Loading...
05/16/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Rocky Fluhart, Management Services Department Chief Administrative Officer; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Orion Goff, Building Official; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; Timothy Rodriguez, Attorney' s Office Risk Management Specialist; Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director/Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation/Support Staff; Lyn Creswell, Senior City Attorney; Max Peterson, City Engineer; Michael Barry, Transportation Engineer; Alison McFarlane, Economic Development Senior Advisor; Edward Butterfield, Mayors' Small Business/Economic Development Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Sim Gill, City Prosecutor; Charles Querry, Fire Chief; John Vuyk, Fire Department Assistant Financial Manager; Michael Berry, Fire Operations; David Nimkin, Local First Utah Vice Chair; Kurt Larson, Transportation Planning Engineer; Mary Tull, Leonardo Development Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 33 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5:33:36 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 5 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006. View Attachments Gordon Hoskins, Gary Mumford, Max Peterson, Kurt Larson, Michael Barry, Rick Graham, Alison McFarlane, David Nimkin and Mary Tull briefed the Council with the attached handouts . All items listed under "Matters of Issue" in the attached staff report were advanced. Comments/directions were made on the following issues : Item A-1 : Capital Improvement Program (CIP) cost overrun - Redwood Road Sidewalk Project - east side of Redwood Road between California Ave and Indiana Avenue ($66,000 CIP Fund) source : $16, 500 CIP cost over-run account; 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006 $49,500 UDOT. Mr. Mumford said the ending balance in the overrun account was $513, 234 instead of $1, 115, 283 . Item A-2 : CIP cost overrun - 700 South Jordan River Bridge Project ($400 ,000 - CIP Fund) source: surplus in 900 South, Main St. to 900 West project. Council Members expressed concerns about ensuring projects were budgeted sensibly realizing inflation would continue to climb over the next several years . Mr. Peterson said cost estimates included a 25% contingency. Item A-4 : Contribution to Local First ($20,000 - General Fund) source : Fund Balance . Discussion was held on whether this item should remain in the amendment or be moved to the regular budget . The majority of the Council was in favor of leaving the issue in the budget amendment. Item A-5 : Street Lighting Electrical Power ($182 ,204 - General Fund) source : $150,000 from fund balance; $32 ,204 from surplus SID funds . Discussion was held on whether this item should remain in the amendment or be moved to the regular budget . The majority of the Council was in favor of leaving the issue in the budget amendment. Item A-6 : Street Lighting Extraordinary Maintenance ($40,000 - General Fund) source : fund balance. Discussion was held on whether this item should remain in the budget amendment or be moved to the regular budget . The majority of the Council was in favor of leaving the issue in the budget amendment. Councilmember Jergensen asked for information about the remaining fund balance total after the budget amendment. Mr. Hoskins said the $210, 000 amendment would bring the total fund balance to $18, 900, 000 which was 11% . Item A-7 : CIP cost overrun - Strongs Court/Fenway Avenue SID ($74 ,000 - CIP Fund) source : $32 ,000 CIP fund balance; $42 ,000 SID assessments. Councilmember Saxton said residents were informed of the increase in the bid and agreed to pay the additional cost . Item A-8 : Bonding - The Leonardo at Library Square ($10,200,000 - CIP Fund) source: bond proceeds . Councilmember Buhler asked the Council staff to follow-up on how the funding match would impact the issuance of the bonds . He said the Council would receive a briefing on the $1 . 5 million funding request later in the budget process . A-9: Bonding - Open Space ($5,400,000 - CIP Fund) source: bond proceeds. Councilmember Buhler said if the Council approved the budget amendment he understood the money was not available for the Administration to spend without coming back to the Council . Mr. Graham said that was correct. He said the Administration and Advisory Board 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006 made recommendations and the Council made the final decision of when and how much money was spent . Councilmember Saxton asked what the $400, 000 portion of the $5 . 4 million was for. Ms . Gust-Jenson said the figure was included to cover the cost to issue the bonds . The Council felt that figure was too high and asked Mr. Mumford to follow-up on the issue . Item D-2 : Tracy Aviary/Hogle Zoo Bond Interest Earnings ($207 ,199 - CIP Fund) . The Council asked Mr. Mumford to follow-up on how/where remaining funds could be used once a project was complete . Councilmember Buhler said any follow-up information could be submitted to the Council in writing prior to the public hearing. #2 . 6:12:31 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 . (ITEM C16 AND C17) View Attachments Charles Querry, John Vuyk and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council with the attached handouts . The Council asked for clarification between the proposal and how the plan review process was currently being handled. Mr. Fluhart said he would provide information. Councilmember Buhler said the Council had previously requested information regarding fines for hazardous chemical spills but had not received the information. Ms . Gust-Jenson said the request was for information on how often spills were made by the same company and what the City required in fines or reimbursement. Chief Querry said they would provide the information. Councilmember Buhler asked what items were covered with one-time money. Ms . Bruno said she would provide the information to the Council . Discussion was held on the early retirement incentive proposal . Chief Querry said he felt more time was needed to discuss and review the issue . #3 . 6:44:58 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 3 . 39 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO NO-FAULT FIRE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS . View Attachments Charles Querry, Lehua Weaver, Tim Rodriguez and Lyn Creswell briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about residents being dropped by their insurance company for excessive no-fault claims and wanted to re-write the ordinance to include a contingency provision. Mr. Creswell said whatever language was drafted needed to include police, fire and public 06 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006 utilities . Mr . Rodriguez said the no-fault golf ordinance needed to be included in the revision . #4 . 7:52:16PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE ATTORNEY' S OFFICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 . View Attachments Ed Rutan, Lehua Weaver, Tim Rodriguez, Lynn Pace and Sim Gill briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Jergensen said he wanted the City to be more aggressive in pursuing nuisance abatement . #5 . 8:18:45PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYOR' S RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 . View Attachments Mr . Pace said the cap would increase next year. He said the City needed to anticipate increase in the value of claims across the board once the caps were raised. #6 . CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (ii) . Executive Session was not held. #7 . 8:26:08PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE PUBLIC BODY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, AND TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION; PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . Councilmember Jergensen moved and Councilmember Simonsen seconded to enter into Executive Session, which motion carried, all members voted aye . See file M 06-2 for Sworn Statement and tape . #8 . 8:24:18PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS . See file M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 00 p .m. 06 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006 COUNCIL CHAIR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held May 16, 2006 . sc 06 - 5 • CelY OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Chambers City& County Building 451 South State Street,Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah Tuesday,May 16,2006 7:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m., some Council Members may dine together in Room 125 at the City& County Building. (The room is open to the public.) A. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m.,Room 326, City & County Building,451 South State Street (Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in Work Session from 5:30-6:55 p.m. will be addressed in a Work Session setting following the Consent Agenda.) 1. The Council will receive a briefing regarding Budget Amendment No. 5 for Fiscal Year 2005-06. 2. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Fire Department for Fiscal Year 2006-07. (Item Chi & CI 7)`4 3. The Council will receive a briefing regarding an ordinance enacting Sections 3.39 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to no-fault Fire Department claims. 4. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Attorney's Office for Fiscal Year 2006-07. 5. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Mayor's Recommended Budget for the Governmental Immunity Fund for Fiscal Year 2006-07. 6. The Council will consider a motion to enter into Executive Session, in keeping with Utah Code, to discuss labor negotiations, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § § 52-4-4 and 52-4-5 (1)(a)(ii). 7. The Council will consider a motion to enter into Executive Session for the purpose of strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms, and to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § § 52-4-4, 52-4-5(1)(a)(iii) and 52-4-5(1)(a)(iv), and attorney-client matters that are privileged, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-24-8. 8. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 B. OPENING CEREMONY: Council Chair David L. Buhler will preside over the Formal Council Meetings during the month of May. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council will approve the minutes of May 2, 2006. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Continuation of Protest Hearing,Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East, Street Lighting Special Improvement District(SID) Job No. 106029 Accept public comment and hear protests concerning the proposed creation of Salt Lake City Yale Avenue, 1300 East to 1500 East, Street Lighting Special Improvement District(SID) Job No. 106029 to construct improvements within the City consisting of the installation of decorative street lighting poles, and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper workmanlike manner; to levy an assessment to operate and maintain said street lighting facilities; to create the Salt Lake City,Yale Avenue 1300 East to 1500 East Street Lighting Special Improvement District LC-106029(the "District");to pay the acquisition and installation costs and expenses and the operation and maintenance costs of said improvements by special assessments to be levied against the property benefited by such improvements;to provide notice of intention to authorize such improvements and to fix a time and place for protests against such improvements, assessments or the creation of the District;to declare its official intent to reimburse itself for expenditures paid by it prior to the sale of bonds; and to authorize advertisement of construction bids and related matters. (Q 06-3) Staff Recommendation: Close and consider options. (Note: The Council will hold a combined Public Hearing on items C2-C22,which will address all issues associated with the 2006-2007 Budget,including the Library Fund.) 2. Ordinance—Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adopting the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. (B 06-3) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 3. Ordinance—Final budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adopting the budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. (B 06-1) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 4. Ordinance—Adopting the rate of tax levy Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance adopting the final rate of tax levy all real and personal property within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. (B 06-7) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 5. Ordinance—Compensation Plan,Executive Employees and Elected Officials Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for Executive Employees and Elected Officials. (O 06-11) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 6. Ordinance—Memorandum of Understanding, 100 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2006-2007,the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), representing the "100 Series" City Employees, dated on or about June 22, 2005. (0 05-4) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 7. Ordinance—Memorandum of Understanding, 200 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2006-2007,the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1004 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), representing the "200 Series" City Employees, dated on or about June 22, 2005. (0 05-5) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 8. Ordinance—Compensation Plan, 600 and 300 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for"600 Series and 300 Series" employees. (0 06-12) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 3 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 9. Ordinance—Memorandum of Understanding, 400 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance appropriating necessary funds to implement, for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City Corporation and Local 1645 of the International Association of Firefighters, representing the "400 Series" City Employees, dated on or about June 18, 2004. (0 04-8) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 10. Ordinance—Memorandum of Understanding, 500 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Salt Lake City and The Salt Lake Police Association,International Union of Police Associations,Local 75 AFL-CIO representing the "500 Series" City Employees,and appropriating funds necessary to implement that agreement for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. (O 06-11) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 11. Ordinance—Compensation Plan, 800 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for "800 Series" employees. (0 06-14) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 12. Ordinance—Compensation Plan, 900 Series Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for "900 Series" employees. (0 06-15) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 13. Ordinance—Compensation Plan,Un-classified Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for "Un-classified" employees. (0 06-16) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 4 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 14. Ordinance—Compensation Plan, Regular Part-time Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance approving a compensation plan for "Regular Part-time" employees. (O 06-17) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 15. Ordinance—Business Fees as it pertains to Fire Inspections Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting Subsection 2.12.040,Salt Lake City Code,providing permit fees to be collected from businesses by the City and Subsection 2.12.050,Salt Lake City Code,providing fees to be collected from business by the City. (Item A2) (O 06-18) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 16. Ordinance—Business Fees as it pertains to Fire Plan Review Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting Subsection 2.12.050,Salt Lake City Code, providing fees to be collected from business by the City. (Item A2) (0 06-19) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 17. Ordinance—Park and Recreation Facilities; Recreation Enterprise Fund Fees Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending certain sections of Chapter 15.16, of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees for park and recreation facilities, and repealing Chapter 15.21 of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to the Recreation Enterprise Fund. (0 06-20) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 18. Ordinance—Refuse Fund Fees Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 9.08.030, of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to garbage and recycling pick up services. (O 06-21) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 19. Ordinance—Water Rates Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Sections 17.16.670 and 17.16.680, of the Salt Lake City Code,relating to water rates. (O 04-15) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. c Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16, 2006 20. Ordinance—City-owned Motor Vehicles Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Chapter 2.54, of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to City-owned Motor Vehicles. (0 06-22) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 21. Ordinance—Business Licensing Regulatory Fees and Other Business Licensing Fees Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Schedule 1 of Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, relating to additional regulatory fees for certain classes of businesses, Section 5.04.070,Salt Lake City Code,relating to license fees levied, Section 5.05.130,of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to application fees—for certificate or certificate of additional authority, and Section 5.05.135,Salt Lake City Code, relating to fees pertaining to certificates of public convenience and necessity, enacting Schedule 2 of Title 5, Salt Lake City Code, relating to disproportionate fees for certain classes of businesses. (0 04-22) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. 22. Ordinance—Parking Services License Tax Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending 5.04.200, of the Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to the parking services license tax. (both airport parking service operators and parking service businesses that provide off-street parking for public facilities) (0 06-23) Staff Recommendation: Close and refer to a future Council meeting for consideration. D. COMMENTS: 1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: (None) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 6 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 G. CONSENT: 1. Board Re-appointment—Vicki Mickelsen, Historic Landmark Commission Consider approving the re-appointment of Vicki Mickelsen to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term extending through July 14,2008. (I 06-11) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 2. Board Appointment—Esther E. Hunter,Historic Landmark Commission Consider approving the appointment of Esther E.Hunter,to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term extending through July 14,2009. (I 06-11) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 3. Board Appointment—Craig D. Galli, Land Use Appeals Board Consider approving the appointment of Craig D. Galli,to the Land Use Appeals Board for a term extending through December 31, 2008. (I 06-19) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 4. Ordinance—Set date—Temporary uses of tents Set the date of June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 21A.42.070(F),Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to permitted temporary uses of tents. (Petition No. 400-05-13) (P 06-8) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 5. Ordinance—Set date—Compatible infill overlay standards Set the date of June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 21A.24.080,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and Section 21A.40.050,Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to general yard, bulk and height limitations. (Petition No. 400-06-08) (P 06-9) Staff Recommendation: Set date. 6. Ordinance—Set date—Budget Amendment No. 5 Set the date of June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 26 of 2005 which adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Ordinance No. 48 of 2005 which ratified and readopted the final budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006. (B 06-6) Staff Recommendation: Set date. Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 7. Resolutions—Set Date—Small Business Revolving Loan Fund,Housing Trust Fund, and Contributions to Non-profit Organizations during Fiscal Year 2006-07 Set the date of June 6, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.to accept public comment and consider adopting resolutions pertaining to the following contributions and funds: a. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a proposed budget appropriation for a$64,000 contribution to the Road Home to support the emergency winter overflow shelter for Fiscal Year 2006-07; (R 06-5) b. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a proposed budget appropriation for a$10,000, contribution to No More Homeless Pets in Utah to support its"Feral Fix Program"within Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2006-07; (R 06-6) c. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a proposed budget appropriation for a$250,000 contribution to the Friends of Tracy Aviary for Fiscal Year 2006-07; (R 06-7) d. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a proposed budget appropriation for a$15,000 contribution to the Downtown Alliance for"First Night" celebration for Fiscal Year 2006-07; (R 06-8) e. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a proposed budget appropriation of$2,682,114 for the Housing Trust Fund; and establishing loan criteria for that fund for Fiscal Year 2006-07; (R 06-9) f. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and approving the proposed budget appropriation of$2,642,974 for the Small Business Revolving Loan Fund and amending the loan criteria for that fund for Fiscal Year 2006-07; (R 06-10) g. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a$118,000 contribution to the Salt Lake City Housing Authority for transitional housing the homeless for Fiscal Year 2006-07 and; (R 06-11) h. Resolution accepting the study performed in compliance with the Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and authorizing a $20,000 contribution to Local First,A 501(C)(3) organization with the goal of promoting local buying. (Budget Amendment No. 5) (R 06-12) Staff Recommendation: Set date. n r Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday May 16,2006 H. ADJOURNMENT: Dated: May 12, 2006 By: Deputy City e rder STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 12th day of May, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City & County Building,451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office,Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom, Room 315. Deputy City ec er Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of May, 2006. I ..C-1! g‘a42--- "IVota Public residing in the State of Utah Approval: JANYCE FOWLES C NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF UTAH 451 SUTH51RM#41bSALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 Deputy Director My Comm.Exp.09/08/2009 Access agendas at http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/default.htm. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance of council meetings. We make every effort to honor these requests, and they should be made as early as possible. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions or additional information, please contact the ADA Coordinator at 535-7971, or TDD 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I; upon four hours advance notice. Please allow 72 hours advance notice for sign language interpreters; large type and #2 Braille agendas. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCII, STAFF REPORT BUDGET AMENDMENT #5- FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 DATE: May 12, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #5 STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Luann Clark, Chief Querry, Chief Burbank, LeRoy Hooton, Louis Zunguze, Rick Graham, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Susi Kontgis, Kay Christensen The proposed budget amendment contains 25 adjustments including 8 relating to grants. Three of the budget adjustments propose the use of fund balance for a total decrease in fund balance of $210,000. The Council previously requested that a current-year revenue forecast be included with each budget amendment. The Administration's revenue forecast projects that the City's revenues will be $3,393,000 greater than anticipated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. (See attachment.) The public hearing for this budget opening is tentatively planned for June 6, 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. 