritzkau houses $ 10,519 $ 10,519 Relocate/Demo Clubhouse Trailer 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Business Plan Consultant (Galena) I $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Project Contingency $ 50,000 $ 50,000 g � Security System $ 55,000 j $ 55,400 BUDGET TOTAL $ 5,310,278 , ' $ 5,505,859 Original Project Funding $ 4,500,329 ' $ 4,500,329 Interest to July 2006 $ 378,898 ' $ 378,898 Interest Aug, Sept, Oct 2006 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ , 400,000 11/05 donation frm AFU & Sorenson 400 000 $ Misc deposits $ 2,898 $ 2,898__ Pritzkau land purchase difference $ (7,346) $ Misc payments $ (936) $ (936) TOTAL FUNDING $ 5,333,843 ' $ 5,333,843 OVER BUDGET (UNDER BUDGET) $ (23,565) $ 172,016 'Initiative Name: I Utah Clean Cities Coalition - SLC Clean Cities Program Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-1 Initiative Type: Grants For Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Mayor's Office received this $30,000 from the Utah Clean Cities Coalition and will be used for half of the costs associated with the salary, benefits, supplies and travel of the Clean Cities Coordinator. Funds were awarded for the continuation of the coordination assistance in promoting the use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and the ultimate development of a refueling and vehicle maintenance infrastructure, to educate the public of AFV's and collect and distribute information regarding AFV performance, costs and technology. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional contracts and awards related to this grant. Utah Clean Cities Coalition - SLC Clean Cities Program Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative # I 2006-07 Initiative Number l ___ — 1 j Fiscal Year Mayor's Office Grant For Existing Staff Resource Department I Type of Initiative Bev Miller//Sherrie Collins 535-7736/535-6150 Prepared By � _ - ---- Telephone Contact l ReVenue=-Inn:4ot By Fund:. "• 1st=Year ' _ 2nd Year, ;FY 2006 07 FY:20D7 08 . . , !General Fund Total $0 $0i Internal Service Fund Total', $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 State Grant $ 30,000.00 Total $ 30,000.00 $0! Sta#iria=lmpactc° ;New Number of FTE's ,Existing Number of FTE's ;Total 0 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA:#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72 New Cost Center 1890 I $ 30,000.00 1 _ Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172 New Cost Center ! 2590 ! $ 30,000.00 Additional Accounting Details Please combine Utah Clean Cities Coalition award land Utah State Clean Cities grant for a total budget of $60,000 !for both allocations in one cost center Grant Information, `- • - _- - jGrantfunds employee positions? Yes I — —;Is there a potential for grant to continue? 1 Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will ;be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are 1eliminated? j Yes 1Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No I I I Initiative Name: State, Department of Natural Resources - Clean Cities Program Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-2 Initiative Type: Grant For Existing Staff Resource Initiative Discussion: The Mayor's Office applies for and receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources Energy Office. These funds will be used for half of the costs associated with the salary, benefits, supplies and travel of the Clean Cities Coordinator. Funds are awarded for the continued coordination of promoting the use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and the ultimate development of a refueling an.d vehicle maintenance infrastructure, to educate the public of AFV's and collect and distribute information regarding AFV performance, costs and technology. Typically the City receives approximately $60,000 per year from the State. Although this year's allocation has been reduced to $30,000, the Clean Cities Coordinator has obtained an agreement with the Utah Clean Cities Coalition to reimburse SLC $30,000 for the other half of the costs associated with the salary, benefits, supplies etc., of the Coordinator position. The State grant requires a $45,000 match which is met with the $30,000 agreement between SLC and Utah Clean Cities Coalition and a $15,000 in-kind match which is met within the Mayor's Office general fund budget for supplies, phones, etc. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. The Council previously passed the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the original grant and to accept and sign any additional contracts and awards related to this grant. 1 State, Dept of Natural Resources, Clean Cities Program 1 1 I Initiative Name I P BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-2 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mayor's Office Grant For Existing Staff Resource Department Type of Initiative [_ Bev Miller//Sherrie Collins 535-7736/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue Impact By Fund. 1st Year "' 2nd'Year FY 2006-07 fY 2007-08 (General Fund 1 1 Total $01 $0 1Internal Service Fund 1 Total I $01 I $01 Enterprise Fund 1 Total $01 I $0 ,Other Fund 72- State Grant $ 30,000.00 1 1 Total $ 30,000.00 I I $0 I I 1 _ Staffing impact• - 'New Number of FTE's 1 0 01 Existing Number of FTE's 0 1Total 0 01 [Description I ! Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#•If Applicable:- Revenue: Cost Center Number 1 O Object Code $ Amount 30,000.00_,i 172- New Cost Center 1 - 11 1-- -- r- Expenditure ,. ... r.. ce _ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- New Cost Center 2590 $ 30,000.001 I Additional Accounting Details 1 Please combine Utah Clean Cities Coalition award ;and Utah State Clean Cities grant for a total budget of $60,000 for both allocations in one cost center Grant Information Grant funds employee positions? j Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? 1 Yes IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?1_-_ 1 Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame'? Yes i Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are I. - I eliminated? -- ----- -� _ Yes I i - Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: US Depart of Ed - Supplemental Congressional Appropriation - Year 4 Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-3 Initiative Type: Grant for Existing Staff Resource Initiative Discussion: Public Services, YouthCity Program was awarded an additional Congressional Appropriation in the amount of $894,150 from the US Department of Education in FY 2003-2004. This award is for a five year period from FY 2004 to 2008. The funding was allocated for continuation and expansion of the current programs YouthCity provides. This request is to create budget in the amount of $264,180 for year 4 of the 5 year award. $255,680 of these funds will continue to fund the salary and benefits of the manager, site coordinators, and hourly PTE teacher positions during this fiscal year. No new positions are required. In addition, $3,000 has been awarded for travel, $4,000 for supplies and $2,500 for other. YouthCity sites include, Fairmont, Liberty, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and Glendale Middle School. No match is required. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. i I US Department of Education Supplemental Congressional Appropriation Year 4 Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-3 2006-07 Initiative Number ( Fiscal Year Grant for Existing Staff Public Services Youth Services Resource Department 1 Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins 535-7002/535-6150 Prepared By r 1 Telephone Contact Revenue Impact Bv.Fund -: 1stear: 2d'Year.`; 1FY.2006-07 :FY.2007 08 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 —;Other Fund 72- Federal Funds 1 $ 265,180.00 Total i $ 265,180.00 $0 I � � Staffma.Impact: • • t; New Number of FTE's Existing Number of FTE's ;4 1 $ 255,68O.0.00 0 1Total $ 255 680.00 0 Description Salary and benefits for 3 FTE Site ,Coordinators & 1 FTE Program Manager& several seasonal teacher positions. No new ' I • Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 84-215K Revenue: - - Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount — — '72- New Cost Center j 1360 $ 265,180.00 i I � I Expenditure - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2111-01 $ 255,680.00 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 9,500.00 $ 265,180.00 Additional Accounting.Details: I � � Grant Information . 'Grant funds employee positions? Yes — — I L— Is there a potential for grant to continue? Possible JIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ eliminated? Yes 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or — Non-profit sector? I No -- Initiative Name: I State Department of Workforce Services Grant -YouthCity at Fairmont Park Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-4 Initiative Type: Grants for Existin. Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $30,000 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Youth Connections Grant Program. These funds were received to pay the salary and benefits of seasonal positions at the Fairmont Park site which include the Program Assistant and two Program Facilitators. These positions were previously paid for through the Department of Education Grant. The Program Assistant position assists the site Coordinator with programming and daily operation of the YouthCity Fairmont Park facility and are required to be on site in,the absence of the Coordinator. The other two positions help with programming. This grant is renewable on an annual basis for a 3 year period. YouthCity will continue to apply as funds are available. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Director's salary and benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Utah State Department of Work Force Services grant and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant award. State Department of Workforce Grant Youth City at Fairmont Park 1 Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-4 2006-07 Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department 1 Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins T 535-7002/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue'Impact Bv-Fund:. 1st Year 2nd Year _ FY:2006 07: FY 2007-08 (General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0; $0 Enterprise Fund I I � Total $0I $0 Other Fund 72- State Grant $ 30,000.00 Total $ 30,000.00 $0 _ Staffing Impact: , New Number of PTE's _ _ 0 Existing Number of seasonal 0 Total --- ------ � - _ � � 0 Description - --- ---- _--- - - -- -- --- --- ---- i I _ Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 93-575 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number ! Amount 72- New Cost Center 1 1370 $ 30,000.00 -- ---- ----- i Expenditure: , Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2111-11 $ 30,000.00 I I I I ! Additional Accounting Details Grant.Infonrnaton ,. Grant funds employee positions? Yes Its there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?I Yes ----------------- I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes :Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? ! � - -- -- Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ----- ---------- Non-profit sector? No `Initiative Name: State Department of Workforce Services -Youth City at Ottinger Park Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-5 Initiative Type: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $23,540 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Youth Connections Grant Program. These funds were received to pay the salary and benefits of seasonal positions, at the Ottinger Hall site which include the Program Assistant and two Program Facilitators. These positions were previously paid for through the Department of Education Grant. The Program Assistant position assists the site Coordinator with programming and daily operation of the YouthCity Ottinger Park facility and are required to be on site in the absence of the Coordinator. The other two positions help with programming. This grant is renewable on an annual basis for a 3 year period. YouthCity will continue to apply as funds are available. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Director's salary and benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Utah State Department of Work.Force Services grant and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant award. State Department of Workforce , Services Grant Youth City at Ottinger Park Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-5 ! 2006-07 Initiative Number ---, I � � Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department , Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie'Collins 535-7002/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue`rilpact By Fund 1st Year 2nd'Year FY 2006 07 FY 2007;OS r 1General Fund Total $0i $0 Internal Service Fund I � j Total $01 $0 I Enterprise Fund Total 1 $0 I $0 Other Fund l72- State Grant $ 23,540.00 1 --__-_- -- Total $ 23,540.00 I $0 _- I I I Staffina'Impactc . INew 0 E - -xistrng 0 0 Total 0 IDescription I - I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 93-575 Revenue: ' I Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- New Cost Center 1370 23,540.00 Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2111-11 23,540.00 Additional,Accounting ' Grant Information . Grant funds employee positions? F Yes ls there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are [eliminated? Yes iDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or 'Non-profit sector? No Olnitiative Name: State Department of Workforce Services -YouthCity at Liberty Park Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-6 Initiative Type: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Public Services Division of YouthCity applied for and received a $30,000 grant from the Utah State Department of Work Force Services under the Youth Connections Grant Program. 'These funds were received to pay the salary and benefits of seasonal positions at the Libert Park site which include the Program Assistant and two Program Facilitators. These positions were previously paid for through the Department of Education Grant. The Program Assistant position assists the site Coordinator with programming and dais operation of the YouthCity Liberty Park facility and are required to be on site in the absence o' the Coordinator. The other two positions help with programming. This grant is renewable on an annual basis for a 3 year period. YouthCity will continue to apply as funds are available. A 100% match is required which will be satisfied with 10% of the YouthCity Director's sala and benefits and other associated costs including facility maintenance, utilities, travel, printing and postage which are budgeted for within YouthCity's and Public Services general fund. budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the Utah State Department of Work Force Services grant and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant award. I It State Department of Workforce Services -Youth City at Liberty Park Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-6 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources Department Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins 535-7002/535-6150 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact _ Revenue=Impact By.Fund 1st'Year 2nd Year- Y.2006 07, FY 2007-08 'General Fund Total ! $01 $0 Internal Service Fund f i Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 (Other Fund 1172- State Grant $ 30,000.00 i - Total $ 30,000.00 $0 • Staffma Imi ct: , .. .. New 0 Existing -------- -- - -------- ----- --- 0 Total 0 Description ---_.----- ---- - --- ---- ---- ---- I Accounting Detail Grant#and GFDA#If;Applicable:• . 93.575 Revenue: • - Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1370 1 $ 30,000.00 - 1 1 - 1 -------------- E penditure • =, Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- New Cost Center 2111-11 $ 30,000.00 1 � I I I I I Additional Account ng Details — Grant Information Grant funds employee positions? ' 1 Yes I Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?1 Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes m a Will grant impact the community p once the grant funds are I eliminated? 1Yes I Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non rofit sector? p— _1 No -------- Initiative Name: Utah State University - Interagency Outreach Training Initiative (IOTI) Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-7 Initiative Type: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applies for and receives these funds from the Utah State University on an annual basis. Funding is awarded to continue and further Officer Crisis Intervention Team Training/Certification. ;This training deals with crisis mediation and intervention as it pertains to law enforcement issues and persons who have serious mental illness or developmental disabilities. This $25,000 award will be used to continue the City's program in providing training to Officers statewide and will be spent as follows: $19,760 Officer OT. This amount reflects approximately 580 hours @ $34.00 per hour, for Officers to attend, train and promote this program. These funds will continue to provide the resources necessary for the PD to plan, implement and attend a training program in which Officers gain knowledge pertaining to mental illnesses, specific types of' diagnoses, and procedures for carrying out their law enforcement responsibility with safety and sensitivity. The remaining $5,240 will be used for supplies to include manuals, pins and travel/training. The grant does not require a match, however, a $9,859 cash match has been included in the grant budget and will be met by registration fees collected from participating outside agencies and a grant received for these purposes from the State of Utah. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. Utah State University - Interagency Outreach Training Initiative Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-7 2006-07 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Staff Police Department Resources Department — Type of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By j Telephone Contact 1General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revende4ingaaf By Fund 1st Year 2n (Yeas FY 2006-07 v FY 20D7 0 General Fund j I I — Total. $0 $0 ;Internal Service Fund Total{ $0 ! $0 ;Enterprise Fund Totals $0 $0 Other Fund 72- State Grant $ 25,000.00 Total] $ 25,000.00 $0 Steff n tirmPact j .'. . , INew Number of FTE's 01 j 0 (Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total ;Description I I Officer OT Only ' I -- --------------- ' I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#MApplicable: NA Revenue - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1890 25,000.00 -I- Expenditure: ' - - • . - _".j'' • - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2133 19,760.00 2590 5,240.00 25,000.00 Additional Accounting Details Establish one cost center for total budget _Grant Inforniation:.• - 1Grant funds employee positions? No Officer OT Only Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes ilf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will I be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No !Does grant duplicate services provided by private or iNon-profit sector? No • Initiative Name: i County Social Services Block Grant Awarded to SLC Foundation and Transferred to the Youth City Program Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #B-8 Initiative Type: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Salt Lake County awarded the Salt Lake City Foundation $20,000 of Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds for YouthCity Programming. The $20,000 will pay for the salary and benefits of the Program Assistant at Ottinger Hall YouthCity site. Since the Salt Lake City Foundation is not set to facilitate expenditures, the grant will need to be subgranted to Salt Lake City Corporation. The County agrees that this is acceptable. This budget adjustment will facilitate that move. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant award. 1 I SSBG Grant from Salt Lake City Foundation Transfer to Salt Lake City YouthCity Programs Initiative Name P BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #B-8 2006-07 Initiative Number l - Fiscal Year 7 Grants for Existing Staff Public Services Resources _ Department _ Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins 535-7002/535-6150 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact 1 _ RevenueImpact=By Fund "1st Year 2n-d Year F.Y.2006 07.. FY 2007 DS General Fund Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Totals $01 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 $0 Other Fund 72-Transfer From Foundation $ 20,000.00 77-77123 County Grant $ 20,000.00 Total $ 40,000.00 1 $0 Stafmq'Impact:; INew Number of FTE's 01 0 (Existing Number of FTE's 0 'Total ----------- --------� pj 0 Description ------------ - i Accounting Detail Grant#and-CFDA#1f Applicable 84-215K Revenue, Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount i- 77-77123 1370 $ 20 000.00 72- New Cost Center 1890 1 $ 20,000.00 --- ------- Expenditure i Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount 77-77123 2590 $ 20,000.00_ !72- New Cost Center 2590 I $ 20,000.00 I � I ! ! I Ad littoral Accounting Details. Grant:Information , , Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Possible ------------ If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?71 Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame'? j Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I 1 i Yes ---------------- Does grant duplicate services provided by rivate or Non-profit sector? ! 'Initiative Name: E- 911 Encumbrance Carryover Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-1 Initiative Type: - Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: FY 07 E -911 encumbrance fund'carry over Qwest Communications # 99-5566 $ 8,295, Wright Line C60616 $ 273,103, Vectra Solutions 037135 $ 6,415 11 ------------ ------ ----- E-911 Encumbrance Carry Over 1 1 Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-1 1 2006-07 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Police Housekeeping Department I L__._ —__- Type of Initiative Jerry Burton 799-3824 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact ! - General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact 1 Revenue`Impact By f and r 1 st`Y-ear .2nd=Year '_ifY,2b0#6117 07tp ;, ; _ . .. f �fX 2D 8. 'General Fund Total $01 $0 !Internal Service Fund I 1 I 1 Total $0 $0 !Enterprise Fund 1 — 1 - Total! I $0 $01 !Other Fund - Total $01 I $01 1 1 S m•elm•act: ;New Number of FTE's 1 0 _ 01 ;Existing Number of FTE's 1 0 0 ;Total 0 - — !Description None 1 I I I - _ - I I I ! Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable. Revenue: _ - Cost Center Number I Object Code Number 1 Amount 160-00620 J - Fund Balance 1 1• - Expenditure Cost Center Number 1 Object Code Number 1 Amount 160-00620 2700 $ 287,813.00 I 1 1 ' .Additional Aedountinglietalls I 1 I 1 Grant Infiormation 1 !Grant funds employee positions? N/A 1 Is there a potential for grant to continue?. N/A — jlf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? _ j N/A 1 Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 1 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are 1eliminated? i N/A I 1 ;Does grant duplicate services provided by private or !Non-profit sector? I N/A 1 j 'Initiative Name: Special Revenue Budget Carryover Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-2 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: City Council has in the past approved carryover budgets in these funds in order to complete the started projects. After June 30, 2006, the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these funds lapsed. Without Council action, the City cannot finish the started projects. Budgets in special revenue funds by state statute lapse at fiscal year end. It is recommended that the Council approve the carryover budgets for these special revenue funds Note that the Unity Center (Glendale Community Center#77-77141)'is not'included in this carryover request. _ Special Revenue Budget Carryover 1 Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-2 I 2006-07 Initiative Number I I, _ Fiscal Year I_ _ Mgmf Serv. - Finance 1 Housekeeping Department I Type of Initiative Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By _ j Telephone Contact 1General Fund ( Fund Balance) impact 1 Revenue Impact By Fund ''lit Year 2rid Year FY 200.E 07 _ :FY 2007 08 (General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 Enterprise Fund � I Total $0 I $0', Other Fund Total $01 I $0 Staffmd`'Impact .' New Number of FTE's 0; 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0! Total --- i 0 --- __ Description • Accounting.Detail Grant#and CFDA#If-Applicable Revenue— Cost Center Number e Ob ct j Code Number Amount -i I I ; I I Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 171 Fund CDBG Operating See detailed in Finance $ 2,010,895.74 72 Fund Grants Operating See detailed in Finance $ 6,545,037.58 73 Fund Misc. Sp. Revenue See detailed in Finance j $ 1,399,973.55 78 Fund Housing j See detailed in Finance $ 5,828,443.99 i77 Fund Donations See detailed in Finance $ 1,254,270.45 I i $ 17,038,621.31 A1d�tional�escr�pt�on �.. , ?.. 1 l i i Grant,Information, :;:. , Grant funds employee positions? T N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A i I Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A I I Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ;eliminated I N/A _Does grant duplicate services provided by rivate or ;Non-profit sector? I N/A Initiative Name: IMS PROMIS Grant Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #0-3 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The purpose of the grant is to create the Protective / Restraining Order Management Information System;(PROMIS). This is a secure, web-based inter-agency information sharing network for criminal' and civil: domestic violence case data to. identify and track. protection orders and violations of.protection orders. The grant was originally:funded on 09/01/03 for $500,000, of which the IMS°portion of the funding for programming was $75,,000 for programming services and $10,000 for capital expenditure. Anextension was granted from 01./01/06 to 07./31/06. The total grant will remain at' the funded $500,000; however, the categories for funding have been modified resulting in $58,000 of additional monies awarded to IMS for completion of the programming. FY06 Budget amendment for$36,000 approved May 2006. FY07 Budget amendment for$22,000. The modification will specifically extend the capacities of the Domestic Violence case filing system. Enhancements will be`made that will make delivering the discoverable documents for the defense attorney quicker and recording these results. I_ IMS PROMIS Grant I 1 Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#D-3 _ 2006-07 _ i Initiative Number b__- —- Fiscal