Loading...
11/20/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Thursday, November 20, 2003, 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 Dale Lambert. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Gary Mumford, Deputy Council Director; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Lynn Creswell, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bramhall, Assistant City Attorney; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; Cheri Coffey, Northwest Long Range Planner; Fire Chief Charles Querry; Timothy Harpst, Transportation Director; Bradley Stewart, Public Utilities Development Engineer; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Matthew Sorensen, Criminal Section Manager; Claudia Sundbeck, Civil Section Manager; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Greg Davis, Public Services Finance Director; Bill Haight, Information Management Division Technology Consultant Manager; Gordon Hoskins, Accounting Controller; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Louis Zunguze, Planning Director; Sim Gill, City Prosecutor; Tim Campbell, Director of Airports; Krista Dunn, Police Grant Specialist; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Brenda Hancock, Human Resource Management Division Director; Jodi Langford, Employee Benefits Administrator; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Greg Mikolash, East Bench/Subdivisions/Condominiums Planner; Scott Atkinson, Police Executive Administration Assistant Chief; Jacob Brace, Weed and Seed Project Coordinator; Romney Stewart, Solid Waste Director; Stuart Palmer, Solid Waste Fiscal Manager; Paul Morris, Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA) Executive Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See file M 03-5 for announcements. #2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE UTAH TELECOMMUNICATION OPEN INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY (UTOPIA) PROJECT. View Attachment Paul Morris and Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council with the attached handout and computer presentation. Councilmember Saxton asked based on the success in other areas, why bond costs were so high. Mr. Morris said bond companies wanted a long history before issuing stand-alone bonds. Councilmember Saxton asked about the amount of money the City had to guarantee annually. Mr. Morris said approximately $5 million, based on 30%-40% debt backing. He said a higher percentage would require a larger guarantee. Councilmember Lambert asked what the worst case scenario was. Mr. Morris said the 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 annual risk depended on the backing percentage. He said the risk could be between $5 million to $10 million. Councilmember Turner asked if future competition could diminish City profits. Mr. Morris said that was a potential risk. Councilmember Buhler asked if the proposal was in direct conflict with House Bill 149. Mr. Morris said no. He said as a result, Provo City switched from retail to wholesale which was the appropriate level for local governments. Councilmember Buhler asked if there was a concern the legislature would amend the bill next year to prohibit UTOPIA. Mr. Morris said after meeting with State officials he was confident of continued support. Councilmember Buhler asked if the State would back the program instead of individual cities. Mr. Morris said he did not know but felt they wanted to participate in the program. Councilmember Buhler said he thought the concept needed to be pursued. He asked if a response had been prepared to the Utah Taxpayers Association newsletter. Mr. Morris said a response was being prepared which would be shared with the Council. Councilmember Jergensen asked based on current debt, was the proposal something the City wanted to consider. Mr. Fluhart said the City's debt ratio was low compared to national averages. He said liability would not appear on the books until the debt was actually incurred. Councilmember Jergensen asked if bonds were taxable. Mr. Morris said yes, as a wholesale provider. Councilmember Jergensen asked if options to make the bonds exempt had been discussed with the State. Mr. Morris said any changes had to be made at the federal level. Councilmember Saxton said unlike Salt Lake, other cities were still growing so their profit potential was greater. Mr. Morris said that concern was taken into account so the model was based on existing populations. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about using sales tax dollars and risking future revenues. He said future discussions would be held when more data became available. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 2327 SOUTH 500 EAST AND 2322 PARK STREET, PURSUANT TO PETITION 400-03-15. (Ronald Lee Lindquist) View Attachment Doug Wheelwright and Marge Harvey briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Saxton said she wanted to remind the Council about the alley closure policy. She said she did think the proposal met the policy criteria. Councilmember Lambert said the Sugarhouse Community Council had a split vote and he could not see any negative reasons for denying the request. Discussion was held on accessibility. Mr. Wheelwright said the Planning Commission felt two of the four policy considerations had been met. Councilmember Lambert asked if the closure would cause other properties on the alley to pursue closures. Mr. Wheelwright said he did not think so. He said the alley was functional south of the proposed closure. Councilmember Christensen said a public hearing would be set for January, 2004. The majority of the Council was in favor. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY BUDGET FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004. View Attachment Rich Graham, Michael Sears, Stuart Palmer, and Romney Stewart briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Graham said no rate increase was expected for the upcoming year. Councilmember Christensen asked how expenses could be lowered. Mr. Graham said mainly by reducing capital. Mr. Palmer said a new module would not be needed until 2006/2007. 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 Councilmember Turner asked about the impact of the recycling program. Mr. Graham said the City was making progress but opportunities still existed for improvement. Councilmember Christensen asked about the public hearing. Mr. Sears said the hearing would be set for December 9, 2003. #5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 1665 EAST KENSINGTON AVENUE FROM OPEN SPACE TO RESIDENTIAL, PURSUANT TO PETITION 400-02-35. (REQUEST BY JOSEPH AND KATHLEEN KNOWLTON) View Attachment Doug Wheelwright, Janice Jardine, and Greg Mikolash briefed the Council with the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said a correction was needed on the motion sheet and ordinance. She said developability needed to be one word. The balance of the discussion took place in Regular Session. See file M 03-3 for official motion and discussion. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY (UTA) COMMUTER RAIL. View Attachment D.J. Baxter, Steven Allred, and Michael Sears briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Baxter said with the success of light rail, communities were anxious to participate in rail projects. Councilmember Christensen asked how far beyond the rail corridor did zoning issues apply. Mr. Baxter said zoning only applied within the corridor. He said the width of the corridor varied from 35 to 145 feet. Mr. Baxter said UTA's main focus was installing rail line improvements which did not include platforms, park-n-ride lots, or accessory facilities which would be subject to local building and zoning permits. Mr. Allred said future light rail lines would be included in the provision. Councilmember Buhler said the memorandum stated if agreements were not reached by the end of January, UTA would seek State legislation. He asked what position the League of Cities and Towns was taking. Mr. Baxter said the League supported the City's position. He said he felt other cities were united in pursuing an interlocal agreement. Councilmember Buhler said he felt cities should be given a certain amount of time to negotiate agreements after which State legislation would take effect. Mr. Baxter said he agreed but UTA wanted to secure a full funding grant agreement by the spring or summer of 2004 in order meet their 2007 operating deadline. He said to qualify for federal funding UTA needs to insure they could legally construct the line through local communities. Councilmember Buhler asked how long it would take the City to give UTA an agreement. Mr. Baxter said individual cities could do their own agreements quickly but the difficulty was getting all cities to agree on the same set of rules. Mr. Allred said UTA wanted uniformity so they did not have to negotiate with 42 separate cities. He said that effort was being undertaken and a planning meeting was set for November 21, 2003 with a number of participants. Mr. Allred said this was potentially a long-term construction project and it was difficult to determine future design standards. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned about rushing the process and wanted to take more time to do it right. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about giving away City zoning along the corridor. She said if regulations were needed, the City should protect them. Councilmember Saxton asked why the City would waive all zoning and regulatory authority. Mr. Allred said that was what UTA was proposing, not the City. He said cities along the corridor wanted to come up with uniform standards which UTA would be required to 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 comply with. Councilmember Saxton asked if that would override UTA' s efforts at the legislature. Mr. Allred said the legislature' s only concern was getting the project built. He said if cities could come to consensus with UTA to build the project, the legislature would have no further interest. Councilmember Christensen asked if the interlocal gave the City' s condemnation powers to UTA. Mr. Allred said only the legislature had the power to grant eminent domain. Councilmember Lambert asked if the legislature had the power to exempt UTA from zoning. Mr. Allred said zoning authority was based on State authorization. Councilmember Christensen asked the Administration to keep the Council informed as negotiations continued. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROPOSAL. View Attachment Michael Sears, Brenda Hancock, Jodi Langford, Lori Dillon, and Rocky Fluhart briefed the Council with the attached handout. Council Members expressed concerns about the potential $6 million obligation if all eligible employees chose to retire. Ms. Hancock said the annual payout was approximately $1.5 million. She said historically employees retired over a period of time, not all at once. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about the City's ability to cover the obligation and felt the City needed to set more money aside. He asked how the Administration planned to cover the additional $5 million. Ms. Hancock said she agreed more money could be set aside but did not think the entire amount was necessary. Mr. Fluhart said the Administration would further analyze the obligation and prepare a more realistic perspective. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about retired employees being re-hired at their previous salaries. He asked why higher salaries were being paid when new employees could be hired for lower salaries. Mr. Fluhart said this was an unusual occurrence but felt the question was valid. Ms. Hancock said the Administration was drafting a policy to address the issue. Councilmember Buhler asked about the practice of re-hiring retired employees. Ms. Hancock said this was permitted when the State law changed in 2000. She said employees had to be off six months before they could be re-hired. Ms. Hancock said discussion on leave balances was scheduled for February. She said she thought additional discussion on this issue could be held during that briefing. Councilmember Christensen asked about employees attitudes toward retirement incentives. Ms. Hancock said attitudes were difficult to predict. She said the majority of cities surveyed, did not believe early retirement incentives provided cost savings and would not offer incentives. Councilmember Lambert said he felt the program would be useful only if the City wanted to reduce the work force. Councilmember Buhler said this was a complex issue and suggested creating a subcommittee. Council Members Buhler, Christensen, and Turner were selected. #8 . RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Michael Sears, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Rick Graham, Tim Campbell, Rocky Fluhart, Sim Gill, Steven Allred, Dave Nimkin, Mary Johnston, Christine Dunn, Scott Atkinson, and Matthew Sorensen briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert asked what the total fund balance request was for the budget amendment. Mr. Fawcett said $252,000. Discussion was held on the following budget items. Councilmember Christensen said he did not want to straw poll each issue. He said he wanted Council Members to identify 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 issues they wanted addressed prior to the public hearing. Issue No. 1: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - sidewalk replacement ($130,000) (New Item) . Councilmember Lambert asked if additional funds could be allocated or the project scaled back. Mr. Graham said yes. Councilmember Christensen asked if work had already begun. Mr. Graham said no. Issue No. 2: CIP - Airport CIP budget amendment ($18,490,000 - airport enterprise fund) (New Item) . Councilmember Lambert asked about accelerated projects. Mr. Campbell said all of the apron expansion funding was secured through an Airport Improvement Process (AIP) grant. He said the Airport II master plan needed to be updated before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would approve another project in that area. He said if a federal grant was not available, the project would not be done. Councilmember Saxton asked how the $18 million would be spent. Mr. Campbell said the majority of funding would be spent on the concrete ramp extension. He said an underground tunnel needed to be installed prior to the apron extension. Councilmember Saxton asked for a cost breakdown per lineal foot. Mr. Campbell said he would provide the information. Councilmember Turner asked about passenger facility charges being used for airport improvements. Mr. Campbell said the revenue had to be used for construction projects which increased airport capacity or safety. Issue No. 3: Prosecutor' s Office and Justice Court staffing ($190,345 - General Fund) (New Item) . Mr. Fawcett said ongoing costs for combined staffing and operating expenses beginning in July were $296, 000. He said a small increase in personal services was included in the figure. Council Members expressed concerns about the request for eight new positions and asked why this was a priority over other departments. Mr. Fluhart said it was difficult to compare staffing needed between departments. He said analysis showed additional staff was needed for the courts to operate at full efficiency. Mr. Fawcett said this was a priority because the court's work load had outpaced projected growth. He said additional staff was needed to handle increased case loads. Councilmember Christensen asked what the case load was. Mr. Fawcett said there were 198, 000 traffic cases, 16,000 misdemeanor cases, and 16,000 small claims cases. Councilmember Buhler said next year's budget was already $3 million short and he was concerned about creating an even larger deficit. Mr. Fluhart said the Administration did not want to add to the deficit but felt additional staff was needed to provide essential services. He said the work load received from the County was much higher than projected. He said the additional case load would result in higher revenues. Councilmember Buhler asked about creating an enterprise fund. Mr. Fluhart said he did not think an enterprise fund was appropriate because there should not be a tie to the financial success of the court's budget. Councilmember Saxton asked if the Administration was aware of the court' s staffing needs during the budget process. Mr. Fawcett said because the courts were new, there was not enough data to determine staffing needs during early budget discussions. Councilmember Saxton asked if the needs had just come to the surface in the past two months. Mr. Fawcett said a request was made for additional staff based on work load analysis conducted during the summer which the Administration had been working on for the past two months. Councilmember Saxton asked about the priority for nuisance abatement cases. Mr. Gill said it was difficult to handle nuisance abatement cases with limited resources. He said his department helped prepare cases which were turned over to the Third District Court. 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 Mr. Allred said the Justice Court had limited jurisdiction and to receive appropriate relief, cases had to go to the district court. Councilmember Saxton asked what impact additional staff would have on nuisance abatement. Mr. Gill said in terms of processing, the Prosecutors Office worked with law enforcement to prepare cases for civil action. Councilmember Turner asked if the courts would generate enough revenue to pay for new positions. Mr. Sears said information from the Administration indicated current revenue collections would pay for the positions in this fiscal year but future years were unknown. Mr. Hoskins said sufficient revenue should be generated to support the positions in future years. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the number of requested positions could be reduced. Mr. Gill said with a tight budget, he tried to be conservative in requesting one prosecutor and two support staff. He said he wanted to request two prosecutors and four support staff. Councilmember Saxton asked about case manager positions. Mr. Sorensen said case managers worked on specific details and followed up on conditions stipulated by the court. He said there were 15 case managers in the criminal section. Councilmember Christensen said he was concerned about supporting the proposal without having a current income forecast. Councilmember Buhler said he thought the Council previously requested information about revenue projections. Council Members were in favor of having the Administration provide current revenue collection information and fiscal year revenue forecasts before considering budget amendments. Issue No. 4: COPS in schools ($125, 000-Miscellaneous Grant Fund) (grant requiring new staff resources) . Councilmember Christensen asked if officers were dismissed after the grant expired. Ms. Gust-Jenson said grant employees generally filled vacant positions so the number of authorized officers did not increase from year to year. Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned about the number of full time employees (FTEs) being added by the budget amendment. Councilmember Turner asked where the officer would be assigned. Ms. Dunn said Highland High School. Issue No. 5: United States Department of Education - Youth Programs ($57,500 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring new staff resources) . Mr. Fawcett said the proposal covered first year costs of a five year grant. Mr. Hoskins said the total grant was $900,000. Councilmember Christensen asked if grant funding could be used to cover existing employees who were being paid from the general fund. Mr. Fawcett said he did not know but would provide the information. Councilmember Buhler said he was also concerned about adding FTEs through grants and asked if the Council received notification about grants which required FTEs. Mr. Hoskins said no. He said that could be provided along with information regarding partial grants which required matching funds. Council Members asked about the $1.2 million Youth City program grant. Mr. Graham said if the grant was not used, it had to be returned to the appropriate federal agency. He said the grant could not be assigned to other organizations. Councilmember Saxton asked if other grant monies could be used to offset expenses. Mr. Hoskins said a modification request would have to be made before original grant funding could be reallocated. Issue No. 6: Drug free communities support program ($100,000 miscellaneous grant fund) (requiring new staff resources) . Councilmember Christensen asked about the program. Mr. Nimkin said the Mayor initiated a drug, alcohol, and tobacco policy task force last year. He said the organization consisted of approximately 25 community leaders involved in prevention and treatment techniques. He said the goal was to take 03 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 this group of professionals and formulate a coalition which could strengthen the prevention and treatment programs in the community. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the grant could be used to supplement the use of existing staff rather than hiring new staff. Mr. Nimkin said the specific coordinating duties of the position would be difficult for existing staff to accomplish. Councilmember Jergensen asked if other City departments could be utilized. Mr. Nimkin said he was not aware of any department who could coordinate the project. Councilmember Saxton asked if the County still had a drug coalition in place. Mr. Nimkin said yes. He said their coalition was not as broad as the proposed group. Councilmember Saxton said she understood the school district also had a prevention specialist. Mr. Nimkin said yes. Councilmember Saxton asked about the breakdown of salary to programming in the proposed grant. Mr. Nimkin said the split was approximately 50/50. Councilmember Saxton asked if the proposal was for one year. Mr. Nimkin said the grant could be extended up to five years depending on success. He said if the grant was pursued, the fourth and fifth years would be reduced to $75,000. Councilmember Saxton asked if the County or school district was interested, could grant funding be used to augment their programs. Mr. Nimkin said even though they wanted to be involved, there was no indication they wanted to spearhead the project. He said the recommendation was to use grant funding to create and sustain the coalition. Issue No. 7: VAWA (Justice Court) ($58, 003 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring new staff resources) . Councilmember Saxton asked if a separate clerk was needed for domestic violence. Ms. Johnston said yes. Councilmember Saxton asked how this position differed from the Police Department's victim advocate program. Ms. Johnston said the clerk worked with various offices to communicate information about cases. Issue No. 8: COPS in Shops ($7,000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring existing staff resources) . Mr. Sears said the proposed funding was for overtime pay. Councilmember Christensen asked why overtime was used. Mr. Atkinson said $7,000 was not enough to provide a full-time officer. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about the use of overtime and asked how many hours were achieved with $7, 000. Mr. Sears said 218 hours at $32 per hour. Councilmember Saxton asked if the funding could be used to pay straight time. Ms. Dunn said grant funding could only be used for overtime. Councilmember Turner asked about facilities and locations. Mr. Atkinson said facilities were located throughout the City in areas where underage drug and alcohol use created problems. Issue No. 9: United States Department of Justice - arrest policies ($500,000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring existing staff resources) . Councilmember Buhler said he wanted answers from the Administration regarding issues raised by staff. Issue No. 10: United States Department of Justice - weed and seed ($225, 000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring existing staff resources) . Councilmember Turner said he wanted to extend the grant beyond 2006 because of the positive effect it had in his district. Issue No. 11: State of Utah - project safe neighborhood ($56, 000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring existing staff resources) . No discussion/objections. 03 - 7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 Issue No. 12: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - Catholic Community Services ($22,840 - CDBG grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . Councilmember Saxton asked about the increased cost. Ms. Clark said the original estimate was low. She said additionally, there were construction cost increases and lead based paint requirements. Issue No. 13: CDBG - Volunteers of America ($20, 619 - CDBG grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 14: State of Utah - State history - cemetery ($14,730 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 15: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) - sidewalk replacement ($110,000 - miscellaneous grant/CIP fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 16: Computer Clubhouse - Sorenson Center ($3,000 - miscellaneous grant/CIP fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 17: State of Utah - Homeland Security - Fire, Police, Airport, Public Utilities ($434, 985 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . Mr. Sears said a vehicle had been purchased based on prior Council approval. Issue No. 18: State of Utah - Homeland Security - Fire ($32,420 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 19: State of Utah - criminal justice information - ($50,000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . Ms. Sears said the purchase needed to be made by December 1, 2003. He said if there were no objections the purchase would be made in advance of the public hearing. The majority of the Council was in favor. Issue No. 20: United States Department of Energy - Clean Cities- ($4, 000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 21: United States Department of Health and Human Services - Fire ($280,000 - miscellaneous grant fund) (grant requiring no staff resources) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 22: Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Program Income ($12, 893 - miscellaneous grant fund) (housekeeping) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 23: Downtown Economic Development Fund ($150,000 - downtown development fund) (housekeeping) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 24: CIP - Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Funds ($8,759, 972 - enterprise fund) (housekeeping) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 25: Early Warning System Grant - Information Management Services (IMS) ($116,871 - IMS internal service fund) (housekeeping) . No discussion/objections. Issue No. 26: General Fund encumbrance carryover ($40,000 - General Fund) (housekeeping) . No discussion/objections. Councilmember Christensen said the public hearing for the budget amendment would be held December 9, 2003. He said any concerns needed to be given to staff as soon as possible. 03 - 8 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20 , 2003 #9. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS TWO MATTERS OF PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § § 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8. An Executive Session was held. See file M 03-2 for Sworn Statement and tape. The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. sc 03 - 9 • 4co\rc9sLA-o SAT oar Y G®2RP 9I W • OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Committee Room City &County Building 451 South State Street,Room 326 Salt Lake City,Utah Thursday,November 20,2003 5:30 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 1. Report of the Executive Director,including review of Council information items and announcements. 2. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency(UTOPIA)project. 3. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding a request to vacate a portion of an alley located • adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. 4. The Council will receive a briefing regarding the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility budget for Calendar Year 2004. 5. The Council will receive a follow-up briefmg regarding a request to rezone a portion of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue from Open Space to Residential.(Request by Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton)(Public Hearing Item C-4) 6. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding UTA Commuter Rail. 7. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding an early retirement incentive proposal. 8. The Council will receive a briefmg regarding Budget Amendment No.2 and related resolutions. 9. The Council will consider a motion to enter into Executive Session,in keeping with Utah Code,to discuss two matters of pending or reasonably imminent litigation,pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §§ 52-4-4 and 52-4-5 (lxaxiii),and attorney-client matters that are privileged,pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-24-8. B. OPENING CEREMONY: (None.) C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (None.) 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7600, FAX: 801-535-7651 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Thursday,November 20,2003 D. COMMENTS 1111 (None.) E. NEW BUSINESS: (None.) F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance:Petition No.400-02-35,rezone a portion of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue from Open Space to Residential Consider adopting an ordinance rezoning a portion of property located at approximately 1665 East Kensington Avenue from Open Space to Residential,pursuant to Petition No.400-02-35.(requested by Joseph and Kathleen Knowlton) (P 03-23) Staff Recommendation: Consider options. G. CONSENT: (None.) III H. ADJOURNMENT: Dated: November 19,2003 By: , • Deputy Ci e frill yder STA II,OF UTAH ) . ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 19th day of November 2003,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. 62)11 ity li i4111 Deputy C 0,'i er 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Thursday,November 20,2003 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19a`day of vembe 3.NOTARY PUBLIC cta 1 i STATE OF UTAH •°' :. My Commission Expires Notary Public resid' g ' he of Utah And 8,2006 5g 6'feSx3E2A ti,. iS_ tp ea'a3 i5 451 South Stale St.Room 415 .SO Lai 5 City,Utah 84111 ti Approval: -gd 9 Executi Director Access agendas at http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/council/agendas/default.htm.A sound system for the hearing impaired is available and headphones can be obtained for all public meetings upon four hours advance notice. Arrangements can be • made for sign language interpreters;please allow 72 hours advance notice. TDD Number 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel 1. Large type and#2 Braille agendas are available upon 72 hours advance notice. *Final action may be taken and/or adopted concerning any item on this agenda. 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. . 3 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 18,2003 SUBJECT: Update Briefing on UTOPIA and Request for Salt Lake City to Guarantee a Portion of the Bonds AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEFT. Department of Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Rocky Fluhart KEY ELEMENTS: On March 20,2003,the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing Salt Lake City to enter into an interlocal agreement to become a member of the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency(UTOPIA). The Council authorized a payment of$187,697 to UTOPIA for initial costs including a study of the feasibility of constructing and operating a fiber optic network that would provide high-speed broadband voice,video,and data access for every residence and business within the City on a wholesale basis. The feasibility study has now been completed and is provided to the Council as well as a separate independent analysis to validate the study. The Administration and representatives from UTOPIA desire to update the City Council now that the feasibility study is completed and bonding is.forthcoming. MATTERS AT ISSUE AND QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: The feasibility study was prepared by DynamicCity and included a projected take rate study conducted by Strategy Research Institute of Fullerton California. DynamicCity has an ongoing consulting relationship with UTOPIA. Dean&Company,a Washington DC telecommunications consulting firm,was hired to verify the feasibility study. The Council may wish to ask about the consulting relationship with DynamicCity and whether DynamicCity will be the operator of the network. The study concludes that the proposed UTOPIA fiber optic network is financially feasible. The report states that the system can generate sufficient revenue on its own to cover its costs. The take-rate study surveyed 747 randomly selected Salt Lake City residences and businesses(645 residences;102 businesses). Based on the market survey,the Salt Lake City take rate(percent of residences or businesses that will purchase at least one service) will be 53% to 59% of the 88,000 potential subscribers. According to the market survey, within 10 years each subscriber will purchase an average of$61 of services provided via the fiber network(high-definition television,video-on-demand,telephone,Internet,etc.). The Council may wish to ask about the breakeven point for the take rate and the amount of safety margin between the market survey and the breakeven point. Dean&Company concluded: "While not without risk,the feasibility of UTOPIA is robust, • and the plan is well-structured to create and capture value from the proposed investment." The consultants recommended managing the risk by starting with a small- test cell and expand to a second stage before ramping up to a full-speed build. The Council may wish to ask about construction plans and staging of construction to reduce risk. The Council may desire an understanding of some of the timelines of the project, including estimates of when services will first be available and when competitive services will be added. At the time that the City Council adopted the resolution,UTOPIA represented to Salt Lake City that bonds could be issued without the guarantee of the member cities. However,the bond insurers are insisting on a portion of the bonds being guaranteed by the cities. UTOPIA is requesting that the City Council commit future sales tax revenue to guarantee a portion of the bonds. Current plans call for bonds to be issued within the next few months and a second bond to be issued a few years later. UTOPIA will complete construction for the member cities that participate in the guarantee of bonds first. Those charter cities not guaranteeing the bonds will be built out if money is available from a subsequent bond. As additional cities join UTOPIA,construction will occur as funding becomes available. UTOPIA is proposing that sales tax be committed for the guarantee. The Council may wish to ask what the dollar amount of the commitment will be and for what length of time. The Council may also wish to inquire about legal concerns such as binding a future Council and whether there are other options beside sales tax for backing the bonds. 411 Council staff understands that in about 10 years surplus revenue is expected. UTOPIA plans to distribute surplus revenue to those cities that guaranteed the bonds. The Council may wish to ask about the likelihood of surplus revenue and the potential amounts applicable to Salt Lake City. The Council may wish to ask about the timing of distributions and whether they may occur as soon as surpluses are accumulated or after the bonds are retired in 20 years. OPTIONS: The original charter cities are Midvale,Brigham City,Murray,Payson,Centerville,Roy, Cedar City,Taylorsville,West Valley City,Orem,Layton,Perry,Tremonton,Riverton, Lindon,South Jordan,Cedar Hills,and Salt Lake City. Some of these cities may chose to not guarantee the bonds. Some of the options available to Salt Lake City are: 1. Guarantee a portion of the bonds with future sales tax revenue so that construction of the network in Salt Lake City can begin in the first phase. Take a risk that UTOPIA will be successful. Share in possible future profits. 2. Don't guarantee the bonds but remain a participant in UTOPIA. The result will be that Salt Lake City will not be built out with the initial bond and there will be no sharing of the profits. 3. Withdraw from UTOPIA with the option of rejoining UTOPIA in the future. • cc Rocky Fluhart,Ken Cowley,Steve Whittaker,DJ Baxter Fast and Furious: The Race to Wire America Page 1 of 5 • Li)c;New i1or&C Lintel F _ . , F At{F.WC't\ _: E 'E.K"TI tunas NcYJF.