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. Page 1 MATTERS AT ISSUE The Administration classified the following as: New Items: A-1: CIP cost overrun -Redwood Road Sidewrlk Project- east side of Redwood Road between California Ave and Indiana Avenue ($66,000 CIP Fund) source: $16,500 CIP cost over-run account; $49,500 UDOT Under a grant from the Utah Department of Transportation, sidewalk is being installed on the east side of Redwood Road from California Avenue to Indiana Avenue. The City's match is 25% of the cost. Costs have increased by $66,000 due to additional curb and gutter to facilitate drainage, additional drive approaches, increase in asphalt thickness for pavement tie-ins, and escalation of construction costs. The City's match of $16,500 is proposed to come from the CIP cost over run account. This will leave $1,115,283 in the overrun account including funds that will be recaptured and reallocated in this budget amendment. A-2: CIP cost overrun - 700 South Jordan River Bridge Project($400,000 - CIP Fund) source: surplus in 900 South, Main St. to 900 West project The bids for the 700 South Jordan River Bridge Replacement project are over the original project estimates. The Administration has decided to re-bid the project in September with some minor changes in design and schedule requirements in an effort to receive better bids. The Administration is requesting that $400,000 of Class C funds that were originally allocated to the 900 South, Main Street to 900 West project be transferred to this bridge project. The section of the 900 South project is substantially complete with minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. A-3: Grant- Water Efficiency Benchmarking ($530,000 - Grant Fund) The Department of Public Utilities received a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a water efficiency study to benchmark efficient water usage for single family homes. An independent consultant will collect data from ten large water utilities across the U.S. in an effort to demonstrate how the use of advanced technologies can reduce water use. Salt Lake City is the lead agency for the grant. In addition to the $350,000 grant, each of the other nine water departments will contribute $20,000 for the study for a total of $530,000 for the study. A-4: Contribution to Local First($20,000 - General Fund) source: Fund Balance The Vest Pocket Business Coalition is developing a Local First campaign for Salt Lake City that will emphasize the benefits of buying from locally based businesses by educating consumers and businesses on the importance of purchasing locally. The Local First directory has over 500 participating Utah businesses. Website, brochure, window decals and media campaign have been produced. A loyalty buying card is planned to provide benefits to consumers who buy locally. Local First Utah has requested a $20,000 donation from the City to continue the efforts. The Administration has prepared a benefit analysis study identifying some of the benefits received (see attached to Administration's paperwork). A public hearing is also required under Utah Code 10-8-2. The Council may wish to consider this in context with the Mayor's annual budget, so that it can be considered with other uses of one-time funding. Page 2 A-5: Street Lighting Electrical Power ($182,204 - General Fund) source: $150,000 from fund balance; $32,204 from surplus SID funds The Administration is requesting an additional appropriation to fund increases to electricity for street lights. The costs for replacement of bulbs and other basic maintenance have also increased. The Administration is requesting an appropriation from fund balance of $150,000 as well as $32,204 that has accumulated within the special improvement districts. Another request for $150,000 is included in the proposed annual budget for next year. A-6: Street Lighting Extraordinary Maintenance ($40,000 - General Fund) source: fund balance Some extraordinary maintenance is required to keep lighting systems operational such as fixing damaged wiring and replacing downed street lighting poles. Costs have increased due to the raising cost of steel, overall system aging, more use of underground power service, and an increase in knockdowns. The Administration is requesting an appropriation of $40,000 from fund balance. A request of $28,659 for extraordinary maintenance is also included in the proposed annual budget. A contract is ready and waiting for this $40,000 appropriation. A-7: CIP cost overrun - Strongs Court/Fenway Avenue SID ($74,000 - CIP Fund) source: $32,000 CIP fund balance; $42,000 SID assessments The Engineering Division received only one bid for the Strongs Court/Fenway Avenue special improvement district. Due to increasing costs, re-bidding the project at a later date may not result in lower prices according to the Engineering Division. The additional costs for the Strongs Court project will be $15,000 for the City and $15,000 for property owners plus $10,000 for the property owners for the lighting. The additional costs for the Fenway ,,, , Avenue project will be $17,000 for the City and $17,000 for the property owners. The property owners have been informed and, accordingly, have agreed to the increased assessments including the lighting. The Administration proposes that the City's share come from CIP fund balance. A-8: Bonding - The Leonardo at Library Square ($10,200,000 - CIP Fund) source: bond proceeds In November 2003, the voters approved bonding for the remodel of the old library building for an art, cultural and science center. The issuance of the bonds is contingent on the Leonardo Foundation raising matching funds of at least $10,200,000. The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration that the required matching funds have been raised and that these funds have been certified. The Council may wish to clarify at what point the contributions that are in the from of certified pledges will be converted to funds directly available for the project, and whether bond funds and contributions will all be available at the same time for use of the project. A-9: Bonding - Open Space ($5,400,000- CIP Fund) source: bond proceeds In November 2003, the voters approved issuing bonds for acquiring and preserving open space, parks and recreation lands. The Administration is proposing issuing these bonds at the same time as the bonds for the remodel/retrofit of the old library building. Page 3 The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources B-1: Grant-High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ($145,800 - Grants Fund) The Police Department received a continuing grant from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Police for the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). HIDTA is a multi-agency enforcement program that targets illegal distribution of drugs. This grant will allow the Police Department to continue to fund three officers assigned to Metro Narcotics for drug enforcement one of which is stationed at the Airport working with a drug detection dog. The grant pays for most but not all of the officers' costs. The remaining funds are budgeted within the Police Department's general fund budget. B-2: Grant-Emergency Management Performance (EMGP) ($24,000- Grant Fund) The Department of Management Services received a continuation grant from the Utah Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security. The grant pays a portion of the salary of the City's emergency manager. B-3: Grant-Project Safe Neighborhood($20,000 - Grant Fund) The City received a continuation grant from the State of Utah as part of a pass through grant from West Valley City for deterring gun violence in the Weed and Seed area of the City. The grant will continue to fund a part-time employee in the Prosecutor's Office to help the Prosecutor's Office identify and file appropriate cases involving domestic violence, gangs and juveniles with firearms in the City's Weed and Seed targeted area. The Administration classified the following as: Housekeeping D-1: Workers Compensation and Unemployment Compensation ($257,000 - Insurance & Risk Management Fund) The City is self insured for workers compensation and unemployment compensation claims. The City's Insurance & Risk Management Fund pays the claims to third party administrators and collects the actual claim amounts from the departments where the employees works or used to work. By year end, workers compensation claims are expected to be $240,000 greater than the budget in the Insurance & Risk Management Fund and unemployment compensation claims are expected to be $17,000 greater than the budget. The Administration is not requesting more funding to pay for the increased costs. This budget amendment will adjust the budgets in the Insurance & Risk Management Fund to reflect actual cash that goes in and out of this fund. The Administration classified this request as "housekeeping" because this represents money that during the year just moved from the departments to the Insurance & Risk Management Fund. Apparently there was sufficient funding in the departments'budgets to cover the increased costs. D-2: Tracy Aviary/Hogle Zoo Bond Interest Earnings ($207,199 - CIP Fund) The proceeds from bonds that were sold in April 2004 were placed with a trustee who reimburses the City for construction costs. As of today, there is $1,681,000 remaining in the Zoo construction account and $28,000 remaining in the Aviary construction account. Interest on these funds is eligible to fund construction of the respective projects. During the past year, interest of$195,135 for the Zoo and $12,064 for the Aviary has been earned. This amendment is to appropriate the interest earned to be added to the funds available for construction at the Zoo and Aviary. Page 4 D-3: Housing Loan Fund- accounting change ($6,607,793 - Special Revenue Fund) Formerly some housing loan activity was accounted for in the Grants Operating Fund. Now all housing activity is accounted for in the Housing Loans Fund (a special revenue fund). The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to transfer remaining housing loan assets (loans receivable and inventory of houses held for resale) to the Housing Loans Fund. D-4: Recapture CIP Funds($75,441 - CIP Fund) The Administration is requesting that excess cash in the Quiet Zone CIP project of$63,391 be transferred to the CIP cost over-run account. A budget of $12,050 remains in the Guardsman Way project (but no cash). The Administration is requesting the this project be closed. D-5: Urban Search and Rescue Disaster Response Reimbursement ($364,425 - Fire Department) The Fire Department sent its urban search and rescue team to help with disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. The City continues to pay the team members while deployed including overtime for the extended hours worked. FEMA reimburses the City for all the costs associated with this deployment. The Department is requesting that the FEMA reimbursement be appropriated to its budget to cover its costs. D-6: Computer Rental Program ($41,430 - Information Management Services Fund) source: IMS rental revenue The Information Management Services (IMS) Fund has provided a computer rental program to City departments since 2000. This program has been successful in bringing about standardization of operating systems and equipment, which has helped IMS to control costs. IMS estimated that 304 units would be handled in fiscal year 2005-06 but actually placed 346 units. Rental revenue was $43,430 more than originally estimated. The Administration is requesting that the budget for IMS be increased by this amount to allow for the increased cost of providing the computers. This is not a request for new funding, but a request to allow excess lease money already paid by the departments to be spent by IMS for the computer rental program. D-7: Police overtime reimbursement($32,500 -Police Department) The Police Department provides police officers to some taskforces and events on a reimbursement basis. The officers are paid overtime for the extra time to which the taskforce or events reimburses the Police Department. The Department is requesting that the reimbursements be appropriated where actuals exceeded original estimated budgets. D-8: Grant -Protective/Restraining Order Management Information System ($36,000 -Information Management Services Fund) In 2003, the Police Department received $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 first grant extension was from September 2005 to 4 m- December 2005. A second extension from January 2006 to July 2006 reallocated $58,000 to IMS to extend the capacities of the domestic violence case filing system. The goal is to have fewer instances of where cases are delayed due to the defense not having the Page 5 discoverable documents. This will also reduce the time required for the prosecutor to create the discoverable document packet. The Administration requests that the $36,000 allocation be appropriated to the IMS Fund. D-9: Accounting Change for CDBG CIP projects ($761,219 - CIP and Special Revenue Funds) Construction projects of nonprofit groups are accounted for in the CDBG operating fund rather than in the Capital Projects Fund. In budget amendment #4 (March 2006), the Administration requested that CDBG construction projects for non-profit organizations also be accounting for in the CIP fund. It has since been determined that this created an accounting problem for tracking and reporting project costs to HUD. The Administration is now requesting that the March amendment for this item be reversed. The Administration classified the following as: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Grant - Utah, Division of State History to prepare a National Register nomination of the Yalecrest neighborhood($10,000- Grant Fund) The Planning Division received this grant to complete an intensive-level survey of 10 properties in the Yalecrest neighborhood to assist in preparing a national register nomination of the Yalecrest neighborhood. Funding will be used to hire a professional consultant. The 100% match will be met with the in-kind salary of the Division's historic planner position. E-2: Grant - FEMA to replace obsolete personal protective equipment for firefighters ($108,719 - Grant Fund) Each year the Fire Department receives an Assistance to Firefighters Grant from FEMA. The funds were awarded to replace old personal protective equipment for firefighters. The grant requires a 20% match of $27,180, which is budgeted within the Fire Department's budget. The Administration classified the following as: Donations F-1: Library Paver replacement project($173,200 - Donation Fund) Funds of $1,173,200 have been received for replacing the Library's pavers. The Council previously adopted a $1,000,000 budget. The Administration is requesting that the additional $173,200 be budgeted in the donation fund for this project. F-2 Contribuiton - Underage Drinking Prevention Campaign ($1,000 - Donation Fund) CRP Inc., a management consulting firm located in Washington DC, contributed $1,000 to the Mayor's Coalition on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs to host town hall and school meetings on prevention of underage drinking. The drug free coordinator is working with the Mayor's Coalition to determine dates and times of town hall meetings and school presentations. Page 6 MEMORANDUM TO: ROCKY FLUHART, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FROM: STEVE FAWCETT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DATE: 5/1/06 RE: MARCH REVENUE FORECAST In compliance with Council Resolution#59, of 2003, I'm providing an FY2006 revenue update. This update is in conjunction with Budget Amendment#5. The Finance Division analyzes revenue each month and provides written updates each month beginning with the August analysis. This analysis, through March, shows that property tax revenue is projected to be under budget by year end. This is due to very large judgments awarded. Additionally, other factors are impacting property taxes such as large uncollected amounts. Sales Taxes are expected to generate a substantial increase over budget due to solid growth and increased revenue from Questar Gas, resulting from their rate increases. You may know we anticipated a 14%rate increase in their rates when we set the budget last year. The Legislature, in the past session, has capped the revenue growth from Questar at 10% over prior year actual collections. Hence, in December we may need to rebate some of the increase we are recognizing. Franchise Taxes are projected to be less than budget, primarily due to a refund requested by Qwest. Although this amount has not been paid we are projecting year end revenue as if it were. License and Permit Fees continue to rise substantially, and none of this increase is the result of permits taken out for the downtown mall projects. Interest Income is recovering as rates rise, and we expect them to continue to rise each quarter over the next year. Fines and Forfeitures have seen a positive upturn due to an increase in traffic school and the collection of overdue traffic fines. Parking meter revenue is not keeping pace with projections. Overall, we are projecting to end the year approximately $3.4 million better than budget. We will continue to monitor revenue collections closely and provide monthly analysis. FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Total General Fund 171,929,918 175,356,504 3,393,296 Total Property Taxes 62,986,649 60,860,905 (2,125,744) Discussion: Property Taxes are down due to: 1.)A judgment of 1.3 million awarded primarily to Qwest and Southwest Airlines. 2.)The non payment of taxes by Delta Airlines of approximately$938,000. Total Sales and Use Tax 42,575,979 45,088,700 2,512,721 Discussion: Sales tax is approximately 10% higher than the last three years average resulting in a slight increase in revenue with the major categories of change being durable goods, auto sales, and a small portion coming from retail sales. Additionally, revenue is up as anticipated because of rate increases in Questar Gas service. This increase is offset by increases in the expenses the City will pay for natural gas service this year. Total Franchise Tax 22,956,972 22,398,964 (558,008) Discussion: Franchise fees are down due primarily to two companies disputing the Franchise fees that were received by Salt Lake City License and Permits: 10,169,815 12,400,505 2,230,690 Discussion: Plan check fees and building permits have a surplus in revenue due to the increase in commercial building. This increase is not the result of the remodeling plans of the malls. Interest income 2,235,575 3,746,422 1,510,847 Discussion: Interest Income has an increase because of rising interest rates. Total Fines & Forfeiture 8,949,300 8,992,861 43,561 Discussion: Fines and Forfeitures shows a slight increase due primarily to an increase in traffic school and collections of late fees for traffic violations Parking Meters 1,493,000 1,462,970 (30,030) Discussion: This decrease is due to over estimated increase in the revenue when the hourly rate was raised in FY06 for parking meter collections Charges and Services 2,967,960 3,091,490 123,530 Discussion: APR 2006 SALT a tt'G TY CORO`°.j' :IOW ROCKY J. FLU HART � ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: April25, 2006 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 5 Recommendation: We recommend that on May 16, 2006, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on June 6, 2006 to discuss Budget Amendment No. 5. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on May 16, 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 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: 801-535-61 90 tihRECYCLED PAPER 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. 26 OF 2005 WHICH ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND ORDINANCE NO. 48 OF 2005 WHICH RATIFIED AND RE-ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2005 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2006. PREAMBLE On June 21, 2005, 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, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006, 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 23, 2005, 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. 26 of 2005 and Ordinance No. 48 of 2005. 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, 2005 and ending June 30, 2006, 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: APPROVED AS T(; CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER SAt Lake city AttUtnay's Of f;c c tt) Y-z r-aO By (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Budget\Budget Amendment#5 2005-2006.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2006 (ACCEPTING THE STUDY PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH CODE SECTION 10-8-2 AND AUTHORIZING A $20,000.00 CONTRIBUTION TO LOCAL FIRST, A 501(C) (3) ORGANIZATION , WITH THE GOAL OF PROMOTING LOCAL BUYING WHEREAS, the City Administration has recommended a contribution of$20,000.00 from the City's Non-Departmental Budget to Local First, a 501(c) (3) organization, with the goal of promoting local buying; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed a Study regarding said proposed contribution prepared by the City's Department of Management Services in compliance with the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2, and public notice has been given at least 14 days prior hereto in a newspaper of general circulation within the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Study, and has fully considered the analysis and conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Study, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Study, the net value to be received by the City by making this grant will constitute adequate consideration, or equivalent value, both tangible and intangible, for the benefit being provided by the proposed contribution; 2. In the judgment of the City Council, this appropriation will provide for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of Salt Lake City; 3. That $20,000.00 be and is hereby appropriated from the City's Non-Departmental Budget to Local First, a 501(c) (3) organization, with the goal of promoting local buying as described in the aforementioned Study. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of June, 2006. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake C ty A wife Office G\Resolut0Doug Short matters`:2006-2007\Authorizing contrib to Local First 4-21-06 clean Data_ _ b..�2�.... Wit' MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Fawcett FROM: Kay Christensen DATE: April 20, 2006 SUBJECT: Non-Departmental Budget—Contribution to Local First: Study to Comply with Utah Code Annotated Section 10-8-2 It is recommended that Salt Lake City contribute $20,000 to Local First, a 501(c) (3) organization with the goal of promoting local buying. To ensure that a contribution by the City to Local First would be in compliance with UCA 10-8-2, the following study has been perfoinied. UCA 10-8-2 states the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds and the factors that must be considered in deteiiiiining the propriety of such an appropriation. This study will consider the following factors: (1) The specific benefits to be received by the City; (2) The City's purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3)Whether the appropriation is "necessary and appropriate" to accomplish the City's goals. Benefits and Costs to Salt Lake City: Last year Salt Lake City Corporation contributed $20,000 to the Vest Pocket Business Coalition as seed money to organize the Local First 501(c)(3) organization. Those funds were used to research and prepare a long-term strategy for the organization, to prepare public education and promotional literature and materials, and to build a state-wide local business registration base. The organization also implemented Local First Utah week and promoted it with press conferences, TV coverage, and radio interviews. Local First is now a separate 501(c)(3) organization with a governing board and campaign committee. The budget for the year has been set at $60,000. This budget will allow Local First to hire an executive director with duties shared between Local First (campaign, promotions and resource development) and the Vest Pocket Business Coalition (primarily networking, advocacy and member benefits). The organization would also like to hire a community organizer with a special grant to increase Local First business registrations and establish a series of Local First networks throughout the state. In July, Local First is planning what they intend to be an annual "Independents" Week. They also plan to implement a "loyalty buying card" that will provide benefits to consumers who buy locally and will build brand awareness of Local First Utah. Meeting Salt Lake City's Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents: Salt Lake City Corporation has adopted a performance measurement tool called the Balanced Scorecard to assist the City in articulating strategic goals, measures and targets for all departments and divisions within the City. The Balanced Scorecard is divided into eight focus areas, including Community Building/Diversity, and Revitalization of Downtown/Neighborhoods and Economic Development. The accompanying goals include strengthening neighborhoods by investing in quality of life initiatives, revitalizing downtown by improving the City's economic base, and increasing the number of people living and working in the City, downtown and otherwise. Support of local business will likely increase the number of neighborhood businesses, improve the City's economic base and increase the number of people who desire to live and work in the City. Therefore, at least three of the City's eight identified focus areas would be positively impacted by the work of Local First. Accomplishing Salt Lake City's Goals: The proposed contribution is necessary and appropriate to accomplish Salt Lake City's goals. Benefits from the $20,000 contribution to Local First will be realized as small local businesses thrive and revitalize neighborhoods, and improve the City's economic base. FY 2006 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #5 — June FY 2006 FY 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Gen. Fund Fund Initiative Name FTE Amount Impact Balance Impact Section A New Items 1. CIP - Redwood Road $66,000.00 Sidewalk- Calif. Ave 2. CIP- 700 S Jordan River $400,000.00 Bridge Replacement 3. EPA Water Efficiency $530,000.00 Benchmarking 4. Local First Campaign $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 5. Street Light Operation $182,203.79 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 and Maintenance 6. Street Light $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 Extraordinary Maintenance 7. Strong/Fenway SID $42,000.00 Construction $32,000.00 8. Leonardo At Library $10,200,000.00 Square Bonding 9. Open Space, Parks and $5,400,000.00 Recreational Lands Bonding Section B Grants For Existing Staff Resources 1. Police Dept Metro $145,800.00 Narcotics/Drug Enforcement Grant 2. State of Utah Emergency $24,000.00 Management Grant 3. WVC Pass Through $20,000.00 Project Safe Neighborhood Grant Section C Grants For New Staff Resources Section D Housekeeping 1. Risk Fund Workers $257,000.00 Comp and Unemployment 2. Bond Construction $207,199.00 Interest 3. Housing Loans Program $6,607,793.03 Income 4. CIP Fund Recapture $75,440.51 FY 2006 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #5 — June FY 2006 FY 2006 Gen. Fund Initiative Gen. Fund Fund Initiative Name FTE Amount Impact Balance Impact 5. FEMA Disaster Response $364,425.00 Reimbursement 6. IMS Computer Rental $41,430.00 Income 7. Police Services Overtime $32,500.00 Reimbursement 8. IMS PROMIS Grant $36,000.00 9. Move CDBG From 83 $761,219.41 Fund CIP to 71 CDBG Fund Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1. State of Utah Survey $10,000.00 Grant for Yalecrest Neighborhood 2. FEMA Grant for Fire $108,719 Dept Personal Protective Equipment Section F Donations 1. Library Square Pavers $173,200.00 2. Prevent Underage $1,000.00 Drinking Scholarship 2 Initiative Name: Redwood Road Sidewalk - Job 102132 Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative #A-1 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion:, In Budget Amendment #1 of this fiscal year, the Engineering Division requested a $25,000 match to a Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) grant of $75,000 which was brought into Budget Amendment #1 also. This project consists of the installation of sidewalk on the east side of Redwood Road, from California Ave. to Indiana Ave. The current estimated cost of construction for the Redwood Road safer sidewalk UDOT grant is $166,000. This $66,000 increase is due to additional curb and gutter needed to facilitate drainage; additional drive approaches; increases in asphalt thickness for pavement tie-ins; and the recent escalation of construction costs. This request is to increase the CIP budget/match by $16,500 and reduce the CIP cost over- run account by the same amount, and increase the UDOT grant budget by $49,500. This action will leave a balance of $238,654 in the Fiscal Year 03-04 CIP cost over run account. UDOT has agreed to cover it's portion of the increased costs. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. I Redwood Road Sidewalk -Job 0102132 Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development HAND New Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150' Prepared By I Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 1General Fund Total $0 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total I $0 $01 Other Fund 83-06050 UDOT Grant $ 49,500.00 Total $ 49,500.001 $0 Staffing 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 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-06050 1370 $ 49,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-06049 2700 16,500.00 83-06050 2700 49,500.00 83-04099 2700 (16,500.00) Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? I NA Initiative Name: 700 South Jordan River Bridge Replacement - Job 107088 Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative #A-2 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: The 700 South Jordan River Bridge replacement was awarded $900,000 of Federal Highway funding during FY03-04. The required Match of $200,000 was also awarded during the FY03- 04 CIP Process from the Class "C" fund. This project was recently bid and the Engineering Division received two (2) bids. The low bid came in $360,000 over the Engineers estimate. The escalating construction costs currently being experienced is even greater for bridge construction projects. The City attempted to secure additional federal funds for the increase, but recent reallocation of federal bridge replacement funds has resulted in a significant dollar decrease to the program and funds were denied. Although the revised cost to replace this bridge is approaching the point of being cost prohibitive, Engineering recommends approval of the cost increase as it will allow the City to utilize the $900,000 of federal funds already approved for this project. The project will be re-bid in September, with some minor changes in design and schedule requirements in an effort to receive better bids. This request is to move $400,000 of Class "C" funds allocated from the 900 South, Main Street to 900 West project to the 700 So. Jordan River Bridge project. The 900 So. project is substantially complete. Excess project funds are available in the 900 So. project due to good bids received and an excellent design resulting in minimal change orders and material quantity overruns. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. I 1 700 South Jordan River Bridge Replacement- Job 107008 Initiative Name I I _ BA#5FY2006 Initiative#A-2 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND New Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 I $0) Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $01 , Enterprise Fund Total $01 I $0 Other Fund Total 01 I $0 I Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.001 I 0 Description I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount � I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-04035 2700 $ (400,000.00) 83-04038 2700 $ 400,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA ;Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or j Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: United States Environmental Protection Agency Water Efficiency Benchmarking Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-3 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: The Public Utilities Department applied for and received this US Environmental Protection Agency grant in the amount of $350,000 to participate in a water efficiency benchmarking of single family homes. In addition, Salt Lake City Public Utilities will partner with nine (9) other nationwide water departments who will provide $20,000 each ($180,000) to Salt Lake City, to participate in the water efficiency benchmarking study. Other water departments include Roseville CA., Las Vegas NV., Clearwater FL., Phoenix AZ., Aurora CO., Eugene OR., Daytona Beach FL., Denver Co., and Cary NC. Acting as the lead agency, Salt Lake City will contract with Aqua craft Inc, to serve as the principal investigator and to provide the data collection and analysis for the research study. The intent of the project is to collect data from several large water utilities across the US that will provide information and answers pertaining to water usage in new and existing homes, in an effort to demonstrate how the use of advanced technologies can reduce water use. Fund will be used for payment to consultant and grant monitor for grant oversight and management. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept and sign the grant agreement and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. I I I I US EPA-Water Efficiency • Benchmarkinq ___ Initiative Name 1 ! BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-3 I 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Public Utilities New Department J Type of Initiative Stephanie Duer/Sherrie Collins 483-6860/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 !General Fund Total $01 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total, $01 $0 Enterprise Fund Total I $01 $0 ;Other Fund 172 Fund Fed EPA Grant $ 350,000.00 72 Fund Other Cities $ 180,000.00 , Total I $ 530,000.00 I I $0 I I Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 01 0 Total 01 0 Description I I Grant Monitoring $ 12,375.00 Benefits $ 4,409.00 I 1 i I I _Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- New Cost Center 1370 $ 350,000.00 172- New Cost Center 1890 $ 180,000.00 $ 530,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 530,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Is there a potential for grant to continue? No If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? _ NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: Local First Campaign Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-4 Initiative Type: New Salt Lake City granted $20,000 seed money in 2004 to the Vest Pocket Business Coalition to initiate a Local First Campaign. The Local First directory now has over 500 participating businesses. Website, brochure, window decals and media campaign',have been produced for the Local First. The campaign is a grass roots support of local businesses to encourage consumers to Buy Local First since local businesses help to create a sense of place in our community, contribute economic vitality, and bolster the local economy by dollars spent in the community being distributed to other local businesses in support services such as advertising, accounting, and local service vendors. The Local First Campaign's request for 501(c) 6 status has been delayed, and in order to keep the campaign momentum, has requested an additional $20,000 from Salt Lake City Corporation to continue the campaign efforts and momentum. Local First Campaign Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#A-4 I 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mayor's Office New Department Type of Initiative Alison McFarlane 535-7704 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) ($20,000) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total I $01 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 I $0 Other Fund Total I 0 I $0 I I Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total I 01 I 0 Description . I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount ,General Fund Fund Balance $ 20,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 109- New Cost Center 2328 $ 20,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will lbe 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: Street Lighting Operation and Maintenance Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-5 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: There has been an increase in the costs for operation and maintenance of City street lights The operation and maintenance costs include costs for supplying electricity to the street lights as well as the basic maintenance services such as replacement of bulbs and other basic fixture components. The budget does not include services for non-basic repairs such as pole knock-downs and deteriorating infrastructure (poles, wiring, etc.). The increase in costs is due to increasing power rates (electricity), increasing maintenance costs (materials, fuel and labor) and an increase in the number of lights operated by the City.The City operates and maintains over 14,000 street lights.The operation and maintenance of street lights is essential to the safety and security of the public right-of-way. A private contractor is scheduled to begin providing maintenance service April 1st at less cost than UP&L, but the savings will not offset the other cost increases.UP&L has announced another significant power rate increase proposal. This will be taken into account in the budget proposal for next fiscal year. This request is asking for $150,000 from the General Fund Fund Balance. In addition in the SID maintenance account there is a surplus of$32,203.79. This account contains funds collected for street lighting power and maintenance, but were not used in a previous fiscal years. I Street Lighting Operation and Maintenance I I Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-5 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Comm Dev Transportation New Department Type of Initiative Michael Barry 535-7147 Prepared By Telephone Contact 1General Fund (Fund Balance) ($150,000) Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund ;Non Dept Transfer from SID $ 32,203.79 Total $ 32,203.79 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 lEnterprise Fund Total I $01 I $01 Other Fund Total 1 $01 I $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 01 Total 0 I 0 Description I I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00800 1974-06 $ 32,203.79 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 09-00800 2331 $ 182,203.79 30-02331 2910-08 $ 32,203.79 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Street Light Extraordinary Maintenance Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-6 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: There has been a trend of increasing expenditures to the street lighting extraordinary maintenance. This maintenance covers fees for repairs to the street lighting system to keep it operational. Typical repairs include fixing damaged wiring systems (both above and below ground), replacing downed street lighting poles, and making safe (for the public) the locations where damage has occurred. There are many factors that have increased the costs for this maintenance with the foremost being increases to fuel costs and the cost of steel products. Other factors are the continual aging of our overall system, more use of underground power service, and an increase in knockdowns of decorative style poles. Without this increase it will not be possible to do the needed repairs. The areas with non-functioning lights will remain dark at night. Street Light Extraordinary Maintenance Name of Initiative BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#A-6 I 2005-06 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Corn Dev-Transportation New Department I Type of Initiative Michael Barry 535-7147 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund (Fund Balance) ($40,000) _Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 Total 1 $01 1 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $01 Enterprise Fund Total 1 $01 I $0 Other Fund Total 1 01 1 $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 I 01 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount Expenditure: Cost Center Number ( Object Code Number Amount 03-12300 2358-03 $ 40,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A ,If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A jDoes grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Strong/Fenway SID Construction Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative #A-7 Initiative Type: New Initiative Discussion: The Strong Court/Fenway Avenue SID projects were awarded CDBG funds,in the 04-05 CDBG process for design, and CIP funds in 05-06 for the City's portion of the SID for construction. These projects were recently bid and the Engineering Division received one (1) bid which exceeded the engineer's estimate. The bid is higher due to the increased costs for street lighting, concrete pavement, excavation and road base. Due to increasing costs, re-bidding the project at a later date may not result in lower bid prices. Discussions are currently underway with the Strong Court and Fenway Avenue property, owners to receive their input on a proposed SID assessment increase. Further discussions are being held with the property owners on Strong Court to determine if they want to include the construction of the street lights or proceed without the lights. This request would increase the City's portion of the SID for Strong Court by $15,000 and Fenway Avenue for $17,000. This request is to reduce the 04-05 CIP fund balance by $32,000 and increase the budgets in the Strong Court and Fenway Avenue projects. In addition, this request proposes the increase of the property owners SID budgets. The budget increase for Strong Court including the lights would be $25,000 and for Fenway Avenue $17,000. This request assumes property owners are in agreement with proceeding based on higher assessments. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustments to facilitate this project. Strong/Fenway SID Construction _ Initiative Name BA#5FY2006 Initiative #A-7 I 2005-06 Initiative Number j _ Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND New Department Type of Initiative _ LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact r General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY.2005-06 FY 2006-07 1General Fund Total I $01 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total I $01 $01 Other Fund CIP 83 Fund SID $ 42,000.00 Total $ 42,000.00I I $01 I I Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 jExisting Number of FTE's 0 'Total 0.00 0 Description N L j ■ _Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 83-06071 1890 $ 25,000.00 83-06072 1890 $ 17,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number _ Object Code Number Amount 83-05023 2700 $ 32,000.00 83-04099 2700 $ (32,000.00) 83-06071 2700 $ 25,000.00 83-06072 2700 $ 17,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or !Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: The Leonardo at Library Square Building Remodel Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative #A-8 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: In 2003 the public approved the issuance by the City of general obligation bonds to finance the retrofitting and renovation of the Main Salt Lake City Library located at 200 East 500 South into an art, cultural and science center. The issuance of the bonds is contingent on the Leonardo Foundation raising a matching $10,200,000. The Leonardo Foundation has matching funds in the amount of$10,213,000 but the City has not certified those funds yet. The matching funds the City has certified are as follows: Cash received $ 2,065,935 Pledges 5,646,967 Stocks 1,496,597 In-Kind Donations 838,057 Total match $10,047,556 The additional $150,000 that needs to be certified will be done before the amendment is passed. The $10 million will be used to retrofit and renovate the existing building. The extent of the renovation will depend upon the value the $10 million will purchase with today's construction costs. Those dollars will be approximately $8 million when the construction begin later this year. The funding is being requested at this time to fund the design work. Retrofitting for earthquake will be the first priority of the renovation. Any additional construction cost above the $10 million will be funded by additional donation, contributions or grants the foundation might obtain. The Engineering Division of the Public Service Department will be responsible for the construction and renovation of the building. The foundation will be responsible for all of the interior design and remodeling. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this project. I I The Leonardo at Library Square Building Remodel I Initiative Name I I BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#A-8 I 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 1 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 1 $0 Other Fund 83 CIP Bond Proceeds $ 10,200,000.00 Total $ 10,200,000.00 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0, Total I I 0.00 I 0 Description I I I i t Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA _ Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 1980 $ 10,200,000.00 i _ i l Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183- New Cost Center 2700 $ 10,200,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: H 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? I N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or [Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Open Space, Park and Recreational Lands Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative #A-9 Initiative Type: New Item Initiative Discussion: On November 4, 2003, Salt Lake City residents voted to approve the allocation of$5.4 million in bonds funds for the purpose of acquiring and preserving open space, parks, and recreation lands and amenities within Salt Lake City or its environs. In November, 2004 the Salt Lake City Council created a Salt Lake City ordinance enacting Chapter 2.88 of the Salt lake City Code creating the Salt lake City Open Space Lands Program, and the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Fund. The purpose of the Program is to provide an administrative structure for the protection, acquisition management' and compatible of open space lands in Salt Lake City, and to implement the bond measure passed on November 4, 2003. The Fund is created as a designated account within the accounting fund structure of the City that shall be used exclusively to acquire, preserve, protect and maintain open space lands. No expenditure can be made from the Fund without prior approval of the City Council It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this project. 1 Open Space, Parks and Recreational Lands Initiative Name ! 7 BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #A-9 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development New Item Department Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact iGeneral Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 I $01 Internal Service Fund 1 1 Total $0 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 $0 Other Fund 83 CIP Bond Proceeds $ 5,400,000.00 Total $ 5,400,000.00 I $0 I I Staffing Impact: !New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.001 0j Description 1 1 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number j Object Code Number j Amount 783- New Cost Center 1980 $ 5,400,000.00 I Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 5,400,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A 'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? 1 N/A Initiative Name: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - Rocky Mountain HIDTA Grant Initiative Number: BA#5FY 2006 Initiative #B-1 Initiative Type: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Police Department applied for and has received confirmation that the City will be receiving a grant in the amount of $145,800 from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control. The grant will continue to fund three (3) Officers assigned to the Metro Narcotics/Drug Enforcement, of which one (1) Officer is assigned to the Airport working with a drug detection dog. Although the grant caps benefits at 35% of base salary, the remaining funds needed are budgeted for within the Police Department's general fund budget. There is no required match. 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 Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Rocky Mountain HIDTA Grant Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#B-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants for Existing Police Department Staff Resources Department Type I T e of Initiative Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year _ FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 $01 Internal Service Fund Total I $01 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total I $01 I $0 Other Fund 72 Fund Fed Grant $ 145,800.00 Total $ 145,800.00 I I $0 _ I I I Staffing Impact:_ _New Number of FTE's 01 0 _Existing Number of FTE's 31 0 Total 3 I 0 Description ! ! I I _Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1370 $ 145,800.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2111-01 $ 108,000.00 2191-10 $ 37,800.00 $ 145,800.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes ils 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? 111 Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? II Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or ■ Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Initiative Number: BA#5FY 2006 Initiative #B-2 Initiative Type: Grant for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Management Services receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security. It is awarded to Salt Lake City to defray some of the costs associated with the Emergency Managers salary and benefits. The $24,000 awarded will be used to defray salary expenses of the Emergency Managers Position. This position is responsible to design, implement and apply the Emergency Operating Procedure manual and to educate Salt Lake City Corporation, community groups and local businesses of emergency procedures and policies in the event of a natural disaster, or terrorist attack. The grant requires a 100% or $24,000 match which is met within Management Services 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. State of Utah, Department Of Public Safety, Emergency Management Performance Grant(EMPG) _ Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#B-2 2005-06 Initiative Number J Fiscal Year Grant for Existing Staff Management Services Resources Department 1 Type of Initiative Mike Stever/Sherrie Collins 535-6030/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact 1General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total ( $01 $01 IInternal Service Fund Total $0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund 72 Fund- State of Utah Grant $ 24,000.00 Total $ 24,000.00 $0 I I I Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 1 0 Total 1 I 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: 97.042 EMPG-2006-DHLS-CTY17 Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 24,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 24,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? I No Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: State of Utah West Valley City Pass Through - Project Safe Neighborhood Initiative Number: BA#5FY 2006 Initiative #B-3 Initiative Type: Grant for Existing Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: Housing and Neighborhood Development applied for and received this $20,000 pass through funding from West Valley City. It is a State pass through grant to West Valley with SLC being a Sub recipient of West Valley. This is the third year that the City has received these funds. This grant is awarded to deter gun violence in the Weed and Seed area through the adult and juvenile violent offender re-entry pilot program, gun violence prevention education for at-risk youths and integrating new crime -mapping software to facility cross -jurisdictional data sharing. These funds will be used to continue to support an hourly Paralegal/Executive Assistant to work with the Salt Lake City Prosecutors Division in identifying and filing appropriate cases involving domestic violence, gang and juvenile incidences with firearms that are coming from the City's Weed and Seed targeted area. This is an hourly position being paid approximately $16.00 per hour for providing approximately 624 hours of service. 