Year Management Services / IMS Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Dave Abbott 535-6343 71 Telephone Contact PreP ared B fi - - -- ' t General Fund Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 General Fund — - 4 Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund I 165 Fund PROMIS Grant for $ 22,000.00 ](Police) Total]] $ 22,000.00 $0 Enterprise Fund I I i Totall I -- $0 $OI li Other Fund Total' 0 $0 I Staffing Impact: Number of FTE s �New0 - 0, ExistingFTE's 0 0 Number of Total 0 I 0 Description - 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA # If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object^ode Number Amount 65-03200 j 1954-02 ! $ 22,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount 65-03200 2163 I f $ 22,000.00 ' I Additional Description: -- t -- - Grant Information: T Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? -_- � Until 08/31/06 Ifgrant is fundingaposition is it expected p cted the position will ! - - � I be eliminated at the end of the rant. N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are - eliminated? Yes Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No I I I I Accounting.Detail =Grant:#and:GFDA#If Applicable / Revenue: . - - Cost Center Number Object Code Number 1 Amount j 65-03200 1954-02 1 22,000.00 165-03200 1954-15 _i_$ 37,980.00 T -------- - — = ,� i - ! - I I i _�_ - EtOenditure n.. _ , F - • r Cost Center Number - Object Code Number Amount 165-03200 j' . 2163 $ 59,980.00 2t- // l1 I; Additional Description I I � I I �. Grant informat on '"°' ti f ' 'Grant funds employee positions? No 1 jls there a potential for grant to continue? Until 08/31/06 ! - - a IIfgrant is funding a position is it expected the position will lbe eliminated at the end of the grant? - N/A _I 1 1Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes -__ ,Will grant impact the community_ once the grant funds are I (eliminated? 1 ! Yes ,Doesgrant duplicate servicesprovided byprivate or P I ,Non-profit sector? 1 1 1 No Initiative Name: Zoo and Aviary Bond Proceeds Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-4 Initiative Type: Housekeeping :Initiative Discussion: - The General Obligation (GO) Series 2004A, Zoo and Aviary Bonds were issued in April of 2004. Prior to the bonds being issued it was estimated that the bond proceeds generated would be approximately $1,100,000 for the Aviary and $10,200,000 for the Zoo. These .amounts were incorporated into the budget. However, in addition to the par amounts indicated above, the bonds were sold at a premium thus realizing a total $1,109,626 in proceeds for the Aviary and a total of $10,289,330 in proceeds for the Zoo.' As such,' there is $9,626 for the Aviary and $89,330 for the Zoo that still must be appropriated as revenue and for expenditure. 1 I ; Zoo & Aviary Bond Proceeds Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-4 2006-07 Initiative Number I 1 Fiscal Year J Mqmt Sery/Treasurer's Office Housekeeping Department _ _ of Initiative I Randy Hillier/ Dan Mule - _ 535-6641 I 535-6411 Prepared By j 1 I Telephone Contact _ _I_ _ (General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact I I _ Revenue ImpaatBV Fund lst.Year 2ndYear !General Fund 1 Total 1 $01 1 $01 (Internal Service Fund I I I 1 Total! I $01 $01 Enterprise Fund I I ! I Total' $0i $01 (Other Fund I — ICIP Fund 83-04073 Tracy Aviary $ 9,626.00 1CIP Fund 83-04074 Hogle Zoo 1 $ 89,330.00 I 1 1 Total' 1 $ 98,956.00 $01 I I Staffmq lmbact . . , .. ' 'New Number of FTE's I 0 � 0 Existing Number of FTE's I 01 01_.-_____ Total I 01 I 01 Description 1 J I — -i I I — — 1 — — — 1 - - .---. 1 7 1 i I . Accounting Detail Grant#and-CFDA#If Applicable Revenue: - Cost Center Number ! Object Code Number I I Amount 1 83-04073 1980 83-04074 $ 9,626.00 3 1980 $ 89,330 00 1 Total I I I $ 98,956.00 1 — --------- I _ I Ependiture. :.. ., 't . .. r i' .. ... I Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount _ -� 83-04073 - 2700 $ 9,626.00 _ r83-04074 j 2700 1 I $ 89,330.00 I Total I I $ 98,956.00 I 1 I I j I I I I j I Additional Accounting Details _ ! I 1__ 1 Grant Information If',.-,,. t ., ;. ;Grant funds employee positions? 1 N/A Its there a potential for grant to continue? N/A 1 1 If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A JWill grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? 1 N/A I I- -Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I N/A + Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ----------- Non-profit sector? 7 1 ilnitiative Name: General Fund Encumbrance Carryovers Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-5 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: General Fund departments comparison to budget includes encumbrances that are outstanding at fiscal year end June 30, 2006. Historically, the Council has appropriated fund balance to provide a means to "hold harmless" the General Fund departments' prior year encumbrances. Without Council action, the General Fund departments' Fiscal 2007 appropriation will be forced to fund encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end. The encumbering of funds at contract inception or purchase order issuance causes a timing difference between the"earmarking" of funds for an expenditure and the actual expenditure It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding encumbrances in the General Fund. 1 1 i General Fund Encumbrance Carryovers Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-5 j 2006-07 J Initiative Number Fiscal Year Management Services, Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative j Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By i Telephone Contact General Fund Fund Balance) lm I ( p" ($2,81$,341.00)j 'I Revenue Im6ia,By Fund :1st ar 2nd Year . _ .:FY20.06 0? . . . . . FY�2DATO '. af..`�.,... General Fund j 1 0 I Total! I 01 1 $01 1Internal Service Fund j j 1 1 1 Total, 1 OI $01 Enterprise Fund I 1 i i Total! 01 $01 TOther Fund { 1 1 1 ! Total! 1 $ - I 1 $0i i l I I. Stafifinaltntlact :New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 01 i OF !Total 01 i 0 �Description 1 - 1 i I I I I Accounting Detail Grant CFDAgolf Applicable: Revenue: , Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount — — — 1 -- --- - i- ------ ---------- ---------- I i Expenditure: . . ,. -kIv h � i- Cost Center Number Object Code Number ! Amount ;Attorney ! Detail in Finance j $ 9,825.00 Community Development I Detail in Finance $ 336,010.00 Council Detail in Finance $ 480,926.00 ;Fire I Detail in Finance $ 116,584.00 ;Management Services Detail in Finance I $ 247,276.00 !Mayor Detail in Finance $ 34,019.00 Non Departmental Detail in Finance $ 40,000.00 !Police ! I Detail in Finance $ 138,015.00 'Public Services Detail in Finance j $ 1,415,686.00 II $ 2,818,341.00 Additional Descinption i 1 Grant Information . 1 'Grant funds employee positions? I N/A IIs there a potential for grant to continue? N/A — — ilfgrant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A ;Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A -- - ;Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are j eliminated? — — — 1— - i —I— N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ;Non-profit sector? I J N/A Initiative Name: Refuse and Fleet Funds Encumbrance Carryovers Initiative Number: BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-6 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: Because the budget from the prior fiscal year lapsed, it is necessary to appropriate funds to cover the purchase commitments made in the prior year and paid in the current year. The funding source is from fund balance or funds held in escrow for the lease purchased program at Duetsche Bank. In the case of the lease purchase program escrows held at Duetsche Bank, if the purchase has not been made by year end, the money remains in the escrow. As a result it is available to cover the commitment when the equipment is ready. This request will appropriate budget in the Refuse Fund of $225,000. There are adequate lease purchase program escrow funds being held at Duetsche Bank to cover this request. This request will also appropriate budget in the Fleet fund of $379,998. There are adequate lease purchase program escrow funds being held at Duetsche Bank to cover $41 ,024 of this request. The remaining S338,974'will be funded from the Fleet fund balance where there are -adequate funds to cover this request. Fleet and Refuse Encumbrance Carryovers 1 — ----- - ------- i Initiative Name ----- - - - ------ BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#D-6 2006-07 Initiative Number �— Fiscal Year L Public Services Department Housekeeping Department r _ Type of Initiative Greg Davis - 535-6397 1 Prepared By j Telephone Contact 1 T- General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By.Fund 1st Year 2nd=Year; FY 2006 07 :, FY 2007-08 1General Fund � I Total $01 I $0L internal Service Fund Total I $01 $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0i I $0 Other Fund Total 1 0 I $0 Staffing lmaact 'New Number of FTE's _ 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 L 0 Total 0 0 Description --- -------- --- -------- I I 1 1 1 I Accounting Detail- Grant#and CFDA#of Applicable. Revenue: - Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I Fleet IFund Balance $ 338,974.00 1 Draw from lease purchase program escrows at Duetsche Bank. The revenue was recognized _Iw en the escrows were established in FY0506 Therefore no revenue is being recognized in FY0607 at the time of the encumbrance roll. In addition, there is no cash flow to Salt Lake City. !The cash will flow from Duetsche Bank directly to the vendor supplying the product. 