\[BER 26 November 16,2003 Fast and Furious: The Race to Wire America By MATT RICHTEL Sandy, Utah JAYDENE WASHBURN'S rambler-style home here, 20 minutes south of Salt Lake City, seems the epitome of suburban tranquillity. The neatly cropped lawn is free of weeds. The skis and bicycles are hung tidily in the garage. In the house, the walls are adorned with family photographs and religious images. But look up at Mrs. Washburn's roof and you notice a sign of one of the first great business battles of the 21st century: an antenna that reaches four feet above the shingles. She paid $400 to a start-up called Utah Broadband to install the antenna because she was tired of waiting for the industry's major competitors, the telephone and cable companies, to provide high-speed Internet access, known as broadband. . Mrs. Washburn, who teachers fourth grade, wanted to make the switch because her old dial-up access was excruciatingly slow when she tried to gain access to educational Web sites, when her sons played online games or when her husband sold refurbished golf clubs on eBay. Like the building of the railroads in the 19th century and the development of the highway system in the 20th century, the wiring of America represents huge opportunities - and risks - for companies large and small. To the winners will go monthly access fees from tens of millions of households and businesses. The competition in the Salt Lake City area mirrors that in towns and cities from Portland, Ore., to Portland, Me. It pits behemoth cable companies against telephone companies, and both against a growing number of small entrepreneurs who want to use wireless technology to bypass the telecommunications infrastructure. All of the contenders are struggling to reach people like Mrs. Washburn, knowing that whoever arrives first has an advantage. About 14 percent of American households have broadband, amounting to a third of those with Internet access. They pay $30 to $60 a month for the service. Growth prospects for the market are strong, according to Patrick Mahoney, an analyst at the Yankee Group, a market research firm. Revenue from high-speed Internet service is expected to increase to $20.8 billion in 2007 from $7.4 billion in 2002, he said. Technology industry analysts say high-speed computer links are being adopted more quickly than virtually any technology in American history. Still, other countries are ahead. The United State ranks 10th in the world in terms of the percentage of inhabitants with high-speed access behind Canada, • South Korea and Japan. THE telephone companies have been criticized as being too slow in pursuing high-speed Internet http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/business/yourmoney/16broad.html?pagewanted=pri... 11/16/2003 Fast and Furious: The Race to Wire America Page 2 of 5 customers. Cable has done better, notably Cox Communications and Time Warner, analysts said. 0 The cable industry has spent some $80 billion to upgrade its systems for high-speed access, including $10 billion this year, according to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group. Comparable figures on the phone companies are difficult to separate from overall industry investment, according to the Yankee Group. Mr. Mahoney said the telephone figure was probably less but that the industry required less of an upgrade to prepare it for high-speed traffic. Cable's large investment is paying off. Nationally, according to the Yankee Group, 68 percent of households with broadband access use cable modems, while 31 percent use D.S.L., for digital subscriber line service, the telephone companies' product. Figures are not available on the number of consumers who use broadband in the Salt Lake region, which is part of the 200-mile Wasatch Front. Some analysts say the percentage may be higher than average because of a strong emphasis on education. But in other ways, the Wasatch Front, which stretches the length of northern Utah, abutting the stunning mountain range, is typical of the challenges facing companies, as well as the desires and frustrations of consumers. In countries like South Korea and Japan, high-speed service is aided by densely populated urban settings. But the communities in the Salt Lake region, like those in much of the United States, are relatively spread out. To connect them means doing something that is labor-intensive: putting a lot of new holes in the ground. Evidence of the cable industry's investment is the Comcast construction site, a network hub just off . Interstate 15, on a dusty spot 15 minutes south of Salt Lake City behind the parking lot of the Flying J gas station. Technicians in hard hats work around the clock at the site, deploying a crucial component of broadband access: fiber optic lines, which carry high-speed Internet access over blips of light. The company is laying 1,500 miles of new lines, part of the multimillion-dollar upgrade of its Salt Lake City network. Once they place the lines, they must connect them to create a seamless network. Technicians work in 12-hour shifts to splice the fragile glass lines together with a$35,000 machine called a fusion splicer. Comcast has completed similar upgrades at 30 other hub sites along the 200-mile Wasatch Front, and it plans to upgrade an additional seven sites. Comcast now makes broadband available to 80 percent of the region's population, and it expects to be at 90 percent by year-end, including the neighborhood in Sandy where Mrs. Washburn lives. The company is completing a $110 million investment in the region. Gary Waterfield, area vice president for Comcast, said the investment should have a big payoff, given the demand for broadband in Utah. The company charges $52.99 a month for Internet access, plus a $3-a-month modem lease; the price drops to $42.95 a month for people who order cable television service, too. "High-speed access is hugely popular here," Mr. Waterfield said. "There are very large families in Utah. Nobody wants to be in line for the computer while someone is using the phone line" for dial-up access. • "People are downloading more music, playing more games and sharing family photos - they want more bandwidth," he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/business/yourmoney/16broad.html?pagewanted=pri... 11/16/2003 Fast and Furious: The Race to Wire America Page 3 of 5 Comcast is running a campaign to market its services to local residents and businesses. It features "Stan the Cable Man," a big guy whose bearded face on advertisements urges residents to sign up for 41) television and Internet in one fell swoop. The idea is to keep customers away from the competition, notably the telephone industry, which is working on its own upgrade in the region. Just a few freeway exits away from the cable work, a telephone strategy is being guided by Steven Glatt and Jim Thomas, two managers for the region's dominant local phone company, Qwest. The broadband opportunity comes at a tough time for Qwest and other phone companies. Faced with falling phone rates and new competition from long-distance companies, they have in some cases been too preoccupied to make major investments in their high-speed infrastructure. Matt Rotter, vice president for product management at Qwest, said the company had slowed its broadband efforts over the last two years to deal with other issues. "We jumped out of the gate early," he said. "Then we had a slowdown the last year or two while we worked on other priorities." Its D.S.L. service is available to only 60 percent of the Salt Lake region, he said, but the company is working to change that. MR. THOMAS, director of network operations for Qwest in Utah, said his company now wanted full- out deployment. "They tell me: 'Tell us where you want to deploy. We'll give the resources,' " Mr. Thomas said. He is standing beside a small corrugated-metal shed outside the Pinnacle Highland apartment complex, 0 just south of Salt Lake City. The shed is called a remote terminal, and despite its low-tech exterior, it houses major-league electronic brains that can connect the apartments - and conceivably, surrounding neighborhoods - with high-speed access. Qwest is building 50 remote terminals in Utah, at $17,000 to $58,000 each. The company must make such investments because its existing network, built largely on copper, is capable of delivering high- speed access only over short distances from the central offices. These remote terminals serve as mini- central offices that carry the signals to outlying neighborhoods. Last April, Qwest committed to spending $100 million in 12 months to upgrade its system in its 14- state region. Within those states, it contracts with Internet service providers, which resell Qwest's service under their own brand names. One customer is Matt Duhamel, who recently moved to the Salt Lake area from Idaho. Until recently, he couldn't get broadband at his Pinnacle Highland apartment, and found the situation "quite irritating." As soon as D.S.L. became available, he signed up. He likes the service, but isn't keen on spending $60 a month. But he doesn't have much choice. "As soon as Comcast gets here, I'll probably see which is cheaper," he said. The relative merits of D.S.L. and cable modem service are the subject of some debate, but industry analysts say customer satisfaction is generally high with both. • Yet some people can't get either one. They have paved the way for a new breed: the wireless entrepreneurs -- people like Steven McGhie, who are unlikely to overtake established telecom companies but are eager to give them a run for the money. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/business/yourmoney/16broad.html?pagewanted=pri... 11/16/2003 Fast and Furious: The Race to Wire America Page 4 of 5 "If I had the capital, I could take these guys on no problem," said Mr. McGhie, 36, who started his wireless Internet provider, Utah Broadband, last year. The company serves Mrs. Washburn and several 0 hundred other local customers, who pay $39.95 a month and up for service. Mr. McGhie, who lives in Sandy, started with humble aspirations. "I was frustrated because there was no high-speed access," he said. He set up a system to sell access to his neighbors because "there are a lot of other people in my boat." Mrs. Washburn was eager to listen to his sales pitch because using the Internet over regular phone lines was slow, and often unreliable, when she tried to download larger files like pictures. I tried to e-mail a picture to my daughter at college the other day, and it never did go. I got disconnected," Mrs. Washburn said. That was the last straw. As a result, Mr. McGhie was up on the Washburns' roof, attaching an antenna and trying to avoid one of the great hazards of wireless access in Utah: the trees, notably the quaking aspens. For the antenna to send and receive signals to the Internet, it must have a clear line of sight to an antenna tower a mile away on the ridge. There can be no intervening trees or even shrubbery. The limitations of radio frequency technology are one reason wireless access has been slow to catch on. Another is the cost of installation. The Motorola antenna that Mr. McGhie is installing costs around $400, but he said most customers considered that price worthwhile. Mrs. Washburn agrees. "It's been wonderful," she said. "My husband's been on eBay; my sons have 0 been playing games. One son had a research report on owls, and he got stuff off the Internet for that, too." Mr. McGhie works out of the home he shares with his wife and five children. He is one of 65 wireless competitors in the region, according to Comcast. Nationally, there are around 1,800 wireless Internet access providers, said Robert Hoskins, publisher of Broadband Wireless Exchange, an online magazine focusing on the wireless Internet industry. "There's still a huge pent-up demand from people who do not have D.S.L. or cable modem in their neighborhoods," Mr. Hoskins said. A typical wireless Internet service provider, he said, has 10 to 20 employees and 300 to 500 customers; most of the activity is in suburbs with affluent neighborhoods. Mr. McGhie runs his business himself, with the help of contractors. But there are larger wireless competitors in his area. One is Broadband Solutions, which serves 800 residential clients and 600 businesses along the Wasatch Front. The business customers pay $110 to $500 a month, depending on the access speed, which is sometimes less than that of comparable service from the telephone company. (The cable industry has not traditionally focused on the business market, but is increasingly catering to small and medium-sized companies.) The cost of installation, with a two-year agreement, is around $50. ONE customer is the American Express satellite office in Salt Lake City, which pays $225 a month for Internet access at 512 kilobits per second, about double the speed of residential D.S.L. Marianne Buie, the office manager, says service has been so good that she would like wireless at home. • But she can't have it, because the antenna would be blocked by the surrounding oak trees. And she cannot get broadband from anyone else, even though she lives near downtown Salt Lake City. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/business/yourmoney/16broad.html?pagewanted=pri... 11/16/2003 Fast and Furious: The Race to Wire America Page 5 of 5 It's frustrating, she said, because dial-up access is very slow, particularly when she is trying to download or send pictures, or when her husband is downloading upgrades for his handheld organizer. • "I'm waiting for Comcast, or anyone who comes to my neighborhood," Ms. Buie said. "I'll go with whoever gets there first." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Compaq I Home I Privacy Policy I Search I Corrections I Help I Back to Top • • http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/business/yourmoney/16broad.html?pagewanted=pri... 11/16/2003 • Cl 'VT Business Da t xeutcork alne0 MONDAY,NOVEMBER 17,200: • • .r. 'um _ _ * r _ - a s. e...••, -.. ter- _ 11 In Utah, Public Works Project in Digital , I . -,, .r. M • Tremonton • I y WYOMING By MATT RICHTEL to wrvL —r Brigham City - • SALT LAKE CITY—When it comes to Perry-. C) the Internet,residents of Utah are taking 3s m Area of detail I o matters into their own hands. n UTAH + In a 21st-century twist on Roosevelt-era 0 P i a public works projects, Salt Lake City and ' , Roy a j 5 `aao i o 17 other Utah cities are planning to build • o`0 the largest ultrahigh-speed digital network =yton• •Cedar City in the country. i" Construction on the project is scheduled P l 4 Centerville ARIZONA to start next spring—if the cities can raise the money to pull it off.The network would Salt Lake City be capable of delivering data over the In- • / %°^ ternet to homes and businesses at speeds O C'.tY �t 100 times faster than current commercial Ti •sville ID—Murray residential offerings. It would also offer 4, Midvale digital television and telephone services South Jordan—• through the Internet. Riverton • UTAH With a$470 million price tag,the project 75 Cedar Hills is considered one of the most ambitious ef- • Lindon N'T S• forts in the world to deploy fiber optic ca- +•: •: • . P bles, which carry data in bursts of light ">.'*Orem J\� over glass fibers. Though it has not re- ceived much attention outside the area,the project has raised questions here about the role of government,particularly from tele- 0iles M � Payson communications companies, which are starting to complain about the prospect of Photograph by Tom Smart;map by The New York Times competing against a publicly sponsored Data infrastructure "is not a nicety," Salt Lake City and digital network. said Paul T.Morris,executive director for 17 other cities in The cities involved argue that reliable the project,which he has named Utopia,a Utah are planning access to high-speed data is so important to stylized acronym for the Utah Telecom- to construct the their goals of improving education and ad- munication Open Infrastructure Agency. vancing economic growth that the project "It's an essential economic growth issue," largest ultrahigh- I should be seen as no more controversial he added."The best network in the U.S.will speed data network than the traditional public role in building be in Utah—not in New York,not in Chi- in the country,us- roads, bridges, sewers and schools — as cago,not in Los Angeles." ing fiber optic ca- well as electric power systems,which are Its advocates say that Utopia will give bles,at a cost of often municipally owned in the Western $470 million. United States. Continued on Page 4 • • • • In •Utah, Public Works Project Goes Digital in Plan to Add Ultrahigh-Speed Service Ill In the spirit of power utilities,a small but :. ,..:.- <.. " '""' optic lines to companies to provide rate. Continued From First Business Page growing number of local governments are digital services.Following this model,18clt-t investing in high-speed networks that far ex- i. MIIN ies created Utopia, vowing to go ahead if participating cities a leg up in attracting so- ceed current commercial speeds.But the ef- they could make the case that the fees paid 1 phisticated companies and highly educated, forts so far have tended to be in rural areas. by consumers and businesses would repay', technology-minded individuals. The net- As of October,only 180,300 homes had di- w- H t the cost of building the system. work is expected to be available to 723,000 rect access to fiber optic lines;64,700 were .. ii The costs are substantial.Mr.Morris sate residents in 248,000 households and 39,500 actually connected, according to Render, a , . t Utopia would spend about$1,100 a home tb` businesses.Prices would vary considerably Vanderslice & Associates, a market re- ",,, - , t run the fiber network by each house in the 18' depending on the service,though basic high- search firm in Tulsa,Okla. 'a cities involved,and an additional$1,900 for speed Internet access is expected to cost "This is a very powerful test case,"said t 1 i , each home that decided to be connected. '1 about$28 a month. Sharon Gillett, a research associate at - An economic study by DynamicCity in But private sector competitors and tax- M.I.T.'s center for technology,policy and in- Lfndon, Utah,predicted that 90 percent of payer groups assert that the cities and their dustrial development."If Utopia succeeds,it _ t a consumers and residents would sign up of' residents face a high level of financial risk will be the first really large-scale deploy- 41? ter two years.The project was likely to gen for a network that may far exceed their ment of fiber to the home in the United erate enough revenue by its seventh year to needs.Telephone and cable companies na- States." - cover all expenses,the study estimated. tionwide are scrambling to build networks Most people still reach the Internet from ? Mr.Morris said Utopia was arranging fi- relying on less expensive, less advanced their homes through dial-up connections ji,, ffi nancing from a New York investment bank. technology that they argue will be perfectly over copper telephone lines,typically lim- {' ' ,11 He said that the cities would be asked to adequate for many years to come. ited to delivering data at 56.6 kilobits per }; guarantee a portion of the loan Utopia ac- Jerry Fenn,the president of the Utah divi- second. That speed works well for things t iy , quires from the investment bank,but that sion of Qwest,the regional telephone comps- like e-mail messages,but it can be frustrat- ,"if the amount was still being negotiated. my here that provides its own high-speed In- ing when using graphics-rich Web pages or i' Such a guarantee,while not providing a IIIIternet access,said there were few uses yet downloading music and other larger files. ' 1+ subsidy in the form of tax-exempt financing, . for the network Utopia plans to deliver. To upgrade dial-up speeds, telephone substantially increases the creditworthi- The speeds to be provided"are way more companies modify their phone lines to offer , 4, ness of Utopia,dropping the interest rate to' than what most consumers need in their a technology called digital subscriber line, ,4 the 6 percent range from as high as 12 per home,"Mr.Fenn said,adding,"Why provide or D.S.L.,which creates a direct connection . .. cent,Mr.Morris said.But it also puts those a Rolls-Royce when a Chevrolet will do?" to the Internet at speeds that vary from 256 loin Simi i lei I lie ucw Yo,i<dines cities at risk should the project fail to meet The notion of building extensive fiber op- kilobits a second to one megabit or so,some- Paul T.Morris of Utopia wants Utah to have the best network in the United States. expectations. tic networks may raise painful memories times more. Mr.Morris said he expected to secure the for many investors.During the latter half of Cable companies like Comcast and Cox financial commitment this month, paving the 1990's, several telecommunications have been even more aggressive,adapting higher-speed direct connections that are The applications are not all here today, the way for construction to begin next companies lost billions of dollars when they their systems to deliver Internet services at commonly used to hook up businesses to the Mr.Morris said,but when they are,"you get spring or summer. laid fiber across the country—and under speeds usually roughly twice as fast as Internet,pale before fiber optic lines. De- to 95 megabits pretty quickly."He added: Some local watchdog groups oppose the the ocean—in anticipation of huge demands D.S.L.Prices vary,but consumers can pay pending on the kind of equipment used,fiber "We built a network that we don't have to venture.Mike Jerman,vice president of the that failed to materialize. $30 to$60 a month for high-speed access, can deliver data at speeds of 100 megabits a change." Utah Taxpayers Association,said the gov- But the Utopia project,which has been in whether through cable or telephone lines. second—even as much as 1,000 megabits The project originated in 2002 after a sim- ernment should not be involved in such a the works for 18 months,is different.It is an Utah's competitive landscape is similar under some circumstances—enabling the ilar effort by Provo,35 miles south of Salt fast-changing business.He said that without attempt to complete a direct fiber optic con- to those in other states. Comcast's broad- lines to be used simultaneously to send Lake City,hit a stumbling block.Provo built the taxpayer backstop,Wall Street would be nection to the home an ambition that col- band service is available to 80 percent of its voice,video,Internet and other data traffic. a fiber optic network,but it ran into a buzz reluctant to give its support. "They were lapsed in the telecommunications bust.And residents,and should be available to 90 per- As of yet,there are few demands for such saw of complaints from private telecom- looking at a 12 percent interest rate," he its advocates argue that the best way to ad- cent by the end of the year.The company is capabilities.But Mr.Morris,of Utopia,pre- munications companies, notably AT&T said."That's worse than a corporate junk vance digital technology is for a public enti- spending about$350 million to increase the dicted that it would not be long before prom- Broadband. bond.It's an indication of how much confi- ty to build a common fiber optic connection capability to as much as three megabits per ising new applications emerged. For in- The Utah Legislature agreed with AT&T. dence investors have in the project." as a utility for all potential users rather than second. stance,televisions need 6 megabits a second Following the lead of several other states,it Mr. Morris acknowledged the challenge ' relying on the competition among private ri- For its part,Qwest,the regional telephone to deliver DVD-quality images over the In- passed a bill making it difficult for govern- but insisted that Utopia was a golden oppor- vals that helped foster the over-investment company,said D.S.L.service was available ternet,and 18 megabits to deliver HDTV.He ment entities to create Internet utilities that tunity to put together a real business to fub debacle at the turn of the century. in about 60 percent of homes in the region.It is counting on residents in the Utopia serv- sell service directly to consumers.But law- fill a genuine public purpose."This is a ma- The Utopia effort,while by far the largest is spending$100 million to upgrade its sys- ice area to turn soon to video-on-demand, makers here left the door open for commu- jor public works project,but it's not like in • to date,is not the first attempt by munici- tems in 19 states. online eo games,Internet and telephone - polities to build an Internet infrastructure. But those delivery systems,as well as the servicevid,all of which consume bandwidth. nities to build wholesale networks, which the era of F.D.R.,"he said."It's not a subsi- would be required to lease space on the fiber dy.We have a business plan." MINI _. MEM .. .. - NMI I - INN - IIIIII Mil _ Mil _ M UTOPIA Business Model Review — Final Report — October 22, 2003 DEAN & COMPANY STRATEGY CONSULTANTS WASHINGTON,D.C. EN 111114011 1 ON — r MN NW 1N1 ON — NO WO NS iN1114,1111 Agenda inemmems÷ • Overview • Demand Benchmarks • Cost Benchmarks • Sensitivities & Scenarios _agenda,10-20-03,UTPDYN01A.ppt sbg, DEAN&Cow Proprietary Restricted l pack2,10-20-03,UrPDYN01Appt kaL p y Summary • The UTOPIA plan is feasible, given the fundamentals: — Demand and take rate expectations are achievable given results from other overbuilds and the favorable demand for internet services in the UTOPIA market — Planned build out rates are within the range of other overbuilding projects — The Open Access business model is consistent with the evolution of competition and technology in the telephone,internet access, and video services markets — Wholesale price levels are sufficiently low for multiple service providers to become profitable — Active/Ethernet technology choice is well-suited over the long term for UTOPIA's model, leverages a broad supplier base, and has minimal risk of being obsoleted by other technologies,including wireless — Projected capital costs are within the range of comparable projects — Mix of aerial vs. buried plant—a key cost driver—has been subjected to a close examination • The primary areas of risk are: — The competitive response from Comcast and Qwest may be escalated relative to the base case assumptions,potentially driving down market price levels,increasing churn, and/or putting pressure on recovery of installation revenues. While the service providers on UTOPIA's network bear the initial impact of these pressures,they could ultimately flow through to UTOPIA — Subscriber turn-ups may be slower than plan in early years if UTOPIA service provider marketing efforts and operational coordination take time to ramp up — The usage-tiered pricing model for internet services is a well-designed strategy for capitalizing on the primary way that UTOPIA will create value: very high-bandwidth service innovation However,the full upside may not be capturable in the market, given the historical trends toward fixed rates and counter-marketing by incumbent service providers — Costs in the out-years may be higher than plan,if electronics life-cycles are kept to 7 years and network operating expenses come in at the high-end of current benchmarks • Nevertheless, the financial business case for UTOPIA is robust to potential downsides in these areas of risk — Downside sensitivity and scenarios still provide sufficient cash flow to meet debt obligations carrying a 6%interest rate 117,01-13-03,tJTPDYN01A.ppt kaL, DEAr'&CoMrar�Proprietary Restricted pack2,70-20-03,UlPDYN07Appf kaL 2 41111 — w i N M M — M IS MI I — r MP M 1111111,1111111 r I 11111140111111 - - N — r INS III N Mt MU M N M N Agenda • Overview • Demand Benchmarks • Cost Benchmarks • Sensitivities & Scenarios _agenda,l0-20-03,UTPDYNOIA.ppt sbg, pack2,1040-03,UTPDYN01A.ppt kaL DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 3 Given the experiences of other municipalities and over-builders, UTOPIA's predicted take-rates over time are feasible Take-Rates Over Time —Voice,Video, and Data Markets— Municipal Networks Overbuilder Networks 80% Harlan,IA 80% Cedar Falls,IA 70% 70% Everest 60% fandTWT UTOPIA/ 60% Communications UTOPIA/ Newnan,GA Dynamic City- Dynamic City- Base Case Base Case 50% �,/ 50% • Knology Scottsboro,AL Take Rate RCN Take ° (% o Utilicom Rate 40% Homes 40% Astomns (% 30% x Glasgow,KY Passed) Altrio Homes 30% _ (business case) Passed) ,S —0 20% 20% 10% 10% ilir :ristol,VA 0% ;�— 0% - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Years After Availability Years After Availability Average 16% 46% 36% 45% 41% 56% Average 29% 42% 43% 45% Take Rates Take Rates 012,10-20-Os,UTPDYNolA.ppt Jrs,ats3 DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 4 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYNOIAppt kaL 1� r3' • NM MI NINI — OM — — — NMI a — OW NM — — r MI i 111111111are NIB — WS Mill — OM 11 S OM — MI — — Me US W Expectations of selling service bundles are in line with other "triple play" networks Customer Demand —By Product— 100% Any l Any 1 Y 1 25% 19% 00/ A La Carte 80% - and 2 Product A La Carte Bundles Any 2 60% 50% A La Carte Arty Any 2 0 60% - 2 34% 30% 66/0 Percent of Products Sold 40% - 3 Service Triple Play Triple Play Triple Play 2-3 Bundles 20% - 41% 47% 50% Service 50% Bundles Bundle 40% 34% 0% i UTOPIA(2004) UTOPIA(2008) SureWest RCN Everest Harlan,IA Discounts onTBD TBD 21% —20% 20-30% ? Bundle 013,10-20-03,UTPDVN01Appt kaL,np1 DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 5 pack2,10-20-03,llrPDYN01Appt kaL P Although there is a large variation between the predicted UTOPIA product mix and benchmarks, UTOPIA demographics explain the differences Product Mix —Percent of Customers— —2002 vs. UTOPIA Base Case Scenario— Voice Video Data --",.. 100% - -,„- •-• , Utopia 92% 4:2. 90% - v. -m. '' % 0,'.: .-::.14 •„.:' ••:' i•':,, '..:' ;.,,,•., ,. ,;„. ;,'-' • A - •,:• .'••': . — 80% - F pq AM ,".,..• .•.. ./;;' :;r"i Utopia 77% 0 .,,F — ,,,, ,,,', 70% - 01 •'''' A,• ,. . — :/ — / P,!!'','.• —/ ,,m '"..1" :::;:•,::of,g, • , og ill 60% - - —01' /:,' •:::::':''ifo , •, •• -` = UIna to • wig - ---,---041. ,.4-------' •,-•-'--— - Percent :::::::311, '''/ ::::.:100 ''':,, ':: "-.,' ,.. ..,• — ' 61% iv 2.,>: - /... f0.•,.• — / NI of 50% - :•N:0'' ," .:::::,“;;••,' ',,, , . ,;'•,•.:Az, .,,, NV — ,:',30 •• : ..,• • ' .:;.' =./., Oy *SW Customers .-:;:-:".;•::: :" ;;„:'. <:':a ,,,',, — ', IM . „• 0% - i0 ,,'''% .':::::: eg -•.-,,'mr .,..tr • 11•!.'•:,';• '= /../ 7:,010 ,,,..,„„,„ , .. . •'-'OW .." 10 V '.. ' —,/ ''.'•::;•::0-.'-MAr ,,, ..•, • ,.. ,;::;:::: 1,', '•,' „ I's'::',,:,,,:,,..::,.s:.mii:i:relil :,,:,,•,'.,',',,,,'„,' •—.•., `.,. :;;<':'‘•Z:.:;,,\'.:::::-'::AkI1lrrt'. ;..,.'''1' ,pIiii0i,i..,,r•..,.':.,••:' -=_— 30% - " = ;:;:,::;.;'.,."..::,,,,:':§•:',:.,. 20/ - 11 — : , -',,,,, 01.,••'•••. =_.-"7' .,0y 4 .,••:.•.. ..:*/ ,',.,:;•41t1. „.;.•,' '••' <:-:::,qr* ',,,`" N>:,„,,4, : I*,..: ,w_;:-./2.... „,„„.. • "/ io% - ,,,-Alr .,-... ro.;, .:.:,:. _/ _.•,..,z,„,„,,, ,,„, oi..,..; .m.". ,, ,,,,,„ .,.,. a. .. = :•:":;.11011 = „, ,i, •",, ':• — A': :::•::::::c; e4,,, c •••:, /..: 0% ;,•-::;•TI` ,e, • i ::::•::' .0 .7'.., A:..,, =.,...,-:: ,:;..::-.mm ,,,, ilja>61 < a4 s2 ''' 'z' -,`'' z < 4 , A c1 Z t) 2 8 71 5 Z 8 ELI ¢ 0 5 Z g, U c..) c, ,,, Many Triple Play networks focused on marketing video Utopia region has much higher-than- service,with only a secondary emphasis on voice average demand for internet service Note: Ashland,OR;Glasgow,KY,and Tacoma,WA assume 12%of Internet customers do not have cable TV. Harlan,IA assumes 1%of Voice customers do not have cable TV. 014,10-20-03JITPDYNOIA.ppl JTS,atst DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 6 pac1c2,10-20-03,UrPDYNO1A ppt kaL • MI SIM 1111111 111111 Olt OM all Milli INN III 111111 ell 111111 11111 11111111 INS 11111111111111, MB -. =WM I IIIIII M ,I MI Mil tip MN M' MI OM - l 1111111e - IF UTOPIA has attractive residential market environment Residential Service Intensity Comparisons —UTOPIA vs. the National Average— 100% - Internet Penetration 100% - Video Services Penetration —Percent of HH— —Percent of HH— 90% - U.S. Census%for 90% - 84% all Utah 80% - 80% - 74% Ilr 15% 70% - 70% - ----- 64% 60% - 60% - Satellite 54% 31% 50% - 50% - 40% - 40% - ° 69% 30% - o Dial-Up 43% 30% - Cable 20% - 20% - 33% 10% 10% DSL 4% 10% - 5% Cable Modem 7% 0% 0% 1 UTOPIA Region U.S.Average UTOPIA region U.S.Average Internet services are the Typical of older TCI cable systems- cornerstone for FTTH success implies upside for higher quality network Source: UTOPIA Survey; U.S.Department of Commerce(2002),MediaWeek 109,01-13-03,UTPDYN01A.pp1 ini, DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 7 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYN°L4ppt kaL y Almost 50% of UTOPIA Business Telecom revenue comes from small businesses with 10 to 99 employees, which is the sweet-spot for the voice and internet services that UTOPIA service providers will offer Business Telecom Spending by Size of Business —UTOPIA Region- -2002— $82MM 4,175 Businesses ❑ Data $45 - $42.7MM 0 LD Voice $40 - Local Voice $35 - $30 - Yearly $24.5MM $25 - Expenditures $20.7MM $20.7MM ($AIM) $20 - $19.0MM $18.2MM $14.7MM $15 - $11.5MM $5.9MM $5 - -s• �� • •% ��• � s/ .3 /lbsj,'< ,..f• . j ., // «../„!G ;fW.•/.9bs,4h:<SSss=sstsY. / 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1000+ Business Size(Number of Employees) Number of Firms 8,060 3,245 2,258 1,474 443 291 61 18 19 in UTOPIA Source: US Census,Cahner's In-Stat Group,Gartner's Dataquest 084,01-13-03,lAPDYNO1A.ppt np,jrbt DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 8 pada,,10-20-03,UTPDYNOIAppt kaL pi • M r _ — s sit 11111 — 11 — it art sir '— it 111111.1111111 all UTOPIA's wholesale service charges are in a range where service providers have sufficient margin to be profitable UTOPIA Revenue per Subscriber Benchmarks —Voice,Video, and Data Triple Play— $120 - $98 $100 - $91 $80 - Service Provider $/Month $60 Gross Margin $40 - $20 - $42 $36 $0 National UTOPIA Base Case Base Case Spend Spend ARPU ARPU (2005) (2008) ti Average retail Base case wholesale consumer spend ARPUs 001a,10-20-03,UTPDVNO1A.pp1 JTS,ats3 DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 9pack2,70-20-03,,UTPDYNO1Appt kat. Multiple service providers, offering a variety of packages, can be profitable on the UTOPIA network Service Provider Economics —NPV as a Function of Customers- -Combination of Residential and Business Customers— $40 - Voice&Internet $30 - Triple Play Service $20 Voice Only (Local+LD) Provider NPV Internet Only ($MM) $10 - Video Only $0 (renting UTOPIA head-end) ($10) 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Service Provider Customers (Year 10) Note: Based on proposed service UTOPIA service charges as of September 2003 plan 054,01-13-02,UTPDYNO1A.ppt np, DEAN&COmIrANY Proprietary Restricted 10 pact2,10-20-03UTPDYN01Appt kaL P mew1 I .— MO Me 1111 I V MINI OW ir INN UTOPIA service providers are likely to price their packages similar to other triple- play overbuilders Price Comparisons —Triple Play Packages— $180.00 $160.00 - $140.00 - $120.00 - ' Price $100.00 - ' per , , Month $80.00 - $60.00 - 1 $40.00 - $20.00 - ' $0.00 • . . . . , Basic Mid Premium Full Super Totally Totally ResiLink ResiLink Basic Mid Premium Circuit Charged Wired Wired Gold Platinum Y__J Plus J UTOPIA Service Providers Everest RCN Sure West B Basin ktEid, •" tttit. • "t Ftd1 Citctdt Charged. .r Totally Wite� ,Platinu t Gold„ Basle MId ,?tenth ai. hiee $ 82.05 119.45 $ 153.48' $ 79.95 $ 99.95 129.95' $ 149.95 $ 165.00 $ 133.00 $ 99.95' $ 119.95 $ 139.95 rood Phone, 1 line 1 line 2 lines 1 line 1 line 1 line 1 line 2 lines 1 line 1 line 1 line 1 line p'eatttoes..,..• 3 3 6 0 6 11 11 4 3 4;6 10,voice 10,voice additional or mail mail voice mail Ll3-PreeMantes 100 150 120 100 100 100 Baste Cable Channels "" . 70+ 70+ 70+ 70+ 81,2 boxes 81,1 box tal Cable Channels ' 100 150 150 40+ 40+ 40+ 40+ 35 35 150 180 230+ 10 M/SiC7-1.TMiSec, l.ntaka;@t 1M 10G/Mo. 20G/Mo. 256K 1.5M 3M 3M 3M 3M 10M 10M 10M Source: UTOPIA Model,Company websites and representatives 127,01-13-03,lfTPDVNO1A.ppt jrb,ats2 DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 11 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYNO1Appt kaL 11 3' Households in the highest spending quintile spend 2x more on telecom services than those in the fifth quintile, with data and voice spending driving the majority of variation. This allows UTOPIA service providers to target heavy-spending customers offering high margins. Relative Bill Size by Quintile — UTOPIA Region —For Those Who Buy Service— $160 - $146.31 $140 - $33.22 $120 - $113.68 IMINAR $100 4 .';"''a $24.77 1--__ ; � Average=$98.49 MIN SFr„; g ,;;:, �,-,=,%a $88.16 'ss%'t„'ssr%n�'s's:j,s,, � 1 e 'S�•`"�'F<"€'�€i..•.'." �i€;r.€€EE's ssI's%r'slsll'ss„r'ss Monthly `$80 - :, I ==,=i;,,.,;;;:;-;;:�;, Spending per :,S"l,is i ,,>;/�,`� . #,;: t;s o ol 's s sFll€ €€<% ply p F'f'ssf3,3's.f;sf3 F,3:`. �,%'sssssrss'l' %lssF�s FF `i F F"" �� $16.82 Household } :Fl sl4rF1':,l'sss, :s� MI tit L' £3:a '•`` >€€"F l€,,€';' s 14 $12.35 Internet « `?"; > _` ;;sue. 'ss's�''�i'ssss ;� f ;s ;;s s.€" � ;1€k'`�'.^;Y•3 ':r,"' €£€9€€€•€€; sssi'sr'::€F;, r�,€M 'tii �,.;.3•�• ?%%'s's $ €;,,€,,U�,, �) :• . .,,��<�<<,;;€:., Phone ;.�'i€F Y'�kE€€;z€iF s/ �.1�,> '"Fss .Ei€;E§ss%sssrFs%%',.;',F�;;, $52.89 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;;F is ,t5, .,hv.,,.,... $20 - $41.25 $32.95 $26.78 $27.25 Cable $0 1 Quintile: 1 2 3 4 5 Percentage •Internet 94% 76% 77% 61% 40% of people •Phone 100% 99% 98% 97% 74% who take «Cable 67% 76% 71% 49% 7% Service Source: UTOPIA survey m,,o,-O-U-O3.UDVNo,n.pp,nf kaL &COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 12 padc2,,0-20-03,UTPDYNO,A.ppt kaL p y • MB all DIN MO 11111111 .