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 West Valley City Pass Through- Project Safe Neighborhood Initiative Name I BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#B-3 2005-06 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grant for Existing Staff Community Development Resources Department ( Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 1 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 1 $0 Other Fund 72 Fund State of Utah Grant $ 20,000.00 Total I $ 20,000.00 1 1 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 _Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0 I 0 Description —1 PTE Hrly Position i I I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 1890 $ 20,000.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2590 $ 20,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? Yes Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will 'be eliminated at the end of the grant? Yes Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are Ieliminated? No 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 1Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: Risk Fund Workers Comp & Unemployment Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-1 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The Risk Fund collects the workers compensation and unemployment premiums from the various City departments. The Risk Fund then makes the payments to the third party vendors. This request will increase the Risk Fund revenue and expenditure budgets for higher than expected Workers Compensation and Unemployment activity during the current fiscal year. � I Risk Fund Workers Comp & Unemployment Initiative Name BA#5 Initiative#D-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mqmt Sery - Finance Housekeeping Department L Type of Initiative Jeffrey Hill _ 535-6478 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 1General Fund Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Risk Fund $ 257,000.00 Total $ 257,000.00 $0 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 01 $01 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total Description I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: _ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 1 87-40080 1860-60 $ 6,000.00 187-40120 1860-60 $ 6,000.00 87-40150 1860-60 $ 5,000.00 87-30030 1860 $ 3,000.00 87-30030 1860-65 $ 68,000.00 87-30540 1860 $ 4,000.00 87-30540 1860-65 $ 138,000.00 87-30190 1860 $ 1,000.00 87-30190 1860-65 $ 17,000.00 87-30120 1860 $ 5,000.00 87-30120 1860-65 $ 4,000.00 $ 257,000.00 Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 87-40080 2196 $ 6,000.00 87-40120 2196 $ 6,000.00 87-40150 2196 $ 5,000.00 87-30030 2197-02 $ 71,000.00 87-30190 2565 $ 1,000.00 87-30190 2197-02 $ 17,000.00 87-30540 2197-01 $ 12,000.00 87-30540 2197-02 $ 94,000.00 87-30540 2197-03 $ 21,000.00 87-30540 2565 $ 15,000.00 87-30120 2197-02 $ 9,000.00 $ 257,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Bond Construction Funds Interest Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-2 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: In April of 2004, General Obligation Bond Series 2004, was issued to fund the construction of new facilities at the Tracy Aviary and the Hogle Zoo. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee contracted for the issue. Since then the proceeds have been earning interest. In June of 2005 an amendment was passed to appropriate the interest earned from the time the series of bonds was issued until the end of the 3rd quarter, or the end of March, 2005. This amendment is to appropriate the interest earned during the last quarter of FY 2005 and the first three quarters of FY 2006. A total of $12,064 for the Aviary and $195,135 for the Zoo has accumulated in each respective fund since the last budget amendment was passed for this purpose. These amounts reflect interest earned during the last quarter of fiscal year 2005 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2006. Bond Construction Funds Interest Initiative Name BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative#D-2 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Mqmt Sery Treasurer Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Dan Mule / Randy Hillier 535-6411 /535-6641 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total I $0O I $01 Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 I $0 Other Fund CIP 83-04073 Tracy Aviary Const $ 12,064.00 Fund CIP 83-0407.3 Hogle Zoo Const $ 195,135.00 Fund Total $ 207,199.00 I $0' Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 _Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total r 0 0 Description I Accounting Detail Grant#and CEDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 183-04073 1830 $ 12,064.00 183-04074 1830 $ 195,135.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount '83-04073 2700 I $ 12,064.00 83-04074 2700 $ 195,135.00 Additional Description: The 83-04073 CC is the Tracy Aviary Construction Fund The 83-04074 CC is the Hogle Zoo Construction Fund Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA ,If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: Housing Loans Program Income Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative # D-3 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: Earlier this fiscal year, the Council approved a transfer of cash from the Grants Operating Fund to the Housing Loans Fund so that all housing activities could be better accounted for in one fund, the Housing Loans Fund. This request is to transfer the loans receivable and the inventory of houses held for resale to the Housing Loans Fund. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the necessary adjustments to these budgets to complete the needed transfer of all assets to the Housing Loans Fund. Housing Loans Program Income Initiative Name BA#X FY2006 Initiative # D-3 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Magmt Sery - Finance Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 _ 1 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total 0 $0 Internal Service Fund Total 0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total 0 $0 Other Fund 72 Fund fund balance $ 6,607,793.03 Total $ 6,607,793.03 $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 'Total 0 0 Description 1.111111 Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 78-78903 1974-72 $ 3,080,888.06 78-78905 1974-72 $ 2,597,330.94 78-78906 1974-72 $ 929,574.03 6,607,793.03 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-17004 2910-15 $ 3,080,888.06 72-60011 2910-15 2,597,330.94 72-72906 2910-15 929,574.03 6,607,793.03 Additional Description: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: Recapture CIP Funds - Completed Projects Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative #D-4 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: This request decreases the remaining cash and budget in one (1) completed, closed CIP project and increases the cash and budget of the FY05 cost over-run account. In addition, this request decreases the remaining budget in one (1) project. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. Recapture CIP Funds - Completed Projects Initiative Name BA#5FY2006 Initiative#D-4 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Community Development- HAND Housekeeping Department I Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 I $0 Other Fund Total ( 0 I $0 I I Staffing Impact: 1New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0.001 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount I - Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 83-05099 GF Cost over-run 2700 $ 63,391.00 83-04019 Quiet Zone 2700 $ (63,391.00) 83-02048 Guardsman Way 2700 $ (12,049.51) (Reduce Budget Only) Additional Accounting Details: • Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: Fire Department/ Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Disaster Response Reimbursement Initiative Number: BA#5 FY 2006 Initiative#D-5 Initiative Type: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: As a participating member of the national Urban Search and Rescue program the Fire Department sent some of its members to help with disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. As per the policies set forth b.y FEMA for all USAR Teams the Fire Department paid those individuals for the time spent assisting in the disaster recovery. FEMA will then reimburse the Fire Department for all costs associated with the deployment. The Fire Department has received a portion of the reimbursement and is doing all it can to insure it receives the full reimbursement prior to the end of the fiscal year. The Fire Department does expect to receive full reimbursement from FEMA. Fire Department/ Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Disaster Response Reimbursement Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-5 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Fire Department Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative John Vuvk 799-4210 Prepared By Telephone Contact r General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund 12-00005 FEMA Reimbursement $ 41,825.00 12-00120 FEMA Reimbursement $ 311,000.00 12-01160 FEMA Reimbursement $ 11,600.00 Total $ 364,425.00 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $0 I $01 Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 Other Fund Total 0 $0 I I _ Staffing Impact: ,New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 0 Description I I I I I _Accounting Detail Grant# and CFDA# If Applicable: EMW-2005-FG-16772 Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number I Amount 12-00005 1956 $ 41,825.00 12-00120 1956 $ 311,000.00 12-01160 1956 $ 11,600.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 12-00005 2199 $ 41,825.00 12-00120 2199 $ 311,000.00 12-01160 2199 $ 11,600.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? N/A Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: IMS Computer Rental Income Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-6 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: 1) The IMS rental program was created in 2000, and has been very successful in helping city departments control their desktop computers and monitor their costs. The program has helped to bring about standardization of operating systems and equipment, which assists IMS in reducing costs and maintaining a stable citywide network. 2) The IMS rental program has experienced additional growth during FY06 than anticipated. IMS estimated 304 units, but actually handled 346 units, which is 42 new computers being installed. 3) The IMS rental revenue budget for FY06 is $423,179; actual IMS rental revenue as of 02/28/06 is $466,400. This reflects the increase in rental units. IMS is requesting a budget opening to increase rental revenues and expenses by $41,430. This increase will allow IMS to recover the increased costs of these rentals. i I IMS Computer Rental Income Initiative Name I I BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#D-6 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Management Services/ IMS Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Dave Abbott 535-6343 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 $0 Internal Service Fund 65 Fund IMS Rental Income $ 41,430.00 Total I $ 41,430.00 I $0 Enterprise Fund I Total $01 $0 Other Fund Total 01 I $0 Staffing Impact: _New Number of FTE's F 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 01 I 0 Description I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 165-01000 1954 $ 41,430.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 65-01000 2750 $ 41,430.00 Additional Description: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? N/A Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A 1Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A 'Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are :eliminated? N/A 1Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? N/A Initiative Name: Police Department Service Overtime Reimbursment Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-7 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: The Police Department provides services to a variety of law enforcement taskforces and off duty events on an overtime basis. These expenses are processed thru the department's payroll system. Those reimbursements have been larger than what is budgeted for fiscal year 2006 by $32,500. This request is to recoginize those reimbursements by increasing the overtime budget in both the department expense and the general fund revenue by $32,500. Police Department Service Overtime Reimbursement Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#D-7 2005-06 Initiative Number j Fiscal Year Police Housekeeping Department Type of Initiative Jerry Burton 799-3824 al Prepared By � _ Telephone Contact 'General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Off Duty Overtime Reimbursement $ 32,500.00 Total $ 32,500.00 I $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $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 0 'Total 01 0 Description None 11. 1.1111 • I I i i Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02- Police Department 1446 $ 32,500.00 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 02- Police Department 2133 $ 32,500.00 Additional Accounting Details: Grant Information: No grant funds 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: PROMIS Grant Amendment Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-8 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. The funding was from 09/01/03 to 08/31/05. The first extension to the grant was to extend the time frame only from 09/01/05 to 12/31/05. The second extension is to extend the time frame 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. The PROMIS grant modification has been awarded to Salt Lake City for the completion of the project. The approved grant fund modifications is for specific programming that will need to be completed within the time restraints of the grant terms and conditions. This 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. The system will provide these case filings by either of three methods: 1. Prosecutors printing a packet of discoverable documents that can be delivered to the defense 2. Prosecutors e-mail a secured packet of discoverable documents to the defense 3. Prosecutors providing a secured web based system for the defense to retrieve the discoverable documents The system will record each of these steps so there is an audit of when the documents were delivered. Thereby speeding up the deliverable process of these documents. This will assist in fewer instances of where cases are delayed due to the defense not having these documents. This will result in a speedier process for the injured parties with fewer courts visits. In addition this will greatly reduce the time required for the prosecutor to create the discoverable document packet. The grant summary identified the criteria for the project. IMS will follow these requirements. The software engineering design and development will be coordinated and monitored by IMS personnel and performed by qualified IMS / contract labor. The IMS portion of the grant modifications total $58,000 as awarded to Salt Lake City for the PROMIS project requiring software programming and computer support through IMS. Measurability of this project is the actual tracking of identified expenses and the completion of the project. PROMIS Grant Amendment Initiative Name I I BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#D-8 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Management Services/ IMS Housekeeping Department I Type of Initiative Dave Abbott 535-6343 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund 65 Fund IMS PROMIS Grant $ 36,000.00 $ 22,000.00 amendment and extension for FY06 and FY07 Total $ 36,000.00 I 1 $ 22,000.00 Enterprise Fund Total I $01 I $01 Other Fund Total 01 I $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 01 0 Existing Number of FTE's 01 0 Total 0 I 0 Description I I _Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 165-03200 1954-02 I $ 36,000.00 II Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 65-03200 2163 $ 36,000.00 Additional Description: Grant Information: 'Grant funds employee positions? Contract Labor Is there a potential for grant to continue? Until 07/31/06 l I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A ;Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? Yes (Does grant duplicate services provided by private or 'Non-profit sector? No Initiative Name: Move CDBG CIP from 83 to 71 Fund Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #D-9 Initiative Type: Housekeeping Initiative Discussion: In Budget Amendment #4, the CDBG CIP Building Improvement projects were moved from the 71 fund to the 83 fund which includes all capital improvement projects. This was done in an effort to coordinate the cost over-run budgets established for CDBG and to enable HAND to better monitor and track CIP CDBG projects. It has since been determined that this action creates an accounting problem for the Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) project tracking system and the City's Capital Improvement reporting requirements. This request reverses the action taken in Budget Amendment #4. HAND staff will continue to coordinate the cost over-run budgets through the Budget Opening process. It is recommended that the Council approve the necessary adjustments to the budgets to continue facilitation of these projects. Move CDBG CIP From 83 to 71 Fund Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#D-9 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year , Community Development Housekeeping Department j Type of Initiative LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535/6136/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 'General Fund Total $0 Internal Service Fund Total 0 $0 Enterprise Fund Total 0 $0 Other Fund 83 Fund CDBG Funding $ (761,219.41) 71 Fund CDBG Operating $ 761,219.41 Total $ - $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 Total 0 Description • i � I 1 I I I I _Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 171-31013 1310 $ 107,400.00 1 71-31018 1310 $ 15,000.00 _71-31052 1310 $ 9,900.00 _71-31053 1310 $ 19,600.00 71-31030 1310 $ 41,564.00 -71-31058 1310 $ 62,982.00 71-31057 1310 $ 10,000.00 71-31043 1310 $ 17,300.00 71-31059 1310 $ 59,400.00 71-31060 1310 $ 60,000.00 -71-31044 1310 $ 8,000.00 71-31055 1310 $ 5,500.00 71-31045 1310 $ 27,723.00 71-31054 1310 $ 3,400.00 71-31056 1310 $ 16,975.00 71-31036 1310 $ 118,000.00 71-30054 1310 $ 15,000.00 71-30055 1310 $ 7,500.00 71-30057 1310 $ 10,000.00 71-30059 1310 $ 7,975.41 71-30060 1310 $ 120,000.00 71-30063 1310 $ 18,000.00 $ 761,219.41 1 83-06999 1310 $ (761,219.41) Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 71-31013 _ 2590 $ 107,400.00 71-31018 2590 $ 15,000.00 1 71-31052 2590 $ 9,900.00 71-31053 2590 $ 19,600.00 71-31030 2590 $ 41,564.00 71-31058 2590 $ 62,982.00 71-31057 2590 $ 10,000.00 71-31043 2590 $ 17,300.00 71-31059 2590 $ 59,400.00 71-31060 _ 2590 $ 60,000.00 71-31044 2590 $ 8,000.00 ,71-31055 j 2590 1 $ 5,500.00 71-31045 2590 1 $ 27,723.00 i 71-31054 2590 $ 3,400.00 171-31056 j 2590 ; $ 16,975.00 j 71-31036 2590 $ 118,000.00 j 71-30054 2590 $ 15,000.00 71-30055 2590 1 1 $ 7,500.00 71-30057 2590 $ 10,000.00 71-30059 2590 $ 7,975.41 71-30060 2590 $ 120,000.00 '71-30063 2590 $ 18,000.00 $ 761,219.41 83-06999 2590 $ (761,219.41) Additional Description: 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 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 _1Non-profit sector? N/A • Initiative Name: State of Utah, Department of Community & Culture, Division of State History National YaleCrest Nomination Initiative Number: BA#5FY 2006 Initiative #E-1 Initiative Type: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Salt Lake Planning Division applied for and received this $10,000 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Community &Culture, Division of State History, to complete an intensive- level survey of ten (10) properties in the Yalecrest neighborhood. The area, which encompasses 1300 to 1900 East, and Sunnyside Avenue to 1300 South, was surveyed at the reconnaissance-level in 2004-2005. The completion of the intensive-level survey will assist a consultant in preparing a National Register nomination of the Yalecrest neighborhood. Funding will be used hire a professional consultant to complete the survey and provide a published analysis of findings. This grant requires a 100% or $10,000 match which will be met with the in-kind salary of the Historic Planner Position and is budgeted for within the Planning Divisions 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 stern from the original grant. I i I I State of Utah, Dept of Community& Culture, Division of State History- National Yalecrest Nomination Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#E-1 2005-06 Initiative Number Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Community Development New Staff Resources Department 1 Type of Initiative _ Elizabeth Giraud/Sherrie Collins 535-7128/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $01 $01 Internal Service Fund Total $01 1 $0 Enterprise Fund Total 1 $0 1 $0 Other Fund 72Fund State of Utah Grant $ 10,000.00 Total I $ 10,000.00 I $0 I 1 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0 I 0 Description I I Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: Revenue: Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 1370 $ 10,000.00 _Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-New Cost Center 2590 $ 10,000.00 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? 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: US Dept of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response- Federal Emergency Management Agency - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Initiative Number: BA#5FY 2006 Initiative #E-2 Initiative Type: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Initiative Discussion: The Fire Department applied for and received $108,719 from the Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response/FEMA, under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant. They receive this grant on an annual basis. These funds were award to the Fire Department to purchase and replace old obsolete personal protective equipment for the Firefighters. Equipment includes MSA push to connect mask mounted retrofit to a quarter turn docking system, face pieces and eight (8) chemical/biological suits. The grant requires a 20% match or $27,180 which 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. US Department of Homeland Security, Emergency Preparedness & Response-Assistance to Firefighters Grants ► Initiative Name I I BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #E-2 2005-06 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Grants Requiring No Fire Department New Staff Resources I Department 7 Type of Initiative John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins' 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total $0 I $01 Internal Service Fund Total I $01 ► $0 Enterprise Fund Total ► $0 ► $0 Other Fund 72 Fund Fed Grant $ 108,719.00 Total $ 108,719.00 I I $0 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 0► 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: EMW-2005-FG-16772 Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 172- New Cost Center 1360 I $ 108,719.00 1 Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72- New Cost Center 2750-20 $ 108,719.00 1111111.1111111 Additional Accounting Details: 11 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? No jls 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? 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: Library Pavers Donations Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative # F-1 Initiative Type: Donations Initiative Discussion: The Library Paver Donations fund currently has a donations budget of $1,000,000. Actual donations received total $1,173,200, with` 164,000 from private donations and the remaining 9,200 from public donations. It is recommended that the Council appropriate the additional donations to support the completion of the Library Paver replacement project." I i 1 Library Paver Donations Initiative Name 1, BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #F-1 2005-06 Initiative NumberI j Fiscal Year Mgmt Sery- Finance Donations Department Type of Initiative Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund 1 Total 1 OI 1 $0 Internal Service Fund Total .01 1 $0 Enterprise Fund Total 0 I $0 Other Fund 77 Donations Fund $ 173,200.00 Total 1 $ 173,200.001 1 $0 1 1 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 ,Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 1 Total 0 1 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant# and CFDA# If Applicable: NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 77-77157 1895 $ 164,000.00 77-77157 1897 $ 9,200.00 _Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 77-77157 2700 $ 173,200.00 Additional Description: Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are eliminated? NA Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA Initiative Name: Prevent Underage Drinking Scholarship Initiative Number: BA#5 FY2006 Initiative #F-2 Initiative Type: Donation Initiative Discussion: The SLC Mayor's Coalition on Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs received a $1,000 scholarship from CRP Incorporated for participation in the SAMHSA's Underage Drinking Prevention Campaign. This campaign is geared toward prevention of underage drinking by hosting town hall meetings and providing "Reach Out Now" educational information at local schools. The Drug Free Grant Coordinator is currently working with the Mayor's Coalition to determine dates and times of town hall meetings and school presentations. This request is to increase the current budget in the Drug Free Communities grant by $1,000 to facilitate the check received. This is a private donation and requires no match. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this donation. 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 � Prevent Underage Drinking Scholarship I Initiative Name BA#5 FY2006 Initiative#F-2 2005-06 Initiative Number I Fiscal Year Mayor's Office Donation I Department I Type of Initiative Abby Vianes/Sherrie Collins 535-6030/535-6150 Prepared By Telephone Contact General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 General Fund Total I $01 $0 Internal Service Fund Total $01 I $0 Enterprise Fund Total $01 1 $0 Other Fund 72 Fund Donation $ 1,000.00 Total 1 $ 1,000.00 1 I $0 II 1 Staffing Impact: New Number of FTE's 0 0 Existing Number of FTE's 0 Total 01 I 0 Description Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: None - NA Revenue: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-60519 1895 $ 1,000.00 I I • Expenditure: Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount 72-60519 2590 $ 1,000.00 Additional Accounting Details: Increase existing budget by$1,000 Grant Information: Grant funds employee positions? NA Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are [eliminated? NA 'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA I � � 4 - I Local First Utah Status Report and Goals Objectives: • To promote, sustain and expand the viability of local and independent businesses in our communities. • To provide public education to consumers about the benefits and contributions that locally-owned and independent businesses make to our communities and local economy. • Through ongoing and sustained promotions, Local First will create brand awareness for locally-owned businesses and encourage and support consumers to think and buy locally, first. • To develop communication strategies to assist locally-owned businesses to take advantage of the promotional opportunities that Local First is creating. A small, marginal shift in consumer spending with locally-owned businesses makes a substantial contribution to the viability of local enterprises in our community. Accomplishments • Contracts and funding: > $20,000 contract from Salt Lake City Corporation to the Vest Pocket Business Coalition to develop and promote the concept of"local first"and to initiate a sustained campaign. Funding from Salt Lake City was critical to the formation and launch of the initiative. > Raised approximately $20,000 from local businesses and contributors to support production of collateral marketing materials and promotional expenses. This generous support from private donors, in advance of receipt of our 501 (c ) 3 tax exempt confirmation, is testament to the business model and message. ➢ Secured funding from Salt Lake County for$20,000 in calendar year 2006. • Non Profit Status: ➢ Vest Pocket authorized the formation of a new, tax-exempt non-profit corporation. • Structure: > Incorporated July 2005 as a non-profit corporation. 501(c)3 application (submitted in September 2006) with the Internal Revenue Service is pending. > Board Chair: Betsy Burton, founder/owner of the Kings English Bookstore; Vice Chair: David Nimkin • Marketing materials: • > Created logo, collateral marketing materials (window clings, bumper stickers, consumer and business brochures) • Website: > www.localfirst.org > Established a free system for enlisting locally-owned independent businesses to register as Local First partners on the website. Communication tools draw consumers to the website so they can easily identify local businesses by type, service, and location. > In six months, over 500 locally-owned and independent businesses have registered on the Local First website. • Events: > In November 2005, Local First launched the first"Buy Local First Week" in advance of the holiday season with 150 businesses registered on the site. Through press events, educational panel presentations, distribution of collateral marketing material, screening of a newly produced film— Independent America—and wide range of consumer discounts promoted on our web site, Local First generated the equivalent of$200,000 in earned media coverage. • Volunteer efforts: > To date, the entire Local First initiative has been managed by its volunteer board of directors. A hard working core of volunteers has also been organized as the Local First Campaign Committee that planned and implemented our promotion last November and is currently planning "Independents Week" in July (right after Independence Day). Local First has retained the services of Love Communications as public relations firm of record. They have made substantial contributions to the early success of Local First Utah, and much of their work has been pro bono. Upcoming Projects • Second annual "Independents Week" - July 8— 15, 2006. Launch will coordinate with the Salt Lake City International J077 Festival and the Downtown Alliance Farmers Market. Includes: 1. A Local First loyalty campaign to reward consumer visits to local businesses. 2. Consumer discounts. 3. An educational forum with renowned author, Frances Moore Lappe (Diet for a Small Planet and Democracy's (invited)to speak at the Library— July 12 4. IndepenDance- July 14. • Currently interviewing to hire coordinating staff. Ultimately, success will be enabled by having human resources to implement ambitious recruitment, coordination, promotional and educational plans. • For the balance of 2006-2007, Local First will expand its base of registered partners by 100%to 1000 partners. • Working with American Express to develop a system of recruitment of local businesses in select and targeted low and moderate income communities to participate in Local First promotions and training. This effort may serve as a model for future growth and development of neighborhood-based Local First promotional and training efforts (i.e. Glendale, Rose Park, and Sugarhouse). • Promotional campaign scheduled to coincide with 2006 holiday season. • Approval of 501 ( c ) 3 status from the IRS will enable foundations and other philanthropic donors, who require tax exempt status, to invest in their community and support Local First Utah. • Design and development of a loyalty card system that recognizes and enhances the Local First brand, provides benefits to consumers for shopping with Local First business partners and establishes an impact measurement tool (quantify number of Local First customers who use the loyalty card). • Active solicitation and participation of local chambers of commerce and other public business support organizations in the promotion of local first campaigns and objectives. r-,, • 30 • The Leonardo • • Seismic Upgrade Opportunity • • • Council Briefing • • • • • • ' • �w 4 SUS I,r j • w n �. �: � a, ,� � �.. , a .. _ { 1 3, ; ,,, ..., „,,-., , - - ft rfi� 3' It 9. ..:... -.:,-.------ Y., - ,-;..., ,,,,,,,-, -,..,..., ,_. 4 . - . mac. �'ii�r. µme„ P�t nos • • May 12, 2006 • • • • • • • • • • Contact: Mary Tull • Office: 801.531.9800ll@th•e Clelleonar: 801.864.9622do.org Email: mtu • !LEONARDO • • • • THE LEONARDO: A CASE FOR THE SEISMIC UPGRADE BACKGROUND: The Leonardo is a one-of-a-kind art, culture and science center being developed on Library Square in the heart• of Utah's capitol city. Working with architects EwingCole and AJC,The Leonardo has developed two seismic • upgrade options for the former main library. The Leonardo has presented the options to various community and • business leaders,who expressed overwhelming support for the more comprehensive option,which includes an addition to the north side of the building. With this input,The Leonardo is taking the lead in making the case for • support and implementation of this option. • WHY IS THIS NECESSARY? • The former main library is a city building and major seismic upgrades are necessary before it can be occupied • by any tenant. Both seismic solutions presented by The Leonardo are"exterior"interventions, which are • significantly less invasive—and expensive—than interior options.The preferred proposal includes the addition of a single shear wall, elegantly incorporated into the design,which accomplishes necessary seismic upgrades, • modernizes and visually connects the structure to the stunning City Library,while at the same time, respecting • the unique architectural features of the building. • WHO WANTS THIS? • The Leonardo has gone to great efforts to ensure it is fulfilling the vision of our community as it creates this new landmark. In seeking support for the"north face"option, we are responding to strong backing from a wide • range of community leaders. Supporters include: Elected Officials--city council members and the city mayor. • Business and Community Leaders--Lane Beattie,Bob Garff,Jeff Edwards,Jake Garn,Dinesh Patel,Bishop • Carolyn Tanner Irish,Utah Heritage Foundation, Salt Lake City Library Board, and countless citizens just to name a few. WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES? Library Square is second only to Temple Square in yearly visitor traffic.This seismic upgrade option creates a • new and dramatic north facing main entry that allows the city to leverage the millions of yearly visitors to the • block, which, with Washington Square, is quickly becoming our new civic center. With a new look and • compelling exhibits and programming, The Leonardo will complete Library Square, and become a major attraction and economic engine for the downtown area. • . WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND TIMELINES? The Leonardo has developed a strategic plan to take advantage of the naming opportunity this option presents. • We intend that at least half of the$3 million projected building cost will be paid by private sources.With$10 • million already raised for the overall project,The Leonardo has proven that it is a responsible partner with the • city in raising and managing private/public funding. To ensure that the timeline and budget of the project are not compromised,The Leonardo has set a deadline of July 1,2006 to raise the funds necessary to implement • this particular seismic option. • WHAT DOES THIS LOCATION MEAN TO THE CITY? • The north option is essential for many reasons: Seismic stability and safety of the building, unifying and • completion of the plaza and a more compelling visitor experience,to name just a few. The decision on how to • accomplish the upgrades must be made now to allow architectural planning to proceed,and to create the best economic potential in the future. •• Salt Lake City voters and community leaders have trusted The Leonardo with helping build the legacy of this city plaza. The north option will help ensure we fulfills this legacy by creating a destination on par with the • vision we all have for what our city can become. w • • • ?LEONARDO- • • 40 • Prrnled on recycled paper. • C THE LEONARDO: A DRAMATIC TRANSFORMATION 3111 A New Destination Contact:Mary Tull • Office:801/531-9800 • Cell:801/864-9622 E-mail:mtull@theleonardo.org Leonardo is a one of a kind art, culture and science center being developed • on Library Square in the heart of Utah's capitol city.The Leonardo will be part • of a developing cultural and education center that already draws over 3 million • visitors a year,and is the second most-visited tourist destination in the state. • Working with architects EwingCole from Philadelphia and AJC of Salt Lake • City,The Leonardo has developed a breathtaking exterior renovation option • that presents perhaps the most significant and visible donor naming opportunity • in the state for years to come. • ,„ • Opportunity Legacy naming opportunity of • ,. new main entrance and northern ' , addition to The Leonardo. • • _� y«, -r u'_ Cost r= `?ri';' �', -- ,r -.. + <. . , . t , $5 million • • 1:. _ - , Benefits • • Permanent and highly visible • The new design signals the dramatic transformation of a beloved,but outdated recognition with potential exposure to millions of local • building into a modern cultural destination.The addition of a single shear wall, residents and tourists each year. elegantly incorporated into the design,accomplishes necessary seismic upgrades, • Enduring connection to the• while respecting the building's unique architectural features.This option creates ideals of The Leonardo, • including creativity,innovation a new and dramatic north-facing main entry,leveraging the millions of visitors and excellence. III • to Library Square each year. It also produces additional square footage (16,500 sq ft), freeing up floor space for exhibits and programs,and enhancing the • • overall visitor experience.And finally,the glass facade introduces natural light • into the building's interior,and presents more opportunities for environmental • sustainability features—a major objective of The Leonardo. • :1) • IP • 243 East 400 South, Suite 301 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • www.theleonardo.orq !LEONARDO • • • •• THE LEONARDO: WHAT LEADERS ARE SAYING 311 "The City Library already draws over three million visitors a year. With the opening of The Leonardo, the entire block will become a major draw for residents and tourists alike. The Leonardo's commitment to creating a world-class facility will build both • economic and cultural strength in the area, and serve as an asset to downtown Salt Lake • for many years to come." • Lane Beattie, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce • • "The new addition to The Leonardo not only makes the building seismically sound and • architecturally sustainable, but complements the feel and vision of the entire plaza as • well. Upgrade costs will be a small price to pay for the modernization of this downtown • landmark." • Jeff Edwards, EDCUtah • "The Salt Lake City Library Board unanimously and enthusiastically supports the • Leonardo plans, especially the North Face addition. They all agree that the north face • solution creates a stronger and more complete relationship with the Main Library • building and further develops the cohesion of Library Square." Nancy Tessman, Director, Salt Lake City Public Library • "What a wonderful way to finish off Library Square. With the completion of the • Leonardo, our Salt Lake City will at last have a gathering place and an outstanding educational resource." Ted Wilson, Former Salt Lake City Mayor • • "We cannot expect Utah to be a frontrunner in science and technology if we do not • adequately invest in an infrastructure that cultivates its important at the fundamental • level. With the launch of The Leonardo and its proposed north addition, Salt Lake will • be setting the standard for science centers worldwide." • Dr. Dinesh Patel, Managing Director, vSpring Capital •• 'We applaud our elected officials and community leaders for their commitment to completing Library Square with the kind of facility taxpayers and visitors expect and • deserve. The Leonardo staff and Board will do everything we can to support our mutual • vision for Library Square." • Ned Weinshenker, Director of Life Sciences Cluster • Governor's Office of Economic Development • Chairman of the Board, The Leonardo • LEONARDO • "The concept that provides an addition to the north serves both functional and physical purposes. Because it is new design, it has the ability to reflect both the new main library and former library building, blending the style of two worlds, while being new design in its own right." Kirk Huffakaer, Utah Heritage Foundation "The proposed north addition to The Leonardo will create a visually stunning • destination and enhance the architectural theme of the plaza. The completion of The Leonardo—and the plaza—with this solution should be a priority for anyone concerned with the enhancement and modernization of downtown Salt Lake." Bob Farrington, The Downtown Alliance "The Leonardo is a project whose time has come. For all the beauty and attraction of other downtown sites, I believe that Salt Lake has always lacked a really 'public' square, a civic center. The proposed northern addition is the ideal solution for transforming a tired old building into a stunning centerpiece of such a place. The design elements connect The Leonardo to the new library, creating a cohesive experience that welcomes our diverse population together for celebration, education and dialog." Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish, Episcopal Diocese of Utah L €LEONARDO' • • • Panted on reryckd paper. • • THE LEONARDO - ART, CULTURE & SCIENCE CENTER III • Contact:Mary Tull • The Leonardo: New Ways of Seeing Office tact:Mary • Cell:801/864-9622 Y . E-mail:mtull@theleonardo.org • 41 j 1 • 06* 1,1 It - • 4 • _, • • The Leonardo is a one-of-a-kind art,culture and science center inspired by the spirit of r . • creativity that guided Renaissance master Leonardo da Vinci.Located in Salt Lake "irk ; ' City's RDA zone,The Leonardo will be part of a developing civic and educational cen- ter that already draws over 3 million visitors a year.With its unique multidisciplinary • Features • approach and dedication to providing visitors with"new ways of seeing,"The Leo- • Art and new media studios nardo is already becoming a national model for education and exploration. • Black box theatre • • Next generation science and 3 technology center 0 ONSITE...ON WHEELS...ONLINE: The Leonardo will target young people— • Interactive science and ages 10 and older—students and adults with exhibits,classes and events that engage documentary exhibits • Human Rights Gallery and • their more mature imaginations.And the impact of The Leonardo will reach beyond its Education Center • physical location.The Leonardo on Wheels educational outreach program is already • bringing rich learning activities to schools throughout the state and region. Through Benefits • Education:An important"next • The Leonardo Online,educational information,exhibits and virtual communities will step,"providing a real-world • be available to students,parents,teachers—and even visitors from across the globe. laboratory and outreach programs; • • Economic:Drawing visitors to PARTNERS: The Leonardo is being developed by three founding partners: the area,supporting a more • creative and capable • Global Artways.As Salt Lake City's arts education organization,Global Artways serves workforce,and attracting new tens of thousands of young people,teachers and families each year.At The Leonardo, business; • Global Artways will sponsor community art projects,classes and performances,offer • Community:Providing a cutting-edge new media facilities,provide teacher training,and host visiting artists. gathering place for the area's • many people and cultures. • Center for Documentary Arts.For over 20 years,the Center for Documentary Arts Get Involved! (CDA)has provided a candid vision of Utah's people.CDA at The Leonardo will fea- • ture a Human Rights Gallery and Education Center,rotating exhibits and programming • Become part of The Leonardo • that showcase the work of significant national and international documentary artists. vision!Fore more information about how to get involved, • Utah Science Center.The Utah Science Center will be the first of a new generation of contact Executive Director science and technology program involving visitorsthe experiment through Mary Tull,801/864-9622onardo.org. or • as actual interactive exhibits,classes and forums.Through satellite and other technologies,the mtull@thele onar center will also connect visitors to people and places throughout the world. 50 • 243 East 400 South, Suite 301 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • www.theleonardo.org tLEONARDO • • • Printed on recycled paper • • THE LEONARDO PIAZZA 311 • Bridging Art, Culture and Science Contact:Mary Tull Office:801/531-9800 • Cell:801/864-9622 ", E-mail:mtull@theleonardo.org • • -1°14 ; \ • i , ors. � ,',a' .11 'I"PP � � ti -i� �� •� ��,�' mar c.. • ' '* s r • • . • Inspired by Leonardo da Vinci,The Leonardo at Library Square will be a place where Art,Cul- ; ture and Science come together in ways that empower visitors to discover and magnify their #• i • own creativity.Da Vinci's refusal to separate science and art—logic and creativity,enabled him �s r. to see more completely the interplay between the parts and the whole.He used science and art to create new technologies that solved specific problems in his time,and inspired future innova- ail tion.The Leonardo will encourage and explore this unique way of looking at our world,each • • other and ourselves. • The Leonardo Entry will be a physical introduction to Leonardo-like thinking and doing.It will Opportunities • serve as a transition between the expected and the unexpected,preparing visitors to create their The Leonardo Foyer offers a • own personal Leonardo Experiences as they visit exhibits,galleries,workshops and labs variety of partnership • opportunities,including: throughout the building. • Object Theatre • • Workshops • Components • Lounges • Leonardo's Object Theater.The automated theater will use objects,light,sound,video and • Gallery other electronic images to introduce visitors to the historical Leonardo da Vinci and connect • Public Forum • him and his work to the concerns of the 215t century.This theater will seat 20 for a program of • On Wheels Showcase five to eight minutes. • Leonardo's Workshop:Leonardo's Workshop is focused on inventing as inquiry as well as • problem solving,and establishes The Leonardo as a place for doing.Here,participants can en- • gage in a variety of inventive activities.Key inventions and inventors will also appear here. • Leonardo's Lounges:Distributed in three locations throughout the building,these spaces will • provide relaxing and interactive settings for contemplation,learning and conversation,along with opportunities to sample the work of the historical Leonardo and his links to art,science • and technology.Anchored by a large replica of one of Leonardo's creations,each lounge will include seating and a coffee table with a large touch-screen display where visitors can browse a multimedia version of Leonardo's Notebooks and related content. :::;? io,. • • 243 East 400 South, Suite 301 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • www.theleonardo.org !LEONARDO • • . • • Printed on 100%nryckd paper • • THE LEONARDO — THE LEONARDO ONLINE Contact:Mary Tull • The Leonardo Online: Reaching the World Office:801/531-9800 • Cell: 801/864-9622 • The Leonardo at Library Square,an art,culture and science center being created in the Email:mtull@theleonardo.org heart of Utah's capitol city,will be part of a new educational and civic center that draws • millions of visitors each year.The impact of The Leonardo,however,will extend far be- • yond the facility itself. The Leonardo will involve individuals and communities across the • state and region via outreach programs and traveling exhibits.And through its educational • website,The Leonardo Online,The Leonardo will have the ability to connect students and / ; teachers across the nation,and throughout the world. On 0,®� R, D, • , • 131 V • STUDENTS:The Leonardo Online will make art-culture-science learning fun—and rele ®;',-= .; tin•^leonardo • vant—for student visitors.The site will feature interactive exhibits that both complement „-. E,,'__ ::::_ . on-site experiences,and provide online-only content.Students can stay current with Science d- • exploregthinkingexpress ,� `•�ca in the News, n ht/left brain in Art Meets Science,or themselves ' • in The Leonardo Notebook,Student Bulletin Board or Student Gallery sections.The Leo- A j '` ,' nardo Online will also tap real-life events to create unique learning opportunities.For ex- ..,._:::-..