'Fleet � -_-- ---- � $ 41,024.00 1 _ '!Refuse 1 1 1 $ 225,000.00 I Expenditure -y ;, ,,, t 1 Cost Center Number Object Code Number 1 Amount j 161-00001 2224 1 $ 121.00 161-00001 11 2299 $ 19.00_ 61-00001 2350 $ 258.00 161-00002 ! 2224 $ 40.00 61-00002 2234 $ 1,447.00 1 _ 161-00003 1 2241-01 1 $ 732.00 1 161-00003 2241-06 $ 83.00 61-00003 j 2275 $ 48.00 161-00004 _ 2241-05 $ 130.00 1 61-00004 1 2241-06 $ 848.00 61-00004 2275 $ 92.00 _ 161-00020 1 2750 A 1 $ 335,156.00 _ 161-00020...funds in escrow for lease put 2780 $ 41,024.00 1 i 1 1 $ 379,998.00 '57-11600...funds in escrow for leaseput 2780 $ 225,000.00 7 1 Grant Information I: '. . _ Grant funds employee positions? I N/A Its there a potential for grant to continue? N/A 1 I If grant is fundingaposition is it expected the _.- p _ position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant'�l N/A (Will grant program be complete ingrant fundingtime frame? 1 N/A 1 -1 - ---------------- Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? 1 N/A 1 ;Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? I 1 N/A (initiative Name: Yale Avenue Street Lighting District Legal Fees Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-7 Initiative Type: Housekeeping _ Initiative Discussion: The Yale Avenue Street Lighting District was not created due to protests from the property owners. However public notification costs, engineering fees and legal fees for services rendered pertaining to public hearings and notice of intent, were assessed and billed to the Transportation Department. Typically these fees are charged to the project after the SID is established. Since this SID failed, Transportation has had to pay the costs associated with the legal fees from their general fund budget. The first billing was for approximately $6,500 which was paid for during FY 05-06. Transportation recently recevied a final billing in the amount of $3,249.78. This request would reduce the cost over-run account in the amount of $3,249.78 and create a new project from which the legal fees could be paid. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary adjustment to facilitate the project. I - - Yale Avenue Street Lighting District Legal Fees j Initiative Name BA#1FY2007 Initiative #D-7 2006-07 _ Initiative Number [ I ] Fiscal Year 1 r Community Development - HAND Housekeeping I Department `— _ I ji1 Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared BY — _ 1 Telephone Contact I Revenue Impact,Bv Fund '1st-Year 2nd-Year , __ FY>2QQf Q7 . . _ .TY.,�OD7 Q$y',„1-:',,,, -_ General Fund 1 1 I 1 Total 1 $01 I $01 Internal Service Fund 1 1 Total 1 1 $0 1 $0 Enterprise Fund 1 1 1 1 Total $01 1 $0. Other Fund l ; 1 Total 1 $01 1 $0 1 Staffilitoirnpact 1 New Number of FTE's 01 01 lExisting Number of FTE's 1 0l Total 0.00 0 Description 1 i l 1 — I ----------- 1 1 1 I I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue:- r• I Cost Center Number I I Object Code Number_- Amount L - ! -1 I - 1 1 i I1 Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183-04099 2700 $ (389.45) 83-05099 2700 1 $ (2,860.33), 83- New Cost Center j $ 3,249.78 I _1 11 1 Additional<Accounting,Details: Object Code Number I Amount !General Fund CIP 1 Create new cost center I I I I Grant,information Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A i If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A 1 J Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? I N/A i Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I - I N/A ;Does grant duplicate services provided by private or INon-profit sector? I N/A Initiative Name: Recapture CDBG CIP Funds - Completed Projects Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-8 'Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: This;.request decreases the remaining budgets and/or cash of' ten (10) completed, closed, CDBG CIP funded projects totaling $181,911.24, and increases the budget and/or cash o the same years CDBG cost over-run account to be reprogrammed during the next CDBG process. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustments to the CDBG Program. Recapture CDBG CIP Funds Completed Projects Initiative Name BA#1FY2007 Initiative#D-8 2006-07 Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year Community Development HAND Housekeeping Department j Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By ( Telephone Contact Revenue':;Impact By Fund. 1st Year ' ' • °~'2nd Year; F,Y 2006 07 :FY 2007=08" General Fund Total $01 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 I $0 Other Fund � I I Total 0 $0 Staffinq`lmpacf` ;New Number of FTE's 0 0 'Existing Number of FTE's 0! Total 0.00---Description ---- -- - 1 j - - — I I 1 I Accounting Detail _ grant#-and CFDA#:If Applicable:' = NA Revenue: - j Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1 .Expenditure - 1 Cost Center Number ! Object Code Number Amount i 83-03061 Fairmont Pk. Skate Pk $ _ (2,580.82)! _ 83 03098 02-03 CDBG Cost Over run 2700 $ 2,580.82 183-04056 Utahna St. Reconstruction 2700 I $ _19,541.09) 83-04060 Riverside Pk. ADA Playground 2700 $ 16,526.39 83-04062 ADA Playground - Citywide 2700 I $ (6,378.93)1 _ 83_04098 03-04 CDBG Cost over-run 2700 I $ 42,446.41 83-05051 Utahna St. Reconstruction 2700 $ (98,471.72)1 83-05053 Traffic Island Landscape 2700 $ (9,796.95)1 183-05060 Riverside Pk. Parking Lot 2700 j $ (3,189.94)I 83-05056 Utahna Dr. Phase II 1 2700 $ (1,860.84)1 183-05063 Glendale Pk. Tennis 2700 $ (269.10) 83-05064 Jordan River Trail Lighting 2700 $ (3,295.46)1 183-05098 04-05 CDBG Cost over-run 2700 $ 136,884.01 j 1 Additional Accounting details I i 1 1 1 I i--- i Grant,.Information.. . . 1 j Grant funds employee positions? 1 I NA 1 'Is there a potential for grant to continue? I if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA ;Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? 1 NA — 1 I ;Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are i i eliminated? NA I I i Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ! Non-profit p sector? --_ I NA Initiative Name: Recapture CIP Funds - Completed Projects Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-9 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: This request decreases the remaining budgets and/or cash of twelve (12) completed and closed CIP projects totaling $222,870.18, and increases the budget and/or cash of the 05 cost over-run account. This request also decreases the remaining cash and/or budget in two (2) Class "C" fund projects totaling $5,147.16, and increases the budget and cash in the Class "C" cost over- run account. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this adjustment to the CIP. Recapture CIP Funds - Completed Projects Initiative Name BA#1FY2007 Initiative#D-9 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.00 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-03008 ADA Transition Plan 2700 $ (2,793 18) 83-03009 Donner Trail Park Playground _ 2700 $ (14,155.04) 83-03041 So. Temple Reconstruction 2700 $ (124.79) 83-04023 Stratford Pk ADA Playground 2700 $ (7,070.67) 83-04032 Curtis Park ADA Playground 2700 $ (3,972.43) 83-05024 Gala her Pk Playground 2700 83-05074 Traffic Calming Holding Acct 2700 $ (57,288.00). 83-06013 Wasatch Hollow 2700 $ (8,083.53) 83-06014 Fenway/Stron_c. Design 2700 $ (40,000 00) 83-06044 1700 East Fence 2700 $ (6,144.24) 83-92009 So. Temple Design 2700 $ (5,970.00) 83-98075 Pedestrian Traffic Signal 2700 $ (75,706.28) 83-05099 GF cost over-run acct 2700 $ 222,870.18 Class "C" 83-01044 1100 So. Jordan River Brie 2700 $ (494.79) 83-98025 So. Temple - State to Virginia 2700 $ (4,652.37) 83-04097 Class "C" cost over-run acct 2700 $ 5,147.16 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A . ` . ^ | ( � � | � j�PO able'. NA Re Center Number Object Code Number Amount � ---------- CostCmnt' Number _ � Object Code Num er _ Amount _ 83-O3UO8AOATnan''bonP\�n 270O � l � (2'793�18)1 - � . . ` ' 83-05009DnnnerTnai 'ark Playground 2700 / _ � (14.155.04) /83-03041 So. Temple Re`onstrucbon _ 27wo (12470) | 83-04023 Stratford pkADA n|a *round | '^'OU _ | $ (7,07U.87) _ -�83-04032 Curtis Park ADAP|; ground _ ^ 700 | s (3'Q72.43)\ | �� 83-05O24GaoherPkP�vono d./ . �� 7O0 $ U.502.02) |83'05074 Traffic Ca|mingHo|din* ^cot - 2700 $ 213'288.00 / 83-06013 Wasatch Hollow �r 2700 $ 8.083.63 | IM 2700 $ (4}.000.00) | | V2700 $ 0.144.24\ l 27UO ' � ( i83-92009 So. Temple - 5.970.00) /83-09075Pedasth 2700 i / � /75.7OO28> 183-05OQ0GF cost over-run anct 2700 $ 378.870.18 � � / | ' ' | C|mos "C^ \ / i8�1[� 11� �� Jmd� R� m�w� ' �� $ ��.