- r r rr Or r NIB MINI it r ii sr ass an as as r NIB grill r I Agenda • Overview • Demand Benchmarks • Cost Benchmarks • Sensitivities & Scenarios _agenda,l0-20-03,UTPDYN01A.ppt sbg, pack2,f0-20-03,lJrPDYN01Appt kaL DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 13 UTOPIA's projected cost for network operations is comparable to other operators Network Operating Expense Comparison — NOC + Field -$ per Home Passed— $7 - $6 - $5.29 $5.00 $5 - $4.43 $ per Home $4 - -$4.00 Passed per $3.62 :, Month $3 - $2 - $1 - , • $0 ' , .. t ' ' UTOPIA Typical MSO RCN Altrio Qwest (2008) Honied 285K 750K per system 1,750K 35K —25MM Businesses Passed Note: NOC costs include asset management,headend,co-location and interconnect expenses.Field expenses include field maintenance and electronics maintenance Source: Utopia Cost&Revenue model 09/03;Company statements,Dean&Company research 021,10-20-03,rrPDYNOtA.ppt sbg,ats2 DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 14 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYNO1A Apt kaL p 1110 IIIIIII OM UM 111111 fill SIN MIS INN all a MI SIN Oa MIN AI IIIIIII wok ... — 11111114a1111111 as — S MI — r 111 all OM 11111111 MO of e r UTOPIA's planned fiber construction costs are consistent with our experience Fiber Construction Costs —Benchmarks— Aerial Fiber Underground Fiber $40 - $300 - $37 $34 $264 $32 $250 - $30 - $200 $200 - $177 • $/Mile $/Mile (000s) $20 $17 (O0Os) $150 $102 $100 - $93 $80 $10 - $50 - $0 $0 t Public Utility UTOPIA Beltway Cable Public Utility Seattle, Palo Alto UTOPIA TCS Beltway District Cable Overbuilder District Washington Commun- Cable Telecommunications Services Telecomin- ications Services Study unications Study 003,0530-03,UTPDYNO1A.ppt DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 15 pack2,f0-20-03,UrPDYNOfA.ppt kaL P UTOPIA's projections for total capital cost per subscriber are in the range of other broadband and fiber network overbuilds Capital Cost Comparison -Distribution, Core,NOC,NIU- $10,000 - $9,000 - A Actual Build Costs $8,000 - $7,000 - Everest • Planned Build Costs HFC —o— UTOPIA Plan $6,000 Chilicloam • n �r...0 .356RA05555555 .. Telephone ' $5,000 - Y `T.A Hometown,Morris MN Palo Alto TTH Capital Cost $4,000 - • P A per Ashland,OR UTOPIA Plan Subscriber RCN Eagle BB A Palo Alto (Log Scale) $3,000 - FTTH A Murray Electric IA Harlan, A HFC American, ltttztorvit,PA ■ Broadband F7i1 • $2,000 - HFC $cotthorp,AL HFC A Corning Estimate ■ PITH in Nero Housing Development $1,000 I I 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Penetration—Subs per Home Passed Note: Palo Alto costs include core network and subscriber drops but not headend Capital cost per subscriber defined as cumulative capital expenditures over installed subscriber base Source: UTOPIA Business Model,Palo Alto business case,company websites ooe,lo-2o-03,UTPovNolA.ppt DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted pack2.1a20-o3„07DYNolAppt kaL P Y 16 • M� _ i r! all r N Mt 111 — — — — — — 111111111111111111 SIN 11111. 1111111 Mlle SIMI NMI NS II MI MN ONO SIN SIN lila 111111114011111111 UTOPIA's build-out rate appears to be achievable Build-Out Rate Benchmarks 2,000,000 - 1,800,000 - • • RCN (includes 1,600,000 - acquisitions in • years 4&5) 1,400,000 - 1,200,000 - Homes l,000,000 - Passed 800,000 - • Altrio-plan 600,000 - • ■400,000 - • UTOPIA-plan H ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 200,000 - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Years Of Operations 018,10-20-03,UTPDYN01A.ppt JTS,ats3 DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 17 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYNOIA ppt kaL p y Total FTTH deployments appear to be roughly split between Active/Ethernet vs Passive/ATM FTTH Deployments -2002- Active Passive/PON 80-l 00K 10-20K • Grant County-WA(ZIPP) • Palo Alto Utility-Palo Alto,CA • WIN-Sacramento-CA(includes HFC drops) • Lyse Tele-Norway Ethernet/ • Fastweb-Italy IP • B2-Sweden • Competisys-American Canyon/CA <10K 40-60K • Few • Bell South-Dunwoody,GA(trial) • Blair Tel.-NE • Rye Tel-Colorado City,CO • NexTech-KA ATM • Itex Communications-TX • Baldwin Telecom-WI • Bristol Utilities-VA • Hometown Solutions-Morris,MN • Kutztown,PA • SBC-Mission Bay,CA Source: Dean&Company Analysis,KMI estimates 091,01-13-03,1lTPDYN01A.ppt np, DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary 18 pack2,7420-0.?,UTPDYNOfA.ppt kaL p ary Restricted ■w 111114.0111 A ON ONO ONO BM MI ig r r i ON ON MIIllO _ r 11, Active fiber Ethernet solutions have the advantage of support by established suppliers, including Cisco FTTH Technology Suppliers —Partial List— APON EPON A-Active E-Active • New • AllOptic / • One Path / • Optical Solutions / • E • Paceon / • Quantum Bridge / • Salira / • Terawave / ✓ • WWP / • :: °:cess st V ,• • , • Extreme Networks Resolution into a stable market likely to wait until RBOCs begin Leverages existing Established large scale deployment metro-optical • NEC Illuminant ✓ equipment markets E • Nortel ✓ v `' E • Cisco / • Pirelli / • Lucent ✓ / , • Alcatel / ✓ • Marconi ✓ F 6 . - -.....M..,. r.<.&... .., ... .,.w..nw., 103,01-13-03,1f1PDYN01A.ppt np, DEAN COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 19 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYNO1Appf kaL p Y Agenda • Overview • Demand Benchmarks • Cost Benchmarks • Sensitivities & Scenarios _agenda,l0-20-03,UTPDYNO1A.ppt sbg, pad2,10-20-03,UTPDYNO1Appt kaL DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 20 • • M INS MO OM — — NIS INN 111111141111111 MI ON MO MB M all 11 M M i OM V i 1111111411111 N The business case is most sensitive to pricing, but a downside outcome on the primary areas of risk do not threaten the overall ability to cover debt levels Downside Sensitivities on Key Risks —Base Case: Minimum Cash Balance$1.1MM,Debt Coverage 1.52— Minimum Debt Driver Base Case Sensitivity Tested Coverage1 • Non-recurring revenue $179/HH • 50%Recovery 1.45 — (Premise wiring&other) • Service Price Erosion 0% • 20%decrease'04-'06 1.28 • Permanent 20%decrease in 2004 1.15 • Churn Residential 16% • 25%(Res.),20%(Bus.) 1.39 Business 9% • Usage-tiered internet Grows from approx$18/mo. • Cap at$22/mo. 1.33 service pricing to$36/mo.by year 10 (current 20Gbt usage rate) k • Electronics Lifecycle 4 to 11 years • Capped at 7 years 1.49 Replacement CapEx • Network OpEx $4.43/HP/Month • $5.30/HP/Month 1.45 (At high end of comparables) • Slower Take Rate • 1 year delay in take rates 1.38 ., .u,.,.H......W....... �....... .,,�...,n. .,.aw., .... ..r..,,,,�.....,,....,...,,aw�w..Wr,....uN., w..,+ .. A.�r,.w...,,,.. ...<..................a...N... .,............. .....,... ..u,.�N.w ., ,»,.Y�„ 1 Relative to base case debt obligations-worst year oos,,o-zo o3,urPovNo,n.pp,sue, DEAN&Colvwr tr v Proprietary Restricted 21 Incumbents frequently respond to overbuilders by cutting price and escalating marketing efforts Competitive Response Mnuicipatityf ; , • . .• . , „ ,., • , • , PoRticai• Upgraded No -overbwlder , <•:Conpettrs), Lowere± ates; :'', ,,, ,;,; ,,; ; ';, ;;;,;; , ai# tirig Lobbying :,Network ' ,.,: ,;Action Altrio Adelphia 50%discounts •$200 incentives x Charter •Loyalty bonus of every third month free SBC Verizon Ashland OR Charter Communications 25%lower •Went door-to-door right before AFN came through •Instant installs Astound AT&T Broadband • Special customer service centers to dissuade customers from cancelling Pacific Bell service Qwest Charter Communications Bristol,VA Charter Communications x Cedar Falls,L4 Charter Communications Lowered rates •Expanded services TCI Communications (14%lower than national average) Coldwater,MI Lowered rates to •Eliminated monthly fees for additional outlets x $5/month •Eliminated franchise fee pass through •Added additional channels Everest Time Warner 20%lower •$200 incentive to return(more if write a testimonial) x Communications •50%discount for signing up for 1 year SBC •Invested in marketing efforts •Incumbent monopolizes terrestrially delivered programming&won't sell local regional sports network Glasgow,EY Comcast Cable x Purchased by Glasgow Plant Board Grande AT&T Lowered rates by Communications Time Warner $16—$28/month Harlan,L4 TCI Communications 17%lower •Expanded basic package x ($20 lower than •Expanded offerings(compressed digital service) surrounding areas) %nology Comcast Predatory Pricing • Selling blocks of long distance x x BellSouth Charter Communications LaGrange,GA Charter Communications Joint Venture • Bell South Newnan,GA Charter Communications •$300 to switch x x • RCN Cable Vision 10-15%lower •Threatened contractors working with RCN,leading contractors to charge Verizon higher prices Scottsboro,AL Charter Communications 50%-66%lower •Offered$200 to SEPB customers who switch CATV (predatory pricing) •"Amnesty Program":forgave SEPB customers'old debts to Falcon or Charter Sure West Pacific Bell •SBC is bundling 4 services(DBS,LD/Local,DSL/Dial-up,wireless) AT&T Broadband • Tacoma,WA AT&T Broadband 20%lower •Funded reports about Click's lack of success x WOW Comcast 50%discount •Free PPV • •Free digital upgrade 099,01-13A3,lrrPDYN01A.ppt JTS,kaLt DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 22 pack2,10-20-03,UrPDYNOIA.ppt kaL P • Y I 11111111111111 MI +r - - MI NIB INIr 11111 MI INS aIM SIN 111111111111 11111 r 111111e — — — as — r r ter — s 11111 asire UTOPIA's churn assumptions are on the low end of the benchmark range; an escalated level of competition with Qwest and Comcast may result in higher levels Churn Benchmarks —Residential— Monthly Average Churn Monthly Churn Over Time 8% - 2.5% 2.40% Cable 7% -5%-8% 2.10% 2.0% 2.00° 6% - 2.00% 1.70% DirecTV 5% - 1.5% Utopia Base Case ___ A EchoStar Churn - Churn (Residential) 1.20% 1.25% 1 •0 1.50% Rate 4% Rate •--'"' -_ • %) o' 1.0% 1.00% 1.10% 0 ° - 2%-3%2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.4% 4MG% o Utopia Base Case 2% - — — 1.7% 0 0.80/o (Business) 1.5/o ] 4% 1.2% 0.5% 0.60% 1% - s<rit oal 0 0 0% i i i 1 0.0%Digital Earthlink/ AT&T LD Direct TV Utopia 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Cable' AOL Base Case (Residential) CLECs Wireless Cable EchoStar Typical RBOC (pre-competition) Monopoly 015,10-20-03,UTPDYNOlA.ppt ini,np1 �a2o°3 uraorno�appr�� DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 23 We have tested "worst case scenarios" that combine the downside risks on some or all key factors. The economic viability for the project holds up across all cases. Scenario Overview Escalated Competitive Combined Escalated Base Case Assumptions Downside ' Res onse Response& p Assumptions Downside • Demand Assumptions — Price Erosion — None — None — 20%temporary('04-'06) — 20%temporary('04-'06) — Premise Wiring Revenue — $179/HH — $179/HH — $90/HH — $90/HH — Chum — 16%(Res.)9%(Bus.) — 16%/9% — 25%/20% — 25%/20% • Cost Assumptions — Network OpEx — $4.43/HP/mo — $5.30/HP/mo — $4.43/HP/mo — $5.30/HP/mo — Electronics Replacement — 4 to 11 years — Cap at 7 years — 4 to 11 years — Cap at 7 years — Usage-tiered Internet Pricing — Average per sub grows — Cap at$22/mo. — Base Case view — Cap at$22/mo. to$36/mo by yr 10 • Key Financials(6%interest rate) — Minimum Debt Coverage 1.52 1.25 1.06 0.95 (worst year) — Average Debt Coverage 1.93 1.53 1.78 1.35 (through year 10) oto,tazao-O3 L1r vNoln.ppt sbg, DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted pack2,fo-20-03,UrPDYNOfA.ppt�r P Y 24 - _. i MINI as IIIIII MI IIIIII a Ell Mil MI SIN Ole MIS 11111111111/1111 MIN — 11111111401111 — — MI all NM rrIII MI MN NMI NMI ON NM r MIN The financial case is robust — nearly all scenarios provide sufficient cash flow to cover debt service expenses UTOPIA Business Case — Scenario Analysis $120 - Operating Cash Flow' Base Case $100 - i' Escalated Competitive Response i i i' $80 - �' Assumptions Downside .... �� i - Combined ' i i $60 - ' $MM ����� i jDebt Service Expense- $40 - // , Base Case i / i i $20 - i/, ,010/ , , $0 - I I I I I I I 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ($20) - Year 1 OCF includes expected interest income on unused bond proceeds Source: Utopia 09/26/03 Business Plan,Dean&Company analysis oosa,,o-zo oa,urPDvNo,app a,s DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 25 pack2,,o-20-0.4,UTPDYNotAppt RaL P Y • Under "worst case" scenarios UTOPIA may need to slow construction or increase the size of the second bond by $30-50 million to maintain a positive cash balance Cumulative Cash Required —Net of Operating Cash Flow— $350 - $300 - $30-50M ——/ "'--. �—�• Higher Funding / r—— \ Assumptions Downside $250 - Requirement - -I_- // �� /// `\ -/ \ $200 - -— Escalated Competitive $MM Response $150 - Base Case $100 - $50 - $0 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Year Source: Utopia 09/26/03 Business Plan,Dean&Company analysis sssa,10-20-o3,1.1rPovNo1appc ats, DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 26 pack2,10-20-03,UTPDYNOIAppf kaL P , rY On any r r i an a. MI - .... MI OM r IIIIIII 1111111 Mill SIN 1111110111111 SIN INS NM NIS EN III NM ION INN MI NIS MN 1111141111 11111 Summary— Continued • While not without risk, the feasibility of UTOPIA is robust, and the plan is well-structured to create and capture value from the proposed investment • Managing the execution of the project should key on two additional areas of leverage... — Managing execution risks (e.g. contractor performance, construction & engineering methods, etc.) via a staged build-out process — Starting with a small-test cell on the order of 100 homes passed — Expanding to a stage-two build-out pace, and then ramping up to a full-speed build — Monitoring and adjusting efficiency and effectiveness metrics at each stage — Strategic focus on several factors that are key to maximizing the economic value created by the project — Capitalize fully on perceived Local/Community advantage in marketing UTOPIA-based services — Recruit providers of unique FTTH-intensive applications to differentiate UTOPIA from Comcast and Qwest broadband capabilities, e.g. telecommuting, entertainment-on-demand, gaming,home networking . . . — Strong focus on serving the business community to capture the productivity benefits of fiber- broadband. UTOPIA's sponsors should develop an integrated economic development plan around the benefits of a fiber infrastructure 717,01-13-0.3,UI'PDVN01A.ppt t k DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted pada 10-zao3,UrPDYNOfAppr kaL P Y 27 Proactive management of complementors is necessary to turn network investment into real value creation. Jumpstarting Value —Broadband Economic Development— A Pro-active 0 Community • Broadband-enabled Strategy Required centers of excellence — Telemedicine — Software • Tele-work development • In-region e- • Net Value commerce • Creation • e-government — Employment • e-education — Wages • New Services • e-health — Home Value — High Speed • e-utilities — Quality of Life Internet • 4 - - — Digital cable • Shift of local • Price/quality competition commerce and taxes • Choice of providers out of region via e- commerce • Net employment loss _ in Incumbent service providers Broadband Highway Broadband Service Zone Broadband Village Broadband Corridor Out-of-Town (Individual Subscriber (Regionally Optimized) (Export-Led) Optimized) Network/Community Effects ► 038,09-04-02,MKTUlP01L.ppt sbg,nml DEAN&COMPANY Proprietary Restricted 28 pack2,10-20-03,UrPDYN01Appt kaL p y • • r r r it r r r r r r r r rr rt r r r r I I. UTOPIA Feasibility Study Part II: Financial Analysis I 1 1 ; .. ! •;C;1) Mkt I 1 I i Prepared by DynamicCity Metronet Advisors 380 S. 400 W. 114. Lindon, UT 84042 (801)443-6500 (phone) IP Dynamic( I i (801)443-6501 (fax) MetroN et Advisors November 4, 2003 t I IDTable of Contents 1. OVERVIEW 4 I 1.1. FEASIBILITY DEFINED 4 1.2. FEASIBILITY SHARED 4 1.2.1. Infrastructure 5 1.2.2. Service Providers 6 I 1.2.3. Financing 6 2. THE UTOPIA MARKET:SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS 8 2.1. MARKET POTENTIAL 8 I 2.2. BENCHMARKING 9 3. KEY SERVICE FEATURES 12 I 3.1. VOICE SERVICES 12 3.2. VIDEO SERVICES 12 3.3. DATA SERVICES 12 3.4. THE TRIPLE PLAY 13 4. REVENUES 14 4.1. RETAIL PRICING 14 I 4.2. WHOLESALE REVENUES AND CASH FLOW 14 4.3. AVERAGE REVENUE PER USER 16 5. SYSTEM COSTS 17 III5.1. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES(CAPEX) 17 5.1.1. Outside Plant Construction 18 5.1.2. Intercity Connections 20 I 5.1.3. Electronics 20 5.1.4. Civil Engineering 20 5.1.5. Procurement&Implementation Services 21 5.1.6. Subscriber Connections 21 I 5.1.7. Electronics depreciation/replacement 22 5.1.8. Churn 23 5.1.9. Reimbursables 24 I 5.1.10. Cost per User 24 5.2. OPERATING EXPENSES(OPEX) 25 5.2.1. NODC Services 25 5.2.2. UTOPIA Point of Presence(UPOP)and Head End 25 I 5.2.3. Field Maintenance 25 5.2.4. Electronics Maintenance 26 5.2.5. Co-location Fees 27 I 5.2.6. Interconnect 27 5.2.7. Miscellaneous 27 5.3. DEBT SERVICE 27 5.4. A FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE SYSTEM 28 6. NEXT STEPS 30 6.1. PROCUREMENTS 30 :ID 6.2. SERVICE PROVIDER CONTRACT 30 6.3. FIRST BOND/FIRST BUILD 30 6.4. SUBSEQUENT BONDS/BUILDS 31 6.5. RECOMMENDATIONS 31 I r 1. OVERVIEW The proposed UTOPIA fiber optic Metronet,operated under the Open Service Provider NetworkTM wholesale , transport model,is financially feasible. Results from the various market surveys,presented under separate covers,indicate that UTOPIA has a sufficiently large and interested market base to warrant the proposed undertaking. The application of market potential to proposed wholesale pricing generates revenues for the system which,when compared with costs,reveal a positive cash flow after the network is fully operational. Subsequent sections of this report provide details of the take rates,costs,and revenues potentially achievable over the network,but the following table provides an interesting overview of the critical variables affecting the feasibility analysis. UTOPIA Metronet Overview Public support for Municipal involvement in network 71% Fiber path:total distance 20.3 million ft. 52%aerial, Fiber distribution 48%buried Total potential subscribers 286 thousand I Assumed Take rates(yr.10) 55% Wholesale revenue per subscriber(yr.7) $61 Cost per household passed $1171 OpEx Cost(including debt)per subscriber(yr.7) $43 Total Bond $543 million Assumed Interest rate/term 6%/20 yrs. Cum.Free Cash Flow(yr.10) $98 million I 1.1.FEASIBILITY DEFINED In undertaking this study,we defined feasibility to mean the ability of the system to be self-sustaining. In other words,the question to be answered is,'Does the system generate sufficient revenues on its own to cover all of its costs?"While that remains the critical question,we must clarify that the only valid and logical answer to that question comes from a system-wide perspective rather than from an analysis of single cities as independent entities.There are several reasons why it would be impractical to try to answer that question on a city-by-city basis. I 1.2.FEASIBILITY SHARED Despite the fact that this feasibility study could not be completed without a careful scrutiny of the characteristics and numbers from each independent member of UTOPIA,the proper analysis of feasibility in the UTOPIA setting is of the system as a whole,not of individual cities by themselves. Where appropriate to do so,this report separates out information for individual cities. However,the shared nature of certain elements of the proposed system do not lend themselves to analysis of cities as stand-alone entities. These shared aspects fall into three broad categories:Infrastructure,Service Provisioning,and Financing. r 1.2.1. Infrastructure Infrastructure refers to the physical components of the system:fiber,electronics,software,and so on. Several components of the infrastructure can and must be leveraged across all participating cities. Without sharing this infrastructure,cities in the UTOPIA network would take on large and unnecessary construction burdens,not to mention the ongoing operations and management overhead associated with each. The most notable shared components of the UTOPIA Metronet are listed below. M 1.2.1.1. UTOPIA Point of Presence(UPOP) A UTOPIA Point of Presence is a type of staging arena,a facility wherein service providers can co- locate their equipment and prepare their signals/services to be delivered across the Metronet. The ' facility must provide connectivity,security,accessibility,and more,and must be large enough to accommodate additional service providers as the system matures. Only one such facility is needed to service the entire UTOPIA community.Costs for this facility are thus shared and allocated to the Metronet rather than to individual cities. 1.2.1.1. Video Head End A video head end is a facility that houses receiving and transmission equipment required to provide video programming across the network.A single head end can serve much more than a single city:it has the capacity to serve all 18 existing UTOPIA communities and many more. Because of this capacity,it doesn't make fiscal sense for each individual municipality to build its own head end. Instead,UTOPIA will assume the responsibility and cost for constructing and operating a head end. As a result,those costs are not factored into an individual city's financial analysis:rather,they are absorbed in the analysis of UTOPIA as a whole. 1.2.1.3. NODC The UTOPIA network requires a Network Operations and Dispatch Center(NODC)to manage its operations. As was true for the head end,a single NODC can serve all 18 current UTOPIA cities and mote. Again,it doesn't make sense to budget the cost for constructing and operating individual,city- specific NODCs. Instead,NODC costs are accounted for in the feasibility analysis of the UTOPIA system as a whole. 1.2.1.4. BSS/OSS The Business Support Systems and Operations Support Systems(BSS/OSS)are highly sophisticated and costly systems that track service and provisioning requests,handle billing,monitor bandwidth usage and generate logs,and so on. These systems will address the needs of the network as a whole, and their costs are amortized based on the number of cities they service,which will increase over Itime. Therefore,associated costs are applied to the network in general,rather than to specific cities. 1.2.1.5. Intercity Links Cites must be connected to each other in order to share services,management,and other distributed functionality as described above. Costs for connecting cities to each other include fiber,labor,and miscellaneous components. An individual city will be tied into the UTOPIA network via its links to 116 its various neighbors,yet these links are not actually part of the City's network,proper they are part of the"overhead"of building the UTOPIA infrastructure.Despite the essential nature of these interconnections,their costs cannot be allocated to a single or a specific city. Instead,they are shared across the Metronet as a whole and are included in the overall analysis of UTOPIA. 1.2.1.6. Core , Each city in UTOPIA is designed such that it has a core—a central part of the Network handling the aggregated traffic or Metro Hub. Individual subscriber lines feed into the core from the various neighborhoods throughout the city. Because of the high costs of the high-capacity core switches,the network design maximizes the use of those switches. Unfortunately,municipal boundaries do not necessarily follow the same logical layout a fiber optic network follows.A neighborhood in one UTOPIA city may actually be closer to the core of a neighboring city than to the core of its own. In such cases,it makes sense to connect those neighborhoods to the closest Metro Hub,even though it may not be in their own city. As a rule, then,network costs must be analyzed from a broader perspective. 1.2.2. Service Providers The second major factor precluding a city-based feasibility analysis is the challenge of providing services. This challenge is intricately tied to the method of financing the system: 1. Telecommunications infrastructure does not offer the traditional collateral investors prefer. Instead,the collateral offered for financing the system is really the revenue stream the system can generate.The revenue stream is purely a function of the services offered across the network. I 2. To mitigate their investment risk,potential bondholders want to see the UTOPIA network delivering services from providers with a proven track record of success.Typically,these are larger,established organizations with significant name-brand recognition.While smaller,leaner service providers might potentially be just as successful as their high-profile counterparts,they do not inspire investors the same way. 3. These larger,established organizations are interested in servicing markets that provide them adequate returns on their own investments:they want a subscriber base that is capable of generating profit. I 4. Individual cities,by themselves,do not have populations(potential subscriber base)of sufficient size to meet the financial requirements of these service providers.As a result,they will be unsuccessful in attracting them,and thus,will not be able to inspire the confidence investors need to make financing available at reasonable interest rates. While individual cities don't have populations sufficiently large to offset setup and operations costs for would-be tier-one providers,they each contribute to the total population of the UTOPIA network in aggregate. UTOPIA,as a whole,has a combined population base that is,in fact,attractive to the types of service providers potential bond purchasers require. In calculating feasibility,then,we must •� consider UTOPIA as a whole,and we do so by drawing from the revenue potential from each city individually,then aggregating them in the feasibility analysis of the system as a whole. 1.2.3. Financing , The final major consideration in determining the feasibility of UTOPIA is the financing. The terms (interest rates,payback schedules,etc.)of the loans used to fund the network are critical components of the overall financial analysis of the project.Since financing for the UTOPIA project is tied to projected revenues rather than to collateral,bond underwriters and bond purchasers place heavy 1 I emphasis on the strength of the service providers whose marketing efforts will actually generate the revenue.The stronger the service provides,the less the perceived risk in the project and,therefore, 1 the better the interest rates UTOPIA is able to negotiate.A tier-one service provider—one with national and international recognition and an extended track record of success—improves the feasibility of the UTOPIA project. Under the current UTOPIA model,cities will not need to raise or provide the capital to construct the network within their boundaries. UTOPIA,as an organization,is arranging the financing for the project as a whole. Therefore,financing terms are not broken out on a city-by-city basis;instead,they are distributed across the whole. In summary,then,we emphasize that the definition of feasibility(a self-sustaining system),while valid for UTOPIA as a whole,does not apply to cities independently.Where reasonable,city data appear herein to illustrate how each contributes to the success of the UTOPIA Metronet,but the focus is generally on UTOPIA as a whole. 1111 I I I r I 2. THE UTOPIA MARKET:SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS41/1 Given the inherent benefits of such a network,the primary concern is not one of intrinsic value,but of , perceived value.One of the primary questions motivating this feasibility study is,"If we build it,will they come?" Over the course of several months,three separate market surveys were conducted for member cities of UTOPIA. The first survey,conducted in Box Elder County,provided data for Brigham City and Tremonton. The second survey encompassed all remaining UTOPIA cities except for Salt Lake City.The final market survey addressed the Salt Lake market alone.DynamicCity delivered the results of these comprehensive market surveys previously in both written and oral formats. In each case,the surveys indicate a suitable market for the proposed Metronet.Furthermore,the projected take rates derived from the results of these surveys provide values for the variables of potential costs and revenues for the Metronet. While it is not practical to repeat all the findings of those studies in this report,it is worthwhile to summarize the most significant findings below as reference points for other discussions that follow. 2.1.MARKET POTENTIAL DynamicCity commissioned primary research surveys of both the business and residential markets throughout 1 the 18 cities of UTOPIA.Strategy Research Institute(SRI),an independent market research firm,conducted the surveys using scientifically valid methods.Taking all three studies as a whole,we find that 3,684 respondents were randomly selected to participate in the surveys:2,795 individuals represented the residential market segment and 889 individuals represented the business/commercial market segment.. The most significant data point derived from the surveys is the`likely market penetration"rate for the UTOPIA network. These penetration rates,or"take rates"as they are also referred to,represent one of the key variables in calculating cost and revenue:how many connections and pieces of equipment will UTOPIA have to provide,and how much revenue will those connections generate. The surveys identified a range of potential take rates and specified where,in that range,the likely take rate falls.The table below shows likely take rates for each of the cities individually and highlights UTOPIA's averages. la! .111 I I 1 I Penetration Rates RESIDENTIAL MARKET BUSINESS MARKET Sample #of Likely Sample Likely Member City Size Households Population Market Size Population Market Tremonton N=36 1,808 5,592 71-76% N=36 369 70-74% I Roy N=101 11,027 32,885 I 66-73% N=32 877 51-54% Lindon N=101 1,977 8,363 66-71% N=30 527 72-79% Centerville N=100 4,238 14,585 64-70% N=32 269 65-72% Orem N=304 24,156 84,324 61-69% N=100 2,838 61-69%' Layton N=200 19,144 58,474 60-69% N=33 2,435 67-75% Perry N=100 786 2,383 60-66% N=28 51 88-92% PaysonUTOPIA N-795 249,027 723,933 59-66% Ne889 34,580. 61-68% I 9City - _.. _..__.. 3,869 12,716 69-64% N-31 4371 94 66-73% Brigham N-92 5,840 17,411 68-65% N=39 494 69-75% Cedar Hills N=101 1,701 3,094 68-65% N=14 83 100% I Taylorsville N=202 19,163 57,439 58-65% N=51 1,675 48-55% Midvale N=100 10,729 27,029 57-65% N=51 1,601 70-75% Cedar City N=107 7,134 20,527 57-65% N=50 1,223 56-66% I Riverton N=101 6,594 25,011 67-63% N=30 690 64-73 Murray N=101 13,303 34,024 56-63% N=100 2,577 50-57% Salt Lake City N=645 77,016 181,743 56-62% N=102 13,893 53-60% I South Jordan N=101 7,763 29,437 56-61% N=30 701 56-63 West Valley N=202 33,463 108,896 49-56% N=100 3,906 54-63% ID 2.2.BENCHMARKING As explained in the full market analysis reports,the UTOPIA surveys collected data indicating. 1. the potential market size of each community,or the maximum penetration rates achievable,based on II all positive responses to the questions in the surveys,and 2. the likely take rates,which are a conservatively discounted sub-set of the total who responded positively to the survey questions. 1 Because feasibility for the Metronet is determined by looking at all the communities together,we blended residential and business figures and averaged take rates across the system as a whole.For the UTOPIA Metronet as a whole,the average potential take rate is projected to be 69%•However,to be conservative in I our revenue projections,we used the average likely take rates instead of the potential take rates. Since the Metronet will take 3-4 years to build,the number of subscribers will grow as the system is deployed. We assumed a starting rate of 5%the first year and projected that rate gradually up to the maximum of 55%at year I 10. To determine the reasonableness of the empirically derived projected take rate,we compared the UTOPIA I findings with other projects across the country and found our projections to be in the mid-range of the historical performance of these other systems.The result of this exercise is displayed in the graphs below. Although UTOPIA's business model is unique,customer demand for telecommunications in general is still a II quantifiable metric that compares favorably across systems and business models. As the graphs below indicate, UTOPLk's projected take rates fall well within the range of actual performance from similar projects in both the municipal environment(public entities offering retail or wholesale services)and the overbuilder lenvironment(private entities offering services). r I I Municipal Networks:Take rates over timedi 80% 70% Scottsboro,Al Ceder Fells,IA ' 60% Newnan,GA 50% edma, YA Palo Ana UTOPIA A buneyl Base Case a, 40% Ashland.OR Glasgow,KY Tecama,WA 30% 20% 10% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Years Year 10 Overbuilder Networks:Take rates over time I e0% 70% 60% 1 Everest Communication 50 .v. Kilda. RCN unlicoKilda. a, 40 H âPffhITTI 20% 10% G% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 5 Year 7 Year R Year 9 Year 10 (Source:Dean&Company Strategy Consultants,PowerPoint Presentation,December 2002) When measured against the performance of national systems,UTOPLk's projected take rates are conservative. On a local level,the same comparison can be made with the Spanish Fork municipal network and the Provo network. Though each of these local systems has been operational only a short time,the initial take rates and ongoing performance of the systems confirm that UTOPL'i's projections are conservative: I 1 Local Municipal Networks:Take rates over time iiiiiii, II80% 70% Provo City has trial -, Provo City converted to pay 1 80% Spanish Fork Base Case v 40% F 30% 20% 10% 0% Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year B Year 10 Source:Provo City,Spanish Fork City,SRI Survey I Given the survey data and the comparative historical data of other broadband endeavors,UTOPIA's projected take rate of 55%penetration by year 10 is reasonable and likely. 2.3.SUPPORT FOR PUBLICLY OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE 110 The majority of respondents—both business and residential—support the concept of a publicly owned telecommunications infrastructure.The chart below presents an overview of the market survey findings: r50% 47% 1 4056 39% 32 34% 1 30% 20% I 12% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7 I 4% o% Definitely Oppose Probably Oppose Unsure Probably Support Definitely Support I O Support public/private partnership for introducing fiber optic system B Support if system's excess revenues would improve other government services IFurthermore,support for a publicly owned infrastructure increases among respondents if it can be shown that the network will result in enhanced government services. I 1 3. KEY SERVICE FEATURES The UTOPIA Metronet is designed to be an open infrastructure,wholesale system. In essence,this means that UTOPIA will not provide services:it will contract with private service providers to do so.Although the open wholesale model implies that,eventually,many providers will compete in offering a variety of services across the Metronet,UTOPIA initially seeks a single,strong service provider that can play a key role in the launch of the UTOPIA Metronet.The strength of the service provider: 1) helps drive take rates by inspiring consumer confidence 2) improves interest rates on loans as it inspires investor confidence(see section 1.2.2) UTOPIA is cturendy engaged in contract negotiations with a service provider capable of providing these benefits. Because of the sensitive nature of contract negotiations,this document cannot address specific details about the service offerings or their retail pricing.Instead,we provide a generic overview of services potentially available over the network. The physical architecture as well as the business model of the Metronet facilitates delivery of a wide variety of services. Future possibilities include telemedicine,distance education,household security,interactive game playing,and many others. For the purposes of the feasibility study,revenue projections and analyses were limited to the three primary telecommunications services:voice,video,and data.These services may be offered a-la-carte,or they may be bundled together and offered as a package.We refer to the bundled package of all three services as a triple play. I 3.1.VOICE SERVICES Voice services refer to telephone service. The sophistication of the fiber optic network,which makes it attractive to service providers as their infrastructure of choice,is hidden to the consumer. From the consumer's perspective,telephone service will continue in its current,familiar fashion. Though consumers may eventually choose to purchase new telephones with advanced features that can take advantage of new technology,there is no requirement to do so. Telephone service across the UTOPIA Metronet can be delivered to consumers with no change in their end-user phone equipment. 3.2.VIDEO SERVICES Video services refer to television programming services similar to what is delivered today over cable and satellite. Although consumers will need a set top box(provided by UTOPIA)to receive purchased video programming,current television sets will receive and display video signals the same way they do with current delivery services.Consumers will select video programming from their purchased options through an 1 interactive on-screen display just as they do for their current cable or satellite services. 3.3.DATA SERVICES Data services include internet service,and for businesses it also includes other options such as virtual private networks,point-to-point data connections,and more. For the average consumer,internet services will function the same way they currently do. Consumers will have internist connection speeds and data transfer rates available to them over the fiber Metronet that could not be made affordable or possible over other delivery systems.Just as they do now,consumers will contract with Internet Service Providers for these services and connection speeds. 1 I i� 3.4.THE TRIPLE PLAY ' While each of those services is,individually,a potential source of revenue,it is advantageous to offer a bundle of services rather than services a-la-carte. By leveraging overhead costs(administration,marketing,etc.)across three revenue streams instead of one,service providers become more efficient and can pass on savings to consumers. Research from the marketing surveys conducted in UTOPIA indicated that potential subscribers are generally interested in taking more than one service. The table below shows those results: Survey Results: Projected service mix 11 Residential Business All Three Services 46% 2% Phone Only 10% 25% I TV Only 1% 0% Internet Only 5% 48% Phone&Internet 24% 25% I Phone&TV 12% 0% TV&Internet 2% 0% I Voice 92% 52% Video 61% 2% Data 77% 75% I (Source:Strategy Research Institute survey conducted or UTOPIA cities,2002) Displayed graphically,these results can be compared to purchasing patterns for single or bundled services in other systems around the country. The graph below demonstrates that UTOPIA's predicted purchasing patterns are consistent with those of other systems. IConsumer Purchasing of Network Services I 100% Any 1 Any 1 16% 20% A La Carte I 80%- - .