--a-;:::--„ _ _ Aik • ample,during the refurbishing of The Leonardo building,live web casts will visually illus- IP • ttate the issues and benefits of creating an environmentally sustainable building. «uresoi 1111 TEACHERS: The Leonardo Online will be a support and training venue for teachers. The site will offer planning and classroom guides,and pre-and post-visit materials for both • The Leonardo facility and The Leonardo on Wheels outreach program.And it will serve as • a professional development tool,a forum to share ideas and report progress,and a resource `LEONAADO for research and training information. ER'C • PARTNERS S. • The Leonardo Online will bring together private-and public-sector education and business 11 organizations to share information and resources: • �,,:; 1 • Education Partners:The Leonardo Online will target public and private schools,after- school programs,home-based learning and charter schools serving children ages 10 and _�.y :-��- • older; __-^_ 0 a • Science Center and Museum Partners:Regional and national institutions like the Boise N • Discovery Center,the Koshland Science Center and The Tech will partner with The Leo- nardo to share expertise,content and exhibits. • dirrIMIIIM • University Partnerships:The Leonardo will tap local and regional universities to create content,and provide research data and online mentoring. • Business Partners:Local and national businesses like the American Institute of Graphic Arts,Scientific Computing Institute and PacifiCorp are lending their technolo- • gies and expertise to make The Leonardo Online a visually interesting and educationally rich experience. NO :lb • 243 East 400 South, Suite 301 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 • www.theleonardo.orq [LEONARDO • • ID • THE LEONARDO: DIRECTORS AND PARTNERS The Leonardo Board of Directors • Joe Andrade • Director Utah Science Center • • Leslie Kelen • Director Center for Documentary Arts • • Nancy Tessman • Director Salt Lake City Public Library • • Ned Weinshenker • Director,Life Sciences Cluster State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development III • Janet Wolf • Director Salt Lake City Youth and Family Programs Division • ://aMarshall Wright Director,Business Development State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development • • Center for Documentary Arts Board of Directors • Robert Archuleta Salt Lake City Administrative Assistant for Minority Affairs (retired) • Salt Lake City Mayor's Office • • Larry Cesspooch Head Start Fatherhood Advocate/Public Relations Liaison • Uintah and Ouray Ute reservation • Kathleen Christy Area Director • Salt Lake City School District i • Jeffrey L. Davis Architect • Architectural NEXUS, Inc. • • Leslie Kelen Director Center for Documentary Arts • • • • Hank Liese • Assistant Professor 3111 University of Utah Department of Social Work . Leticia Medina Executive Director • Utah Issues • . Robert Miller President • Lorraine Press • . Dena Ned Executive Director • Indian Walk-In Center • • O. Fahina Tavake-Pasi Vice President • NAPAH Cultural Legacy • • Soren D. Simonsen Principal Architect • Cooper, Robers, Simonsen Architects • Natalya Rapoport, Ph.D. Professor of Bioengineering University of Utah • • Raymond S. Uno Judge (retired) • Salt Lake City Third District Court 1111 • Gary M. Watts,M.D. Diagnostic Radiologist Utah Valley Regional Medical Center • Utah Science Center Foundation (USCF) Board • Joe Andrade Director • Utah Science Center •• Michael Keene Director,Technology Commercialization Program Westminster College •• Suzanne Winters State Science Coordinator (former) State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development • • • Jeffrey Unruh 0 Managing Director PIAlerion Will West • CEO • Control4 • Utah Science Center Authority (USCA) Board • Joseph Andrade • Director • Utah Science Center • Bonnie Jean Beesley • State Board of Regents • Bill Colbert • Utah State Board of Education • • David Fischer • Director of Technology Integration ATK Propulsion Systems • • Joseph Hatch :11) Councilman Salt Lake County Council • Seth Jarvis • Director Clark Planetarium • • Greg Jones • State Science Advisor . State of Utah Governor's Office of Economic Development • James McRea • Director of CMC Myriad Genetics • • John Taylor • FEMA • Suzanne Winters • State Science Coordinator (former) • State of Utah, Governor's Office of Economic Development • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: May 16, 2006 BUDGET FOR: FIRE DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno and Gary Mumford cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Chuck Querry, John Vuyk, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The proposed fiscal year 2006-07 budget for the Fire Department is $30,549,938. This represents an increase of$1,853,527, or 6.5% over fiscal year 2005-06. FIRE DEPARTMENT PROPOSED BUDGETS Adopted ' Proposed Difference Percent Expianatioin of 2005-06 2006-07 F Change Chang ,.s. ..;:. Office of the Chief T $ 1,836,463 $ 2,099,297 $ 262,834 14.3% New Deputy Fire (including financial management,payroll, Chief, Early purchasing,inventory,research,human Retirement resource management,facility Incentive Funding maintenance) Operations 21,452,456 22,343,450 890,994 4.2% Contractual Pay (includng airport operations) Increase Special Operations 203,410 252,898 49,488 24.3% Heavy Rescue (including hazardous material incidents, Equipment water rescues,high-rise rescues,trench Purchase rescues) Communications 1,597,382 1,801,662 204,280 12.8% Funding for new (dispatch,equipment maintenance& CAD/RMS system repair,technical support,records management) Training 1,773,610 2,216,171 442,561 25.0% Transfer personnell (including managing fleet acquisitions, from Fire maintenance and supplies activities) Prevention, Fuel Increase Fire Prevention 1,166,356 1,151,936 (14,420) -1.2% Transfer personnell (business inspections,hazardous to Fire Prevention materials permits,new construction, special events,community training,public education) Emergency Medical Services 666,734 684,524 17,790 2.7% (including medical training,certification, quality assurance) Total $ 28,696,411 $ 30,549,938 $ 1,853,527 6.5% 6.5% 1 POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE A. Elimination of positions -The Fire Department is recommending the elimination of A 1 FTE captain position through attrition from the Operations Division, and transferring this position to add a Deputy Fire Chief in the Office of the Chief. B. Addition of positions -1 The Fire Department is recommending replacing the eliminated captain position with 1 FTE Deputy Fire Chief. C. Other Budget Changes - • $ 865,872 - Contractually-obligated compensation adjustment • $ 263,196 - Pension and insurance rate changes (City share) • $ 30,800 - Workers compensation increased costs • $ 81,101 - Fleet maintenance • $ 47,772 - Fleet fuel • $ 24,000 - New deputy Fire Chief (net after offset by 1 FTE elimination of Fire Captain) • $ 428,000 - New apparatus equipment • $ 43,750 - Capital outlay for heavy rescue equipment • $ 53,500 - Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) equipment • $ 6,200 - CPR heart saver materials and equipment • $ 182,500 - Computer Aided Dispatch(CAD)/Record Management System (RMS) (phased over FY 2007 & 2008) • $ 45,000 - Early retirement incentive program for firefighters D. Early Retirement Incentive Program - There are currently 41 employees with 30-plus years of experience, and another 5 employees that will reach the 30 year mark this year. The Department's tentative proposal is to make a $5,000 payment to incentivize these eligible employees to retire. The Management Audit of the Fire Department made a number of recommendations that addressed the SLCFD's number of near-retiree employees. One recommendation pointed out that a retirement incentive program would help the City's long-term planning and budgeting efforts, by giving the department a longer "lead-time." The amount budgeted for this purpose is not sufficient to guarantee payouts to all of these eligible employees, but the Department indicates that it would go a long way in helping the department budget for retirees. It should be noted that the Administration has not proposed a similar program for the Police Department or for other City employees. E. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)/Record Management System (RMS) - The Administration is recommending an investment ($182,500) in an improved computer aided dispatch/record management system. The current system is plagued with technological problems, and does not interface efficiently with new programs. The Fire Department and IMS have located an improved system that is easy to operate and will interface well with other current applications. This system will cost approximately $365,000. The proposed budget would phase this cost over two years. 2 • The department recently obtained $315,000 in grant funds to improve technology. These funds will be used in addition to the $365,000, in order to equip all fire trucks with the necessary technology to interface with the overall system. • The recent departmental audit recognized the current system inefficiencies and recommended that SLCFD work quickly with IMS to correct the situation (recommendation #136). • The Council may wish to ask the Fire Department how this proposed system may or may not be compatible with the City's overall GIS system, used by Engineering and Planning- and whether it would help streamline service to citizens. F. Capital Outlay for Equipment - $428,000 would equip new apparatus, including two fire engines, one heavy rescue vehicle, one fire truck, two grass trucks, and six light fleet vehicles. The Administration is recommending this equipment in order to replace outdated equipment. Other equipment is recycled as much as possible. G. Self Contained Breathing Apparatus - The Administration is recommending $54,000 to replace outdated hazardous materials equipment with improved carbon filters. AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE BUDGET The Council initiated an audit of the Salt Lake City Fire Department, which was completed in May, 2005. The audit was discussed at a Council briefing on January 17, 2006. Issues discussed included audit recommendations that SLCFD agrees can be implemented with little or no budget impact, as well as audit recommendations that would need additional appropriations. The Council asked the SLCFD to prioritize these audit recommendations and have basic cost estimates for implementation of those recommendations that are a priority to the department. While the department has not officially prioritized their audit recommendation responses, the proposed budget does incorporate a number of changes that stem directly from the Audit: 1. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)./Record Management System (RMS) - The Audit found the current system to be lacking. This change is discussed in greater detail in Item E, above. 2. Fees: a. Fire Plan Review Fees: (Also addressed in the Community Development Department Budget) The Fire Department currently provides fire plan review for fire code regulations and fire suppression systems. The Audit found that at the current time, no fee is specifically designated to pay for fire plan review. This service is instead funded by the general fund and an unidentified portion of business licensing construction permit fee. The Mayor's proposed budget includes charging for this fee as a part of the "one stop" permit counter. The proposed Fire Plan Review fee would be a separate fee on top of the 3 "one stop" fee. Council staff has asked the Administration the following question regarding this issue - the response is pending: o Given that the function of Fire Plan Review will be covered by a single FTE at the "one stop" counter located in Business Licensing, can a separate "Fire Plan Review" fee be justified? b. Fire Hazardous Materials Fees: The Fire Prevention Bureau currently collects fees for hazardous materials permits, tank permits, blasting permits, high rise permits, fireworks public display permits, temporary structure permits, health care facility inspections and day care inspections. A recent review of business license fees showed that the fee amounts were less than the costs. The Administration is recommending that fees be established based on size, difficulty, and the type of permit or inspection needed. In addition to the items listed above, the proposed ordinance establishes a fee schedule for open burning permits, flame effects permits, assembly permits, trade show permits, suppression, alarm or detection system installation permits, hot works operations permits and re-inspections. c. The following is a review of the specific audit recommendations relating to Fire Permit and inspection fees (The Council may wish to inquire as to the status of these fees): • #104 Institute fees for all permits (only 14 fees out of 47 permits). • #85 Establish fees for fire construction permits that are sufficient to cover the cost of the entire construction code enforcement function including fire plan review and fire construction inspection. • #103 Fire construction permits with fees should be issued for the construction and renovation of permanent or temporary structures and for all fire protection systems (alarms, mains, standpipes, sprinklers,hood, etc.) • #105 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections for all operational code enforcement inspections. • #107 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections conducted by fire companies. • #108 Evaluate feasibility of building Services issuing all permits and collecting fees rather than the Fire Department. 3. Staffing Changes: While the staffing changes within the fire department do not tie directly to the audit (a shift of 1 FTE), the proposed budget includes the addition of a Fire Inspection Plan Reviewer in the Community Development Department to assist the "one stop" counter. The Council may wish to ask the department that if the "I stop" concept is funded, are there any operational efficiencies that could be realized by re-assigning the staff in the Fire Department that currently do plan review. Specifically, what functions will the two staff members who have been conducting the 400 plus plan reviews per year be assigned in the future; might there be opportunity to enhance other Fire programs that have been reduced in recent years? The following are audit recommendations directly relating to fire plan review and inspections: 4 • #81 Convert all employees except four (fire marshal and three sworn fire investigators) in the Fire Prevention Bureau to civilian positions through attrition. • #99 Require fire captains and/or battalion chiefs to become certified as fire inspectors so they can supervise company inspections. • #86 Contract with 1 or 1.5 civilian certified fire plan,examiners(or private companies)to provide fire code plan checking services. • #88 The hazardous material inspector should become certified as a fire inspector to allow greater flexibility in assignment, • #91 .5 to 1 FTE clerical position is needed to provide 5-10 hour day coverage for reception and phone duties, at a lower cost than having certified fire inspectors perform these duties. AUDIT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The following section re-caps findings and recommendations from the audit report that relate directly to the budget, grouped in general categories. These recommendations, as well as the SLCFD responses, were presented to the Council in January. This list is intended for background information purposes: 1. Recommendations relating to overtime/retirement management: a. #30 The Fire Department uses salary savings from vacant positions to supplement overtime costs, which can result in more overtime. There are times of 20 or more vacancies. Consider some overhire process. b. #21 Design an incentive program to provide more notice of retirement. c. #10 Explore alternative work schedules that could reduce the reliance on overtime d. #11 Identify current trends in leave use and establish a smaller number of people allowed off each day on scheduled leave e. #12 Implement incentives to reduce sick leave taken(reduce overtime) f. #14 and #115 Assign some basic cause and origin investigation to company officers rather than bring investigator in(overtime)for clear-cut cases g. #161 Implement a sick leave reduction program to reduce overtime and provide some health insurance funding after retirement. 2. Recommendations relating to staffing changes: a. #49 Staff Station 9 during peak hours only. #48 In the next five years, move Station 9 further southeast to justify full-time operation with sufficient volume of calls. b. #46 Add a 2-person Advanced Life Support (ALS) unit in the downtown area from 10 A.M. to 10 P.M. c. #37 Continue using four-person staffing on all engines and trucks in the SLCFD. d. #144 Fire communications center requires a total of 20 employees,but the center has only 16 employees. (The proposed budget addresses this recommendation) e. #47 Upgrade Engine 1 to advanced life support and downgrade Rescue Engine 4 to an engine to better address the distribution of EMS demand. 5 f. #55 Institute an officer rotation policy for all captains g. #66 Consider adding a provision to its upcoming RFP for ambulance services that would include a single medical director for both the ambulance service provider and the fire department. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff. Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) h. #81 Convert all employees except four(fire marshal and three sworn fire investigators)in the Fire Prevention Bureau to civilian positions through attrition. i. #148 The radio technician position with the Fire Department should be consolidated into IMS Division. j. #99 Require fire captains and/or battalion chiefs to become certified as fire inspectors so they can supervise company inspections. k. #110 The deputy fire marshal (captain) over investigations should be a working captain active in fire investigations. 1. #86 Contract with 1 or 1.5 civilian certified fire plan examiners (or private companies) to provide fire code plan checking services. m. #88 The hazardous material inspector should become certified as a fire inspector to allow greater flexibility in assignment. n. #90 The civilian Public Education Specialist should be retained to provide adult and children programs. o. #91 .5 to 1 FTE clerical position is needed to provide 5-10 hour day coverage for reception and phone duties, at a lower cost than having certified fire inspectors perform these duties. 3. Recommendations relating to general operations: a. #36 Monitor response times in areas with traffic calming devices. b. #43 and #44 Call processing, dispatch and turnout times much higher than recommended standards. Implement changes such as to dispatch first fire unit before all call information is entered into the CAD system. c. #67 The City should maintain the current two-tiered system that involves the SLCFD and a private ambulance provider in the delivery of Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) pre-hospital care and ambulance transport. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) d. #68 The SLCFD should formalize and strengthen its organizational structure and oversight of EMS service delivery within the Operations Division. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) 4. Recommendations relating to budget increases/fees: a. #6 Add technologies to eliminate manual processes for firefighter shift schedules and free up staff resources for other critical projects. b. #69 The SLCFD should explore a legal mechanism that will allow the ambulance transport provider to pay the City an annual fee for its "paramedic first responder" program. (Fee not allowed under state law. (SLCFD has previously responded to this issue in a memo to Council Staff. Staff will provide a copy of this memo if desired.) 6 •N.4+.��a rti.„,,.w...,., .,.%,:w...�+,samw k..8«. q:.F . ..,., .. ,a, w .... .. .. .. .. .. „ m ma+..... ........+A.4.n».4:4. c. #16 Allocate revenue from special events back to the EMS Division to offset the cost of the bike patrol. d. #99 Establish a self-inspection program for the lower risk businesses. e. The following recommendations all relate to the issue of fees charged (or not charged) for permits and inspections: i. #104 Institute fees for all permits(only 14 fees out of 47 permits). ii. #85 Establish fees for fire construction permits that are sufficient to cover the cost of the entire construction code enforcement function including fire plan review and fire construction inspection. iii. #103 Fire construction permits with fees should be issued for the construction and renovation of permanent or temporary structures and for all fire protections systems (alarms,mains, standpipes, sprinklers,hood,etc.) iv. #105 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections for all operational code enforcement inspections. v. #107 Fees should be instituted for initial inspections and re-inspections conducted by fire companies. vi. #108 Evaluate feasibility of building Services issuing all permits and collecting fees rather than the Fire Department. f. #122-128 Workload data on the number of plans reviewed and the amount of time spent on each type of plan should be collected. Establish goals. g. #149 Mobile computer devices should be installed in fire apparatus to improve communication capabilities and response times. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS (Goals and measurable results) The Fire Department has several goals and objectives to guide the budgeting process and provide a means for management to better evaluate overall Department performance. In order to assist the Council in evaluating progress, Council staff summarized the goals and noted the results or steps taken by the Department through December of 2004. 1. Goal/Objective: Maintain an average time from dispatch to arrival on life- threatening emergencies of less than or equal to 5 minutes. During 2004 the department maintained an average response time of less than four minutes for each month. 2. Goal/Objective: Maintain a turnover rate below 10% per year. The department's "turnover" rate during 2004was approximately 3.3%. 3. Goal/Objective: Fire Prevention Bureau inspectors will complete 6,500 fire inspections and preplans annually. The bureau has exceeded this goal in 2004 with 7,901 building inspections and preplan reviews. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Enacting Regulations Pertaining to Business Fees Collected by the City) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SUBSECTION 2.12.040, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROVIDING PERMIT FEES TO BE COLLECTED FROM BUSINESSES BY THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City. Now, Therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection 2.12.040, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to permit fees to be collected from businesses by the city be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 2.12.040 Business Permit Fees: The city shall collect the following permit fees for each business activity regulated by the fire prevention bureau under the International Fire Code or other authority. A. Hazardous materials permit: minimal dispensing, use or storage— 500 pounds (227 kilograms) or less for solids, or 55 gallons (208.2 liters) or less for liquids, or 200 cubic feet or less for compressed gases, or 504 cubic feet or less of oxygen. $390.00. B. Hazardous materials permit: storage—quantities exceeding minimal storage. $440.00. C. Hazardous materials permit: dispensing or use— quantities exceeding minimum use or dispensing. $585.00. D. Hazardous materials permit: production and processing. $685.00. E. Hazardous materials permit: tank install, alter, removal, abandonment, or disposal. $585.00. F. Hazardous materials permit: gas stations. $365.00. G. Fireworks public display outdoor. S685.00. H. Fireworks public display indoor. $485.00. I. Fireworks public display Delta Center. $685.00. J. State licensed health care facility. S485.00. K. Hospitals. $685.00. L. Lock box. Small. $130.00. Large. $230.00. M. National Fire Incident Report (NFIR) form or property incident search report. $95.00. N. Blasting $585.00. O. High rise. $880.00. P. Open burning. $390.00. Q. Flame effects before an audience. $290.00. R. Temporary membrane structures, tents, or canopies. $400.00. S. Place of assembly. 0— 5,000 square feet $300.00. 5,001 — 10,000 square feet $400.00. 10,001 — 25,000 square feet $525.00. 25,001 — 50,000 square feet $675.00. 50,001 — 80,000 square feet $825.00. 80,001 — 125,000 square feet $1,000.00. 125,001 —200,000 square feet $1,250.00. 200,001 square feet or greater $1,250.00 plus $100.00 for any 2 portion of each additional 20,000 square feet. T. Exhibit and trade show. 0— 5,000 square feet $175.00. 5,001 — 10,000 square feet $250.00. 10,001 —25,000 square feet $325.00. 25,001 — 50,000 square feet $400.00. 50,001 — 80,000 square feet $475.00. 80,001 — 125,000 square feet $550.00. 125,001 —200,000 square feet $700.00. 200,001 square feet or greater $700.00 plus $100.00 for any portion of each additional 20,000 square feet. U. Suppression, alarm or detection system installation. 10% of system cost. V. Hot works operations. $300.00. W. Re-inspection. $240.00. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 3 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 ATTEST: 2s I4Pa,L Zoa6 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: ISSUE' FIRE PREVENTION FEES permits, tank permits,blasting permits, high rise permits, fireworks public POLICY display permits, temporary structure permits, health care facility inspections Salt Lake City should establish a fee and day care inspections. structure for each business activity regulated by the Fire Prevention Bureau ANALYSIS under the International Fire Code (IFC) or other authority. The City revenue auditors in conjunction with the Fire Depai Indent conducted an BACKGROUND audit of the fees collected by the Fire Prevention Bureau. This audit showed For many years the Fire Prevention that the fees were being double billed in Bureau has been charging fees for Fire Prevention and Business Licensing issuing permits and performing but that the amounts in total were less inspections. The fees were established in than the total costs. accordance with the Uniform Fire Code, now the International Fire Code (IFC), Following the audit, the current fee which allowed jurisdictions to bill for structure was established. This fee the permitting and inspection process. structure is based on time standards set The original fees for hazardous materials forth by the City Fire Marshal for the were established in the 1990's based on specific types of inspections and permits cost standards set forth by the City Fire that are issued. These times standards Marshal. were established based on past practices over the past two years. Over time, as the Fire Prevention Bureau added responsibilities, additional fees Additionally, the fee structure was were added. The most recent fee for established on rates set forth by the temporary structure permits was added revenue auditors. The rate was as a result of the numerous temporary established by looking at direct costs structures scheduled to be in place for from the Fire Prevention Bureau and the 2002 Winter Olympics. The original includes portions of other costs from fee schedule has been updated once throughout the city that have been since its inception to better reflect the allocated to the Fire Prevention Bureau. costs. The analysis also established that Additionally, the Business Licensing additional fee standards should be set Division also charges a base fee for based on size, difficulty, and the type of permitting. This fee included many of permit or inspection needed. The new the aspects of the fees established by the ordinance will establish a set fee Fire Prevention Bureau. As a result of a schedule for hazardous materials recent revenue audit, these fees have permits, tank permits, blasting permits, been removed from Business Licensing. high rise permits, fireworks public display permits,temporary structure The Fire Prevention Bureau currently permits, health care facility inspections collects fees for hazardous materials and day care inspections similar to what was previously billed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. It will also establish a fee schedule for open burning permits, flame effects permits, assembly permits, trade show permits, suppression, alma' or detection system installation permits, hot works operations permits and re- inspections. ALTERNATIVES Business as Usual Salt Lake City could continue to charge the same fees as it currently does without an ordinance allowing for the fees to be collected. This approach would not address the issue of the City not having an ordinance to set standards for the collection of fire prevention fees. It would also not change the billing and residents may believe they are paying twice for the same thing, once in Fire Prevention and once in Business Licensing. Create a Standardized Fee Schedule Salt Lake City could provide a consistent fee schedule for all Fire Prevention activities. The fee schedule would standardize all the fees and would eliminate the double billing by both Fire Prevention and Business Licensing. RECOMMENDATION Salt Lake City should adopt the ordinance and establish a set fee schedule for all of the activities under the Fire Prevention Bureau. 