� } 83-S8O25 So. Tnmo� ' State � Virginia 2700 / $ (4'652.37) 83-O4US7 Class "C" cost ove -runocnt 2700 $ 5,147.10 ` r�ddo ��v�v^�^�" ` - ��r� -=--=~� ----'___�-`-.,, � Grant funds e |nyeeponihonn? _ ^ N/4 e -- |f�r grant --' N/A --- -- _J!��o re-�Ex��noa {�u _ ' - If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will e e|imoinabad at the end oftha t? N/4 _- ___-- -_�_- -_-�u�n _ _ -_---_- _-- Vi|| grant pro0nurn be complete in_grant funding time frame? _ _ N/A Will� grant i�mpact�the community - c thegrantfund_ n-_o're N/_A__ --�--'---- - -- � - --- -T omo0rontdup|iuutesenxcesprovidodbyprivateor F N on-profit sector? ____ __ _ NIA _ Initiative Name: Impact Fee Revenue Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-10 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: During fiscal year 2005-2006, the City collected Impact Fees, accrued interest income on the Impact Fee revenue received, and paid Impact Fee refunds where applicable. Due to the revenue received, it is necessary to increase the budget in each Impact Fee revenue account. As of 6/30/06, the following are the transactions that have taken place within each Impact Fee revenue account during FY05-06 : Police - Fees assessed $549,434.76, Interest earned $26,684.59, Refunds $2,140, total increase of $573,979.35 to the budget for ending balance of cash and budget of $942,563.94. Fire - Fees assessed $595,582.46, Interest earned $59,475.65, Refunds $1 ,830, total increase of$653,228.11 to the budget for ending balance of cash and budget of $1 ,814,163.21 . Parks - Fees assessed $214,668.00, Interest earned $10,181.17, Refunds $890, total increase of S223,969.17 to the budget for ending balance of cash and budget of $359,032.07. Streets - Fees assessed $1,291,481.00, Interest earned S74,887.41, Refunds $0, funds appropriated to projects $450,00, total increase of S916,368.41 to the budget for ending balance of cash and budget of $2,111,917.27. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary action to increase the budgets of the Impact Fee revenue accounts to match the cash available. i Impact Fee Revenue 1 Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#D-10 _ 2006-07 1_ Initiative Number I — Fiscal Year Community Development (HAND) Housekeeping Department I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By I I __ Telephone Contact I - _Revenue`Impact'By-Fund:... _1st"-Year 2nd Year . ., - _ FY 20.06 07 : FY 20)374E3. . (General Fund I 1 I 1 Total $0.001 1 $0 Internal Service Fund I I I i I 1 Total) $01 $01 Enterprise Fund I 1 Total I $01 I $0 Other Fund Total 01 1 $0 1 1 I I 1 Staffing Impact..- . _3 .' __ New Number of FTE's I 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's - _ 0 !Total I I 0 I 01 (Description 1 - i -i 1 I I I Accounting Detail Grant*and CFDA#-lf Applicable - NA Revenue: - — Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 84 Funds 1 Fund Balance I ------------- I i J 1 1 1 1 - T iI 1 Cost Center Number j j Object Code Number Amount 184-84001 2700 $ 573,979.35 84-84002 2700 1 $ 653,228.11 i 84-84003 2700 $ 223,969.17 184-84005 1 2700 ( $ 916,368.41 1 I $ 2,367,545.04 Additional Accounting Details T Increase budget to match cash available I i � l! Grant Information ` < Grant funds employee positions? I N/A I is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? 1 N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? I 1 N/A I Initiative Name: Department of Education Grant Program Income Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-11 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The Youth City programs funded under the US Department of Education grant have received program income generated from fees received for services provided at Fairmont Cottage, Ottinger Hall, Liberty Park and Central City Youth City sites. This request establishes a budget for those funds and allows the program income to be reallocated back into the individual programs for continued programming. Funds were received in fiscal year 2005-06 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary increase for these budgets. , I Department of Education Grant Program Income Initiative Name ! BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #D-11 2006-07 Initiative Number I j Fiscal Year Public Services Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins 1 535-70021535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact RevenuE mpact aw' untl 1st1(ear 3ntl Year': :FY 2Q06 07 FY 2007 08 . General Fund I � Total $0 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total'p $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 $0 —!}Other Fund Total 0 $0 Staffing Impact ;New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0 Description - r l I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable::` 84-215K — Cost Center Number _ Object Code Number Amount 172-63006 - Global Artways 1 _ Fund Balance 1 $ 565.75 172-66001 - Contractual 1 Fund Balance $ 5,033.80 —172-66002- Ottinger 1 Fund Balance $ 8,492.45 j72-66003 - Fairmont j Fund Balance _ $ 9,002.00 172-66004 _Fund Balance - 1 1 $ 11,736.20 ;72-66005 - YC Admin 1 Fund Balance $ 436.96 72-66006 - Program Income Fund Balance $ 4,150.80 $ 39,417.96 Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-66002 - Ottinger 2590 I $ 8,492.45 72-66003 - Fairmont 2590 $ 9,002.00 72-66004- Liberty 2590 I $ 11,736.20 72-66005- YC Admin 2590 I $ 10,187.31 Additional Accounting"Details , $ 39,417.96 Take cash from 72-63003 and 72-66006 and distribute to Youth _ City Admin Grant Information , - _ Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _ be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A JWiII grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? --- --- N/A -- -- --- Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ __, 1Non-profit sector? 1 N/A Initiative Name: Property Management - CIP Land Purchase Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-12 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: Property Management currently has cash in the CIP fund_to be used for costs associated with the purchase of properties. The amount of cash is $66,117.71 , however, the budget to expend the cash is $34,966.36. This request is to increase the budget in cost center 83- 94083 by $31 ,080.35 to match the budget to the cash available. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary adjustment to facilitate this CIP project. , Property Management- CIP Land Purchase Initiative Name P BA#1FY2007 Initiative #D-12 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year L -- --- — ---- ----------- Community Development- HAND Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact L— Revenue`impact-Bvfund: 1st'Year ,2nd Year FY.2006 07 FYi2007-08: General Fund Total $0 $0 (Internal Service Fund I Total $01 I $01 Enterprise Fund I I I Total l I $01 I $0 Other Fund Total $0.001 I $0 Staffincq`Impact.' New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's _ 0 Total 0.00 0 Description I -- - --- --- --------- - ------------ Accounting Detail Grant#and_CFDA#If Applicable: - NA venue:: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure , Cost Center Number I Object Code Number j Amount 183-94083 2700 $ 31,080.35 i I , Additional AccountirgDetails Object Code Number Amount 1 Increase budget to match cash available ---T I � Grant'Information. • , 'Grant funds employee positions? 1 N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? - N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,eliminated? N/A p provided by private or ,Does grant duplicate services Non-profit sector? N/A 'Initiative Name: CIP - Garfield School Purchase Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-13 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: During the FY 06-07 CIP, the Council appropriated $2,000,000 of general fund to purchase the Garfield School property for the future site of the East Side Police/Fire Precinct. The actual purchase price of the property was $2,130,600. Property management had the cash available, but did not have the budget to expend the funds. Council staff polled the Council members who agreed to allow the expenditure and transfer of the additional $130,600 of cash needed for the purchase. $109,236.67 of cash and budget was transferred from the FTZ Warehouse fund and $21,363.33 was transferred from the Surplus Land Sales fund within the CIP. This request is to move cash and budget of $109,236.67 from the Surplus Land Sales fund back to the FTZ Warehouse fund. No adjustments are necessary in the Surplus Land Sales fund. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary adjustment to facilitate this CIP project. r , I CIP - Garfield School Property Purchase [ Initiative Name BA#1FY2007 Initiative #D-13 2006-07 Initiative Number r 1 Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND Housekeeping Department L Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue'Impact BV fund 1st Year:2nd'Year _` FY 2006-07 . r FY' OD7G 08 !General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total; $0 $0 (Enterprise Fund Total I $0 $0 (Other Fund Total $0 I $0 Staffma:=impact: .. . (New Number of FTE's 0 0 [Existing Number of FTE's 0, (Total 0.00 0 Description j [ l � - I , Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA R-evenue:`: = :_ - — Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure . ' E , Cost Center Number I Object Code Number I Amount 83-97072 FTZ Warehouse 2700 $ 109,236.67 Additional Accounting Object Code Number I I Amount (General Fund CIP 1To move the cash within the CIP Note to Accounting: Journal entry needs to Debit 83-81100 1840 for 109,236.67 and Credit 83-97072 1840 for 109,236.67 to move cash. Grant Information Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A if grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,eliminated? N/A - - Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? 1 _ N/A r , I;nhtiativeName: Salt Storage - Steiner Aquatic Center Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #D-14 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: In FY 99/00, funding was allocated for two salt storage facilities, one adjacent to Hogle Zoo and one on Bonneville Boulevard, also in FY99-00 two neighborhood parks, Memory Grove and Rotary Glen were funded. After preliminary design was completed, the cost estimates exceeded available funding. In June of 2001, funding for the two salt storage facilities and the Memory Grove neighborhood park were combined into one budget for salt storage and neighborhood park on Bonneville'Boulevard.` This facility has been constructed and has a remaining balance of $380,020.39. Funding for the Rotary Glen neighborhood park remained in place. As work proceeded on the master plan at Rotary Glen Park, it was determined federal funding was used to purchased the property and salt storage is not an allowable use of property. For this reason, it is necessary to remove the existing salt storage in Rotary Glen Park by fall of 2007. Potential sites investigated are Sunnyside Park (north of the tennis courts), and Steiner Aquatic Center (south east parking lot, east of the outdoor pool). The Sunnyside site has been' determined to be unacceptable. The University has agreed in concept to the Steiner location with the requirement that the access road between Guardsman Way through their parking lot #4 and the storage area be improved and maintained by the City. Engineering presented the proposal to the Yalecrest'Community Council agenda for input and approval on August 2, 2006. There was no opposition to the proposal. Engineering is requesting that the remaining $380,020.39 of Salt Dome Bonneville Boulevard project funds be reprogrammed for the improvements and salt storage at Steiner Aquatic Center. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary adjustment to facilitate this CIP project. Salt Storage Steiner Aquatic Center 1 I Initiative Name 1 1 BA#1FY2007 Initiative #D-14 I 2006-07 Initiative Number 1 1 1 Fiscal Year Community Development-HAND Housekeeping _J Department I [ _ _ Type of Initiative r LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact Ir Reveriue ImpactBv Fund. • ,:1st Year . 2nd Year _ ': FY 2006-07 FY2007 08 ' General Fund I I I Totall $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total! ( $01 $01 Enterprise Fund I I I Total $01 $0 jOther Fund 183- Total 1 01 $01 1 11 1 Staffmnci Impact:`' , • New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 'Total I 0.001 0 Description I { —1 - 1— 1 1 1 T— I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#-If Applicable: - NA Cost Center Number j Object Code Number Amount — 1 I 1 Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-00046 2700 1 $ (380,020.39) 183- New Cost Center 1 2700 $ 380,020.39 � I Additional Accounting Details Object Code Number j Amount 1 'General Fund CIP Create new cost center Grant Information: 1 Grant funds employee positions? N/A ,Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A 1 - IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will The eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A 1 I ,Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ eliminated? I N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? ! N/A 1- Initiative Name: Utah Department of Health Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #E-1 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department receives this grant on an annual basis from the State Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, to purchase medical equipment<and supplies which includes pharmaceuticals, and health' and 'safety supplies such as gloves,' masks, safety glasses, etc., and for paramedic and new recruit training. The training portion of the grant requires a 50%o match ($4,500) and is budgeted for within the Fire Departments general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt'the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. r Utah Dept of Health, Bureau of Emergency Services Grants El Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #E-1 2006-07 Initiative Number J Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No Fire Department New Staff Resources J Department L Type of Initiative John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue;Impact`BV fund 1st Year and 1Eear FY 2006.07 f ,,.FY 2007408. !General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0! Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 (Other Fund 1 72- State Grant $ 80,688.00j__ Total $ 80,688.00 $0 staffma`'Impact:' 1New Number of FTE's 0 ! 0 ;Existing Number of FTE's 1 0 (Total ! 0 ! 0 I Description 1 , I Accounting Detail Grant-#and CFDk#lfApplicabie:. Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount i72 New Cost Center 1 1370 $ 80,688.00 Expenditure Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 I $ 80,688.00 II f i � II i I I Additional:Accounting'Details: Grant Information — - Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? 1 Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ;eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _ Non_profit sector? j No j t Ilnitiative Name: I Utah Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services & Homeland Security Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #E-2 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department received this grant from the State of Utah, Utah Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security in FY 03-04. The Fire Department was recently notified that they were awarded an additional $32,084 of reprogrammed funds. The Fire Department proposes increasing the current budget to facilitate expenditure of the additional funds received. Grant requires a 50% match which is budgeted for within the Fire Departments general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate the additional funds received. Utah Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Services & Homeland Security 1 Initiative Name 1— — BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #E-2 2006-07 Initiative Number � ---__-_-- � Fiscal Year GrantRequiring No New Fire Department Staff Resources Department 1 J Type of Initiative John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact --i Revenue Impact Bv Fund: 1�t Year 2nd'Year FY 2006.07 FY 2007.08 General Fund Total 1 $01 I $01 Internal Service Fund Total I $01 I $0 Enterprise Fund I Total $0 $01 Other Fund 172-70407 State Grant $ 32,084.00 1 TotalI $ 32,084.00 1 1 $01 1 1 I _ Staffing Impa`ctc 4 New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's I 0 Total 0 I 0 Description r , Accounting Detail Grant#-end CFDA#If Applicable:- 16.000,7 Revenue: -- — Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1370 $ 32,084.00 J - Expenditure:, rf j . Cost Center Number Object Code Number ! Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 32,084.00 I � I _ � I Additional Accounting Details I Grant information:-' (Grant funds employee positions? No Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?' NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? J Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are T 'eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or j Non-profit sector? No I `t Initiative Name: I State of Utah - CCJJ - Honda Auto Theft Prevention Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #E-3 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The PD applied for and received $7,000 from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), in support of the Honda Auto Theft Prevention program. Of the funding, $5,000 will be used to contract with a video production company to produce three Public Service Announcement's (PSA's) to be aired on local television, and the City's Channel 17. The remaining $2,000 will be used for printing brochures in relation to the PSA's. Honda Automobiles, within the geographical areas of the 600 North corridor from Beck Street to 1-215; the 600 South corridor from 800 West to Redwood Road, and the 300 East corridor from 1300 to 2100 South;, account for more than 30% of all stolen and recovered vehicles within Salt Lake City. A $778 match is required and will be met with Officer Over-time hours to implement the program. The costs associated with the Officer OT is budgeted for within the PD's general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the State of Utah, CCJJ grant and to sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of this grant, and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant award. a State of Utah - CCJJ - Honda Auto' Theft Prevention l Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative#E-3 ! 