— a502 A La Carte Product 60% Bundles A Le Carte Any 2 Any 2 50% ee% 39% 30% I Percent of s0%- Products Sold 11 40%- 3 Try,le Play 2-3 Service 50% Service Bundles 20%- Bundles 50% Bundle 40% 34% p (Source:Dean 8 Company Strategy Consultants,PowerPoint Presentation.December 2002) I 4. REVENUES As noted,for the purposes of this study we define"feasibility"to be the ability of the UTOPIA Metronet ' to be financially self-sustaining revenues must be sufficient to cover costs(capital expenditures,debt service,and operational expenditures).The feasibility analysis reveals that over time,revenues from the services marketed over the UTOPIA Metronet will cover its costs. In other words,the system is feasible. 4.1. RETAIL PRICING I Revenues are a function of the number of subscribers and the pricing of the services they purchase.The number of subscribers forecast for the Metronet is addressed above in section 2.1.The pricing for retail services is set by the individual service providers. For purposes of assessing feasibility,DynamicCity calculated potential revenue for the UTOPIA system using industry average retail pricing for current voice,video,and data services. The current negotiations with potential service providers indicate that such assumptions are valid—their anticipated pricing structure for services falls within the range used in the feasibility study. 4.2.WHOLESALE REVENUES AND CASH FLOW I Similar to retail pricing is the issue of wholesale pricing. UTOPIA,as a wholesale provider,will charge service providers for bandwidth and for access to the infrastructure. Because of current contract negotiations,we cannot provide details of the wholesale pricing at this time.It is important to note,however,that the pricing is consistent with service provider expectations,based on their experience in other markets and with other systems and models. Combining the wholesale pricing assumptions that we derived from these other markets and systems with projected take rates,we were able to determine UTOPIA's potential revenues for the system. Projected revenues constitute the first variable in the equation that assesses financial feasibility.The other variable—cost—is described in subsequent sections of this document. In anticipation of the outcome of those discussions,we first provide the following high-level look at the revenues and cash flow of the UTOPIA system I 1 1111111.11111 IRO INS MT MIS IN 101 OS Mt Projected 10 Year Cash Flows (in millions) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Operating Activities Operating Revenue $ 0.2 $ 13.9 $ 37.9 $ 63.4 $ 73.5 $ 85.5 $ 97.6 $ 109.0 $ 119.3 $ 128.5 Operating Expenses $ (2.2) $ (7.7) $ (13.2) $ (17.9) $ (20.2) $ (21.6) $ (23.3) $ (24.8) $ (25.9) $ (26.2) Net Cash from Operating Activities $ (2.0) $ 6.2 $ 24.7 $ 45.4 $ 53.3 $ 63.9 $ 74.2 $ 84.1 $ 93.4 $ 102.3 Financing Activities Proceeds from Bonds $ 252.0 $ - $ 168.0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Interest Income $ 1.4 $ 2.8 $ 2.2 $ 1.2 $ 0.9 $ 0.9 $ 1.0 $ 1.0 $ 1.1 $ 1.3 Debt Service Expense $ - $ - $ (7.7) $ (31.1) $ (36.0) $ (42.0) $ (45.1) $ (48.9) $ (49.4) $ (49.4) Net Cash from Financing Activities $ 253.4 $ 2.8 $ 162.5 $ (29.9) $ (35.1) $ (41.1) $ (44.1) $ (47.9) $ (48.2) $ (48.1) Net Cash from Financing and Operating $ 251.5 $ 9.0 $ 187.2 $ 15.5 $ 18.2 $ 22.8 $ 30.1 $ 36.3 $ 45.2 $ 54.3 Capital Investment Activities $ (40.3) $ (165.2) $ (173.4) $ (78.5) $ (18.3) $ (17.3) $ (17.8) $ (18.0) $ (23.1) $ (20.0) Free Cash(Cash from Ops&Financing less CAPER) $ 211.2 $ (156.2) $ 13.8 $ (62.9) $ (0.1) $ 5.5 $ 12.3 $ 18.3 $ 22.1 $ 34.3 Cumulative Free Cash $ 211.2 $ 55.0 $ 68.7 $ 5.8 $ 5.7 $ 11.2 $ 23.5 $ 41.8 $ 63.9 $ 98.2 Standard Debt Coverage - - 3.50 1.50 1.51 1.54 1.67 1.74 1.92 2.10 Average Annual Debt Coverage - - 1.83 1.24 1.17 1.40 1.63 1.85 2.05 2.24 4.3.AVERAGE REVENUE PER USER S' Wholesale revenues are effectively analyzed by breaking them down into a metric called the average revenue t per user(ARPU). Based on the three primary services described above,the ARPU is a single number that blends a variety of variables and service categories including: • Residential and business subscribers • %taking voice,%taking video,%taking data • Line counts,channel counts,data speeds,etc. It is critical to note that the ARPU is presented in terms of wholesale dollars:it reflects the average amount of money UTOPIA will collect from service providers for each customer taking services across the system.As with other aspects of the UTOPIA feasibility model,the ARPU scales over time:it is higher in latter years than it is in early years because the demand for data services continues to increase and users upgrade service packages.In calculating revenue,we used wholesale prices that were validated by service providers,and we factored in the growth patterns of services to derive monthly averages for each year. The chart below presents a snapshot of three key years in the development of the UTOPIA Metronet: Average Wholesale Revenue per User $76 $69.58 $$pp Premise Wring $61.33 $3.80 UTOPIA Access $68.06 $1.81 Premise vmrmg $3.55 UTOPIA Access $7.86 Premise wring $50 $3.27 UTOPIA Access $37.32 Dala $29.31 oara 1 $21.51 oara „ $25 $12.63 Video $13.23 Video $13.83 Video $12.80 Voice $13.44 Voice $13.84 Voice $0 Year 4 Year 7 Year 10 Note:Average revenue uses a blend of the following inputs:o Residential and business subscribers o %taking voice,%taking video,%taking data o Line counts,channel counts,data speeds The ARPU is useful in comparing revenue to costs over the life of the system. I 111111d 5. SYSTEM COSTS AlSystem costs can be broken into three major categories:capital expenditures(costs associated with building and maintaining the system),operational expenses(costs associated with managing the system),and bond payments. Each of these categories is addressed in subsequent sections of this document. I5.1.CAPITAL EXPENDITURES(CAPEXI Cost calculations for capital expenditures are heavily dependent on the network design:where the fiber will be laid and how much will be used;how many switches or pieces of electronic equipment will be needed;etc. Using GIS data provided by each city,we mapped out fiber paths to each residential and commercial building in each city,identifying actual lengths and distances fiber would need to be run. Using these maps,we created service footprints to determine how many pieces of equipment would be needed. Since a portion of the cost of the system is dependent on the number of subscribers that are hooked up,costs Iare averaged over time and are based on the assumption that Metronet penetration will reach 55%by year 10. Total capital costs are calculated to be approximately$475 million. To determine whether the system cost is reasonable,cost figures were cast in terms of dollars per subscriber. These figures were then benchmarked Iagainst per-subscriber cost figures from other municipal telecommunications systems and projects. The analysis in the chart below shows UTOPIA's costs to be reasonable and consistent with the costs incurred by similar projects across the country: I Capital Cost Comparison —Distribution,Core,NOC,NIU— MO $10 - I $8Actual♦ Actual Build Coos • Planned Build Coos —UTOPIA Business Model Chilictothe • I $6 . Telephone Nonotovm Evmeat 1'0.57. J• Moms M.E HFC F7TN Capital Cost Palo Also T1,7,.., • per S4 - FTTN ■ Subscriber RCN • HFC Pilo Also Eagle BB (log scale) Mmay, Ashland.OR F7TH FTTH • Plantain HFC • I HFCHarlan,IA ■ $2 - American Broadband Scottsboro,AL• HFC HFY' Coming ESWoate ■ I FTTH or N. Homing Oeeiopsxnr $1 , 20% 30% 40% 50% ( 70% 80% Penetration-Subs per Home Passed I (Source:Dean&Company Strategy Consultants,PowerPoint Presentation,December 2002) r I 5.1.1. Outside Plant Construction The distributed physical infrastructure of the network core within each UTOPIA city—the fiber, vaults,connectors,hand holes,etc.—along with the labor required to deploy it all,constitute the outside plant. Not included in the outside plant are the individual subscriber connections and the interconnections between cities. Construction of these municipal cores and the associated material goods constitute the single largest expense of the UTOPIA Metronet. There are two basic methods of distributing the fiber that makes up the outside plant:aerial distribution and buried distribution.Aerial distribution is quicker and less expensive than buried. Pricing for each construction method was determined from quotes by Tetra Tech,the vendor selected through the RIP process. Became of the multiplicity of ordinances concerning road cuts,and became of the costs associated I with restoring surfaces,we calculated construction costs for buried fiber assuming the use of directional boring.We also assumed that all fiber will be encased in conduit—we will deploy no direct-buried cable. Again,these assumptions are meant to be conservative approaches to anticipating the costs of construction. Using the figures provided by Tetra Tech,we calculate construction and labor costs to be $34,000/mile for aerial deployment and$102,000/mile for buried. To determine whether these cost figures were reasonable,UTOPIA's construction costs were compared with known construction costs for systems deployed in other parts of the country.The chart below shows that the figures indicated above,used in the feasibility analysis,fall comfortably in the mid-range of experience: Fiber Construction Costs -Benchmarks- Aerisd Fiber Underground Fiber 1,10 moo srfiS S30 SEM SE00. (tom)E-u (Ot 1 Sn0. "Ile 510: S100. 395 - $00 . SSo- SoPa,Llpha SO MOM Defter Cobb Pubbe ColnCable h Meyer O ,roe IrS sables I .d.aa.. wemgm 1 I, (Source:Dean S Company Strategy Consultants,PowerPoint Presentation,December 2002) Because aerial distribution is less expensive than buried,we designed the UTOPIA Metronet to take advantage of existing aerial deployments wherever possible(as PacifiCorp data has indicated to us). In some cities,the percentage of the system that can be deployed aerially is relatively high. In other , communities,there are no poles. Costs for the outside plant are thus much higher in those communities. 1 I 11411/ Many factors contribute to the total construction costs. Details of these factors are presented in Appendix B. Summatizing those details allows us to present the following graph showing a per I subscriber construction cost for UTOPIA cities. The table below shows total number of feet of fiber required for outside plant within the boundaries of individual cities,including an indication of the percentage that can be distributed aerially.Using I those numbers,we applied the cost of construction for aerial and buried fiber(see below)to derive outside plant costs for each city,and factoring in densities(average number of households per mile), we were able to calculate the cost of the outside plant on a per household basis. IOutside Plant Totals per City I Total not include electronics) feet of %Aerial HH per $per fiber mile Household Salt Lake City 3,777,756 80% 137 $809 IMidvale 766,268 72% 129 $858 Brigham City 564,917 86% 89 $883 Murray 861,590 56% 127 $909 IPayson 432,888 77% 91 $1,023 UTOPIA 20,297,331 52% 96 $1,171 Centerville 391,044 35% 106 $1,200 IRoy 949,859 47% 90 $ 1,231 Cedar City 1,788,770 75% 69 $ 1,265 • Taylorsville 1,296,151 31% 96 $ 1,298 West Valley City 2,969,374 44% 91 $ 1,305 Orem 2,000,258 37% 85 $ 1,368 I Layton 1,578,346 34% 88 $ 1,380 Perry 144,787 100% 29 $ 1,818 Tremonton 429,091 60% 47 $ 1,994 I Riverton 837,265 27% 53 $2,177 Lindon 290,384 42% 44 $2,198 South Jordan 975,030 17% 55 $2,222 ICedar Hills 243,554 0% 36 $ 3,682 We note that a few communities already have infrastructure that could conceivably be used in the I construction of the network. By using existing fiber and existing conduit,it is possible to reduce construction and materials costs.However,most of the existing infrastructure has been inadequately documented and tracked and,therefore,could not be added to the GIS files in the design process. I The one exception to this is the Murray fiber ring,which UTOPIA will lease as part of the Murray buildout. With that one exception,no existing infrastructure—neither fiber nor conduit—has been factored into the design and costs of the remainder of the UTOPIA Metronet at this stage. During I the engineering phase of UTOPIA,such infrastructure will be identified and included in the final design and cost of the system to the degree that accurate records are made available. Additional costs for vaults and other construction materials were added to the costs of the fiber and labor to derive the final costs for outside plant construction. III I 5.1.2. Intercity Connections As noted above,non-contiguous cities must be tied to each other in the UTOPIA Metronet through an intercity connection.This connection consists of the construction costs and the fiber costs incurred in lacing fiber between these communities.With the exception of the interconnection between Payson and Cedar City,UTOPIA will construct and own these interconnections. Capital Expenditures for these interconnections has been divided over the various phases during I which cities will be built out. Included in the interconnections,along with the monthly lease OpEx,is a one time CapEx expense of$1.6 million to lease fiber between Payson and Cedar City. 5.1.3. Electronics Electronics are considered separately from other materials and equipment because cost for these devices is quite variable and heavily dependent on the vendor and model of equipment selected. Through an RFP process,UTOPIA has received specific solutions and pricing from vendors interested in winning the electronics contract.UTOPIA has evaluated those proposals and is now in the process of negotiating final pricing. It will begin procuring the various electronic components for its network when funding for the project is completed and construction has begun. For this analysis,DynamicCity used equipment prices based on quotes from the selected vendor for the first phase of the project. Future phases of the project will likely repeat the RFP and procurement processes which could conceivably result in lower per piece pricing for the balance of the electronic equipment needed to complete the network. I Electronics capital expendiuues include costs for the following types of equipment: Core equipment,including the Core Provider Switches(CPS)and the Distribution Core Switch.(DCS). These pieces of equipment handle the aggregated traffic and provide the heavy lifting for the network. As capacity needs increase and begin to exceed the limits of some of these core switches,they will be re-purposed and pushed out further towards the edge where the accumulated traffic is lower. Additionally,as technology progresses,some of the equipment will need to be replaced to keep pace with technology improvements. The feasibility model includes an 7 year replacement schedule for all core equipment(see replacement schedule in Section 5.1.7). , Video head end gear. UTOPIA will construct and operate a head end facility that,like the network, can be shared among video service providers. This facility will be constructed during the early stages of the build out. Two other categories of electronic equipment—field equipment(including Access Distribution Switches(ADS)and Access Portals(AP))and set top boxes—are included in section 5.1.6 below rather than here with the other pieces of electronic equipment. As their deployment is success-based and not necessarily tied to the deployment schedule for the network core,their costs have been included in the Subscriber Connections section. 5.1.4. Civil Engineering While a high-level design of the system has been completed for each UTOPIA member city,this design is not appropriate for the actual engineering of the network. Civil engineering for the entire UTOPIA network is being outsourced through Tetra Tech,selected through the RFP process,to Power Engineers. I r I 5.1.5. Procurement&Implementation Services Procurement and implementation services include all the management and labor required to oversee the building of the network,including the writing of the various RFPs and the evaluation of the responses;overseeing the integration and implementation of network services;recruiting and managing relations with service providers,inspecting fiber and managing equipment and materials, and more.As most of these tasks are heaviest during the first years of the initial build,the Pro Forma reflects such. However,managing the warehousing and deployment of fiber,materials,and equipment for new subscribers who get connected to the network will create an ongoing capital expense. 5.1.6. Subscriber Connections Subscriber connections represent the capital expenses associated with connecting a subscriber to the Metronet. These connections are success-based:costs are incurred only as service(and the associated revenue)is requested. This category of capital expense includes costs for the following. Outside wiring and connection.The cost of materials and labor to deploy fiber from the curb(the fiber core that passes the building)to the building itself are included here.The fiber already passes the building through the easement near the street. Upon requesting service,the property owner will grant UTOPIA the tight to trench through the yard(in the case of buried distribution)or to hang fiber from a near-by utility pole(for aerial distribution)to connect to the Metronet. Connection electronics,including the Access Distribution Switches(ADS)and the Access Portals(AP). Two pieces of equipment book-end a subscriber's fiber connection to the core:the Access Distribution Switch(ADS)and the Access Portal(AP). The AP,attached to the subscriber's • building(like a telephone demarcation point),gathers and directs the network traffic to and from individual users to the ADS,typically located in a vault in the neighborhoods. Every subscriber requires an individual AP,but the ADS can handle several subscribers. This equipment is deployed as needed:whereas the core equipment is needed regardless of the number of subscribers taking service across the network,the field equipment is deployed only as ' subscribers request connections to the Metronet. Inside materials and labor. UTOPL'will bear the cost and responsibility for the labor and materials required to connect a subscriber from the Access Portal to the set top box. This includes internal wiring.Assuming these costs and responsibilities represent an evolution in UTOPIA's thinking. Initially,a more traditional model was assumed;service providers,upon fulfilling a request for service(such as video programming)would perform the internal wiring as necessary to connect the subscriber and deliver services. However,the logistics and economics of such an approach are not efficient. Making the outside connection(fiber from the easement to the AP)separately from the inside connection(the AP to the set-top box)requires separate truck rolls. Consolidating the deployment eliminates a truck toll,thus making the initial connection of a subscriber more cost efficient. Video Gateways. These devices are sometimes referred to as set top boxes and fall into the category of Customer Premise Equipment(CPE). They are comparable to the cable boxes and satellite receivers currently in use in existing systems.These devices enable the subscriber's fl's to send and receive specific signals from the service provider. As with the cost of internal wiring,UTOPIA's decision to bear the cost of these Customer Premise Equipment(CPE)devices followed a progression from initial assumptions and is again based on economics.The cost of ownership of set-top boxes is less for UTOPIA than it is for service I i providers:UTOPIA's economic model,because of the organization's status as a municipal entity, 41111 requires only the ability to cover costs,not to realize a return on investment,and the horizon for covering those costs is set in decades rather than in months.It is more efficient and economical for UTOPIA to absorb these costs and pass them on to service providers than it is for service providers to incur them;thus,UTOPIA has built these costs into its model and has improved feasibility over more traditional approaches. I 5.1.7. Electronics depreciation I replacement The financial analysis includes costs to keep the system current.The fiber optic cable(either buried or deployed aerially)of the UTOPIA infrastructure is highly scalable:it will not need to be upgraded or replaced. The electronic components that deliver signals across the fiber,however,will need periodic replacement. There is not one single replacement schedule;rather,equipment is depreciated and replaced based on the type of equipment(category)it is,with the criterion for replacement based on the following considerations: 1. Unit Failure. Usually measured as the Mean Time Between Failure(MTBF). In this case, equipment is replaced because it wears out and fails. Generally speaking,the working life for electronics is generally much longer than its useful life. 2. Technological Obsolescence. When the electronic components no longer support features or functions required by either the service provider or the end user,or when they are no longer compatible with other network elements,they must be replaced. I 3. Insufficient Capacity.As the network grows,traffic loads will increase. Equipment placed at various points in the network to handle specific traffic loads may need to be replaced because the increase in traffic now exceeds the capabilities of the equipment at that point in the network,though the equipment itself still is capable of handling the features of the network. Given these considerations,the financial analysis accounts for replacing equipment in the following three categories according to this schedule': A. Video Gateway: These devices are the only true Customer Premise Equipment(CPE) , supplied by UTOPIA. • Failure:MTBF is 7 to 10 years.As a point of reference,the cable industry assumes a MTBF of 7 years. • Obsolescence:3 to 5 years • Capacity:not applicable UTOPIA Schedule:Replace the Video Gateway every 5years I B. Edge:This category of electronics includes the Access Portal(AP)and Aggregation Distribution Switch(ADS)to which the AP connects in a neighborhood cabinet.These switches serve as the"on ramps"and"off ramps"to the core. Typically,their traffic load is lighter than the cote's. • Failure:MIBF is 15+years. • Obsolescence:7 to 9 years. • Capacity:The network will be designed such that Edge equipment will be capable of providing up to 100 mbps per subscriber.While some users may push the limit sooner, All technical specifications and performance ratings,such as Mean Time Between Failure(MTBF),were derived from data provided by vendors who responded to the UTOPIA RFI for electronics,issued in October,2002. t 1 we expect that it will be 10+years before the majority of the users will need more than 100 mbps. ' UTOPIA Schedule:Replace the Edge Electronics every 7years C. Core: These switches manage the heavy traffic of the network,including potential over- subscription from the edge;nevertheless,they still ensure quality of service for various traffic types. • Failure:Is1TBF is 12+years. • Obsolescence:7 to 11 years. • Capacity:These switches can handle gigabits of traffic and can be upgraded by adding more blades to the boxes until the boxes become fully loaded. Traffic projections anticipate that the core electronics will need to be upgraded(but not replaced)in 3 to 5 ' years,and that their maximum capacity will be reached in 8 to 12 years. UTOPIA Schedule:Replace the Core Electronics every 7years The Edge and Core electronics have a longer technology life than the CPE because they are straightforward layer 2 Ethernet switches.The network is deliberately designed to be fast and "dumb."All the intelligence(i.e.evolving technologies)for the network is built into the routing and 1 applications hosted by the service providers on one end of the network(the equipment handling this is not owned by UTOPIA),and on the other end of the network by the computing/entertainment devices in the home and business(the CPE).New standards and new services are evolving at the edge of the network but the network itself simply transmits Ethernet packets. It is important to note that if replacements are being driven by new or increased service demands, then we can also assume that there are increased revenues to cover those costs.At today's price levels, the amount of additional traffic needed to"break the core network"would generate an additional $124 of ARPU. However,we expect that the cost per megabit—and thus the revenues for UTOPIA—will also decline.A price drop of 20X would still give an ARPU increase of$6 per month ' —more than enough to cover the cost of the electronics replacement. Note also that such an increase in traffic would mean that take rates will probably significantly exceed the 55%in the model. Finally,we acknowledge that some replacement costs can be borne by the end users when they are associated with value-added benefits. For example,as High Definition(HD)video content becomes more prevalent,it may require more advanced Video Gateways,but the users could conceivably pay to cover that upgrade. 5.1.8. Churn Churn affects not only the service providers,but UTOPIA's capital expenditures as well.When a customer stops taking services across the UTOPIA metronet,the set top box must be returned to UTOPIA. The other capital assets of the subscriber connection—the wiring and the access portal— remain with the building. Those assets,then,are deployed but sitting idle:for the cost to deploy them,there is no corresponding revenue. Additionally,there are administrative costs associated with processing the return of the set top box.Those reclamation costs represent capital outlays associated with chum. More importantly,however,are the capital outlays required to offset the chum.To replace that customer,UTOPIA must expend the labor and materials required for a standard new subscriber connection,with the exception of the set top box,which can be re-used. Thus,in accounting for chum,the Pro Fomna shows that to maintain the subscriber penetration at the previous rate, UTOPIA incurs capital expenses. f I Using 2000 census figures2,we calculate residential churn at 16%annually,and business churn at 9% annually. 5.1.9. Reimbursables This final category for Capital Expenses addresses two primary expenses: 1. City reimbursements. Individual cities paid a membership fee to join UTOPIA. Those fees were used to cover the costs of the Feasibility Study and to cover UTOPIA operating expenses until a proper budget could be funded from the bonds.These funds will be reimbursed to cities that move forward into the construction phase of the project,and will be paid for from the various bonds secured for those phases. 2. Professional Services. UTOPLI has contracted services from lobbyists,attorneys,financial advisors,marketers,and others professional services groups who have deferred portions of their fees until UTOPIA receives funding. Some of the proceeds from the bonds will be allocated to paying them for that work. Reimbursables total approximately 2 million dollars and do not play a role in the UTOPL1 model for the current 18 cities after year 3. 5.1.10. Cost per Household Passed By blending the various costs described above and averaging them over the period of time to which they pertain,we derive two figures useful in determining feasibility:cost to the curb and costs to connect a home or business. Capital Costs per HHP and per Subscriber $1200 $1,171 r se 314 Acwiaaiona Capital $1,107 Maintenance eaaery $1.000 3240 mp enmbon , 3172 Access PMaI $30 Electronics It $73 Imercity eenneaions $137 IP Vitlao Gateway , $800 $185 ADS Electronics $800 • OulsiGe Plant $224 Interior Labar B Materials $400 F. $�U1 rxteror Labor 8 Materials 3347 $0 CostlHHP Cost/Sub To curb Curb to house 2 U.S.Department of Commerce,Economics and Statistics Administration.Geographical Mobility:Population Characteristics.Document P20-538,May 2001. I Of the two categories,the first—construction costs to the curb—represents the cost to deploy essential infrastructure requisite to make the system operational.As explained previously,a certain ' amount of fiber and electronics must exist as a core of the system to service even a single customer. In deploying this core infrastructure,fiber traverses the city and passes by every home or business, being placed in the easements for each property. Cost to the curb is derived by dividing the total cost of this infrastructure with the total number of households or businesses passed within a city. The second category—constmction costs to the house—is not dependent on density and therefore is roughly the same for all UTOPIA communities.These are success-based costs:UTOPIA will expend the monies to connect a subscriber only when the subscriber calls requesting a service. These costs include taking the fiber connection from the curb into the house. Also included are interior wiring costs,costs for the electronic equipment at both ends of that home-connecting fiber,and labor costs. 5.2.OPERATING EXPENSES(OPEXI Operating Expenses(OpEx)represent the permanent,ongoing obligations associated with the network and include repayment of the debt incurred to construct it.Generally,annual operating expenses increase over time despite the fact that the per user cost for OpEx decreases over the same period. This means that as more subscribers take services across the network,the system actually becomes more efficient through leveraging the fixed costs across a larger subscriber base. 5.2.1. NODC Services Network Operations and Dispatch Center services(NODC)represent the single largest component of OpEx. Included in this category are costs for monitoring the functionality of the system, identifying maintenance and repair needs,training and maintaining deployment and repair technicians, servicing dispatch equipment,and more. Because of the costs and complexities of delivering NODC services,it makes sense for UTOPIA to contract with a third party to outsource these services. 1 5.2.2. UTOPIA Point of Presence(UPOP)and Head End Service providers require a facility in which to place their equipment as they deliver services across the 1 Metronet.In this facility,equipment is connected to die basic UTOPIA infrastructure and services are prepared for delivery to consumers. Physical and financial needs for this UPOP facility include real estate,utilities(power,security,fire protection,etc.),staffing,and more. It is advantageous to place the UPOP as close to the consumer base as possible:while it is possible to transport services over long distances for delivery to a community,the long-haul transportation costs I of those services become burdensome. For this reason,UTOPIA may elect to operate UPOP facilities at various locations throughout the state,accommodating communities that are not part of the large central body of contiguous cities along the Wasatch Front. Similar in function to a UPOP,a Video Head End serves as the hub of activity for video services: a video service provider will require a facility on the UTOPLA network where video signals can be distributed throughout the NIetronet. As with other services,long-haul transport costs can burden the economics of the video services model;therefore,it is advantageous to locate a video head end near the subscriber base. 5.2.3. Field Maintenance • As elements of the UTOPIA infrastructure require servicing,trained technicians will be dispatched into the field to do so. Field maintenance accounts for the costs of such functions as:I Repair:Inevitably,UTOPIA fiber will be cut or damaged and electronic components will go bad. This OpEx category accounts for labor costs associated with repairing those problems.For fiber repair at the edge,we assumed 1 break per subscriber for every 7 years.The cost to repair such a break is approximately$300,90%of which is recoverable through charges to the part'responsible for causing the break. For fiber repair at the core,we assumed 1 break per 50 miles of deployed fiber per year.The cost to repair this type of break is approximately$30,000 per incident,and 60%of this cost is recoverable in charge backs to the party responsible for causing the break. Location and prevention:UTOPIA will contract with third parties providing utility location services to avoid damaging existing infrastructure for other utilities during deployment and repair of fiber. Costs for such services are calculated to be$9.733 per ticket.The estimated number of monthly break-fix requests(see above)varies by the number of subscribers connected,so costs go up as the subscriber base increases. Cabinet/vault maintenance: Cabinets and vaults are enclosures that house the electronic switches for the network. These enclosures are more than simple metal boxes:they include air conditioners, batteries,power plants,and so on. This category accounts for the labor as well the equipment needed for periodic replacement of those components(3 years for batteries,5 years for air conditioners,10 years for power plants,etc.). The feasibility model assumes that even without equipment repairs,cabinet and vault maintenance will require a service technician to make at least 2 visits per year per cabinet. Simple tasks like replacing air filters,removing graffiti,or maintaining the landscaping are part of the ongoing maintenance of these cabinets. Pole attachment fees:Fiber that is deployed aerially will be attached to utility poles. During the design process,DynamicCity requested pole data from UTOPIA member Cities and from the power 1111 provider(PacifiCorp)to determine how many poles might be available for deploying fiber. Owners of those utility poles will assess UTOPIA a pole attachment fee for the right to attach the fiber to those poles. Costs for those attachments were gathered from PacifiCorp4 and are calculated at$9.67 per year per pole. Maintenance Capital:From time to time,UTOPIA will need to adjust the location of its fiber as the location of other utilities change and as other environmental conditions change. For example,new construction to widen a road may cause UTOPIA to move one of its fiber lines 15 feet. An allowance for these types of maintenance costs has been calculated at$2.08/sub/month. I 5.2.4. Electronics Maintenance General costs to keep electronic equipment functional and up to date are included in this category, I though the physical labor to perform field service on that equipment is not(that is included above in the field maintenance section).Upon purchasing equipment,UTOPIA will pay for an annual maintenance averaging 4%5 of the purchase price of the equipment. This agreement covers the warranty for replacing or repairing defective equipment and includes firmware updates to keep equipment current as long as possible. 3 Based on preliminary conversations with Blues Stakes,One Call Locators,and Stake Center. •� Unpublished rates communicated via phone to DynamicCity in February of 2003. 5 Based on prices quoted by the selected vendor. , 1 5.2.5. Co-location Fees UTOPIA's network will need to interconnect with other networks for it to be considered useful and valuable.To do so,UTOPIA may need to place equipment at a location that it does not own. Typically,these locations would provide UTOPIA with physical access to other network providers' equipment so that the equipment could be linked. The process of locating equipment in the same general area with equipment from others is called co-locating. There is usually a fee associated with co-locating equipment. 1 UTOPIA may choose to build its own co-location facility,in which case co-location costs will reflect construction costs for the co-location center. Currently,however,there are no plans to build such a facility;as a result,the co-location fees used in the feasibility analysis are monthly charges from another entity'that has a co-location facility UTOPIA would use. 5.2.6. Interconnect Not all UTOPIA cities are contiguous:some need a run of fiber to interconnect them to the next nearest UTOPIA city. With one exception,UTOPIA plans to construct and own the interconnections for the initial 18 UTOPIA cities.Costs for the constructed interconnects are covered 1 in the capital expenditures section of the analysis.The one instance where UTOPIA will not build and own the interconnect is the run required between Payson and Cedar City(approximately 190 miles). To address this need,UTOPIA plans to lease fiber from one of various companies that own fiber already running between the two cities. UTOPIA anticipates structuring a 20-year lease agreement with one of these companies to obtain an Irrevocable Right of Use(IRU)for that fiber. Based on 1/10 information gathered through a Request for Quote(RFQ)7,UTOPIA anticipates negotiating an agreement with a fiber owner to make a one-time payment of$1.6 million for access rights to the fiber,with ongoing monthly lease expenses amounting to$12,000/month. 1 5.2.7. Miscellaneous This category provides an estimated budget for miscellaneous operational expenses. The largest anticipated expense in this category is the lease of the Murray fiber ring,the actual cost for which is still being negotiated. UTOPIA is planning to lease the Murray core(fiber,electronics,and all necessary components)for $20,000 per month until July 2005.After that,UTOPIA will purchase the network for its appraised value. For purposes of assessing feasibility,the value of the Murray core has been assumed to be no greater than$2.25 million.However,the value of the Murray asset will be determined by an independent appraisal and the final buyout price will be set according to that appraisal.Lease fees are included in this section of the Pro Forma during years 2003 through mid 2005:the purchase of the Murray ring is covered in the Capital Expenses section for the year 2005. 