0 n ISSUE: FIRE PLAN REVIEW FEES Department budget. This service is instead funded by taxpayer dollars and POLICY an unidentified portion of Business Licensing's construction permits rather Salt Lake City should establish a fee than by fees collected specifically for structure for fire plan reviews conducted fire plan reviews of construction by the Fire Prevention Bureau under the projects. International Fire Code(IFC). The two employees dedicated to fire BACKGROUND plan review are unable to provide optimal service to the citizens. The Fire Prevention Bureau has been conducting reviews of business plans The City has considered hiring a fire with regard to fire suppression systems protection engineer at the one stop and fire code regulations. The counter to complete these reviews,but previously adopted 1997 Uniform the funding necessary for this position Building Code placed the responsibility has not been identified. for fire plan review, fire systems testing and inspecting, and the collection of the ANALYSIS fees for these services upon the Building Code Official (BCO). However, the The Fire Depaitiuent studied what other 2003 International Building Code, which local and similarly sized national fire is currently adopted by the City, (Section departments are doing for fire plan 101.4.6) transferred these review and permit processing. It was responsibilities to the Fire Code Official determined that many departments (FCO) or City Fire Marshal and Salt outsource all plan review for fire Lake City has been operating under that suppression, alarm, and detection system. systems. The Fire Department researched the cost to retain a fire The Fire Department currently provides engineering firm for outsourcing of fire fire plan review for site, architectural, plan review. This was done to ensure fire suppression, alarm, and detection that any proposed fees would cover the systems. The Fire Department has two costs associated with outsourcing the fire employees dedicated to fire plan review. plan review. In 2003, they reviewed 392 plans. In 2004, they reviewed 403 plans. January The Fire Department also reviewed the 1, 2005 thru June 30, 2005, 376 plans fee schedules from other fire and have been reviewed. The average time building departments to determine a spent reviewing each plan is eight hours. justifiable rate for the fire plan review Currently, the average turnaround time is and permitting process. The proposed six to eight weeks per fire plan review. fee schedule is based on a study of time spent per plan review performed by Fire No fee is currently being collected that is Protection Engineers in Fairfax County, specifically designated to pay for fire Virginia based on occupancy type and plan review. The salaries and benefits building square footage. The rate used in for these employees come out of the Fire establishing the fees was determined by City revenue auditors and the Fire Prevention Bureau to ensure it has Department by taking the direct costs enough personnel to keep up with the from the Fire Prevention Bureau and demands of the citizens. allocating applicable portions of other expenses from throughout the City. This approach would create a double billing to the citizens. Additionally, the Fire Department considered current levels of customer Create a Standardized Fee Schedule service and satisfaction. Customers but not collect the fees until a review expressed that expedited fire plan review of Business Licensing and its fees is turn around time was a priority in completed meeting construction schedules. Salt Lake City could adopt an ordinance enacting a consistent fee schedule for all The result of the proposed plan review fire plan reviews. The fee schedule process and collection of associated fees would standardize all the fees and would will allow the Fire Prevention Bureau to allow the Fire Prevention Bureau to support a funded proactive code ensure it has enough personnel to keep enforcement and fire prevention up with the demands of the citizens. program. This provides safety to the community and fire fighters, while This approach would not create a double reducing risk to the City. A safer billing to the citizens as the fees would community improves our Insurance not be collected until a review of Services Organization (ISO) rating thus Business Licensing can be done and reducing private and business insurance their fees can be reduced accordingly. premiums. ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDATION Business as Usual Salt Lake City should adopt the Salt Lake City could continue to charge ordinance and establish a set fee the same fees as it currently does schedule for all fire plan reviews but not through business licensing without collect the fees until a review of tracking the fee charged for fire plan Business Licensing is completed. reviews. This approach would not address the issue of the Fire Prevention Bureau not having adequate personnel or funding to increase personnel to meet the demands of citizens. Create a Standardized Fee Schedule Salt Lake City could provide a consistent fee schedule for all fire plan reviews. The fee schedule would standardize all the fees and would allow the Fire 019, SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE y <u0A No. of 2006 (Enacting Regulations Pertaining to Business Fees Collected by the City) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SUBSECTION 2.12.050, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROVIDING FEES TO BE COLLECTED FROM BUSINESSES BY THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City. Now, Therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City. Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection 2.12.050, Salt Lake City Code, pertaining to planning fees to be collected from businesses by the city be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: 2.12.050 Business Planning Fees: The city shall collect the following fees for each business plan reviewed or regulated by the fire prevention bureau under the International Fire Code (IFC) or other authority. A. Plan Review: assembly—use groups A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, or A-5. 0— 50,000 square feet $300.00. 50,001 — 100,000 square feet $600.00. 100,001 square feet or greater $900.00. B. Plan review: business, non-hi rise—use group B. 0—40,000 square feet $225.00. 40,001 — 80,000 square feet $450.00. 80,001 — 150,000 square feet $675.00. 150,001 square feet or greater $900.00. C. Plan review: business, hi rise. $1,500.00. D. Plan review: educational—use group E. 0— 30,000 square feet S300.00. 30,001 — 80,000 square feet S525.00. 80,001 — 150,000 square feet $750.00. 150,001 square feet or greater $1.050.00. E. Plan review: factory or industrial storage— use groups F-1, F-2, S-1, or S-2. 0 — 30,000 square feet $150.00. 30,001 — 100,000 square feet $300.00. 100,001 square feet or greater $450.00. F. Plan review: high hazard—use group H. $900.00. G. Plan review: institutional—use groups I-1, I-2, 1-3, I-4—non-hi-rise. 0 —20,000 square feet $300.00. 20,001 — 50,000 square feet $600.00. 50,001 — 100,000 square feet $900.00. 100,001 square feet or greater $1.200.00. H. Plan review: institutional hi-rise. $1,500.00. I. Plan review: mercantile—use group M— free standing building or shopping center. 0—30,000 square feet $300.00. 30,001 —80,000 square feet $525.00. 80,001 — 150,000 square feet $750.00. 150,001 square feet or greater $975.00. 2 J. Plan review: enclosed shopping mall. 0 — 50,000 square feet $600.00. 50,001 — 100,000 square feet $900.00. 100,001 square feet or greater $1,500.00. K. Plan review: residential—use groups R-1, R-2, R-4—non-hi-rise. 0 — 10,000 square feet $150.00. 10,001 —30,000 square feet $300.00. 30,001 — 80,000 square feet $450.00. 80,001 — 150,000 square feet $600.00. 150,001 square feet or greater $750.00. L. Plan review: residential—hi-rise. $1,500.00. M. Plan review: utility—miscellaneous—use group U. 0 —30,000 square feet $75.00. 30,001 square feet or greater $150.00. N. Plan review revisions. $25.00 per quarter hour. O. Tenant improvement plan review: assembly—use group A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, or A-5. 0— 1,000 square feet $75.00. 1,001 — 5,000 square feet $150.00. 5,001 — 10,000 square feet $225.00. 10,001 square feet or greater $300.00. 3 P. Tenant improvement plan review: business, education, or mercantile—use groups B, E, or M. 0— 5,000 square feet $75.00. 5,001 — 10,000 square feet $150.00. 10,001 —25,000 square feet $225.00. 25,001 — 50,000 square feet $300.00. 50,001 square feet or greater $450.00. Q. Tenant improvement plan review: factory, industrial high hazard, or storage —use groups F, H, S. 0— 10,000 square feet $75.00. 10,001 —20,000 square feet $150.00. 20,001 —50,000 square feet $225.00. 50,001 — 100,000 square feet $300.00. 100,001 square feet or greater $450.00. R. Tenant improvement plan review: institutional or residential—use groups I-1, I-2, I-3, I- 4, R-1. 0— 3,000 square feet $75.00. 3,001 — 7,500 square feet $150.00. 7,501 — 12,000 square feet $225.00. 12,001 — 20,000 square feet $300.00. 20,001 —40,000 square feet $450.00. 40,001 square feet or greater $600.00. 4 S. Tenant improvement plan review: utility or miscellaneous—use group U. $25.00. T. System plan review: sprinkler system—building shell. 0— 10,000 square feet $150.00. 10,001 —30,000 square feet $250.00. 30,001 —75,000 square feet $350.00. 75,001 — 125,000 square feet $475.00. 125,001 —200,000 square feet $600.00. 200,001 square feet or greater $727.00. U. System plan review: sprinkler system- tenant alterations or additions. 0— 50 sprinkler heads $75.00. 51 — 100 sprinkler heads $150.00. 101 — 150 sprinkler heads $225.00. 151 or more sprinkler heads $300.00. V. System plan review: underground fire service line. $25.00. W. System plan review: standpipe. $75.00. X. System plan review: range hood fire protection. $75.00. Y. System plan review: fire alarm- non-hi-rise. 0—20 devices $150.00. 21 —50 devices $225.00. 51 — 100 devices $300.00. 101 devices or more $375.00. Z. System plan review: fire alarm—hi-rise. $1,500.00. 5 AA. System plan review: fire pump. $75.00. BB. System plan review: halon, carbon dioxide, dry chemical, water foam sprinkler, methane gas detection, carbon dioxide detection, other specialized systems. 0 — 10 devices $150.00. 11 —25 devices S300.00. 26 — 50 devices $450.00. 51 —75 devices $600.00. 76 — 100 devices $750.00. 101 devices or more $900.00. CC. System plan review: petroleum storage tank. Single tank $75.00. Multiple tanks $150.00. DD. System plan review: propane storage tank. Single tank $25.00. Multiple tanks $75.00. EE. System plan review: medical gas storage tank or piping distribution system. Single floor or zone $150.00. Multiple floors or zones $150.00 plus $75.00 for each additional floor or zone. FF. System plan review revisions. $25.00 per quarter hour. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 6 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 ATTEST: APPROVED AS T eioiA LAtio City AWN 2s Ppp#J c, zoo b CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER p , �_ (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 7 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: May 16, 2006 SUBJECT: Establishing a No-Fault Claims Ordinance for the Fire Department STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, DJ Baxter, Chief Charles Querry, Ed Rutan, Tim Rodriguez, Lyn Creswell Currently, the Fire Department does not have a"no-fault claims"process for residents of the City to apply for financial reimbursement if damage occurs during response to a call. The proposed ordinance enacts a claims process that is mirrored after the Police Department's no- fault claims ordinance. This would create a consistent system for handling all public safety related events. It is believed that having a no-fault claim process in place will help avoid litigation. KEY ELEMENTS Many of the details of the proposed process are identical to the process already in place with the Police Department, and much of the process is also similar to the no-fault claims process for the Department of Public Utilities. The Administration is proposing that the claim limit for the Fire Department would be $1,000 per applicant, per incident and the annual budget would be limited to $10,000. On average, a Police related claim is $500, although it is anticipated that the Fire Department would not have as many claims as the Police Department. Incidents in the past, which might have qualified for no-fault reimbursement, include responding to the wrong address or unit, forcing entry for a"welfare check"—when neighbors or family have not been able to get a response from the occupant—but the person just was not at home. This no-fault process would also cover the same types of incidents in the event of medical response. This process would not necessarily cover any damage incurred during an emergency response, but primarily those in which personnel enter the wrong address or were provided with incorrect information. In addition to a claim being denied if it is otherwise covered by insurance, a claim would also be denied if the property owner acted in an irresponsible or negligent manner. This would include refusal of access to the property. (Although in responding to fire emergencies, this is not common.) As with the Police Department, the application process and procedure include: ➢ Payment by the City through this no-fault process does not constitute an admission by the City of responsibility or liability for the event. ➢ The loss identified by the claim is not otherwise partially or fully covered by private insurance. (Any amount covered by private insurance would reduce the City's payment by the corresponding amount. For example, if the loss is completely covered by private insurance, an application to the City for damages would not qualify.) ➢ An application must be filed within 180 days. ➢ Applications will be submitted to the Recorder's Office, who will refer it to the City's Risk Manager, who will work with the Fire Department for a recommendation. MATTERS AT ISSUE 1. Regarding the budget for these claims, the Council may wish to ask whether the budget for this would be held within the Governmental Immunity Fund, or within the Fire Department. (This would also affect how these claims are budgeted for in the Police Department.) 2. If the claims are to be paid by the Fire Department, the Council may wish to ask whether the costs are to be absorbed within the Fire Department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006-07. 3. The Council may wish to ask for further clarification on the `welfare check' and the standard practice in other jurisdictions on whether the governmental entity covers the cost if the response is made upon request. 2 APR 14 2000 CHARLES M. QUERRY . r�\a�I CRT..(CORN)D --,►r���,-.�4i ROES C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON FIRE CHIEF FIRE DEPARTMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 13' DATE. April 3, 2006 FROM: Charles M. Querry, Fire Chief RE: No-Fault Fire Department Ordinan STAFF CONTACT: Tim Rodriguez, Risk Manager, at 535-6020 or tim.rodriguez@slcgov.com Lyn Creswell, Senior City Attorney, at 535-7772 or lyn.creswell(slcgov.com. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Ordinance limits claims to one thousand dollars ($1,000) per applicant,per incident; and limits funding to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per fiscal year. The Ordinance follows a similar ordinance for the Police Department. The Police Department experience under their Ordinance is about $1,500 per fiscal year. During the current fiscal year, one claim arising from the Fire Department would have qualified under the Ordinance. DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: The City has no-fault ordinance for a number of city departments. Recent claims experience suggests that a no-fault ordinance is needed for the Fire Department. Analysis: Both the fire and police departments have prior claims involving forced entry into residential properties. In such cases, neither the resident nor the city is at fault. The police department finds that a limited no-fault ordinance reduces the potential for litigation and reduces claims administrative costs. The city should treat claims arising from public safety activities similarly. PUBLIC PROCESS: Consider by the City Council. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: The Ordinance is modeled off City Code 3.38, No-Fault Police Claims. 315 EAST 200 SOUTH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01-799-4103 FAX: B01-799-3038 WWW.SLCODV.COM L.• aEc.cLEo PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Enacting New Chapter 3.39 of the Salt Lake City Code Regarding No-Fault Fire Department Claims) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 3.39, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, REGARDING NO-FAULT FIRE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS. Now, Therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. That Chapter 3.39 of the SALT LAKE CITY CODE, pertaining to No- Fault Fire Department claims, shall be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 3.39 NO-FAULT FIRE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS 3.39.010 Short Title: The ordinance codified in this chapter shall be known as the NO-FAULT FIRE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS ORDINANCE. 3.39.020 Purpose: It is the purpose of this chapter to compensate persons for property damage sustained as a result of lawful Salt Lake City Fire Department activities, regardless of fault, within the restrictions and limitations of this chapter. 3.39.030 Definitions: Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the following terms and phrases, as used in this chapter, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated: A. "City" means Salt Lake City Corporation, a political subdivision of the state. B. "City attorney" means the city attorney or his/her designee. C. "Person or applicant" means any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, company, corporation, association,joint stock company, trust, estate, or any other legal entity (except the United States government or any of its agencies, the state and any of its political subdivisions) or their legal representatives, agents, or assigns. D. "Political subdivision" means any political subdivision of the state, including state departments and agencies, cities, towns, counties, and school districts. 3.39.040 Administration And Establishment Of Regulations: The city attorney may establish regulations sufficient to provide for the handling of such claims and disbursements of those funds that are set aside for payment of claims under this chapter. 3.39.050 Reimbursement-Application-Time Limitations: All applications for reimbursement under this chapter must be submitted to the city recorder within one hundred eighty(180) days after the incident occurs. 3.39.060 Application-Investigation And Recommendations: Applications received by the city recorder shall be referred to the city's risk manager. The risk manager shall then forward the application to the fire department for investigation and recommendation. The city attorney shall make a determination as to whether or not to pay, under the criteria of this chapter. All payments authorized by the city attorney shall be made solely from funds to be set aside under this chapter. 3.39.070 Criteria For Payment: A. The determination as to whether to make payments for loss under this chapter shall be based on the following criteria: 2 1. The eligible applicant suffered an otherwise uninsured property loss caused by fire department activities, under circumstances where the applicant acted responsibly and non-negligently to avoid the loss; and 2. The loss must be adequately substantiated; 3. There are budgeted and unencumbered funds available to pay the claim. B. The following shall result in the denial of an application: 1. Application is not timely submitted; 2. Loss is fully covered by private insurance; 3. Applicant is ineligible under the terms of this chapter; 4. Loss was proximately caused by irresponsible or negligent act of the applicant, applicant's agent, or member of applicant's business or household; 5. Loss or eligibility is unsubstantiated; 6. The applicant knew or should have known that illegal activities were taking place on their premises. C. The following shall result in reduction of payment: 1. Loss partially covered by insurance; 2. Loss exceeds funding limits or payment caps of this chapter; 3. Applicant did not cause the problem, but failed to act responsibly, and non-negligently to minimize the loss. 3.39.080 Maximum Payments: Payments under this chapter shall be limited by the following restrictions: A. One thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per applicant, per incident; B. One payment per applicant, per year. 3 C. The maximum funding limit of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per fiscal year, regardless of the number of claims involved. 3.39.090 Payment Does Not Imply Liability: A. Any payment made under this chapter shall not be construed as an admission of nor does it imply any negligence or legal responsibility on the part of the city for any purpose. B. This chapter shall not in any way supersede, change, or abrogate the state governmental immunity act, or its successor, and its application to the city or establish in any person a right to sue the city. C. Any payment made under this chapter and accepted shall constitute a full and complete release of any and all claims against the city, its officers, employees, and agents arising from the incident. 3.39.100 Annual Budget Expenditure: The Fire Department is authorized to request the appropriations of sufficient funds, not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), to make the foregoing payments. 3.39.110 Claims From Other Governmental Agencies: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no application shall be accepted from the United States or any of its departments or agencies, the state, or any of its political subdivisions. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 4 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 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date S AP2'4 Zoo 6 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER By 43 (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: l:AOrdinance 06\Enacting New Ch 3.39 of SLC Code re No-Fault Fire Dept Claims-Mar 31,2006.doc 5 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS—FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 DATE: May 16, 2006 '' BUDGET FOR: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Ed Rutan, Sim Gill, Lynn Pace, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The City Attorney's Office contains three divisions: Civil Practice, City Prosecutor's Office, and Risk Management. Budgets relating to the Risk Management Division are analyzed separately with the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance & Risk Management Fund. This separate analysis will address the proposed property tax related to Governmental Immunity. The Mayor's Recommended Budget for the City Attorney's Office (General Fund) for fiscal year 2006-07 and proposed changes from fiscal year 2005-06 are as follows: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PROPOSED BUDGET (General Fund) Adopted Proposed Percent 2005-06 2006-07 Difference Change Civil Practice Personal Services 1,592,304 192,053 12.06% 1,784,357 Other Operating Expenses 148,002 _ 154,002 6,000 4.05% Civil Practice Total $ 1,740,306 $ 1,9 8,359 $ 198,053 11.38% City Prosecutor's Office Personal Services 1,541,079 229,893 14.92% 1,770,972 Other Operating Expenses 193,855 200,191 6,336 3.27% Prosecutor's Office Total $ 1,734,934 ' $ :1,971,163 $ 236,229 13.62% Attorney's Office Total $ 3,475,240 "` $ ,.,3 ,909,522 $ 434,282 12.50% CIVIL PRACTICE DIVISION - KEY ELEMENTS The Civil Practice Division provides legal support for the City's departments, including the City Council and Mayor, and litigation defense of state and federal court lawsuits Q filed against the City as well as bringing lawsuits and administrative proceedings on behalf of the City. 1 The Division is organized into five teams or functions: Departmental Legal Support, Litigation, State Legislative Advocacy, Paralegal Support, and Administrative Support. Some of the attorneys' time is spent on the Governmental Immunity Fund, and are reimbursed by that Fund, or are charged to the Insurance and Risk Management Fund. Council staff prepared separate staff reports on the budgets for these two separate funds. Staffing Adjustments ($192,053 total increase) - The bulk of the increase to Personal Services is due to reallocating positions in order to facilitate more accurate recording of time within the Attorney's Office. • Positions from Governmental Immunity - The largest portion of the increase is due to the reallocation of 2.17 FTEs previously charged directly to the Governmental Immunity Fund. These are proposed to be transferred to the City Attorney's Office, which will assist in simplifying the staffing allocations to the different tasks supported by the Attorney's Office. The Governmental Immunity Fund will reimburse the general fund for attorneys'time. • Increase for the additional .25 FTE for the attorney position approved last year. This quarter percent was approved in Budget Amendment No. 4; this increase would be for the full year. ($20,000 increase) • A portion of the increase to the Personal Services budget is attributable to benefits, pensions, and pay increases. • The Attorney's Office is also proposing a reallocation of FTEs between their existing cost center accounts. The change would simplify the accounting for personal services and other operating costs for the Attorney's Office. Other Operating Expenses ($6,000 increase) - this will be used for additional stationary supplies needed to be ordered this year. It should be noted that in recent years the funding available for outside counsel and experts has been reduced. In some cases these expenses can be applied to the governmental immunity fund, but that fund could be considered `under funded' by private industry liability exposure standards. The Council may wish to discuss whether, as a general rule they prefer to have funding for experts and outside counsel come through one-time budget requests in budget openings (as was done this past year), through a standard reserve amount in the annual budget, or whether it is acceptable to consider the governmental immunity fund as the funding pool. 2 CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE - KEY ELEMENTS The City Prosecutor's Office screens, charges, files, and prosecutes criminal violations. Staffing Changes ($229,893 total increase) The City Prosecutor's Office is organized into teams as follows (includes proposed new positions): City Prosecutor Teams Team Attorneys Paralegal8v Support Staff Justice Court 9 4 District Court 3 1 Domestic Violence 2 (funded by the YWCA) Screening 2 3 Filing, reception, other support 4 Management 1 1 Total 15 15 • Additional Prosecutor Position ($64,516 increase) - The additional prosecutor would be assigned to the Justice Court. Currently, eight of the prosecutors are assigned to the Justice Court, two per judge. A ninth prosecutor assigned to the Justice Court would help to reduce the average caseload per attorney. • Additional office technician position ($42,304 increase) - The additional office technician would assist in data processing, file creations, discovery, witness subpoena issues, and calendaring obligations for the prosecutors'caseload. The Administration provided some additional analysis about the ways in which the Justice Court, Prosecutor's Office, Police Department and Legal Defenders are all interconnected. (A copy of the memo is attached for your reference.) The memo addresses situations where changes to staffing or workload would also create corresponding impacts to these other entities involved. - The Department is proposing that these prosecutor and support staff positions would be needed regardless of the Council's decision about any additional staff in the Justice Court, because of existing workloads. - However, with regard to the request for additional staffing in the Justice Court, that would likely cause a need for more staff in the Prosecutor's Office as well. • Benefits and Salary Increases ($123,073 increase) - the remaining portion of the increase to the Personal Services budget is attributable to benefits, pensions, and pay increases. Other Operating Expenses ($6,336 increase) - $6,319 of this amount will be used for additional stationary supplies needed to be ordered this year. C 3 QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. The Council may wish to ask about the progress of prosecuting nuisance abatement cases on both the civil and criminal side. 2. The Council may wish to ask which cases the Prosecutor's Office still tries in District Court. 3. The Council may wish to ask how competing demands are handled in the Prosecutor's Office, especially with regard to schedules in the Justice Court and District Court. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS The Council has an open item, which states, "It is the intent of the City Council that the Administration provide the Council with periodic reports on the development of nuisance cases." Some of this is satisfied through Council staffs involvement with the CAT teams. In addition, the Administration has provided some statistics of the number of cases which involve Housing and Zoning. The Administration has also indicated that a report would be forthcoming. No legislative intent statements are outstanding for the City Attorney's Office. The Council may wish to consider issuing some legislative intent statements relating to items discussed during the budget briefing. 4 SARI? LAKE'Oijair CORPOMTION'ROCKY FLUHART ; ROSS C. ANDERSON CMCC,ADM.N141-1:4YIVE.0,k strt,t .tAY(314 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL e TO: Dave Buhlcr, Chair DATE: May 9,2006 Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Justice Court BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: See attached memorandum. 451 SOUTH SrATL STREET, ROOM 238,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 54111 TELEPHONE:80 5 647.6 FAX:SCH 535-6190 MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Fawcett FROM: Kay Christensen DATE: May 8, 2006 ISSUE: The Salt Lake City Justice Court is part of a systemic operation with four separate, but interdependent components: the Court itself, the Police Department, the City Prosecutors and the Legal 'Defenders. Any change in one of these components has a ripple effect on the other three. When resources arc allocated, that interdependency should be a primary consideration. The FY 2006-2007 Mayor's Recommended Budget calls for increases in each. BACKG R(N D The Justice Court The Salt Lake City Justice Court opened its doors on July 1, 2002. The Court has jurisdiction over all Class B and C misdemeanors, ordinance violations and infractions committed within the corporate boundaries of Salt Lake City. The Court works with numerous law enforcement agencies, including the University of Utah Police, the Utah Highway Patrol, the Salt Lake County Sheriff and the Salt Lake City Police Department and any other law enlorcement agency that might enforce violations of class I3 misdemeanor or lower in our municipal boundaries. The Justice Court is made up of three sections. The criminal section handles misdemeanor criminal violations such as driving under the influence and domestic violence cases. The civil/traffie section handles primarily parking and traffic violations as well as returned check collections, vehicle booting, impound hearings, and animal control cases. The third section is the small claims section, which handles legal issues and problems from contractual or service disputes or others claims which do not exceed the SIMI .S 7,500. The Salt Lake City Justice Court handles 12% of the overall judicial caseload in Utah and 24% of all DUI cases. The City Justice Court handles approximately 225,400 cases per year including parking, traffic, civil, criminal and small claims. Approximately 66,000 of those cases could require the involvement of a prosecutor. Approximately 25„000 of those cases are settled when the individual charged simply comes to court and pays the fine. Another 10,000 to 12,000 cases will be handled through a plea in abeyance, leaving approximately 29,000 cases that will be calendared in the Justice Court and will require a prosecutor. Another 1,200 to 1,500 City Class A misdemeanor cases will be calendared in the Third District Court and will also require a prosecutor. Approximately 5800 of the cases will also require the assignment of a legal defender (projected total in this calendar year). The four sitting Justice Court Judges each carry approximately 7,300 cases, compared to 1,202 for each judge in the Salt Lake County Justice Court, 1,278 cases for each judge in the Sandy Justice Court and 5,712 for each judge in the West Valley Justice Court. The average caseload for a judges is 2,000 in Salt Lake County and nationwide. The recent management audit of the Salt Lake City Justice Court recognized that the court is operating at a much higher caseload level per judge and support staff that any of the other courts surveyed in the audit. Recently the Justice Court sponsored a two day workshop through the National Center for State Courts' Institute for Court Management to study the issue of caseflow management. The workshop included participants from every phase of the process, including court personnel, legal defenders, prosecutors, police, and jail personnel. The Justice Court is making a sustained effort to run the Court in the manner most conducive to justice and quality service for the public and maximum efficiency in the use of resources. City Prosecutors The average caseload handled by the City Prosecutors Office is, as stated, approximately 30,000 a year. In 2005 there were 24,417 new filings, with a rollover of approximately 5,000 cases from the previous year. The management audit showed a yearly clearance rate of 71°A, resulting.: in a rollover of 29%, The criminal filings have been stable for the last two years and the Prosecutors Office believes that figure will remain stable unless there is a substantial change in the system. For example, an increase in police officers on the street could have an impact on the caseload (the officers approved in the FY 2005-2006 budget have just recently entered the force, for a net increase of seven). It is also important to note that a backlog of cases may be created if an adequate rate of adjudication or clearance is not maintained. This may be the result of both the lack of initial resources to effectively clear the cases or also because defendants fail to appear. The ability to clear cases is directly related to the capacity to increase the number of cases set for a judge and funding of the proper number of prosecutors and legal defenders to assist in adjudicating these set matters. Each of the four judges is supported by two full time prosecutors, resulting in a caseload for each attorney of approximately 3600 cases. When a case is given a court calendar, the prosecuting attorney may participate in video arraignments with incarcerated defendants, attend pre- trial conferences, conduct discovery, prepare and take evidence on motions hearings, and participate in bench and:jury trials. Post adjudications may also include Trial de novo appeals and Hearing de 110110 appeals to Third District Court where the process begins anew on the same case. There are no national standards established for the recommended caseload for misdemeanor prosecution given the jurisdictional and other case variables. The American Bar Association endorsed the level of 300 misdemeanor cases per year. In 2002, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APR!) concluded that it would be more advantageous to look at average processing time per case and compare that to the number of hours a prosecutor has available. They arrived at an average per misdemeanor case time of 4.3 hours. The gross working hours for each prosecutor are 1772 a year (minus sick leave, vacation, holidays and continuing legal education requirements). Using that basis, the carrying capacity of an attorney is 412 cases a year. Obviously, many cases take much less 4.3 hours, but many take much more. For example, DUI cases average between 5 to 8 hours a case and Domestic Violence cases are close behind (the average number of DLI eases a year is 2000). In addition to the 3 prosecutors who cover cases in the District Court and the S who work in the Justice Court, the Prosecutors Office is aided by 2 3 full time employees funded by the YWCA. These employees serve as victim advocates and work with witnesses in domestic violence cases. They are often supported by interns who offer additional assistance. Legal Defenders The Salt Lake Legal Defender Association has a contract with Salt Lake City to provide legal representation to low income defendants when requested in all Class A, B and C misdemeanor cases. The FY 2005-2006 City budget for this service was $466,794. This provided the services of 7 legal defenders, 2 secretaries and a part-time law clerk. The Legal Defender Office has 63 full-time attorneys and 100 full-time staff. All other funding comes from Salt Lake County, the other contractual client of the Defenders Office. As stated above, the legal defenders are assigned approximately 5800 cases in a calendar year at current levels. This is an increase of nearly 800 cases in the last year. One legal defender is assigned to each judge, one assists as needed with all cases and court calendars, and two cover Class A misdemeanor cases at the Third District Court. As a result, each legal defender averages approximately 830 eases. The American Bar Association and the National Legal Aid & Defender Association recommend a maximum yearly caseload of 400 cases per attorney. In reality, the Justice Court caseload is much higher because 2 legal defenders cover the more involved Salt Lake City Class A misdemeanor cases and cases from the County Attorney at the Third District Court. They covered 956 cases last year for an average caseload of 428 per legal defender, a much more manageable figure. That leaves the five legal defenders in the Justice Court to cover over 4,800 cases, an average of 960 cases per each defender. At the present level of support, Salt Lake City is receiving services from the Legal Defenders that are not covered in their budget. Director F. John Hill's administrative time is not covered nor is the work of Assistant Director, Vernice Trease, or Patrick Anderson, Chief of the Misdemeanor Division, Mr. Anderson meets regularly with the City Prosecutors to coordinate schedules and other matters. Mr. Anderson covers mental health court, Passages. Safe at Home, CAT support and numerous other programs. His work frequently deflects cases into the mental health system, and then the County takes responsibility. Mr. Anderson allocates a portion of his time to City-related work. One additional secretary partially funded by Salt 4 . ..... .._._... _ . Lake City opens City case tiles and an investigator is available as needed to assist in City cases. That investigator also serves subpoenas. Social Service staff at the Legal Defenders Office also serves as a City resource. The Legal Defender Office encourages courts to assess recoupment costs where possible and does not stand in the way of recoupment. With a budget of$466,794 and a caseload of 5,818, the cost to the City for the work of the legal defenders for FY 2005-2006 was $80 a case. Salt Lake City Police Department It is obvious that the caseload at the Justice Court is the direct result of the number of citations and arrests made by the Police Department and other law enforcement entities active within the City's jurisdiction. An increase in officers on the street is likely to result in an increase in arrests and citations. Patrol officers spend a significant portion of their time supporting the work of the Justice Court. Officers must appear in court when subpoenaed whether on duty or off. When on duty officers appear in court there is no additional cost to the City other than the opportunity costs associated with taking that officer off the street. When off-duty officers appear in court, by contract, they arc paid for 2 hours of preparation time and whatever time they actually spend in court. During the FY 2005-2006 budget year it is projected that court costs for off-duty officers will be $365,000 (this is not broken down by court). Obviously, the City has a major interest in having oFficers on patrol as much as possible and spending the least amount necessary to cover the costs of court time. ANALYSIS- Budget Request The Mayor's Recommended Budget for 2006-2007 contains requests for increases in personnel and services that will impact the interconnected relationships described above. In anticipation or a positive recommendation from the auditor hired by the City Council to conduct a weighted caseload study of Justice Court operations, the Administration is recommending an additional judge, 3 criminal court clerks, to support the judge, and 4 additional clerks, one for each sitting judge. The Administration is also recommending I new hearing officer, 1 small claims clerk, and a file clerk. The Administration also recommends making a part-time traffic coordinator full-time and continuing the 4 contractual clerks until the full-time clerks are hired. If the City Council approves the new judge, the 3 new clerks are essential. The other positions are necessary regardless of the decision on the additional judge. Those positions affect the internal efficiency of the Court, while the additional judge affects all the interdependent parties. An additional judge will reduce the number of cases per each judge from 7300 to 5840. In addition, a fifth judge will allow the Court to set smaller calendars and therefore, police officers will not be called as often to cases that are not heard on any given day and their wait to testify could be shortened. The Administration is also requesting an additional prosecutor and an office technician for the office. If a new judge is added, this additional prosecutor will be essential to cover the judge's calendar. A court without the proper number of attorneys to help facilitate the case flow will result in the dismissal of cases (or no adjudication at all). Thus, the addition of a judge necessitates that a proper number of prosecutors and legal defenders also be funded to be efficient and effective. The City Prosecutors Office continues to seek ways to maximize the use of allocated resources. Both the original council audit and the current case flow support the additional attorney and support staff allocation. The Salt Lake Legal Defender Association is requesting a budget increase in FY 2006-2007 of$148,368. This will allow them to add two new attorneys and one new legal secretary to handle Salt Lake City's caseload. This increase is necessary whether the fifth judge is added or not. The Association has stated in writing that the current staffing level is not sufficient for them to continue to meet their constitutional and ethical duty to provide adequate defense services. The Administration strongly supports this request and included it in the Mayor's Recommended budget. If case referrals remain at approximately the same level, this will mean that the cost for representation for Salt Lake City is at $105 per case. The Administration is also recommending an increase of 8 new police officers and 1 new sergeant. With the 7 new officers who have just entered the force, this could result in an eventual increase of officers in the field that 6 would impact caseload (an increase of 7 officers would only mean that -1 or 2 more officers would be in the field at any given time). The Administration urges the City Council to consider the above requests as a set of recommendations aimed at achieving maximum efficiency and effectiveness in our law enforcement and justice system, and to consider the impact of each funding decision on the overall system. 7 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS — FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 DATE: May 16, 2006 SUBJECT: GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver CC: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara, Ed Rutan, Lynn Pace, Tim Rodriguez, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, DJ Baxter The Risk Management Division of the City Attorney's Office administers the Governmental Immunity Fund, which is the City's self-insurance fund for liability claims. This fund is used to protect the City against invalid claims, and to appropriately compensate the public for City negligence. The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes a property tax increase, as allowed by law, to fund these liability claims and judgments. The budget for fiscal year 2006-07 is proposed to decrease by $91,076 or a 7.2% decrease from the budget for fiscal year 2005-06. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Adopted $.Proposed Difference Percent 2005-06 20006 ©7 Change Revenue as other sources General Fund transfer $1,150,000 , W $0 ($1,150,000) -100.00% Proposed Tax Increase* $ ,150 000 . $1,150,000 Interest income 54,000 , 0 ' ($54,000) -100.00% Sundry revenue and 69,276 32,200 ($37,076) -53.52% reimbursements from enterprise funds for administrative costs Total revenue & other sources $1,273,276 .$1,182 00; ($91,076) -7.15% Expenses Personal services $214,376 $0 ($214,376) -100.00% Administrative Fees 017;000 $317,000 Other Operating Expenses 43,900 70,200 $26,300 59.91% Claims and court costs 1,015,000 795,000 ($220,000) -21.67% Total Expenses $1,273,276 $1,182,200 ($91,076) -7.15% * Please note: Technically, as proposed, this would still be a transfer from the General Fund. Staff has presented the information in this way to emphasize the change in funding. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Property Tax Proposal - The Mayor's Recommended Budget includes a property tax increase of$1,150,000 to fund liability claims and judgments as allowed by law. A property tax to fund liability claims has not been levied since 1982, rather the liability claims have been funded through the general fund. Levying a separate tax for liability claims will free up $1,150,000 for reallocation with the proposed general fund budget. Claims payments ($220,000 decrease) - The Administration is proposing $780,000 for claims liability payments for fiscal year 2006-07. Claims paid for the first ten months of the current fiscal year were $337,580. Total claims paid in fiscal year 2004-05 were $826,280, which may have included some extraordinary settlements. The proposed appropriation appears to be adequate based on average annual past payments and current year 10-month payments. In the 2006 Legislative Session, the Legislature passed a bill that would increase the maximum on individual claims from the current $1 million to $2 million, effective July 1, 2007. The Council may wish to ask whether the Administration anticipates that this would significantly affect claim payment amounts. Personal Services ($214,376 decrease) - The Department is proposing a change from direct allocation of salaries to an indirect method of charging for time. The attorneys and staff of the City Attorney's Office keep time sheets for allocating time. The Department is proposing to reallocate the FTEs currently assigned to the Governmental Immunity Fund to the Attorney's Office in order to simplify the process for accounting for attorneys'time. Administrative Fees Paid to General Fund ($317,000 increase) - As part of the plan to reallocate the FTEs currently assigned to the Governmental Immunity Fund to the Attorney's Office, the Fund's budget would increase by $317,000 to cover corresponding Administrative Fees. These fees would reimburse the general fund for services provided. The Council may wish to ask whether the $317,000 is an accurate amount since only $214,400 of salaries are budget to be charged in the current year. For claims involving the City's various enterprise funds, the claims are charged directly to the funds. Enterprise funds also pay a portion of administrative costs for investigating and processing claims. Administrative costs ($26,300 increase) - The majority of this budget increase is $27,800 for computer equipment maintenance. The Department is not aware of the need for this increase. The Council may wish to reduce this portion of the budget. This would add to the Fund's reserves. Interest income ($54,000 decrease) - The budget anticipates no interest revenue. Actual interest revenue for fiscal year 2005 was $73,790 and for the first 10 months of the current year, interest revenue was $111,742. The proposed budget, which eliminates interest income, appears to be especially conservative. The Council may wish to ask why the Administration is not anticipating any interest revenue in fiscal year 2006-07. Reserves - The City's audited financial statements as of June 30, 2005 shows invested cash in the Governmental Immunity Fund of$2,921,230 with estimated claims payable and other liabilities of $2,078,180. The audited financial statements reported a surplus of $843,050 as of June 30, 2005. The funding that the City keeps in reserves, approximately $2.9 million, is much less than a private insurance company would deem necessary, given the level of exposure. In the event of a large claim that would exceed the cash in the reserve account, fund balance is also considered a reserve account. This could ultimately result in a judgment levy to the taxpayers. 2 The Administration is not proposing an appropriation of reserves. Average claim payments over the past three years, of $622,378, is less than the proposed claims budget of$780,000. Excess Liability Insurance -The City's risk manager has received updated quotes for reinsurance to insure the City against large third party liability claims. The reinsurance policy would pay any judgment or settlement in excess of an established deductible. The quotes include proposed premium rates for coverage beginning at $500,000, $1,000,000, $5,000,000 and $10,000,000. The Council may wish to discuss the benefits vs. costs of acquiring excess liability insurance. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS There are no legislative intent statements outstanding for the Governmental Immunity Fund. C C 3