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No Police Department New Staff Resources Department Type of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact Revenue Impact 84 Fund '' 1st Year 2nd=Year _ Y2D0 07 . 'F...:; < „ :° ,jFY 2007 08 General Fund Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 ]Enterprise Fund Total _ $01 $0L_ Other Fund 72- State Grant $ 7,000.00 I Total ll $ 7,000.00 $0 Staffing Impacti = 0 New Number of FTE's 0 Existing Number of FTE's Total 1 0 01 (Description 1 1 1 w Accounting Detail . Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue:._ - — - - Cost Center Number J Object Code Number Amount L72- New Cost Center 1370 $ 7,000.00 II _ Expenditure • - -- Cost Center Number I I Object Code Number I Amount 72- New Cost Center I 2590 $ 7,000.00 i I I i II I I I I l Additional Accounting Details Grant Information. Grant funds employee positions? I NO Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will 'be eliminated at the end of the grant?j _ N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes ,Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _ eliminated? --- — — No -- - Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No 'Initiative Name: I Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program - Law Enforcement Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #E-4 Initiative Type: Grant Re•uirins No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applies for and receives this grant annually. It is awarded to provide operational support and services in the eligible areas of law enforcement, crime prevention and drug courts. As in FY06, the City was awarded Salt Lake County's portion of the grant funds and will act as the lead agency. The City's amount is $199,722 and the County's is $120,589. The Police Dept proposes to fund the following projects/programs at the levels indicated: $15,722 for direct community policing over-time to provide the recourses for the patrol and investigative divisions to focus on community issues and to direct over-time to work directly with the community to solve the issues. $91 ,000 will be used to purchase equipment to include tasers and a COGNOS Crime Analysis System, $40,000 will be used for civilian and sworn personnel training, and $53,000 will be used to contract with the Salt Lake County Criminal Justice system ($30,000), Salt Lake Peer Court ($12,000), the McGruff Program ($9,000) and to print and produce crime prevention pamphlets/brochures($2,000). The City will also contract with the County who will purchase equipment with the amount of funds they receive. No match is required. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. 1 I • I Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program - Law Enforcement Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #E-4 } 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No New Police Department Staff Resources Department 1 Type of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 1 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By T 1 Telephone Contact Revenue Impact By Iniiiget •Fund `°1st Year •2nd`Year'. FY 200E 07 'FY 2007-08 }General Fund Total 1 $0 1 $0 ;Internal Service Fund � I Total 1 $01 1 $0 Enterprise Fund Total I $01 $0 Other Fund 172- Federal Grant $ 320,311.00 Total $ 320,311.00 $0 Staffrna Impact. New Number of FTE's 0 �_ 0 Existing Number of FTE's 1 0 }Total I 0 0 Description 'Officer OT Only - 462 hours @ 34.00 per hr. 1 I I Accounting Detail -Grant-#and CFDA#If-Applicable NA Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1360 i $ 320 311.00 • ----------- 1 1 ti I � Expenditure . Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2133 $ 15,722.00 2590 $ 304,589.00 $ 320,311.00 Additicn-al Accounting Details Establish one cost center for total budget Grant Information -'- - -1- 'Grant funds employee positions? No ,.__ Officer OT Only -- Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will i — g--- -- be eliminated at the en o e rant?1 NA � I (Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes ,Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes Doet dup teservices provided by private or Non-profitsector? No -_-- - - _- --_ - p • Initiative Name: Bureau of Emergency Medical Service, Utah Dept. of Health - Utah Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grants Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #E-5 Initiative Type: Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The PD Emergency Communications Unit applies for and receives these funds annually from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. Funding is awarded for the costs associated with sending the units dispatchers to required, continuing medical education (CEM) training for new and/or continued certification. State law requires Emergency Dispatchers to be Post Certified and to maintain their certification by receiving a minimum of 40 hours training over a two year period. The Communications Unit provides EMD dispatch operations which includes pre-arrival instruction, call triage and dispatch of EMD response unit. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant. I • ,. Bureau of EMS, Utah Dept of Health - Utah Emergency Services Grants Initiative Name BA#1 FY2007 Initiative #E-5 2006-07 Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year Grant Requiring No Police Department New Staff Resources Department j J Type of Initiative Chris Dunn/Sherrie Collins l 799-3541/535-6150 Prepared By I Telephone Contact Revenue:'Impact`'B�: und 1st Year '2nd.1(ear „ FY 20D6-07 EY 2D07 D8. . (General Fund Total I $0 $0 ;Internal Service Fund l � � _ I Total $01 $0 (Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $01_ IOther Fund State Grant $ 5,488.00 - - - Total $ 5,488.00 $01 - $t�fiflnq=lmpadf t 1New Number of FTE's 0 0 ,Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0 I 0 Description - I I I � 1, i t I I 1 11 I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable. Revenge: _ _ Cost Center Number I Object Code Number _-_- Amount 72- New Cost Center I- I 1370 I $ 5,488.00 I - 1 1 1 I Expenditure:. = _ I Cost Center Number Object Code Number 1 Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 5,488.00 I � ; I I I Additional Accounting Details: _ 1 1 —1 1 I 1 1 Grant`Information. ' 1 I !Grant funds employee positions? I 1 No 1 IIs there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant?I NA I 1 1Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes (Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are I !eliminated? I No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ;Non-profit sector? I I No 1 I 1 1 'Initiative Name: Mayor's Drug Free Communities Donations Initiative Number: BA#1 FY 2007 Initiative #F-1 Initiative Type: Donation Initiative Discussion: The Mayor's Office received three private donations totaling $887.80 for the continued efforts and support of the Mayor's Drug Free Coalition. $87.80 was donated by private individuals and $800.00 was donated by MADD to help defray the costs of the Town Meetings held by the City and the Coalition. This request increases the budget in the Drug Free Communities Grant so that the donations can be spent and used for their intent. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate expenditure of the donations. Mayor's Drug-Free Communities Donations I I Initiative Name BA#1FY2007 Initiative#F-1 I 2006-07 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mayor's Office r_ Donation Department _ Type of Initiative Abby Vianes/Sherrie Collins 535-7936/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact Revenue:Impact By fund 1st Year 2nd Year"' FY2006-07_ `;. , FY2007-08 General Fund Total $01 I $0' Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 Other Fund 72-60620 Private Donations $ 887.80 Total I $ 887.80 I $0 I I Staffing Impacf: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.001 I 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#.andCFDA#If Applicable: NA Revenue:;'; , Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount —i 72-60620 1895 $ 887.80 Expenditure = _ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-60620 2590 $ 887.80 I _ _ I Additional Accountmg�Defails _ Grantanfonination jGrant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? 1 N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? 1 N/A Will grant program be complete iln grant funding time frame'? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit .sector? � i--- --NIA — --- � —