5.3.DEBT SERVICE The third aspect of system costs is the cost of borrowing money. UTOPIA is currently working to place bonds and secure financing for the project at a cost of money that allows the system to be feasible. System costs have been fairly precisely defined through contracts just as take rates have been fairly precisely defined through surveys and bench marking. Interest rates on the loan remain the key unsolved variable in the feasibility . 6 Rates for monthly charges based on published Qwest rates for collocation. 1 t UTOPIA RFQ issued in November,2002. 1 I equation.While UTOPIA is able to identify a range of potential rates,the final number is dependent on cities' 1101 willingness to assume a portion of the risk of the system.At this point,the feasibility of the system tests on the interest rates UTOPIA is able to secure on its loans. I Bond underwriters can offer much lower interest rates to UTOPIA if cities will pledge a revenue stream to serve as a backstop to the debt service—in the unlikely event that the UTOPIA Metronet does not generate , sufficient revenues to pay the debt service,the cities would step up and supplement some or all of that shortfall,depending on the amount. The amount of the backing will be less than 100%of the debt service; however,the actual amount of the pledge and the duration for which it will be in force are still being negotiated. I The following table summarizes the financing assumptions: 1 Bond 1 Bond 2 Total Bonding Date of Issuance 2/1/2004 10/1/2005 Interest Rate 6.00% 6.00% Year of Capitalized Interest 2 1 Construction Fund $ 252,000,000 $ 168,000,000 $ 420,000,000 Capitalized Interest 39,840,149 12,200,190 52,040,339 Debt Service Reserve Fund 32,278,600 17,089,800 49,368,400 Gross Bond Insurance Premium(100.0 bp) 6,619,904 3,831,182 10,451,087 Total Underwriter's Discount(1.250%) 4,229,438 2,571,938 6,801,375 , Cost of Issuance 3,383,550 2,057,550 5,441,100 Rounding 3,359 4,340 7,699 Par Amount $ 338,355,000 $ 205,755,000 $ 544,110,000 IIIIII 5.4.RISK I The preceding section summarizes the benefits of cities pledging a back stop for the bonds.The risk cities are ' taking in this process is this:if the system fails to generate sufficient revenues to make debt service,they will be called upon to pay the shortfall. The natural question then,is,"How great is that risk?" The UTOPIA system has been determined to be feasible through mathematical equations demonstrating that II the system can generate revenues sufficient to cover all costs(CapEx,OpEx,and Debt Service). Values for the variables of those equations have been supplied through empirical means. The numerous cost and pricing variables factored in throughout the system analysis are being secured contractually,so they represent little risk ' in the feasibility analysis. The two variables with potential to adversely affect feasibility are interest rates and take rates. The willingness(or ability)of cities to provide a surety against the needed bonds affects interest rates. Section 2.1 above provides an overview of the market surveys indicating a potential take rate above 70%with likely take rates around 60%. To be conservative,UTOPIA's financial models use a discounted likely take rate of , 55%over the life of the project. Section 2.2 benchmarks that take rate against local and national municipal projects and against national overbuilder projects,demonstrating in each case that the UTOPIA projections are conservative when compared with the actual performance of existing broadband systems.In each case,the ll values used in these variables are reasonable. Plotting take rates against the backdrop of the scenarios outlined above allows us to assess the risk inherent in • city backing. The graph below shows this risk. (a larger version of this graph is available in the appendix): I I 11110 Legend ' Survey Minimum: Minimum take rate forecasted by UTOPIA survey conducted by SRI Survey Likely: Likely take rate forecasted by UTOPIA survey conducted by SRI Survey Maximum: Maximum take rate forecasted by UTOPIA survey conducted by SRI Base Case: The take rate currently modeled in Scenarios 1 S 2 The take rate required to achieve lx coverage of debt payments.If the actual take rate 1x Coverage: falls between the base case and 1x coverage there is no effect to the cities. The full pledge line plots the actual take rate that would cause the cities to have to pay • their full annual backing.Take rates that fall between the Full Pledge line and the in Full Pledge: Coverage line require cities to pay a portion of the pledged backing. ' As the graphs indicate,projected performance of the system adequately covers the bond payments. 5.5.A FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE SYSTEM ' In summary,the UTOPIA network,as a whole,is feasible:revenues generated by the system should begin covering costs by the end of its first year of full operations,and over the life of the network,the systems should generate a net cash flow sufficient to satisfy all bond covenants as well as to support the ongoing maintenance and operations of the nletronet.The graph below provides a snapshot of three key years in the first 10 years of the system. Because capital expenditures will be high during the initial years of the system,costs will exceed revenues. However,by the midpoint of the first ten years of operation,the system will see revenues exceeding ' costs and,as the free cash flow spreadsheet indicated in section 4.2 above,the system will be generating positive cash flow for the remainder of its operational life. 6. NEXT STEPS While this study concludes that the UTOPIA Metronet is feasible,it is important to note that it does not go beyond immediate cost and revenue figures to consider some of the other benefits or factors critical to the decision of moving to the next phase of the UTOPIA project. Individual cities must ask the question:'What does a UTOPIA Metronet mean for our community?"Ultimately,the question fragments into dozens of other questions about quality of life,educational opportunities,future community and business growth,and critical current business issues that include such issues as: • the financial impact of creating jobs via telecommuting,Smart Sites,network operations,and from attracting new companies • competitive pricing and new service offerings through free-market enterprise • local economic benefits from reinvestment of savings(from lower prices on telecommunication services)circulated back through the community • surplus revenue from the network reinvested in other public works. In addition to these critical considerations,there is the question regarding the ability of individual communities, acting independently,to develop these advanced communications capabilities and to attract service providers without being a part of a larger entity such as UTOPIA.All these issues form part of the additional analysis cities must make in determining whether or not to proceed with the next steps in the UTOPIA project. , 6.1.CITY VOTES As identified in the UTOPIA Interlocal Agreement,cities must decide whether to continue with the UTOPIA ' project at three key phases:initial sign up,following the preliminary assessment,and following the feasibility study. Since the feasibility study is now complete and UTOPIA is preparing to move forward with the next major phase of the project,cities must determine how they will proceed. This requires a city council vote formalizing the ongoing participation of the city in the project. Part of that vote will also include a decision to provide the bond backing described above. The deadline for this vote falls near December 15s'(the actual date will be determined shortly). 6.2.PROCUREMENTS Electronic equipment,construction and engineering,solutions for a wireless sub-component of the fiber optic network,and other procurements have recently been completed or are currently in progress. These procurements are being addressed through a public RFP process. As solutions are selected in the evaluation of proposals,UTOPIA will negotiate contracts with the vendors. 111 6.3.SERVICE PROVIDER CONTRACT Prior to securing bonds,and prior to finalizing the architectural details of the network,UTOPIA will enter into a contract with a service provider to deliver a triple play service package across the Metronet. This contract is critical in securing the first bond. Since the bond is likely to be a revenue bond,potential bondholders must see that the pieces are in place for successfully generating revenue over the network. The market analysis and revenue potential has been validated through the market survey,and the feasibility has been demonstrated through the models presented herein. UTOPIA anticipates having its first contract with a major service provider by the end of November. 6.4.FIRST BOND/FIRST BUILD UTOPIA is in the process of defining the first buildout of the Metronet. Criteria for selecting the location of this initial construction was approved by the UTOPIA board last year,the general intent being to start din 1 1 deployment in communities with the greatest initial return on the investment. Current plans are to begin pre- deployment construction in a few strategic neighborhoods during the first couple of months of 2004,with ' services to those homes being provisioned by the spring. 6.5.SUBSEQUENT BONDS/BUILDS Because of its size and scope,UTOPIA will build out in stages. Current plans call for two stages,each financed through separate bonds secured immediately prior to the start of construction. UTOPIA anticipates completing construction for current member cities by the end of 2006. 6.6.RECOMMENDATIONS DynamicCaty believes it is in the best interests of all UTOPIA cities to commit to backing,and to move forward with,the next steps in the project.The reasons,summarized from data presented throughout this report,are as follows: 1. Market analysis has demonstrated not only a need for the system,but also public support for municipal involvement. 2. Creation of the system benefits participating UTAH communities,both in economic development for business as well as for quality of life. 3. UTOPIA,by virtue of the aggregated numbers of its members,brings the potential for tier-one service providers to offer services that cities could not otherwise attract individually. 4. Members of UTOPIA moving forward derive cost savings through economies of scale in consulting, construction,marketing,procurement,network operations and management,and in other areas. 111111 5. Careful financial analysis,including validation by an outside and independent entity,demonstrates the system to be feasible. 6. Projected cash flows will provide a source of ongoing revenue for the city. The UTOPIA Metronet makes financial sense. 1 1 1 1 111 1 Appendix A Construction Cost Details 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 1 i Engineering Costs Item Description Unit Units Unit Price Extended Infrastructure Design Survey Ea 1,340 $45.00 $ 60,300 Field Engineering Ft 16,113,306 $0.80 $ 12,890,645 Drafting Mi 3,052 $1,372.80 $ 4,189,460 Permitting&ROW Permitting&ROW Hr 2,200 I $115.75 $ 254,650 Engineering Subtotal $ 17,395,054 Document Control&Eng.Mgmt. $3,464,500.00 $ 3,464,500 Total Engineering $ 20,859,554 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Construction Costs 41/11 I Item Description Unit Units Unit Price Extended Directional Bore , Directional Bore&Place up to(4)1.25"HDPE(Slick) LF 6,344,390 $11.35 $ 72,008,829 Directional Bore&Place up to(7)1.25"HDPE(Slick) LF 359,315 $13.35 $ 4,796,860 ' Small Directional Bore(Lateral:less than 100') Ea 30,185 $750.00 , $ 22,639,003 Pneumatic Air Boring LF 0 $8.00 $ - Bore Rock Adder LF 0 $25.00 $ - , Directional Bore Subtotal $ 99,444,693 Trench Trench&Place(8+)1.25"HDPE LF 30,892 $7.00 $ 216,244 , Trench Subtotal $ 216,244 Restoration , Place CDF or Slurry CuFt 44,634 $25.00 $ 1,115,840 Remove&Restore Asphalt(up to 4") SqFt 602,554 $5.00 $ 3,012,768 Remove&Restore Concrete Roadway(up to 12") SqFt _ 200,851 $24.00 $ 4,820,429 ' Remove&Restore Concrete Sidewalk SqFt 200,851 $8.50 $ 1,707,235 Remove&Restore Sod SqFt 1,205,107 $0.65 $ 783,320 Remove&Restore Curb and Gutter LF 40,170 _ $45.00 $ 1,807,661ell Restoration Subtotal $ 13,247,252 Handhole!Splice Case , Place Handhole Ea 3,1.43 $110.00 $ 345,720 Place Subscriber Splice Box Ea 7,546 $75.00 $ 565,975 HandholelSplice Case Subtotal $ 911,695 , Miscellaneous Units Proof Existing Duct,Install Pull Rope Ft 0 $0.54 $ - Pull Innerduct in Existing Conduit(3)1.25"in 4"Duct Ft 0 $0.95 $ - I Miscellaneous Units Subtotal $ - Fiber Installation , Install FOC in Conduit Ft 17,690,153 $0.69 $ 12,206,206 Fiber Installation Subtotal $ 12,206,206 Aerial Place Strand(roadside) Ft 2,452,376 $0.38 $ 931,903 Place Strand(interior) Ft 6,726,543 $0.52 $ 3,497,802 Lash FOC(roadside) Ft 2,452,376 $0.65 $ 1,594,045 Lash FOC(interior) Ft 6,726,543 $0.72 $ 4,843,111 Overlash FOC on existing(roadside) Ft 2,686,071 $0.62 $ 1,665,364 Overlash FOC on existing(interior) Ft 8,058,212 $0.75 $ 6,043,659 Aerial Make Ready per Pole Ea 139,075 $45.00 $ 6,258,354 1111? Il I 1. Place Anchor&Guy Ea 6,954 $85.00 $ 591,067 Place Extension Arm Ea 31,292 $34.00 $ 1,063,920 ' Install Riser Ea 3,477 $245.00 $ 851,832 Aerial Subtotal $ 27,341,056 I Splicing Install Aerial Splice Enclosure(FOSC) Ea 1,210 $220.00 $ 266,200 Install&Prepare Aerial Tap(Subscriber Splice Case) Ea 40,869 $125.00 $ 5,108,675 I Install&Prepare Subscriber Splice Case Ea 37,726 $95.00 $ 3,583,932 Install A-size Splice Enclosure(1-192 splices) Ea 994 $220.00 $ 218,768 Install B-size Splice Enclosure(193+splices) Ea 425 $220.00 $ 93,412 IFusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 12 193 $47.50 $ 9,178 Fusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 24 444 $42.50 $ 18,888 - I Fusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 36 0 $ Fusion Splice&Test FOG per Location per Splice 48 8,947 $35.00 $ 313,129 Fusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 72 12,367 $28.75 $ 355,543 Fusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 96 21,391 $26.25 $ 561,502 Fusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 144 110,170 $23.75 $ 2,616,545 I Fusion Splice&Test FOC per Location per Splice 288 95,108 $21.80 $ 2,073,351 Fusion Splice&Test FOG per Location per Splice 432 76,307 i $20.00 $ 1,526,131 Splicing Subtotal $ 16,745,256 M Cabinet Installation Install Buried Vault(4'x4') Ea , 312 $800.00 $ 249,600 Place 6'x8'Pad Ea 312 $1,300.00 $ 405,600 IInstall&Prepare Cabinet Ea 312 $4,850.00 $ 1,513,200 Cabinet Installation Subtotal $ 2,168,400 I Hut Installation Place 10'x24'Pad Ea 24 $3,500.00 $ 84,000 Install&Prepare Hut Ea 24 $85,000.00 $ 2,040,000 1 Hut Installation Subtotal $ 2,124,000 Construction Subtotal $ 174,404,803 I Construction Management $18,279,189.00 $ 18,279,189 Total Construction $ 192,683,992 I r 1 I Supply Chain Management Costs .� II Item Description Unit Units Unit Price Extended Fiber Optic Cable Single Mode Fiber Cable(1) Ft 0 $ - Single Mode Fiber Cable(2) Ft 54,767 $0.11 $ 5,970 , Single Mode Fiber Cable(4) Ft 125,856 $0.12 $ 14,599 Single Mode Fiber Cable(12) _ Ft . 8,510,367 $0.16 $ 1,378,679 Single Mode Fiber Cable(24) Ft 12,258,530 $0.23 $ 2,856,238 , Single Mode Fiber Cable(48) Ft 3,952,731 $0.37 $ 1,470,416 Single Mode Fiber Cable(144) Ft 5,432,949 $1.12 $ 6,068,604 Single Mode Fiber Cable(288) Ft 519,924 $2.24 $ 1,162,030 , Single Mode Fiber Cable(432) Ft 259,266 $3.32 $ 860,245 Fiber Optic Cable Subtotal $ 13,816,781 , OSP Infrastructure Hardware OSP Infrastructure Hardware Lot 1 $37,786,608.74 $ 37,786,609 ' Supply Chain Subtotal $ 51,603,390 Supply Chain Management 3.00% $ 1,192,422 a Total Supply Chain Mgmt. $ __52,795,811 1 Total Turnkey $ 266,339,358 , I I I vil I Appendix B: I Electronic Components I UTOPIACore Electronics Units THUnit Price Extended Core Switch RS 38000 Base Chassis _ 2 $11,608 $ 23,216 RS 38000 DC Power Supply 8 $2,578 $ 20,624 RS 38000 Control Module 2 $6,018 $ 12,036 GBIC Module 1000Base-LX-IR SC 32 $843 _ $ 20,576 I 4 port 1000Base 4 MPLS GBIC Module Rapid-OS 8 $12,898 $1,804 $ 103,184 2 $ 3,608 Mounting Kit 2 $52 $ 104 I 32 MB PCMCIA card upgrade option 2 $194 $ 388 Core Switch Subtotal $ 183,736 CPS Switch I RS 38000 Base Chassis 6 $11,608 $ 69,648 RS 38000 DC Power Supply 24 $2,578 $ 61,872 RS 38000 Control Module 6 $6,018 $ 36,108 GBIC Module 1000Base-U(-IR SC 48 $643 $ 30,864 GBIC Module 1000Base-SX SC 168 $213 $ 35,784 4 port 1000 Base 4 GBIC 24 $12,898 $ 309,552 III 4 port 1000Base 8 GBIC module 42 $4,298 $ 180,516 Rapid OS 6 $1,804 $ 10,824 Mounting Kit 6 $52 $ 312 I 32 MB PCMCIA card upgrade option B $194 1,164 CPS Switch Subtotal $ 736,644 PAS(Provider Access Switch)I RS 38000 Base Chassis 2 $11,608 $ 23,216 RS 38000 DC Power Supply 8 $2,578 $ 20,624 RS 38000 Control Module 4 $6,018 $ 24,072 I GBIC Module 1000Base SX SC 96 $213 $ 20,448 GBIC Module 1000Base IX-IR SC 0 $643 $ 4 port 1000Base 4 MPLS GBIC Module 0 $12,898 $ - 4 port 1000 Base 4 GBIC 24 $4,298 $ 103,152 Rapid-OS _ _ 2 $1,804 $ 3,808 Mounting Kit 2 $52 $ 104 I 32 MB PCMCIA card upgrade option 2 $194 $ 388 PAS Subtotal $ 195,612 I FirewallslContent Switches 1 $50,000 $ 50,000 EMS Servers 1 $20,000 $ 20,000 EMS _ 1 $250,000 $ 250,000 Other Subtotal $ 320,000 10 . Core Electronics Total $ 1,435,992 I UTOPIA Edge Electronics 1 Units Unit Price 1 Extended 101 DCS RS 38000 Base Chassis 24 $11,608 $ 278,592 ' RS 38000 DC Power Supply 96 $2,578 $ 247,488 RS 38000 Control Module 24 $6,018 $ 144,432 GBIC Module 1000Base-SX SC 192 $213 $ 40,896 GBIC Module 1000Base-LX-IR SC 192 $643 $ 123,456 4 port 1000 Base 4 GBIC 48 $4,298 $ 206,304 4 port 1000Base 4 MPLS GBIC Module 48 $12,898 $ 619,104 , Rapid-OS 24 $1,804 $ 43,296 Mounting Kit 24 $52 $ 1,248 32 MB PCMCIA card upgrade option 24 $194 $ 4,656 , DCS Subtotal $ 1,709,472 4 port 1000 Base 4 GBIC 259 $4,298 $ 1,113,182 GBIC Module 1,036 $643 $ 666,148 ' Other Subtotal $ 1,779,330 ADS 'RS 8600(Fully configured-208 ports) RS 8600 Base Chassis 681 $3,398 $ 2,314,038 RS 8600 AC Power Supply 1,362 $1,018 $ 1,386,516 ' RS 8x00 Control Module 681 $3,568 $ 2,429,808 RS Routing Services 681 $1,358 $ 924,798 RS 8x00 2 Port GBIC 681 $3,228 $ 2,198,268 RS GBIC Module 1000Base-LX SC 1,362 $168 $ 228,816Oil ADS Subtotal $ 9,482,244 RS 8x00 16 port 100 BaseBX 7,210 $1,698 $ 12,242,580 ' GBIC Module 28,840 $97 $ 2,797,480 Other Subtotal $ 15,040,060 Access Portal ' Allied Telesyn RG223 I 103,749 I $225 I $ 23,343,525 Video Gateway I Amino Ominette 110 23,745 $167 $ 3,965,415 Amino Ominette 103 94,979 $147 $ 13,961,913 , Video Gateway Subtotal $ 17,927,328 Edge Electronics Total $ 69,281,959 ' Note:ADS,Access Portal,&Video Gateway are deployed over time with subscribers. During that time period there will be price decreases with volume and scale that are not reflected in these numbers. , •! II I I I l. Appendix C I Financing and Bond Scenarios I Bond Assumptions Bond 1 Bond 2 Total Bonding Date of Issuance 2/1/2004 1011/2005 I Interest Rate 6.00% 6.00% Year of Capitalized Interest 2 1 Construction Fund $ 252,000,000 $ 168,000,000 $ 420,000,000 I Capitalized Interest 39,840,149 12,200,190 52,040,339 Debt Service Reserve Fund 32,278,600 17,089,800 49,368,400 Gross Bond Insurance Premium(100.0 bp) 6,619,904 3,831,182 10,451,087 I Total Underwriter's Discount(1.250%) 4,229,438 2,571,938 6,801,375 Cost of Issuance 3,383,550 2,057,550 5,441,100 Rounding 3,359 4,340 7,699 Par Amount $ 338,355,000 $ 205,755,000 $ 544,110,000 MO I I I I I Or 111 lisk UTOPIA Projected Cash Flows Year 1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year 10 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Homes Passed 21,322 134577 244.578 286.527 286.527 286,527 286,527 286,527 286.527 286,527 Marketable Homes Passed 17,445 111,401 207,726 247.609 254,551 262,908 271,000 277.460 281,598 253.965 Homes Connected 431 20,340 68,819 103,901 116,054 127637 138,054 146,476 152,599 156,742 Take Rate 2% 21% 28% 36% 47% 45% 48% 51% 53% 55% Operating Activities Operating Revenue Access Residential $ 124,610 $ 12.196.339 $ 32,420,093 5 53276387 $ 60.476.802 $ 69.757,418 8 79.197,199 $ 88.127,971 $ 96,123271 $ 103,184,512 Business 3.625 892,145 3.381,893 7,283.571 10.092,629 12,580,206 15.001.003 17,301,208 19,465,513 21.531,787 SOHO Business 5,128 564,913 1.430.628 2.255057 2413.886 2,619,322 2,803,797 2,971,805 3,124,300 3,267,243 Access 133,362 13.653,397 37,232.614 83815,214 72.983.318 842956,944 97,001,998 108.400,984 118,713,084 127,9133,522 Core 95,000 238,000 627,000 552000 552,000 552,000 552,000 552,000 552,000 552,000 Operating Revenue 228,362 13,891,397 37,859,614 63,367214 73,535.318 85,508,944 97.553998 108,952,984 119265,084 128,535,522 Operating Expenses UTOPIA 1,177,534 2,864.750 2.931.213 2259,645 2,153,880 2,217,036 2282,107 2,349,130 2418,184 2,489,269 Asset Management-DC 820,000 2,595,376 4,609.434 6,074,187 8,836,188 7,583.779 8244,929 8,825,359 9,268,527 9,578,212 Heedend 31224 188,517 194.251 200.159 206247 212,520 218,984 225,645 232.508 239,500 Field Maintenance Location 6 Prevention 7206 98286 296,381 401,023 406,438 406,436 406438 408438 406,438 406,438 Repair 1,248 29.509 127,339 813,918 1,038,046 1,097,399 1,152,508 1,199,468 1235,323 1,260,379 CabineWault Maintenance 18,594 461.300 1.085,709 1,565,852 1,610,841 1,632,037 1,859,487 1,693,120 1,723294 1,732,126 Pole Attachment fees 6,631 164,516 386.598 556,757 588.891 568,891 568.891 568,891 568,891 568,891 Maintenance Capital 1,494 360294 1263,554 2299,888 2,7E3,021 3,059,781 3,335,327 3.570,129 3,749,404 3,874,681 Service Calls 7,120 270,220 947,666 1324,916 2.072,266 2,294,836 2,501,495 2,877.597 2.812.053 2.906,011 Reid Maintenance 36294 1.384,125 4107247 7,362,353 8,459,504 9.059382 9.624,147 10.115,844 10,495.404 10,748526 Elecronicc Mainlenance Vendor Maintenance Contracts 825.733 422p71 1,081.084 1,672.673 1,877,528 1,729.373 1,834,450 1,933,971 2,025,844 2,083.485 Equipment Replacement - - - 6411 313,414 462.544 753,851 973,744 1,037,779 683,033 Electronics Maintenance 25,733 422,071 1,081,084 1,678,085 2,190,941 2,191,917 2.588,302 2,907,714 3,063.622 2,766,517 Colocetion Fees 120,000 240,000 240000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 Interconnect - - - 108000 144.000 1442800 144.000 144,000 144,000 144,003 Miscellaneous - - - - - - - - Operating Expenses 2210,785 7,694,839 13.163229 17,922,429 20224,739 21,628.634 23,342,468 24,807,492 25.862.228 26,206,104 Net Cash iron Operating Activities (1,982,422) 6,196,558 24,896,385 45,444.785 53,316577 63.880310 74,211,530 84,145492 93,402,859 102,329,418 Financing Activities Proceeds from Bonds 252,000,000 - 188,000000 - - - . - - - Interest Income DSRF Interest 268,988 645,572 828,575 889,576 889,576 889,576 889,576 889,576 889,576 889,576 Idle Funds 1,170,117 2,154,363 1.3,19,592 312,008 25.091 38,773 81,073 158.609 256,486 393,261 r!� r ON Mil N - S It - - - - OM r -`MINI IIIIII In �4m� NB MIS 1 NS - - I — 1 - - - - ONE 11111 IIIIF interest Income 1,439,105 2,799.935 2,178,167 1201.584 914,666 928349 970,649 1,048.184 1,146,051 1283,437 Debt Service Expense Bond 1 - - (7,884,440) (20,146,413) (20201,303) (24,069,633) (27,934,133) (31,819,300) (32267,233) (32275,567) Bond 2 - - - (10,975,983) (15,725,017) (17,933275) (17,177,917) (17.085,933) (17086,425) (17,085,858) Debt Service Expense - - (7.684,440) (31,122.396) (36,026,317) (41,992,038) (45,112,050) (48,905233) (49.353658) (49561.425) Net Cash from Financing Activities 253,439,105 2,799,935 162,493,728 (29,920,813) (35,111,650) (41,064,560) (44,141,401) (47,857,049) (48207,597) (48,077,988) Net Cash from Financing and Operating $ 261,456,683 $ 8,996,493 S 182190213 $ 15,523,973 $ 18,198,927 $ 22.815,751 $ 30,070,129 $ 36,288,443 $ 45,195,262 $ 54251,430 Standard Debt Coverage - - 3.50 1.50 1.51 1,54 1.67 1.74 1.92 2.10 Average Annual Debt Coverage 1.83 1.24 1.17 1.10 1.63 1.85 2.05 2.24 Beginning Cash Balance - $ 211,183,868 $ 54,961,759 $ 68.742,866 $ 5,815219 $ 5,703,089 $ 11,193,483 $ 22479,731 $ 41,814,065 $ 63,944,075 Funds Available for CAPEX 251,456,683 220,180,361 242,151,877 84268,842 24,014,149 28,518,842 41,263,615 59,768,178 87,009231 118,195,510 Capital Investment Activities Outside Plant Construction 16,974,332 85.341,590 98,741,508 29,211.031 - - - - - - Interciy Connections 9,673,932 12245,602 - - - - - - - - Electronics 4,641,587 9,884,571 8,269,580 5,822.713 2,093,453 2,251,564 4,385,674 6,902,685 14,428,466 13,529,854 Management 8 implementation Services 9,484.585 26,902,037 25,524630 6,908,794 93,161 94,904 133,559 176,083 317,269 291,138 Acquisitions - 2250,00D - - - - - - - Success CAPER Subscriber Connections 496,506 27,602,716 37,353,705 30,847,474 10,500,120 10,087,179 9,182,651 7,581,738 5,713,771 4,092,407 Chum Expenses 1,874 992,086 3,519,582 5,861,607 5,624324 4,891.710 4,080,996 3,293,603 2605747 2,044,428 Cash Used n Capital Investinent Activities 40272,815 165,218,602 173,409,005 78.451,620 18,311,057 17,325,357 17,783,880 17,954,109 23,965.252 19,957.827 Free Cash(cam from Op 6 Raa,wgxssX4cen) $ 211,183,868 $ (156,222,109) $ 13,781,107 $ (62,927,647) $ (112,131) $ 5,490,394 $ 12,286,249 $ 18.334,334 $ 22,130,010 $ 34,293,603 Cumulative Free Cash $ 211,183,868 $ 54.961,759 5 68,742,866 $ 5,815219 $ 5,703,089 $ 11,193,483 $ 23,479,731 $ 41,814,065 $ 63,944,075 $ 98,237,678 I jail III% UTOPIA Take Rate Milestones: Scenario 1 1 I e0% - _t, :: Pta.Iifi iii 70%, - II I il's; — - Ease Case .10% - 12 ix r.;civeraye 20% - Ful-1 dge f IN ik; r - Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year` Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 0 Year 10 I I Survey Minimum: Minimum take rate forecasted by UTOPIA survey conducted by SRI I Survey Likely: Likely take rate forecasted by UTOPIA survey conducted by SRI Survey Maximum: Maximum take rate forecasted by UTOPIA survey conducted by SRI Base Case: The take rate currently modeled in Scenarios A-D lx Coverage: The take rate required to achieve 1x coverage of debt payments. If the actual take rate falls between the base case and 1 x coverage there is no effect to the cities. Full Pledge: The full pledge line plots the actual take rate that would cause the cities to have to pay their full annual backing. Take rates that fall between the Full Pledge line and the lx Coverage line will draw on a portion of the cities backing but not the full amount. 111116 Ill All • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 14, 2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-03-15-request by Ronald Lee Lindquist that the City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2337 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 7 STAFF REPORT BY: Marge Harvey ADMINISTRATIVE DE;YI:Community and Economic Development AND CONTACT PERSON: Janice Lew, Planning Division KEY ELEMENTS: The proposal is presented as a new ordinance. 1. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider vacating the alley subject to the following conditions: • a) The vacation is subject to all existing right-of ways and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. b) Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant City standards and ordinances. c) The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners,according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5. 2. The petitioner states that the alley is a dumping place, attracts other undesirable activity and no longer functions as a positive urban design element. (Please refer to the Planning staff report Exhibit 1 for comments from the Police Department.) 3. The public benefit of the alley has already been compromised by its termination in a dead end and the previous partial vacation of the northern portion of the alley that limits access through the block. 4. The appropriate City divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed alley vacation and disposition of the property. 5. All abutting property owners are in favor of the vacation. 6. The Sugar House Community Council reviewed the proposal in February,2003 and a motion to approve the motion failed when the Chair voted to break a tie. Those who opposed the proposal expressed the following concerns: a) The petitioner may build another home on the property. b) The whole alley should be vacated. c) There should be more public good with the vacation of the alley. 7. Planning staff notes that it is not physically possible to build another home on the property and no other comments in opposition have been received. • MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: • 1. The Council's recently adopted alley vacation/closure policy requires petitioners to demonstrate at least one of the following policy considerations: a) Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however,it is evident form an on-site inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right-of-way; b) Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity,safe conditions,public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; c) Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or d) Community Purpose. The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as neighborhood play area or garden. 2. The Planning staff report notes the following: a) The value of the alley as a positive urban design element has been compromised by its termination in a dead end and the partial vacation of the northern portion of the alley that already limits public access through the block. b) The petition meets considerations B and C. The proposed vacation would create a private alley that the petitioner could then maintain and properly secure to • keep out undesirable activity. 3. The Sugar House Master Plan, adopted in November of 2001,indicated that the City Council's alley vacation policy adopted in 2002,will be used to evaluate each new request. 4. The Sugar House Future Land Use Map, included in the Sugar House Master Plan, identifies this area within the Low Density Residential category. The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan. These uses noted in the plan will not be affected by this proposal. 5. It has been the City's policy not to vacate an alley if it would deny a property owner required access to the rear of their lot. a. Scott and Christie Randle, owners of property abutting the alley,have no interest in their half of the alley and have entered into an agreement with Ronald and Sherrie Lindquist to convey their rights and interests to the Lindquist's. b. The properties abutting the alley are accessible form driveways located along their street frontage;maintaining access to the alley by owners of the abutting property owners should not be an issue. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: The proposal has no budget impact. III CHRONOLOGY: ID • February 5,2003 Petition presented to the Sugar House Community Council. • May 13,2003 Letter sent to property owners within block informing them of the petition and requesting comments. • July 29, 2003 Notice sent to property owners within block for August 13,2003 Planning Commission public hearing. • August 13,2003 Planning Commission hearing. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Chief Dinse,Chief Querry,LeRoy Hooton,Rick Graham,Alison Weyher,Louis Zunguze,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright, Janice Lew,Annette Daley,Janice Jardine,Lehua Weaver III III C C e 2 2 2003 ALISON WEYHER AldT 14_` .�,j C.asPO4r)tYtjlJl � ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, C 'ef Administrative Office DAT : October 7, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition No.400-03-15: A request by Ronald Lee Lindquist, that the City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2337 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. STAFF CONTACT: Janice Lew,Planning Division 535-7625 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing regarding this proposal. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance • BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Mr. Lindquist is requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. The purpose of the proposal is to vacate the abutting portion of the alley as a public right-of-way and declare it as surplus to be used solely by the petitioner as fee title property. Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of city owned alleys. When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys,the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, its recommendation is forwarded to the City Council. If an alley is next to or abuts property which is zoned for low-density residential use,the alley will be vacated, divided in half, and conveyed to the owners of property abutting the alley, according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5. Where the City Council has determined that it should relinquish its interest in a public alley, the Council will then adopt an ordinance to vacate and declare the property no longer needed or available for use as an alley. Analysis: The petitioner states that the alley has been a dumping place and attracts other undesirable activity. Furthermore,the value of the alley as a positive urban design element has • been compromised by its termination in a dead end, and the partial vacation of the northern 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 11 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-6230 FAX:801-535-6005 �� eevcco v�nca portion of the alley that already limits public access through the block. The northern portion of the alley was vacated by Petition No. 400-623 and Ordinance No. 68 of 1988. Instigation of that petition was based on the fact that the property owner of the four-plex at 2315 South 500 East • had encroached into the alley with a fence and used the property to provide the required off- street parking for the building. All necessary City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposal and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. The applicant will be required to maintain all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under the alley property. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed alley vacation meets City Council Alley Policy Considerations B and C and substantial evidence exists that the proposed alley vacation satisfies the alley vacation guidelines 1-8, and further found that the continued use of the property as a public alley is not necessary nor in the City's best interest. Master Plan: The adopted land use policy document that guides development in this area is the Sugar House Master Plan, adopted in November of 2001. The plan indicates that the City Council's alley vacation policy adopted in 2002, will be used to evaluate each new request. The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan. Public Process: The applicant presented the proposal to the Sugar House Community Council in February of 2003. A motion to approve the request failed when the chair voted in opposition to break a tie. • On August 23, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and declare the alley property surplus to the City's needs as a public alley. Relevant Ordinance(s): 1. Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. 2. Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58 regulates the disposition of surplus City-owned property. Utah Code,Title 10-8-8.5 also addresses the conveyance of City-owned property. • 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1. CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE 4. MAILING LIST 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Notice and Postmark b) Staff Reports c) Agenda/Minutes 6. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition 400-03-15 • • 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • • February 21, 2003 Sent memo requesting department artment comments. • April 18, 2003 Petition delivered to the Planning Division. • April 28, 2003 Petition assigned to Janice Lew. • May 13,2003 Sent letter to property owners within block informing them request and requesting comments. • July 29, 2003 Sent notice to property owners within block for August 13, 2003 Planning Commission public hearing and posted property. • July 28, 2003 Received legal description from Surveyor's Office. • August 13,2003 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and passed a favorable recommendation to vacate and declare the alley property surplus. • September 2, 2003 Began preparing transmittal. S • September 2, 2003 Sent request to the City Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance. • September 19, 2003 Received ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. • September 24, 2003 Transmittal submitted to supervisor for review. II 2. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Vacating a portion of an alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street, pursuant to Petition No. 400-13-15) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 2327 SOUTH 500 EAST AND 2322 PARK STREET, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-15. WHEREAS, after having held public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds that the City's interest in the portion of the alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that the vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public's interest, NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: • SECTION 1. A portion of an alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-03-15, and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be, and the same hereby is, vacated and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as an alley. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The above vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights of way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is also subject to any existing rights of way or easements of private third parties. • SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03\Vacating alley adjacent to 2327 S 500 E and 2322 Park St-Sept 18,2003.doc • Legal Description 0 ALLEY VACATION Petition 400-03-15 Adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street VACATION: Commencing at a point located on the Northeast corner of Lot 16,Block 13, Forest Dale Subdivision, in Block 43, 10 Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey, located in the northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 1 South,Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base &Meridian; thence 20 feet east to the southwest corner of Lot 26, thence 25 feet south to the southwest corner of Lot 27, thence 20 feet west to the north east corner of Lot 15,thence 25 feet north to the point of beginning. 47-C t 63 Affected Sidwell Numbers: 16-19-277-011 16-19-277-029 • • 0 • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION b) Staff Report August 13, 2003 DATE: August 8,2003 • TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Janice Lew,Associate Planner RE: Staff Report for the August 13,2003 Planning Commission Meeting CASE#: 400-03-15 APPLICANT: Ronald Lee Lindquist STATUS OF APPLICANT: Abutting property owner PROJECT LOCATION: 2327 South 500 East I.z, � y_Z .gyp ^� _ ( - d • E 1 F 7_4. V3 0 1„ 3 r " 71r 2` r ;�� Proposed Aileya 7-44 ., Vacation ! _Sek tr "tam=w c • PROJECT/PROPERTY SIZE: 500 sq. ft. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 1 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division COUNCIL DISTRICT: District 7,Council Member Dale Lambert SURROUNDING ZONING • DISTRICTS: North—R-1-7000,Single Family Residential South—R-1-7000 Single Family Residential East— R-1-7000,Single Family Residential West— R-1-7000,Single Family Residential SURROUNDING LAND USES: North-residential South-residential West-residential East- residential REQUESTED ACTION: Petition 400-03-15 by Ronald Lee Lindquist,requesting that the city vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. The purpose of the proposal is to vacate the abutting portion of the alley as a public right-of-way and declare it as surplus property to be used solely by the petitioner as fee title property. • Please see attached waiver from the property owner of 2322 Park Street. (Exhibit 1) The property in located in a R-1-7000(Single Family Residential)zoning district. PROPOSED USE(S): The proposal is for the City to relinquish its interest in a portion of a public alley for use by an owner of property abutting the subject alley. (Exhibit 2) APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Chapter14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code outlines a procedure for the disposition of City owned alleys and establishes criteria for evaluating the public's interest in an alley. Section 2.58 of the code regulates the disposition of surplus City-owned property. MASTER PLAN SPECIFICATIONS: The adopted land use policy document that guides development in this area is the Sugarhouse Master Plan,adopted in November of 2001. The plan indicates that the City Council's alley vacation policy adopted in 2002,will be used to evaluate each new request.The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 2 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division • SUBJECT PROPERTY HISTORY: The northern portion of the alley was vacated by Petition No.400-623 and Ordinance No. 68 of 1988. (Exhibit 3) The property owner of the four-plex at 2315 South 500 East had encroached into the alley with a fence and used the property to provide the required off street parking for the building. ACCESS: The alley is located on Block 13 of the Forest Dale Subdivision which is between 500 East and Park Street,and Stringham Avenue(2285 South)and Driggs Avenue(2375 South). Access to the alley is from Driggs Avenue. It runs north and south,and originally terminated in a dead end, at the rear property line of the lots on Stringham Avenue. PROJECT DISCRIPTION: The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 Fast and 2322 Park Street. The petitioner states that the alley has served as a dumping place and attracts other undesirable activity. The alley terminates in a dead end providing limited access through the block. The proposal is for the City to vacate the alley to allow the property to be used by the petitioner with access • granted to the necessary public utilities. All owners of property abutting the subject portion of the alley are in favor of the vacation. COMENTS,ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 1. COMMENTS Comments from City Departments and Community Council(s): a) Transportation: The Transportation Division has no objections,but recommends that all utilities and utility easements remain as required and approved by the entity concerned. b) Public Service: Public Utilities found no conflicts with respect to the water, sewer and drainage utilities. c) Fire: The Fire Department had no objections. d) Police: No objections were received. e) City Engineering: No objections were received. f) Property Management: No objections provided,there are no access disputes. g) Community Council: The applicant presented the proposal to the Sugar House Community Council in February of 2003. A motion to approve the request failed when the chair voted in opposition to break a tie. (Exhibit 4) h) Owners of Property in the Block: All owners of property located in the block • within which the subject alley property is located were notified of the proposed Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 3 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division vacation in a letter dated May 13,2003. (Exhibit 5) No comments in opposition to the proposal have been received to date. Planning • Division: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition P of city owned alleys. When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by a proposal. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request,their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus,the property would be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City- Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. If an alley is next to or abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use,the alley will be vacated, divided in half, and each owner of property abutting the alley will receives the half next to their property. Where the City has determined that it should relinquish its interest in a public alley,the Council will then adopt an ordinance to vacate the alley. 2. ANALYSIS AND FINDIINGS The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations and closures. A positive recommendation from the Planning Commission should include an analysis of the following factors. ID Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council policy considerations for closure,vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys. The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley,in whole or in part,unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat,but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist. B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is contributing to crime,unlawful activity or unsafe conditions. C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element. D. Community Purpose. The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. The petitioner states that the alley has been a dumping place and attracts other undesirable activity. (Exhibit 1) Please see attached comments from the Police • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 4 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Department. (Exhibit 6) Furthermore,the value of the alley as a positive urban • design element has been compromised by its termination in a dead end, and the partial closure of the northern portion of the alley that already limits public access through the block. Findings: The petition meets Considerations B and C. The proposed vacation would create a private alley that the petitioner could then maintain and properly secure to keep out any undesirable activity. Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt City Code: Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete petition,a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing,the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The City police department,fire department,transportation division,and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; • Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or divisions. Comments were received from the Public Utilities, Fire Department, Engineering Division,Division of Transportation, Police Department and Property Management. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 6. No objections were expressed to the proposed disposition of the property. Findings: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. The applicant will be required to maintain all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Findings: The petition meets Considerations B and C as required in Section 14.52.020 of the Code and outlined above. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to vacate an alley if it would deny a property owner required access to the rear of their lot. However,Scott and Christie Randle, owners of property abutting the alley,have no interest in their • half of the alley and have entered into an agreement with Ronald Lee Lindquist Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 5 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division and Sherry Lindquist to convey their rights and interest to the Lindquists. The properties abutting the subject alley are accessible from driveways located along their street frontage. Therefore,maintaining access to the alley by owners of the abutting property should not be an issue. Findings: Vacating the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Discussion: The property will be transferred to an owner of property adjacent to the alley,thereby not creating a small landlocked piece of land. Findings: The proposed alley vacation would not create any landlocked parcels. 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City,including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to,mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails,and alternative transportation uses; Discussion: The Sugar House Future Land Use Map,included in the Sugar House Master Plan,identifies this area within the Low Density Residential category. The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan These uses noted in the plan will not be affected by this proposal. Findings: The alley vacation is consistent with applicable policies of the City. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property,or has made application for a building permit,or if such a permit has been issued,construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; Discussion: The petitioner's intent is to acquire all of the property abutting the alley. All other owners of property adjacent to the subject portion of the alley have consented to the alley vacation in the attached petition. (Exhibit 1) Findings: No objections were expressed by owners of property abutting the alley. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Discussion: Petition No.400-623-88 and Ordinance No. 68 of 1988 vacated the northern portion of the alley. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 6 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division • Finding: The proposed petition will further the City's preference for vacating • entire alleys by adding to the length of the portion of the subject alley that was partially vacated in 1988. The portion of the subject alley to be vacated should be declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Discussion: As stated above,both properties abutting the subject alley have access from driveways Iocated along their street frontage. Although the owners of the Park Street property will relinquish their interest in the alley,the Lindquist property will retain accessibility from the alley. Findings: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Recommended conditions for the alley closure: 1. The vacation is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. 2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city standards and ordinances. 3. The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting • property owners, according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings identified in this report,staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and declare the alley property surplus to the City's needs as a public alley and subject to the following conditions: I. The closure is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. 2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city standards and ordinances. 3. The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners, according to Utah Code,Title 10-8-8.5. Janice Lew Associate Planner • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 7 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Attachments: Exhibit 1—Petition to Vacate Alley Exhibit 2—Legal Description of Alley Exhibit 3—Ordinance No.68 of 1988 • Exhibit 4-Community Council Agenda Exhibit 5—Letter to Property Owners Exhibit 6—Comments from Departments Exhibit 7-Photographs • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 8 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division • • Exhibit 1 • Petition to Vacate Alley Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 9 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division ,g FOR OFFICE USE ONLY . ,'�.> �:.�� /,�9'. Petition No. 0-o _�=3 r :; = Alley Vacation or Closure Receipt unts = alnim� ; ,y,a. ecei t No. m.• _� n Date Received •n_ --ITT - (Interim Application) �'>ó--' T _--�,,� Reviewed by Date 4/i0 2✓w✓ Name of Applicant A01 /d krE L m. id p;st Phone 061— Y87,, 60 Address of Applicant 2336 5oalk 09 a7 1-1 ed- . 0 E-mail address of Applicant Cell/ Fax. Location of the subject alley 27 .t/ 2&a( ` Are there any multi-family residential uses(three or more dwelling units)or non-residential uses which abut the alley?Yes o No j4 _ If yes, have the property owners been notified about the City's"close and sell" method of disposition? (As defined in the attached process information sheet) _ • .:;...7 Yes0 Noo,:l�1 Please include with the application:. (14 1.A response to the questions on the back of this form. if the applicant does not own property adjacent to the alley, please include the applicant's interest in the request. 2. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the request to the apropriate Neighborhood >- .4 Organization and/or Community Council(s). A letter from the Chairperson may be substituted. 3.The name, address and Sidwell number of all abutting property owners must be typed or clearly printed on (.4 gummed mailing labels. Please include yourself and the appropriate Community Council Chair. Payment in the amount to cover first class postage for each address is due at time of application. E" • 4.The name,address and signatures of all owners of property abutting the subject alley who support the petition. You may use the sample petition accompanying this application or provide your own. Please note that the C.) property owners must sign(not occupants who rent)and the petition must include the signa- tures of no less than 80 percent of the abutting property owners. 5. A property ownership map(known as a Sidwell map)showing the area of the subject alley. On the map, please: a.highlight the subject alley,and j == b.indicate with a colored circle or dot the property owners who support the petition. r __ 6. A legal description of the subject alley may be required. 7. Filing fee of$100.00,due at time of application. If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this petition,please contact a member of the Salt Lake City Planning staff(535-7757)prior to submitting the petition. r Sidwell maps and names of property owners are available at: _ Salt Lake County Recorder 7-h 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 _` £F.i Salt Lake City, UT 84190-1051 Telephone:(801)468-3391 :" File the complete application at: t(I) Salt Lake City Planning 451 South State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Telephone:(801)535- 57 i I. ' Signature of Applicant I' .E `:.`' or authorized agent / Title of agent 6/20/2002 f • Please answer the following questions. Use an additional sheet if necessary. Please explain why you are requesting this alley vacation or closure and include the expected end result of the action, such as the alley becoming a private right-of-way for continued use or being 1111 closed off. If the applicant is not a property owner adjacent to the alley, please include the applic/a��nt's interest in the petition_ _At Li Xttl, 1 j + !'.j2 • • Please explain how the proposed petition satisfies at least one of the following City policy considerations: A. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the properly appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat, 1111 but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not exist or is unusable as a public right-of-way; B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions,public health problems,or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design_ The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element;or D. Community Purpose_ The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use,such as a neighborhood play area or garden. 7 T 4621) ficeltt P4.° 4" n �ii ✓tx • Petition to Vacate or Close an Alley Petitioner: / erki ZEE /!N(/9U.I5]1 • Address: 7--(3 ? LLl k tom'Ff_A5/-45,Lce r � Date: /D/o7Ca3 As an owner of property adjacent to the alley,I agree to the proposed vacation or closure. I understand that if my property is used for a non-residential or multi-family residential(three (3)or more dwelling units)use,I will be required to pay fair market value for my half of the alley. • 114_112aidiEE Olit4.11,112 -UE5I9-468.06 Print Name and Address Signature ate Srr !233.i4E StcturA¢(Q� Obh�/�¢�,P �a�co3-o3-.1425 Print Na and Address Signature f� Da cen �nMI Zz P 1( S f SL( yr - � ll� lC(u-t / Lyi1 v77 Print Name and Address Signature Date �' 1Zr�>1c11 1?aEK-5+ SrC. *Y.c -! c-. ,/ C�3 Print Name and Address Signature Date _11?/ /I 4 fe,P.p, J44ERe _ G� S 6 3 • Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date Print Name and Address Signature Date • Print Name and Address Signature Date April 9,2003 Conveyance Agreement To whom It May Concern: Scott D Randle and Christie P Randle have entered into agreement with Ronald Lee Lindquist and Sherry Lindquist, to convey the rights and interest of Scott D Randle and Christie P Randle to Ronald Lee Lindquist and Sherry Lindquist concerning property located in the County of Salt Lake and the state of Utah, and more particularly described as follows: One half(1/2)of the vacated alley abutting on the west side of Lot 27, Block 13, Forest Dale, Ten Acre Plate "A",Big Field Survey. This agreement is valid only if and when Salt Lake City approves the Alley Vacation or Closure Application submitted in April 2003 and drafts an ordinance to vacate said property and transfer ownership to parties involved. This Conveyance Agreement purpose is to allow the County of Salt Lake to transfer title of said property from Salt Lake City to Ronald Lee Lindquist and Sherry Lindquist. This agreement is attached to and is part of contract agreement that Scott D Randle and Christie P Randle,and Ronald Lee Lindquist and Sherry Lindquist entered into on April 9th, 2003. • .411 /1\ 1/ bital 0' ke4v7.} /0103 Scott D Randle to Ro Id Lee Lindquist Date q-Pt;- op 6--9,O\ ante- Christie P Randle Date 'Sherry Lindqu- Date • i Exhibit 2 • Legal Description of Alley P Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-I5 10 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City PIanning Division Legal Description ALLEY VACATION Petition 400-03-15 Adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street VACATION: Commencing at a point located on the Northeast corner of Lot 16, Block 13,Forest Dale Subdivision, in Block 43, 10 Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey, located in the northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 1 South,Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base &Meridian; thence 20 feet east to the southwest corner of Lot 26, thence 25 feet south to the southwest corner of Lot 27,thence 20 feet west to the north east corner of Lot 15,thence 25 feet north to the point of beginning. Affected Sidwell Numbers: 16-19-277-011 16-19-277-029 s S • 111 Exhibit 3 • Ordinance No. 68 of 1988 Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 11 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division 0 88-1 P 88-292 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 68 of 1988 (Vacating a portion of an alley located adjacent to 2322 Park Street and 2309 South to 2315 South 500 East Street pursuant to Petition No. 400-623-88) AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 2322 PARK STREET AND 2309 SOUTH TO 2315 SOUTH 500 EAST STREET, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-623-88. WHEREAS, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, finds after public hearing that the City's interest in the public alley described below is not necessary for use by the public as an alley and that vacation of said alley will not be adverse to the general public's interest. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt 410 Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That a portion of an alley located adjacent to 2322 Park Street and 2309 South to 2315 South 500 East Street, which is the subject of Petition No. 400-623-88 and which is more particularly described below, be, and the same hereby is, VACATED and declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley: Said alley is more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a D� Be9 9 point located on the Northeast corner of Lot 21, Block 13, Forest Dale Subdivision, in Block g.�Q. �� 43, 10 Acre Plat A, Big Field Survey thence 20 feet c� East to the Northwest corner of Lot 22, thence 125 �i feet South to the Southwest corner of Lot 26, thence 20 feet West to the Southeast corner of Lot 17, thence 125 feet North to the point of beginning. SECTION 2. RESERVATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. The above • vacation is expressly made SUBJECT TO all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of the property and also SUBJECT TO the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the City's water and sewer facilities, and all of them. Said vacation is also SUBJECT TO any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 18th day of October 1988. r 'JCE IW • • PAFP,n-r : .. .. : ATTEST• San la:_: . ..r Date C :ly► • BY Transmitted to the Mayor on October 18, 1988 Mayor's action: 10/18/88 Approved Vetoed. eat et4.4..a..i. MAYOR ATT-*- +. i 417. f/� 10x0(44426E, CITY RE. '-4 -2- • (SEAL) BILL NO. 68 OF 19 88 Published: October 26, 1988 BRB:pp 410 . -3- ' ./� Zl1 OCTp�4693971=17 Pf1 i ICATIE 1... D-ZX4/4i STATE OF UTAH, RECORDER'_SALT LAi� r KM as. SALT LAPS CITY AIDI N& SERVICES City and County of Salt Lake, CUT REMINDER REC BY: JE Q D06018C1111TI r DEPUTY I, Lynda Domi no Chi of Deputy,City Recorder of Salt Lake City,Utah,do hereby certify that the attached document is a full,true and correct copy of Ordin4rtgq 6$ .cif,19$$ -- -. . vpcAtjn9. A Pnrt?pn. nf. An. A1Jny. located Age.dc. nt Ist 2322.Park .Street And.23QQ. 5puth to. 2335. South 500. East pursuant. to Petition 4QQ h?3.88; is . ` passed by City Council/ExsommiiecAction of Salt Lake City,Utah,. ( t.ober..1,8 19.88. j as appears of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said City, i this g4th. day of Oc.tobAr 19.8Ei. a . ,-.--- ., -..?, .. ; ...- • • ` Chief Deputy City Recorder __ � October 26 19.88.. .,,,,......---- l iF ti .ii !i eI. t :F i c ;1 • 1 • • Exhibit 4 • Community Council Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 12 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division SUGAR HOUSE � � COMMUNITY COUNCIL pti �, ,�:: Member of Salt Lake Association of Community Councils SUGAR HOUSE CCMHUN Tty coma L • March 29,2003 Lee Lindquist 2327 So_ 5th East Salt Lake City,Utah 84106 RE:Request for Alley Vacation at 2327 So. 5th East Dear Lee, This is to acknowledge your presentation to the Sugar House Community Council on February 5,2003. As you are aware,there were several concerns and comments regarding your request, including: 1)a fear that someone would want to build another house at the back, 2)some felt the whole alley should be vacated, 3)one felt it good to close the alley because you were taking care of it,and 4)it was felt that the closing of the alley should show more public good. It was also suggested that the value of the public property be donated to the open space fund. The motion to approve the request ended in a tie which was broken by the chair voting to oppose the vacation of the alley. • Sincerely, �✓tl_ Helen M. Peters,Chair Sugar House Community Council,2003-2004 • SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY COUNCIL Minutes for February 5,2003 S The Mayor and a number of his staff met with those in attendance from 6:00—7:30 PM and responded to various questions and comments. The Community Council meeting followed the Mayor's meeting. Trustees: Su Armitage, Rich Bennett, Chris Bowler,Philip Carlson, Dolores Donohoo,Alice Edvalson, Deedra Hansen-Lambert, Michael G. Kavanagh, Julie Nitzkowski, Lynne Olson, Helen Peters,Susan Petheram, Ruth Price, Ray Pugsley, Judi Short, Martin Smith, Grace Sperry, Rawlins Young (18) Trustees Excused: None City/State Representatives: Lt. Troy Wood,SL County Animal Control, Bill Rutherford, Urban Forester; Lyman Guest, SLC Police Dept.; Ranae Pierce,Sprague Library, Sherrie Reich,SLC Corporation (5) Others: Tom Nitzkowski, Robert Cheney,Joyce Cheney,Amy Price, Mike Marron, Peter O. Marron, Bob Evans, Rita Lund, Mike McBride, Lisa McBride, Reva Servoss, Bill Servoss, Melissa Lichtenstein,Agnes Greenhall, Andrew Serivruh,Al Dieffenbach, Don Zarkou, Dany Tremblay,Janet Hatch, Barbara Green, Michael Lane, Rosemary Tanner, Vic Ayers, Susan Ayers, Lee Lindquist (25) TOTAL ATTENDING (48) Sugar House Community Council meeting started at 7:40 PM with Chair Helen Peters conducting. The minutes from the January meeting were approved. Treasurer Doloros Donohoo thanked the trustees for the card at the passing of her father. Dolores reported a balance forward from December of$5,909.11, expenditures of$961.81, • income of$695.00 leaving a balance of$5,642.30. Helen noted the passing of Su Armitage's father and expressed our sympathy. CHAIR REPORT: Public Hearings coming up include: SL Historic Landmark Commission Meeting will include a presentation of the Westminster Neighborhood Small Area Master Plan—Feb. 5,4:00 PM Room 126,City/County Building; Smith's Food, 21st So. & 9th East proposal—Feb. 26, Room 326, City/County Building; UTA proposed merger of routes 6 & 52 and elimination of route 4— Feb. 6 4:30-6:30 PM UofU V. Randall Turpin Building. The new Main Library is opening on Sat. Feb. 8 at 11:00 AM. The SL Art Design Board will meet on Friday to review the Sugar House Business District Public Art Proposals. Trustee Kevan Adams has moved.We haven't been able to get the necessary information and codes for our web site so Chris Bowler is going to redesign a web site for us. Kevan will be replaced as a Vice Chair by Chris Bowler who was the next in line for Vice Chair from the elections in October. A Petition renewal has been received from Julie Nitzkowski. It was unanimously approved. Trustee petition's that are not current are: Paddington Campos, Philip Carlson, Gene Davis,Scott Kisling,Sheila O'Driscoll, Ruth Price,and Judi Short. PUBLIC INPUT: Danny Tremblay asked about the progress on the Smith's proposal. Helen indicated that the Planning Commission put it to a sub-committee. Judi Short,a member of that sub-committee noted that Smith's brought the same plan to the Planning Commission that had been brought to us. In discussions with the sub- committee,the plan was changed somewhat, adding 2 small buildings on 215t South ,one on the west corner and one on the east corner, and some better landscaping. There would be an entrance on 9th East. All the trees would be preserved. It was suggested that a CPTED study be requested. It was also suggested that the surface for parking be something other than asphalt.The narrowing down to two lanes on 9th East would be extended south of 215t South. The"Walkable Community"concept would suggest a strong pedestrian presence from 21 st South.A vote was taken with the sub-committee and no one was in favor of that plan as it presently stood. Lynne • Olson and Helen Peters met with the Mayor and found that the Mayor was pretty much in support of the Smith's proposal. Smith's was doing some lobbying with the neighbors and it was felt they were giving them some http://www.slcgov.com/citizen/comm councils/mins&agsdocs/min sgrhs02052003.htm 3/4/2003 V - - -- - - --- - --_--_J misinformation. This still has to go back to the Planning Commission.The few residents directly behind Smith's on Elm Ave. have always been supportive of Smith's development and have been opposed to the stand of the SHCC. Susan Petheram indicated the Utah Heritage Foundation's Historic Home tour will be in the Highland Park area this year. A representative from the Heritage Foundation will be coming to the next council meeting to • discuss this tour. Redman Building Re-Development:—Vic Ayers-Vic noted that the previous proposals with the Woodbury group that had been made for this building had met with considerable delays and problems due to issues regarding the eastside easement with Chevron. As a result, those plans have been dropped and a new proposal with Vic Ayers as the sole partner of the project is being made. This is a much smaller plan. This proposal is to be mixed-use as suggested in the Sugar House Master Plan. The basement and first floor will be commercial and the second and third floors will house art studios, professional offices,and music and light industrial lofts. The 4th and 5th floors and proposed 6th floor would be converted into housing units. Vic's daughter, Susan,will be the landscape architect. The alley from 21st South down into Hidden Hollow will be improved with lighting and landscaping and jointly maintained with SLC Parks. Native plants would be included along that way. The current parking area would have approximately 20 parking places and would be private parking for building residents. A lower parking area, further south would provide an additional 50 parking spaces. Vic indicated he would like our blessing so they could move forward with this project. It was suggested that they keep the sign,at least the Redman part of it. Vic said they would do that as long as they don't have to light it. Lynne Olson went on a tour of the building, including a ride in the freight elevator and to the top of the building. Lynne was impressed with the plan and the concepts that are being proposing. She likes the public ownership of the east easement and the plans to enhance that area. A motion was made that we approve the plan as it has been presented. Rawlins Young was not in favor because he feels that we need a lot more information. Grace Sperry was not in favor of plan because she felt there was not enough parking. Vic explained that the additional lot below would provide 50 additional places along with the 20 above. Grace felt better about that. Susan Petheram noted that this building has been nominated for the National Historic Registry and could provide some tax credits for work done. Rich Bennett suggested a sub-committee to follow up on this project. Helen suggested a modification to the motion. Since the original motion was seconded it couldn't be modified.Voting on the motion is 9 in favor, 3 opposed,4 abstentions. Vic indicated that it would probably take a year or so to complete the project once they were able to begin. • Telecommunication Facility—675 E. 21st So.: -Jacob Reeves was not here. Animal Control Report:—Lt. Troy Wood— It was determined that there were no easily visible signs designating that off-leash dogs are allowed in Fairmont Park. With the help of Lt.Wood and Bob Burgess of the SLC Parks Dept., they have put up some signs and the problem has improved. The police are trying to be more visible in the area in an effort to alleviate the problems. Rawlins reported being held at bay by a dog at a bus stop. It was noted that part of Memory Grove is ok for off- leash dogs. Herman Franks Park is designated as an off-leash park, and Taylorsville has one part that is designated as off-leash for dogs. Lindsay Gardens also has an area that is off-leash.Judi Short suggested that we should try to fence in a place in Sugar House Park and/or Fairmont Park for an off-leash area. It was noted that dog owners are responsible for cleaning up after their dogs. Alley Vacation,2327 So. 5th East:—Lee Lindquist—Lee bought his house in 1974 and moved into the house in 1977. The man behind him has lived there since 1950. Lee only wants to vacate a portion of the alley. Lynne walked this area and noted tire tracks in part of the alley at the Driggs end. Lynne noted that the alley vacation guidelines indicated that there needs to be a demonstrated public benefit in the vacation of an alley. Lee indicated that this alley is a real nuisance,due to vandalism. Part of the alley has been vacated at one end so the alley cannot function as intended. Ray Pugsley made a motion to approve this request as presented then he spoke against the motion. He is afraid someone could build another house at the back. He feels that the entire alley should be vacated.Grace Sperry felt that it is in the best interest to close it because he is taking care of it. If he closes it then others may be more inclined to close their part.Chris Bowler was in favor of the motion. Ruth Price asked if he knew that it was public property when he bought the house and he indicated that he did.Judi Short wanted him to come back with a proposal to close the whole alley. Lynne suggested that if the alley is vacated,the value of the public property be donated to the open space fund.Voting on the motion was 7 in favor, 7 opposed, 2 abstaining. Helen broke the tie by opposing the motion. She feels there should be more public • good. Street Lighting Proposal:-Janet Hatch—Janet presented a proposal for 6 street lights in her neighborhood on http://www.slcgov.comlcitizen/Comm councils/mins&agsdocs/min sgrhs02052003.htm 3/4/2003 both sides of 15th East from Zenith Ave. to Adkins Avenue. There are18 houses in this area with one being vacant. They have 12 signatures. Helen gave the appropriate signature. Fairmont Park Tree Report:- Bill Rutherford, Urban Forester—Bill reported that the dead trees have been removed and replaced with the catalpa trees as we had requested at our last meeting. There were 5 trees that were replaced and the stumps have also been removed.There are a number of other trees that are in need of being replaced.The plan is to phase out the bad ones and replace them. Rawlins suggested that because of the historical nature of the park the trees should be replaced with the same kind of trees that were there. Susan Petheram suggested that the master plan for Fairmont park should include a study of the trees. Bill agreed with that. Rich Bennett asked how the scheduling of tree trimming in the neighborhood was done. Bill said it is pretty much done on request. Bill noted that tree replacement in the park would probably be done with more than 1 for 1. Grace made a motion that trees in the future be replaced with trees from a list of historical trees that was provided by Bill. Deedra Hansen-Lambert felt that if the historical trees have proven to be problems,we shouldn't use them again. Agnes Greenhall would really like to see other kinds be used to create some variety. Judi Short suggested that when the master plan is made that some professional help be given in the variety and layout of the trees. Voting on the motion that trees in the future be replaced with trees from a list of historical trees provided by Bill Rutherford was 15 in favor, 1 opposed,and 1 abstention. Committee Reports: Housing—Claudia O'Grady was not here so no report. Land Use and Zoning—Gayen Wharton was not here so no report. Activities— Deedra Hansen-Lambert reported that she has been sick so they had held no meeting. She has talked on the phone with the two of the committee members and they would like to do some kind of activity/fund raiser at the time the skate park in Fairmont Park is opened. They are also looking at the possibility of a sesquicentennial plate, book, pin or something as a fund raiser in connection with the 150 year anniversary of the founding of Sugar House next year.They are going to have a standing meeting the 1st Wed. of each month at 6:00 PM. Adjourned at 9:20 P. M. S • http://www.slcgov.com/citizen/comet councils/mins&agsdocs/min sgrhs02052003.htm 3/4/2003 • • Exhibit 5 Letter to Property Owners r Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 13 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division stig A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE um vhi f �'a �a� RDSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION IPDEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR OUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT,AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR May 13, 2003 Dear Property Owner: The Salt Lake City Planning Division is reviewing a petition submitted by Ronald Lee Lindquist to vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 S. Park Street. Please refer to the attached map for details_ The City's formal process for relinquishing its interest in an alley next to a single family or duplex residential property is called an alley vacation. If the City determines that it should vacate an alley, the land is typically divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners. Any abutting property owners that require continued access to the alley would then need to enter into a right-of-way agreement with the other abutting property owners to maintain use of the alley. When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the 1111 continued use of the property as an alley is in the City's best interest. Noticed public hearings are held before both the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the potential adverse impacts created by the proposed vacation. The applicant and other interested parties will have an opportunity to address the members of the boards and present any additional information and/or concerns they may have regarding the request. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the petition, their recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The intent of this letter is to notify you of the proposed alley vacation and request initial comments concerning this issue. Please send any comments you may have in writing to the Planning Division before May 27,2003. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 535-7625. Thank you, rytt-t-A!lia-e_t_5- Janice Lew Planning Division 451 S. State Street, Room 406 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 III 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7757 FAX:801-535-61 74 - HAMMOND,BRUCE J& PEARCE,ALFRED R& Sidwell No.'1619277027 Sidwell No.1619277022 PO BOX 25563 2354 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84125 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 • GAMONAL,ANTONIO D O'DONNELL,MAUREEN A& Sidwell No.1619277026 Sidwell No.1619277004 3008 W SHADOW PARK DR 526 E STRINGHAM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84119 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 D'AUTREMONT,DONALD W;ET MOSS,WANDA L&RICHARD R Sidwell No.1619277006 Sidwell No.1619277021 538 E STRINGHAM AVE 2346 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CURTIS,DEWANE R&VAUNA MERRITT,RICHARD R Sidwell No.1619277003 Sidwell No.1619277010 1612 E TREEVIEW DR 2315 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CULLEY,JANIE L LINDQUIST,RONALD L;JR WANGSGARD,NICHOLE Sidwell No.1619277023 Sidwell No.1619277016 Sidwell No.1619277005 523 E DRIGGS AVE 2357 S 500 E 530 E STRINGHAM AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 • COOPER,GLIBERT L& LINDQUIST,RONALD L SUBDIVISIONS INC Sidwell No.1619277020' Sidwell No.1619277012 Sidwell No.1619277028 149W200N#24 2333S500E 2145SMAINST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 CLARK,JOHN N LINDQUIST,RONALD L&SHE STOMQUIST,GEORGE T& Sidwell No.1619277002 Sidwell No.1619277011 Sidwell No.1619277024 2301 S 500 E 2333 S 500 E 531 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 CHILDS,VERNON J&GERALD JAMES,WENDY SUE RIVERA,WILDOR A Sidwell No.1619277019, Sidwell No.1619277025 Sidwell No.1619277008 2332 S PARK ST 2360 S PARK ST 2309 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 BARR,DUAINE S& HOWARD,0 V READ,KENNETH E Sidwell No.1619277017 Sidwell No.1619277009 Sidwell No.1619277001 2365 S 500 E 5124 S 4820 W 2295 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 ALLERT,CHARLENE S HENDERSON,JOHN N& RANDLE,SCOTT D& • Sidwell No.1619277013 Sidwell No_1619277014 Sidwell No.1619277029 2337 S 500 E 1152 LITTLE VALLEY RD 2322 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 FARMINGTON UT 84025 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® • • Exhibit 6 • Comments from Departments Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 14 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City PIanning Division Lew, Janice From: Kirkwood, Brendon Sent: Tuesday, May 13,2003 11:09 AM To: Lew,Janice •Subject: RE:ALLEY VACATION JANICE, THE ONLY POLICE ALL FOR SERVICE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE WAS A VEH BURG A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THERE ONLY 7 TOTAL CALLS FOR SERVICE. I HOPE THIS HELPS. THANKS, BRENDON. Original Message From: Lew, Janice Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:45 PM To: Kirkwood, Brendon Subject: RE: ALLEY VACATION Thanks Brendon for your comments. Is there any history of crime associated with this alley? JL Original Message From: Kirkwood, Brendon Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:32 PM To: Lew, Janice Cc: Orgill, Alicia Subject: ALLEY VACATION JANICE, I DO NOT FORESEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE ALLEY VACATION AT 2327 S 500 E. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL AFFECT THE POLICE DEPT OR OUR SERVICE. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT ME (799-3203) . .THANKS, DET. BRENDON KIRKWOOD • 1 Lew, Janice From: Curt, Lynn Sent: Wednesday, February 26,2003 11:24 AM • To: Lew,Janice Subject: Proposed Alley Vac. @ 2327 South and 500 East Categories: Program/Policy Janice, I looked over the supplied material for this proposal. I don't have any issues with it. When the petitioner supplies the City with a legal description for this portion of the alley we would like to review it,to make sure it fits with the previously vacated portion,the adjoining lots and that it is an acceptable legal. Lynn • • 2/26/2003 Page 1 of I Lew,Janice • From: Smith,Craig Sent: Wednesday,July 30,2003 11:25 AM To: Lew,Janice Cc: Walsh,Barry Subject: alley vacation Categories:Program/Policy Dear Janice- The Engineering department has reviewed the request submitted by Mr.Randle,to vacate a portion of alley abutting both 2327 S 500E and 2322 Park Street. Due to the vacated portion of the alley(I refer to ordinance#68 of 1988)I feel this request by Mr.Randle would not negatively impact the residents abutting the rest of the alley to the South. Further,the Engineering Department has no interest in this portion of the alley,therefore,I recommend the alley be vacated and divided between the abutting property owners. Again Janice,sorry for the delay. Sincerely, Craig • • 8/1/2003 ROCKY J. FLUHART An Lt\�� .�ld :,IQ.k„j y .11.j ROSS C.ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR PURCHASING, CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Property Management Room 245 26 February 2003 TO: Janice Lew, Planning FROM: Linda Cordova Property Manager REF: Alley Vacation Petitioned by Scott Randle, Located at Approximately 2327 South 500 East • Property Management has no objection to the alley vacation provided there are no access disputes, in which event, a condition of the vacation should be that the adjacent property owners enter into a right-of--way agreement before the Ordinance is recorded. Thank you for asking. Thank you. I 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 245,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 8411 1 TELEPHONE:801-535-7133 FAX:B01-535-6190 W W W.CI.SLC.UT.US/PURCHA 5 INS HTML A ccyeuo MKw At .ab., i v• i Lew, Janice S From: Larson, Bradley Sent: Monday, March 03,2003 10:40 AM To: Lew,Janice Subject: Alley Vacation-adjacent to 2327 S. 500 E. and 2322 Park Street Janice, Please consider this note as Fire Department approval for the above mentioned request. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you, Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal • 3/3/2003 Lew, Janice From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:41 AM To: Lew,Janice Cc: Weiler,Scott; Smith,Craig Subject: Alley vacation 2327so 500 E. Categories: Program/Policy February 26,2003 Janice Lew Planning Division 451 South State St,Rni.406 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re:Petition #400-03-??Alley Vacation abutting Ronald Lindquist 2327 South 500 East and Scott Randle 2322 South Park Street. Dear Janice: The Division of Transportation review comments and recommendations are for approval of the proposed partial alley vacation subject to the following: 1. The alley is required to access several properties to the south and must remain open to vehicular circulation.The portion of the alley proposed for vacation appears to have never been fully open as an access corridor per the existing vegetation. 2. For additional alley closure an access easement is required to be signed by all adjoining property owners to allow existing access to all the other adjoining property to remain. 3. All utilities and utility easements shall remain as required and approved by the entity concerned. 4110 Please feel free to call me at 535-6630 with any questions. Sincerely, Barry D.Walsh Transportation Engineer Assoc. cc: Kevin J.Young,Transportation Scott Weiler,Engineering Craig Smith,Engineering File Barry D. Walsh Engineering Technician VI Salt Lake City Transportation Division 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 . (801) 535-7102 (801)535-6019 FAX barry.walsh@ci.slc.ut.us S G 1 31C truri3-.CVI77 • • • Lew, Janice From: Garcia, Peggy Sent: Monday, February 24,2003 4:15 PM To: Lew, Janice Subject: Alley Vacation Categories: Program/Policy Janice, Salt Lake City Public Utilities has reviewed the proposed alley vacation for the portion of the alley adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street and find no conflicts with the water, sewer and drainage. If you need any further assistance please contact Ray Eastman at 48306787. Thanks, Peggy • 1 • • Exhibit 7 • Photographs Staff Report,Petition Number 400-03-15 15 August 13,2003 by the Salt Lake City Planning Division • • V` • • View of alley looking north • 6 t ., • North end of alley • • 7•-•'s - — -fs_r • Z/Ff. —7 _ 777-- :— • 1 ' - - _ 1 1' I .1 1 - - ;-•••- , • • _ , • ' .-• -11:1`C.;.; • Rear view of 2327 South 500 East . . = , . ' ; • Rear view of 2322 Park Street 4111/ 0 • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION c) Agendas/Minutes August 13, 2003 Park zoning districts. Staff does not have any concerns about the proposed subdivision • provided all City departmental concerns are addressed. According to the Salt Lake City Surface Fault Rupture and Liquefaction Potential Specific Study Areas Map, a geotechnical study is required to determine whether there are any seismic concerns. A geotechnical report has been provided by the applicant indicating that "No evidence of critical surface fault rupture or related deformation was observed...". The report recommends that an additional geotechnical study be completed to provide recommendations for foundation and roadway design given existing soil conditions. RECOMMENDATION Based on the discussion and findings in this Report, Staff recommends preliminary subdivision amendment approval and planned development approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Recordation of a final plat. 2. Meeting all City and Utah Department of Transportation requirements. 3. Providing a geotechnical study to address roadway and foundation design prior to the construction of the roadway or any buildings on the property. 4. An owners association be created to assure that the private streets and utilities proposed will be maintained in perpetuity, if the lots are sold. • Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye". Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. > Petition No. 400-03-15, by Ronald Lee Lindquist, requesting that a portion of an alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street be vacated and declared surplus property. The property is located in a Single Family Residential (R-1-7000) zoning district. This hearing began at 6:59. Planner Janice Lew presented the staff report and explained that the purpose of this request is to vacate a small portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street and declare the property surplus to be used solely by the Petitioner. Ms. Lew said that the property owner on Park Street is willing to relinquish their rights and interest of half of the alley to Mr. Lindquist. Ms. Lew gave a brief description and history of the alley. The Applicant has stated that the alley has served as a dumping ground and has attracted other undesirable activity. This vacation would allow the Applicant to secure and maintain his portion of the alley. She said that the Sugar House Community Council reviewed this proposal in February and a motion to approve the request failed when the Chair voted to break a tie vote. The Community • Council seemed to be worried that the Applicant may build another home on the Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 August 13,2003 property, which is not physically possible, and some felt that the whole alley should be vacated. They also felt that there should be more of a public good with the vacation of • the alley. However, no other comments in opposition have been received at this time. Staff is recommending that the Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council to vacate the alley and declare the property surplus based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the staff report. Chair Jonas noticed that as he read through the Community Council minutes, there seemed to be as many people in favor of closing the whole alley as there were people in support of the Applicant. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Ronald Lee Lindquist if he had given thought to applying for vacation of the whole alley. Mr. Lindquist responded by saying that he had, but the biggest problem is that there are three people who use the alley and the other folks seem to not want to be bothered with it. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. No public comment. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Motion for Petition 400-03-15 Commissioner Scott made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to City • Council to vacate and declare the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street, surplus property based on the findings identified in the staff report, staff recommendation, and subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Daniels seconded the motion. ANALYSIS AND FINDIINGS Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code: Salt Lake City Council policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys. The City will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack of Use. The City's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat, but in fact it is evident from inspection that the alley does not.exist. B. Public Safety. The existence of the alley is contributing to crime, unlawful activity or unsafe conditions. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 August 13,2003 C. Urban Design. The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban • design element. D. Community Purpose. The Petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Discussion: The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City vacate a portion of the alley located adjacent to 2327 South 500 East and 2322 Park Street. The petitioner states that the alley has been a dumping place and attracts other undesirable activity. (Exhibit 1) Please see attached comments from the Police Department. (Exhibit 6) Furthermore, the value of the alley as a positive urban design element has been compromised by its termination in a dead end, and the partial closure of the northern portion of the alley that already limits public access through the block. Findings: The petition meets Considerations B and C. The proposed vacation would create a private alley that the petitioner could then maintain and properly secure to keep out any undesirable activity. Section 14.52.030 (B) of Salt City Code: Public Hearing and Recommendation from the Planning Commission. Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the • Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The City police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Discussion: Staff requested input from pertinent City departments and/or divisions. Comments were received from the Public Utilities, Fire Department, Engineering Division, Division of Transportation, Police Department and Property Management. These comments are attached to this staff report as Exhibit 6. No objections were expressed to the proposed disposition of the property. Findings: The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed this request and have no objections to the proposed disposition of the property. The applicant will be required to maintain all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 411 Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 August 13,2003 Findings: The petition meets Considerations B and C as required in Section 14.52.020 of the Code and outlined above. 3. The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property; Discussion: It has been the City's policy not to vacate an alley if it would deny a property owner required access to the rear of their lot. However, Scott and Christie Randle, owners of property abutting the alley, have no interest in their half of the alley and have entered into an agreement with Ronald Lee Lindquist and Sherry Lindquist to convey their rights and interest to the Lindquists. The properties abutting the subject alley are accessible from driveways located along their street frontage. Therefore, maintaining access to the alley by owners of the abutting property should not be an issue. Findings: Vacating the alley will not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. 4. The petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Discussion: The property will be transferred to an owner of property adjacent to the alley, thereby not creating a small landlocked piece of land. Findings: The proposed alley vacation would not create any landlocked parcels. • 5. The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Discussion: The Sugar House Future Land Use Map, included in the Sugar House Master Plan, identifies this area within the Low Density Residential category. The alley has not been designated for a future trail in the Open Space Master Plan These uses noted in the plan will not be affected by this proposal. Findings: The alley vacation is consistent with applicable policies of the City. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit; 111 Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 August 13,2003 Discussion: The petitioner's intent is to acquire all of the property abutting the • alley. All other owners of property adjacent to the subject portion of the alley have consented to the alley vacation in the attached petition. (Exhibit 1) Findings: No objections were expressed by owners of property abutting the alley. 7. The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Discussion: Petition No. 400-623-88 and Ordinance No. 68 of 1988 vacated the northern portion of the alley. Finding: The proposed petition will further the City's preference for vacating entire alleys by adding to the length of the portion of the subject alley that was partially vacated in 1988. The portion of the subject alley to be vacated should be declared no longer to be needed or available for use as a public alley. 8. The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Discussion: As stated above, both properties abutting the subject alley have access from driveways located along their street frontage. Although the owners • of the Park Street property will relinquish their interest in the alley, the Lindquist property will retain accessibility from the alley. Findings: The alley is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Recommended conditions for the alley closure: 1. The vacation is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. 2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city standards and ordinances. 3. The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners, according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings identified in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to vacate and declare the alley property surplus to the City's needs as a public alley and subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting Page 24 August 13,2003 1. The closure is subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities now located on and under or over the alley property. 2. Future development of the property is subject to compliance with all relevant city • standards and ordinances. 3. The alley property is divided in half, and the property is conveyed to the abutting property owners, according to Utah Code, Title 10-8-8.5. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner DeLay, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted "Aye". Jeff Jonas, as Chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Kern C. Gardner is requesting preliminary subdivision amendment approval for Lots 301 & 302 of the North Cove Estates Plat C and Lot 209 of the North Cove Estates Plat B Subdivisions; a consolidation proposal to split Lot 302 into two equal parts, combining the north half with Lot 301 and the south half with Lot 209t for the construction of a single-family residence located at approximately 1312 North Canyon Oaks Drive (400 East) in a Foothill Residential "FR-1" Zoning District. The hearing began at 7:10. Planner Greg Mikolash spoke to the Commission regarding this petition and explained that usually this type of development would go through an administrative process. • There is no need or request to build a larger structure on either one of the proposed lots. The Applicant is proposing to combine three existing lots into two new lots. Mr. Mikolash explained that Mr. David Freed, a neighbor of the Applicant, will be the recipient of the southern portion. Staff is recommending subdivision amendment approval subject to the proposal being in compliance with all departmental comments in the staff report, and the Applicant shall not obtain a building permit until at a final plat is recorded with the County Recorder's Office. Mr. Kern C. Gardner said that he was required to buy both lots in order to get the lot that he wanted. His thought was to sell the second lot, but that would cause another home to be built which would hurt his and his neighbor's view. He and his neighbor, David Freed, got together and found this proposal to be the best alternative. Mr. Davis Freed addressed the Commission asking for their support saying that this is the best alternative for both owners. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. No public comment. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. • Planning Commission Meeting Page 25 August 13,2003 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT • BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2004 DATE: November 18, 2003 BUDGET FOR: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility - Proposed 2004 Calendar Year Budget STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget &Policy Analyst cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Rick Graham, Steve Fawcett, Kevin Bergstrom, Greg Davis, Romney Stewart and Stuart Palmer The Solid Waste Management Council has forwarded the proposed 2004 calendar year Solid Waste Management Facility budget for the City Council's review. Members of the Solid Waste Management Facility's Administration will be present at the November 20th briefing to answer Council questions. The Salt Lake County Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting this budget on December 9, 2003. On that same day the Salt Lake City Council could hold its public hearing and consider adopting this budget. • ANALYSIS The Administration's paperwork outlines in detail the proposed changes to the Solid Waste Management Facility's budget. Calendar year 2004 revenues are estimated at $15,764,000; expenditures are estimated at $15,559,849. Excess revenues over expenditures of$204,151 are proposed to accumulate in fund balance to be used for future capital costs. The most significant changes to the budget as compared to the amended 2003 budget are as follows: 1. Landfill tonnage is down. As a result of less waste being deposited into the landfill, revenue will be down by $923,964, $750,000 of which is attributable to tipping fee revenue. Other revenue sources include compost sales, salvage sales, interfund charges and other sources. 2. Sale of vehicle revenue will decrease by $227,291. This reduction is due to higher than anticipated vehicle sale prices in 2003, which are not expected to be replicated this year. 3. The total expense budget reduction will be $923,964. The major components are capital expenditures will be reduced by $965,603 and contract hauling costs which will by $140,000. There are offsetting increases of $235,000 in contract labor, regulatory fees and other professional / intergovernmental costs. . 1 BACKGROUND The Salt Lake City/County Solid Waste Management Facility is jointly owned and operated by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. The Solid Waste Management IIFacility's operation is based on an Interlocal agreement entered into by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County in 2000 (this agreement replaced an earlier agreement which was effective from 1980-2000). The Interlocal agreement establishes a Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council. The Management Council appoints the Director of the Solid Waste Management Facility, who supervises and manages the day-to-day activities of the Facility. Information on the facility and its programs has been provided by the Administration. The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council worked with the Facility's Director to develop a proposed 2004 calendar year operating and capital improvement budget for the Facility. The Management Council reviewed and approved the proposed budget on September 15, 2003. According to the agreement both the City Council and the County Council must approve a budget for Facility. Any changes the City Council makes to the proposed budget will be forwarded to the County Council for consideration. • II 2 &n r 0 2003 RICHARD GRAHAM SAL' .% Al N eM TV ' �'MOW 1 '� m ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: November 7, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rick Graham,Director py 535-7774 Public Services SUBJECT: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility Budget for Calendar Year 2004 STAFF CONTACT: Greg Davis 535-6397 Stuart Palmer, SLValley Solid Waste Management 974-6920 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance • RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the budget as proposed by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council. BUDGET IMPACT: None. This is an Enterprise Fund completely supported by user fees and charges, and managed by Salt Lake County. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: Under a joint management and operation agreement, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County own the Salt Lake Valley Waste Management Facility. The proposed 2004 budget reflects changes to ongoing Landfill operating costs. It was reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management council on September 15, 2003. The Salt Lake County Council has scheduled its public hearing and formal adoption of the proposed budget for December 9, 2003. Budget schedules and a descriptive narrative are attached. PUBLIC PROCESS: None, except Landfill Council review and approval. cc:Vault i 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789 `�'i RECYc Ec PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Adopting the Solid Waste Management Facility budget, which has been prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council for calendar year 2004, subject to specific policy directives) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY BUDGET, AS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY THE SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC POLICY DIRECTIVES. PREAMBLE On November 14, 2000, Salt Lake City(the "City") and Salt Lake County(the "County") entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (the "Agreement"), pursuant 11111 to Title 11, Chapter 13 of the Utah Code Annotated, regarding the joint management and operation of a Solid Waste Management Facility. The Agreement established the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council and provided it with authority and responsibility relating to the operation and management of the Solid Waste Management Facility. Pursuant to the Agreement, all actions by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council constitute recommendations to the City and the County and the City and the County have the power to review, ratify, modify or veto any action of the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council. The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council has prepared the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget for calendar year 2004 and has submitted said • attached budget to the City Council for their approval. The City Council has authority relating to budgets and appropriation of funds and, therefore,must approve, on behalf of • the City, the Solid Waste Management Facility budget. The attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget has been available for public inspection in the Office of the City Recorder for at least ten days. The City Council fixed the time and place for a public hearing to be held on December 9, 2003 to consider the adoption of the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget and ordered notice thereof be published at least seven days prior to the hearing. Notice of said public hearing, to consider the adoption of said Solid Waste Management Facility budget, was duly published as required herein. A public hearing to consider adoption of said Solid Waste Management Facility budget was held on December 9, 2003, in accordance with said notice, at which hearing all interested persons were heard for and against the estimates of revenue and expenditures in the Solid Waste • Management Facility budget. The City Council wants to adopt the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget for calendar year 2004, submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council, subject to specific policy directives. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Ordinance is to adopt the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget, prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council, for calendar year 2004, subject to the attached policy directives. SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF BUDGET. The attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget,prepared and submitted by the Salt Lake Valley Solid • 2 Waste Management Council, for calendar year 2004, is hereby adopted subject to the • attached policy directives, and subject to similar approval by the County. SECTION 3. RESERVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND. The City reserves the right to amend the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget, at any time, consistent with the Agreement. SECTION 4. PUBLIC INSPECTION. Copies of the attached Solid Waste Management Facility budget shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2003. • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on . Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR //— G -v3 zi III ,g0.4.,_ ---7.,/ ,.....,_ ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • G:\Ordinance 03\Adopting the Solid Waste Mgmt Facility Budget-Nov 6,2003.doc • 4 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services FY0304 Department For Fiscal Year SLVSWMF 2004 Budget Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number Co-Approve SLVSWMF Annual Budget Type of Initiative CFDA Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Interest 813,00 829,26 845,845 Landfill Fees 14,000,00 14,000,00 14,954,545 Compost Sales 370,000 370,00 370,000 Salvage Sales 220,00 230,00 240,000 Interfund Charges 105,00 105,00 105,000 Other Sources 256,00 260,00 275,000 Fund Balance...(Favorable)/Unfavorable (204,151 100,91 (546,426) • Total $15,559,84 $15,895,17 $16,243,965 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund 15,559,849 15,895,178 16,243,965 Total $15,559,849 $15,895,178 $16,243,965 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2,579,301 2,643,784 2,709,879 2. Employee Benefits 1,158,817 1,187,787 1,217,482 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 265,700 265,700 270,000 4. Charges and Services 9,315,031 9,547,907 9,786,604 5. Capital Outlay 2,241,000 2,250,000 2,260,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $15,559,849 $15,895,178 $16,243,965 • Landfill Budget_fiscal note tied to BA#111/7/20039:43 AM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE GradelStep Amount County Employees-2003 71.40 Waste Inspector 0.10 Seasonal, now full time 0.45 Seasonal, now full time 0.45 County Employees-2004 72.40 County Employees-2005 72.40 County Employees-2006 72.40 • • Landfill Budget_fiscal note_tied to BA#111/7/20039:43 AM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Each year the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF), which is jointly owned by Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City, submits its budget to Salt Lake City for approval. Salt Lake City last provided its approval of the SLVSWMF budget in December of 2002 for calendar year 2003. Condition: SLVSWMF has submitted to Salt Lake County its proposed budget for calendar year • 2004 and is seeking approval from Salt Lake City. Effect: As in the past, revenue will match expense with a contribution being made to fund balance. Year-to-year, revenue and expense will decrease by $923,964 after a contribution to fund balance of $204,151 has been factored in. The contribution to fund balance in calendar year 2004 is budgeted to be $30,673 more than in the amended calendar year budget for 2003. Cause: The major revenue and expense changes are as follows. Revenue, including a contribution to fund balance, is proposed to decrease in 2004 by $923,964. This major component of this reduction is diminishing landfill tonnage. This loss in tonnage equates to 5.1% or a $750,000 reduction in tipping fee revenue. Sale of vehicle revenue, will decrease by $227,291 because auction proceeds on a piece of equipment sold were higher than anticipated and will not be replicated. Offsetting these proposed reductions is a increase of $30,000 in compost sales and an increase of $40,000 in salvage sales. Expenses are also proposed to decrease by $923,964. Proposed increases in expense include a $20,000 increase in contract labor, a $70,000 increase in regulatory fees and a $145,000 increase in other professional / intergovernmental costs. Major decreases proposed in expense include a reduction in capital expenditures of $965,603 and a reduction of $140,000 in contract hauling. Recommendation: Approve the SLVSWMF budget. Analyst Comments: • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 9—In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3—Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question I - Will this grant fund employee positions? What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? • Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? • • MEMORANDUM DATE: November 18, 2003 TO: Salt Lake City Council Members FROM: Michael Sears, Budget&Policy Analyst RE: UTA Commuter Rail Interlocal Agreement The Administration has forwarded a memo concerning a proposed Interlocal Agreement between the Utah Transit Authority and the municipalities and counties along the commuter rail corridor. As noted in the memo, the terms of the agreement specify that Salt Lake City would waive all zoning and regulatory authority, all permitting authority and all fees or other charges relating to the commuter rail project. The Administration has worked with UTA to discuss the legal and policy concerns that the original draft interlocal agreement caused. There are still numerous concerns with the proposed agreement, • but the current proposal allow cities to retain authority within the corridor subject to certain conditions and establishes a dispute resolution process. The Administration is working will both a technical group and a legal group to facilitate the development of an agreement that is beneficial to the City. After adoption of the interlocal agreement the City would pursue adoption of necessary changes to the zoning ordinance. If the cities and counties cannot reach agreement with UTA by the end of January, UTA will seek state legislation that preempts the authority of the different entities. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Gary Mumford and Russell Week • ueseretnews.com Legislators back U"1'A plan to skip local rail-line consent ! Deseret Morn.. Page 1 of 2 deseretnews.com • Deseret Morning News, Thursday, November 20, 2003 Legislators back UTA plan to skip local rail-line consent By Josh Loftin Deseret Morning News The Utah Transit Authority may have the right to build everything from commuter rail tracks to billboards without local government consent under a proposed bill endorsed by a legislative committee. The bill would allow UTA to bypass local approvals, permits and fees for anything it builds within the Zoo-foot-wide rail corridor that stretches from Brigham City to Payson. The legislation is not a tactic being used by UTA to impact communities without consulting with local leaders,bill sponsor Sen. Gregory Bell, R-Farmington, told members of the Political Subdivisions Interim Committee. It simply prevents the regional project from being delayed by external demands, he said. For example, some cities have requested a chain-link fence along the corridor, a multimillion-dollar and time-consuming addition to the project that never was needed when freight trains were operating on the line. • "They [UTA] are veryflexible," Bell said. "Theyjust hostage." don't want to be held Jody Hoffman, policy analyst for the League of Cities and Towns, said that local governments fear losing control of projects within their borders because of unanticipated impacts. For example, UTA could place billboards within the corridor, even if a city has banned them. "It's a Zoo-foot corridor where UTA could put anything up as a revenue source and the cities can't do anything about it," she said. "This bill is giving them [UTA] an atomic bomb." Kathryn Pett, general counsel for UTA, said giving the agency an exemption was only designed to facilitate the regional commuter rail project, not to eliminate local control from the process. Because UTA receives funding from local governments and their governing board is appointed by city councils and county commissions, it would be counter-productive to ignore the concerns of those same officials, she said. "Nobody at UTA has ever said that we don't want to talk," Pett said. "We consider ourselves employed by local government." Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, urged the cities to negotiate their own, individual agreements with UTA before the January session begins. He said he suspects the commuter rail project will override legislators' usual concerns about local control. S "The project will override the concerns of individual cities when it goes to the Legislature, http://deseretnews.com/do/print/1,1442,525039192,00.htm1 11/20/2003 deseretnews.com I Legislators back UTA plan to skip local rail-line consent I Deseret Morn.. Page 2 of 2 Halyard said. "It is not a Layton City issue, not a Centerville City issue. It is a state of Utah issue." III E-mail:jloftin@desnews.com ©2003 Deseret News Publishing Company Ill III http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,525039192,00.html 11/20/2003 MORANDUM • TO: Rocky Fluhartt FROM: Chris Bramhall DATE: November 17,2003 RE: UTA Commuter Rail Interlocal Agreement UTA has proposed an Interlocal Agreement between itself and over 40 municipalities and counties along the Wasatch Front from Pleasant View to Payson,to facilitate the funding,construction,operation and maintenance of commuter rail. Under UTA's initial proposal,the cities and counties would waive: • All zoning and regulatory authority; • All permitting authority;and • • All fees or other charges within UTA's commuter rail corridor. The corridor consists,generally,of the easterly 20 feet of Union Pacific's train corridor. This 20-foot strip is now owned outright by UTA. Commuter rail and UP traffic will run on separate tracks through the majority of the commuter rail line. At least three entities,including Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County,would retain limited franchise authority relating to crossings of public streets. UTA argued that a legal agreement of some sort governing the entire length of the corridor was necessary to qualify for federal funding,and negotiating separate agreements with 40+entities would be impossible prior to the beginning of the next federal funding cycle. As a fallback,in case the cities and counties could not come to agreement in a timely manner,UTA would seek preemptive state legislation. While some entities(most noticeably those in Davis County)are very supportive of this approach,others have raised significant legal and policy objections. Given that UTA needs 100%buy-in,it became apparent that UTA's initial approach would need to be modified. After numerous meetings and discussions,the current proposal calls for the following: • • The Interlocal Agreement will require council approval; • The Interlocal Agreement will include a proposed model rail corridor zoning ordinance, to be adopted by all the entities; 1111 • The model zoning ordinance will specify certain standards or conditions to be adhered to by UTA; • Cities and counties will retain authority within the corridor, subject to the limitations set forth in the zoning ordinance; and • A dispute resolution process will be established in the Interlocal Agreement. Two small working groups have been established: a legal drafting group and a technical group. Salt Lake City is represented on both groups. The objective is to prepare an Interlocal Agreement that can be approved by the councils of the participating cities and counties by the end of January. Adoption of the zoning ordinance, which is a somewhat more lengthy process,will take place as soon thereafter as possible. I have attached certain related materials distributed by UTA. Please call me or Steven Allred if you have any questions (535-7788). • • Background Paper 110 Proposed Master Interlocal Agreement For Fixed Guideway Systems in Railroad Corridors Utah Transit Authority October 31, 2003 Purpose of Agreement Before UTA can actually begin construction (with federal assistance)on any fixed guideway transit system within any of the railroad corridors it has recently acquired from Union Pacific Railroad,UTA must complete a federal environmental impact statement, and must then negotiate a federal "Full Funding Grant Agreement"(r'FGA)with the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)for cost participation in the project construction. The FFGA represents a commitment on the part of both the Administration and Congress to help fund the project. Before signing such agreements,FTA requires UTA to provide evidence that all required permits and/or interlocal agreements are in place, to ensure that the project scope and budget are defined. Construction and operation of rail facilities by railroad companies within these railroad corridors historically have been preempted by federal law from municipal or county land use or planning regulations. UTA believes that this exemption from local regulations also applies to entities, like UTA,that operate passenger rail systems in rail corridors that are part of the general railway system. To date,UTA has not sought a ruling from the Surface Transportation Board(STB)on this issue, although transit agencies in other states have received such rulings,including the North County Transit District in San Diego.To avoid the delay in seeking such a finding from the STB,UTA is instead proposing a master interlocal agreement to provide a definitive declaration. This will enable UTA to obtain federal Full Funding Grant Agreements expeditiously, and then construct and operate public transit fixed guideway systems economically and efficiently, as many local governments and the public have requested. Experience in Other States Over the past 20 years,many transit agencies in other states have acquired railroad corridors, or entered into agreement with railroads for shared use of their corridors to enable construction of public fixed guideway transit systems. UTA has recently surveyed those other transit agencies. A summary of the survey results is attached. Without exception,the agencies surveyed stated that they have: 1) Been exempt from local planning approvals and permits for fixed guideway transit facilities within the railroad corridor rights-of-way, such as track, signal or guideway improvements, switches, platforms, and bypass sidings.However they have also: Background Paper Proposed Master Interlocal Agreement for Fixed Guideway Systems in Railroad Corridors The UTA Board of Trustees has the ultimate approval authority for the design, construction and operation of all UTA facilities within the railroad corridors. The UTA Board members are appointed by and answer to the local governments that UTA serves. In addition to this local project oversight, a number of state and federal agencies have specific, ongoing oversight responsibilities for certain areas, including those identified below in connection with construction and operation of public fixed guideway transit facilities by UTA in railroad corridors: • FTA has oversight of initial design, construction and environmental compliance, and shares with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)the review of designs with respect to safety. • FRA has oversight of the overall safety of the project's operations, including coordination with freight railroad operations. • UDOT is charged with oversight of all railroad grade crossing safety issues. • The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),shares oversight with the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) of all issues related to hazardous materials along the railroad corridor during construction and operation. • Union Pacific Railroad has design review over all matters that could affect the safety of their railroad operations and service to their customers; and coordination with UTA operations.. The attached matrix provides a more detailed list of the most important regulations UTA • must follow, and the agencies responsible for oversight of each regulatory requirement. Issues of Interest and Concern to Municipalities and Counties UTA fully recognizes that there are a number of issues related to the design, construction and operation of transit facilities along the railroad corridors that are of interest and concern to the local governments adjacent to those corridors. UTA is more than willing to discuss those issues with local governments. Recent meetings with a number of local elected officials have identified the issues listed below: Operational Issues • Train speed • Train frequency and hours of operation • Grade crossings and safety • Train noise Maintenance Issues • Fencing • Weed control • Location of maintenance and train storage facilities Capital/Construction Issues • Utah Transit Authority October 31,2003 3 Background Paper Proposed Master Interlocal Agreement for Fixed Guideway Systems in Railroad Corridors • be resolved before the FFGA can be issued for that time-critical project. Execution of the proposed Master Interlocal Agreement will make that challenge possible. The execution of the agreement will also simplify the downstream implementation of other commuter rail and light rail extension projects and assist in earlier completion of the regional system that local governments have requested. • Utah Transit Authority October 31,2003 5 MATRIX OF REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AGENCIES • AND RESPONSIBILITIES OVER ACTIONS WITHIN RAILROAD CORRIDORS Area of Responsibility FTA FRA UDOT EPA DEQ STB Project Planning (X) X X X X X Environmental Impacts (X) X X Project Design - Design criteria&oversight (X) X X X - Equipment criteria (X) X X - RR property ownership issues (X) X X X - RR grade crossings (X) X X X - RR signals, communications (X) X X X -Tracks, sidings, interlockings (X) X X - Drainage (X) X X X Hazardous Materials (X) X X Construction -Construction Impacts (X) X X - Utility Relocations (X) X - RR op'ns during construct. (X) X X - Safety during construction (X) X X X Operations of Transit Project • -Train speed (X) X X - Hours of operation (X) X X -Grade crossing protection (X) X X X -Train noise (X) - Safety of operations (X) X X X - Maintenance of ROW (X) X X - Maintenance of equipment (X) X X Note: (X) means that the oversight responsibility is by virtue of FTA funding participation X means that the oversight responsibility applies without regard to funding source FTA Federal Transit Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration UDOT Utah Department of Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency DEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality STB Surface Transportation Board • Utah Transit Authority October 31, 2003 . US EXPERIENCE WITH LOCAL PLANNING & PERMIT APPROVALS FOR RAIL TRANSIT Local Site Plan Approvals or Building Rail Transit Permits Required for Rail Construction? Operating Agency Within RR ROW Outside of RR ROW Information Source TRE, Dallas No Yes Bonnie Duhr, 972-399-1948 Metra, Chicago No Yes, limited review, Gary Foyle, 312-322-8030 with fees waived NJ Transit, No Courtesy notification Rich Sarles, 973-322-8030 New Jersey and review only MARC, Maryland No Not required, but do Edward Smith,410-767-3943 work with local gov'ts VRE, Virginia No Yes Jennifer Straub, 703-684-1001 Tri-Rail, Florida No Yes Michael Lulo and Dan Mazza, 954-788-7951 San Diego North Co. No Yes Pete Aadland, 760-967-2828 Transit District Coaster and Sprinter • MetroLink, Los No Yes Mike McGinley, 213-452-0200 Angleles ACE, San Jose No Yes Stacey Mortensen, 209-468-5600 CalTrain, San Courtesy notification Yes Howard Goode, 650-508-6200 Francisco only Sounder, Seattle No Yes Marty Minkoff, 206-398-5000 Without exception, the transit agencies do work closely with local governments for review of station area site plans and other improvements outside of the railroad rights-of-way; but are exempt from local review of trackwork, railroad signals and similar improvements constructed within the railroad right-of-way. Those exemptions are sometimes by statute,sometimes by agreement, and sometimes by long-standing railroad exemptions passed on to the transit agency. (Above summary prepared by Paul N. Bay, PE, UTA Transp. Consultant, 801-262-5626 x 2591) • Utah Transit Authority October 31, 2003 4 \ ..4.2 4.41 ' 4 o , -40 - „ .•- f••4.7!.. "I..,.'' . . -,,,• •b"-*i " RAIL CORRIDOR i-, slot City4y. . ,..-, " .7-",ir,o- -iv' i" .. .... , , PRESERVATION ; ... • ,•,. -;• . ....-- . . ••. ..r.' ..4 -.:-"t! ellIMIND Shared Corridor se'•:=..fie;ii '? UP Ogden Subdivision 7--r-.4k d:4 ';'1.0.1',/ '-,- 4imm UTA Ownership ...... --,....14.- 4 ....or 9 e o;i141 ,e• ,./' 4 / =mom Access Agreement •"'....i-W , 1, ,•7 1-..... -. , .., ,4 ''" a e 11•' ,o I ,„ .,i6,1: Ogden ,,',..4:',7.,1 .1.1 ;40 .p.ti , 4 .. - _• 4 ;.-a 1 e '4"'I k'-. ....Jai'i'' 0; • *.f.„A,/ / --.40.-- , N ,. r ,Clearfield Clearfield Facility ,, I-i,;...-' -.•.A4,4-:,,•,.,,."....:.,,.,• _- ;•'-..;r',i',i,'p 7'.''.4.,.- 1;A''...•.I,-)!'''I ,,, --..,.,,',*•..20...''.''.-'4'..-4.,i-P.h.•4 44.a1:-*i.t lGreat Laytols= T Lake \ "4 . s Ip'i,4I--i'i•f . . ., .4.1 UP Salt Lake Subdivision iL.A" -F ' it UP Salt Lake Subdivision ;(formerly9regon Short Line),\-:./ - pir iL ' - )1,4,..._4. i $.rii-.11:..:#' .''''.40 a' • - 4 (formerly Denver 81..1:1i!G!ande Western) ' ;,.--e-,- • rrii7. 4 ,. 1-• 1-44 Ai Fr ---7 ,..rt• •'‘ ./.4.".,/ 11'.'„ ..P i 1. I ' Y .t,.:..4 .. , ... ...01 ..01 1 Bountiful-fp, .- , „4 % . ,--4:,,,., r,jk ..'•,:i ,..,,,,-- ,i,4,........--,• - ; ..0... . .. . ,.)_,_... North Salt Lake Facility7r, = if 14-1sait- - ' );!"'" -4- **-- -: ;.0 -- ',,i'a ;i't• ••,4 ;• .i.-: I 0 Maintenance Facility --„. L_a.ke_. ...• ..' *„4,.g...:,,".,:;,e1; --•„: 1 ..:.1.0'. , if"4 ,., , .........,,,,,s.......„.............,„.._ ,,,,,7,4 ,., .,,. dr-,4• 'I. - --- ____ ' , k--••• .,41 ,4.- ' A, -.•,,...:i (20,,,t.-. :.. 1 UP Sugarhouse Spur-* \ •• •' ,•ey.",;'' . t.4.: -''''• l• .1k, , 0,, i ,•,,,. ,, , ..,„ , 4 if, . „a, ,, ,., --, i z•-• ---;.rrw- , r.., 1 ' ' !..' '.71. , -4, ,, i• ... 4....,'•it . UP Bingham Industrial Lead /- ! cu -:';, ,,.'S,-,.. li -.'irei .41 ' ' i '• 4 9 7 I ji ........-... 'f f...• 74).ikaa&-.. To A San. div .44..." ..3: West "or::•.'' ', 1 . ...::•*°'i • ,-•,.404 Jordan )111clo ,... 4(2, ...., ,., .. ."'...‘ 0:.•,•.,, .07,40160 ,.. ;.,. x . . _'..":4,-) j.....0.-;:-..,: 41N ....4;.. ., \ ' 't 111°' 4-'-41''4 ..,. • 1.1), „.._,_... . , _ - -American ,-- 1 i cr .' J'v - Irf.F:i! '',, ,. •.'r. ,,, ty- , •;.,4 .,:pk - ; ,,:.f.-..',„( .. '''ii. UP,Provo Industrial Lead . ,i e r '. -' • 11.,._ .. (TRAX,Extension)1 1 -.., . ..,.. .J.IP Provo Subdivision i. ..z. 4:4'1 •)e'..*:'-.4.il' '' . • . ( ...4,-!_.-:4, *rt , ...) :"•." er0m/P rovo d 1 . l''' „ .., \,r UP Sharp 4,- r, ,,...47; ,. ;..i., •.,,pip„.; . ; -;,rt jos k:1 tlei'l'l'Y-, k• -4-y 1114- f::--tSubdivision ••-•:.' '4.*'. • • -''. ' i,e-•r,.i.:• 7;',1 .i' , ....•-. -4 4 . f P 4i t • '.-1 rSharp ...13 Subdivision ,.. Utah up ', ... Lake 1 ,r -- N ..0.-,- r,.--\ ,i, ,ii• . .. . 0 Spanish Fork ,f.,1'.11 . , E UP Tintic Industrial Lead 1 — , ii'?,.:•f .igi, -f ti''.., ,,,a .4 • r ''' li..- - S ,. -.' ::. ..,..,. " '41 •A ;I,.4-k 'iii...."' !.( ) il'-S) I ..Nif,' . ........1--,,y 4. 1,.,!. 1------ -,01 te- ',' • - 2 . :14. '..1.- -2 ' ' • -4 i ...),,,.., (.4 yr•‘, .. ..,°•,.401 4, ,.. ., :.:...,.- . -JY '1,- :.::ife• -T-0-10 ;:._ ,,. ...„,„ Payson/ i - 41 : .,,,, ,p1,.. ,i,,,t07.... ....----,._/ I ,7 . j.:.71,,X , /‘ 1 ',',"449- /' ' ••"(4.!..,9r / • t 4. ',.• -‘C.A" 7 r...k." • --.11 "r- .,. V NOV 1 0 2003 • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL n TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: November 10, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Steve Fawcett SUBJECT: Early Retirement Incentive Proposals STAFF CONTACTS: Laurie Dillon a' A ,GC.— Jodi Langford Sr. Administrative Analyst Employee Benefits Administrator 535-7766 535-6610 • DOCUMENT TYPE: Information RECOMMENDATION: Proposals for early retirement incentives have been developed. This transmittal describes five proposals, and evaluates each one in terms of costs and benefits for several employee groups. Should the City adopt a retirement incentive program,the Administration strongly recommends a very limited window of opportunity(one to three months). With an early retirement incentive,the City would stand to lose long-term, experienced employees who make significant contributions in our departments. BUDGET IMPACT: All of the proposals would cost the City money in the first three years,but some may realize a net savings over a period of five years. A retirement incentive would accelerate and concentrate the typical retirement leave payouts in the fiscal year in which it is implemented. The expenses for training new recruits in the Police and Fire departments would also be increased in the same year. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In June 2003, the City Council requested that the Administration develop options for an early retirement incentive program for City employees. Administrative staff from Human Resources,Accounting, and Budget and Policy developed the five following proposals: • 1. The City would pay 100% of the retiree only(single)medical premium until the retiree reaches age 65. 2. The City would pay 100% of the retiree only(single)medical premium for up to • five years or until the retiree reaches age 65, whichever comes first. 3. The City would pay 100% of the retiree only(single)medical premium for up to 10 years or until the retiree reaches age 65,whichever comes first. 4. The City would pay for 95%of the cost for 5 years of future service credit for employees with 25 or more years of service under the noncontributory system. (This proposal is not allowable for any employee who is a member of the Public Safety, Firefighters, or Contributory system.) 5. The City would pay a lump sum of$20,000 to each retiree. The costs, advantages and disadvantages of these proposals were evaluated for five groups of employees who are either currently eligible to retire, or will be eligible within five years if they are in a retirement system that allows the purchase of up to five years of future service. Considerations for each proposal are the leave payout costs (vacation, sick leave and retirement leave) for each employee group; the typical salary savings that can be expected if employees are replaced with less experienced, and thus lower paid employees; the overall cost of each incentive; and the range in the amounts that individual employees could receive under each proposal. • I PA • RANDUM TO: Rocky J. Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Laurie Dillon DATE: November 10, 2003 CC: Steve Fawcett, Brenda Hancock, Gordon Hoskins, Jodi Langford SUBJECT: Early Retirement Incentive Proposals Five alternatives for early retirement incentives have been developed. Several employee groups were evaluated for each proposal. The costs and net savings under each program over a period of 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years are listed and compared, as well as other advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. No net savings occurs with any of the incentive proposals over the first three years when all the costs associated with retirement are considered. Accrued leave (vacation, sick leave, and retirement leave) is paid at retirement, and the salary savings from replacing more experienced employees with less experienced personnel is not enough over a three year period to compensate for the cost • of leave payouts and a retirement incentive. For some employee groups, it takes more than three years for the salary savings to make up for the leave payout costs alone, without the additional cost of a retirement incentive. A retirement incentive would accelerate and concentrate the leave payout costs in the year in which the incentive is offered. In addition the City would incur higher training costs in that same fiscal year. The increase in expenses for training would have the greatest effect on the Police and Fire departments. A separate concern for an early retirement incentive is that the City could lose long-term, experienced employees who make significant contributions in various City departments. Background In June 2003, the City Council requested that the Administration develop options for an early retirement incentive program for City employees. The presumed purpose for such a program would be to decrease personnel costs by replacing longer-term employees at higher salaries with less experienced employees who would be at lower salary levels. Administrative staff in Human Resources, Accounting, and Budget and Policy developed the options and analyzed the data described in this report. Reasons Employees Do Not Retire: The main reason employees give for not retiring, even though they have enough years of service to receive what is considered a full • retirement benefit (20 years for Police and Fire employees, 30 years for other employees), is that the cost of health insurance is too high to cover on the reduced income at retirement. Many employees are not yet 65 years old when they are eligible to retire, so Medicare is not available to them. Also, some have family members who 1111 require coverage. Other reasons may be the need for higher income for a few more years, the fact that the Public Employees Retirement System has no maximum benefit (employees continue to accrue 2% of their salary toward their pension for every year worked), or simply the personal preference to continue their employment. The incentives developed for these proposals primarily address ways to reduce the employee's cost of health insurance, although some address such a reduction more directly than others. Analysis and Alternatives The five proposals are: 1. The City would pay 100% of the retiree only(single) medical premium until the retiree reaches age 65. 2. The City would pay 100% of the retiree only(single) medical premium for up to five years or until the retiree reaches age 65, whichever comes first. 3. The City would pay 100% of the retiree only(single) medical premium for up to 10 years or until the retiree reaches age 65, whichever comes first. 4. The City would pay for 95% of the cost for 5 years of future service credit for employees with 25 or more years of service under the noncontributory system. (Under the Utah Retirement System, 95% is the maximum amount that an employer may provide for the purchase of future service credit. This proposal is not allowable for any employee who is a member of the Public Safety, Firefighters, or Contributory system.) 5. The City would pay a lump sum of$20,000 to each retiree. 1111 The first three proposals address paying for insurance premiums for varying lengths of time,but not past age 65. For employees who are already age 65, there is no benefit in any of the first three options. With proposal number 4,purchasing future service years is an option for most of the City employees other than those in Police and Fire. There would be no reduction for"early" retirement. Because the future service purchase amount is based on current salaries, the actual dollar benefit that each employee would receive would vary. Under the fifth option, the $20,000 payment could be a cash payment or a contribution into a 401(k)plan, whichever suited the employee's needs. A payment into a 501(c)9 insurance premium only plan is also an option,but this would require certain conditions to be met. Each employee bargaining group (Police, Fire, etc.) would have to agree that the lump sum would go into a 501(c)9 account, and individual employees could not deviate from that. This kind of account is not subject to taxes. Every eligible employee would receive the same dollar value of benefit under proposal number 5. Under the Utah Retirement System, employees with 30 years of service may retire at any age with no reduction of benefits. Pertaining to proposal#4, participants in the noncontributory system may purchase up to 5 additional years of service to qualify for the non-reduced benefit. However, those under the contributory system are not eligible to purchase future service years. About a third of the employees with 25 to 30 years of service participate in the contributory system, so they would not be eligible for the future 2 • service purchase benefit. Police and Fire employees are eligible to retire at any age with 20 years of service, but there is no purchase option for them to buy additional years of service. With these requirements in mind, and considering that Medicare is available for retirees at age 65, the following employee groups were identified. A. Employees 60 years of age or older, with 30 or more years of service. There are 16 employees in this category. B. Employees 60 years of age or older, with any years of service. There are 66 employees in this group, including those in category#1. C. Employees of any age, with 30 or more years of service. There are 94 employees in this category, again with the employees in category#1 being included. D. Employees of any age, with 25 to 30 years of service (Police and Fire not included). There are 101 employees in this group, with 68 of the 101 employees in this group in the noncontributory(vs. contributory) system. This means that for proposal #4, the 5-year future service purchase, the benefit would only be available to the 68 employees in the noncontributory system. E. Police and Fire employees with 20 or more years of service. There are 158 employees in this category. It should be noted that the numbers of employees are somewhat understated, since the numbers reflect those with years of service with Salt Lake City only. Other City • employees may qualify for some options through additional earlier years of service with other public sector employees covered by the Utah State Retirement System. Retirement Costs: The City's retirement costs include vacation, sick leave, personal leave,retirement leave accounts, and retirement incentives paid at the time of retirement. The table below lists the historic costs for the past 6'/2 years. There was an early retirement incentive in place until June of 2002. The average retirement cost for the General Fund per year was $1,040,803. Of that amount 70%was paid to Fire and Police Department retirees. The City Council has funded $650,000 in the current budget year for retirees' leave payouts. Table 1 Retirement Costs Calendar Year General Fund Enterprise and Other Total Funds 1997 $1,509,964 $225,879 $1,735,843 1998 $735,810 $301,232 $1,037,042 1999 $1,077,080 $363,713 $1,440,793 2000 $1,243,051 $440,918 $1,683,969 2001 $757,014 $486,974 $1,243,988 2002 $1,132,864 $423,505 $1,556,366 • 2003 Through 6/30 $309,442 $107,730 $417,172 3 Methodology for Determination of Potential Salary Savings, Leave Payout Costs, and Costs for Retirement Incentives: There are two costs related to retirement and incentives, II the incentive itself and the pay out to employees for accumulated leave time. These costs are offset by salary savings that occur when a more experienced and higher paid employee is replaced with a less experienced employee,brought in at a lower salary. Ten employees in positions typical of each employee group (the five groups—A through E— defined previously)were used to develop the approximate costs for leave pay outs and approximate salary savings for each group. The pay out costs were averaged based on this sample. These costs are not exact, but they do give an indication of what the City could expect from each employee group. The implementation costs for each proposal were calculated from a listing of every known employee who would be eligible under each option. First Year Leave Pay Out Costs and Salary Savings: The net costs or savings for the City after the amounts for leave payout and salary adjustments have been made are projected for the first year in Table 2, based on the sampling of ten typical employees and positions. This gives an approximate idea of how much the City would pay for accumulated leave per retiree without any incentives. The salary adjustment in the first year does not provide enough savings in any of the situations to cover the entire cost of the accumulated leave payout. The City Council has funded $650,000 in the current budget year for retirees' leave payouts. The net cost (salary savings less leave payout) to the City is listed in this table if 100% of the employees in the groups retired. The people in three of these groups—those 60 years and older plus 30 or more years of service, those IIIwith 30 or more years of service, and Police and Fire employees with 20 or more years of service—are eligible for their pensions at any time without a reduction in benefits, without an incentive program. Table 2 Leave Payout Costs and Salary Savings (1st Year) Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 25-30 years of Police and Fire older, 30 or 60 years or 30 or more service(Police only-20 or more years older years of and Fire not more years of of service service included) service Number of eligible 16 66 94 101 158 employees Approx leave ($50,700) payout per retiree ($32,400) ($29,100) ($24,200) ($38,800) Approx salary savings per retiree $16,900 $11,800 $13,900 $14,500 $20,100 in 1st year Net savings or (cost) per retiree in ($33,800) ($20,600) ($15,200) ($9,700) ($18,700) 1st year Net cost to City if 100%of group ($540,800) ($1,359,600) ($1,428,800) ($979,700) ($2,954,600) retired (1st year) S 4 • Incentive Costs Per Retiree: In examining the various incentive options, one of the first considerations is how much the incentive will cost. Table 3 lists the average cost per retiree for each incentive for the various employee groups. This is calculated by taking the total cost of the incentive, even when it would be paid out over a ten year period, and dividing it by the number of employees in each group. Later in this report this number will be compared to the net salary savings over time. Table 3 Cost of Retirement Incentives Per Retiree Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 30 or more 25-30 years of Police and Fire older,30 or 60 years or service(Police only-20 or more years older Years of and Fire not more years of of service service included) service Proposed Incentives Average cost of incentive(without salary savings) per retiree(over the life of the incentive—1 to 10 years) 1. Insurance premium (single ($10,000) ($7,200) ($40,400) ($70,700) ($67,500) coverage)to age 65 2. Insurance premium(single ($10,000) coverage)for 5 ($7,300) ($17,900) ($18,700) ($19,200) years or age 65 3. Insurance premium (single ($10,000) coverage)for 10 ($7,400) ($35,400) ($41,300) ($42,600) • years or age 65 4. 95%of 5 years future service ($26,800) per purchase(Police ($31,700) ($39,900) ($29,000) noncontributory n.a. and Fire not retiree included) 5. $20,000 lump sum ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) ($20,000) payment Net Cost of Incentive Over Three Years Without Adjustment for Leave Payout(salary savings less cost of incentive): To determine whether or not the City would save money with a retirement incentive program, the salary savings per retiree must be compared to the average cost per retiree for the proposed incentives. The net savings or cost for each proposal and each employee group are listed in Table 4. Again, keep in mind that leave payout is a cost associated with retirement, and it will have to be paid regardless of whether an incentive program is in place or not. Because of this, the cost of each incentive will be compared to salary savings first, and leave payout costs will be added to the equation in another table. Another point to keep in mind is that projecting the salary savings for more than three years is possible, but the projection becomes less and less accurate as the number of years increases. In addition, it can be assumed that the level of incentives under consideration will not induce employees to retire more than 3 years earlier than they would have in the absence of any incentive. In that situation, salary savings would be limited to three years. • 5 Table 4 Net Cost of Retirement Incentives Per Retiree Over 3 Years • (Approximate Salary Savings less Average Cost for Incentive) Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 30 or more 25-30 years of Police and Fire older,30 or 60 years or service(Police only-20 or more years older Years of and Fire not more years of of service service included) service Proposed Incentives Net savings or(cost)per retiree over a 3 year period(salary savings less entire cost of incentive) 1. Insurance - premium(single $31,300 $25,000 ($3,700) ($44,600) ($14,000) coverage) to age 65 2. Insurance premium(single $31,300 $24,900 $18,800 $7,400 $34,300 coverage)for 5 years or age 65 3. Insurance premium(single $31,300 $24,800 $1,300 ($15,200) $10,900 coverage)for 10 years or age 65 4. 95%of 5 years ($700) per future service $9,600 purchase(Police and ($7,700) $7,700 noncontributory n.a. Fire not included) retiree 5. $20,000 lump sum $21,300 $12,200 $16,700 $6,100 $33,500 payment No incentive(approx salary savings per $41,300 $32,200 $36,700 $26,100 $53,500 • retiree after 3 years) Leave Payout Costs (...to include or not to include): There are two views in bringing leave payout costs into the calculations for retirement incentives. One view is that regardless of whether or not an incentive program is initiated, leave payouts will be made to retiring employees, so it should not be included in the cost of a retirement incentive program. A second view is that leave payouts are real costs associated with retiring employees, and as such need to be considered in any analysis of retirement incentives. To analyze the incentives with and without the effect of the payout costs, the leave payout costs were not included in the table above (Table 4),but they are included in the calculations for Table 5, below. Retirement incentives are likely to result in an acceleration of the leave payouts, and a concentration of these payments in a single fiscal year. Consequently, a significant increase in the budget for leave payouts will be required in the year the incentive is offered. In addition, training costs for police and fire recruits will be increased during the same time period if more than the typical number of police officers and firefighters retire. The classroom training costs are the same whether 25 or 50 people attend, but other aspects of training require recruits to spend one-on-one time with officers. Current costs for training a police recruit average about $3000 per vacancy filled. However, there are other costs that are not included in that amount. For example, the current budget for the officer-in-training program in the Police Department is about$20,000. Doubling the • number of recruits would double this expense. As the number of recruits increases,the 6 0 number of training officers required in the physical skills portion of the police academy, such as firearms training and arrest control tactics, also increases. This additional time would likely have to be covered at an overtime rate. Training more than the typical number of recruits would require an increase in the training budgets for the Police and Fire departments. Total Savings or Cost with Leave Payout, Salary Savings, and Incentive Costs Considered: The next table, Table 5, shows the total savings or(cost) to the City with leave payout, salary savings, and incentive costs all accounted for. The numbers presented(first on a per employee basis, and then as a total for 100% of each group) are a result of salary savings minus leave payout costs and the cost for each incentive. This gives an approximate idea of what the City's savings or cost would be on an individual as well as a corporate basis. Leave payout is a City cost regardless of whether or not incentives are included. It is presented in this table to show the whole expenditure picture. Table 5 Total City Savings or Cost of Retirement Over 3 Years (Approximate Salary Savings less Costs for Incentives and Leave Payout) Savings or Cost on a Per Retiree Basis (3 Year Projection) Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 25-30 years of Police and Fire 41111 30 or more years of older, 30 or 60 years or service(Police only-20 or more years older service and Fire not more years of of service included) service Approximate salary savings per retiree $41,300 $32,200 $36,700 $26,100 $53,500 after 3 years Proposed Incentives Net savings or(cost)per retiree over a 3 year period salary savings less entire cost of incentive) 1. Insurance premium (single ($19,400) ($7,400) ($32,800) ($68,800) ($52,800) coverage) to age 65 2. Insurance premium (single ($19,400) ($7,500) ($10,300) ($16,800) ($4,500) coverage)for 5 years or age 65 3. Insurance premium (single ($19,400) ($7,600) ($27,800) ($39,400) ($27,900) coverage)for 10 years or age 65 4. 95%of 5 years ($24,900) per future service ($41,100) purchase(Police and ($40,100) ($21,400) noncontributory n.a. retiree Fire not included) 5.$20,000 lump sum ($29,400) ($20,200) ($12,400) ($18,100) ($5,300) payment No incentive— approx salary savings less leave ($9,400) ($200) $7,600 $1,900 $14,700 payout per retiree IPafter 3 years 7 Table 5, cont. • Total City Savings or Cost of Retirement Over 3 Years (Approximate Salary Savings less Costs for Incentives and Leave Payout) Effect of 100%of Eligible Employees Retiring(3 Year Projection) Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 30 or more 25-30 years of Police and Fire older,30 or 60 years or service(Police only-20 or more years older years of and Fire not more years of of service service included) service Number of eligible 16 66 94 101 158 employees Proposed Incentives Net savings or(cost)of incentive over a 3 year period if 100%of eligible employees retired 1. Insurance premium(single ($310,400) ($488,400) ($3,083,200) ($6,948,800) ($8,342,400) coverage)to age 65 2. Insurance premium(single coverage)for 5 ($310,400) ($495,000) ($968,200) ($1,696,800) ($711,000) years or age 65 3. Insurance premium(single coverage)for 10 ($310,400) ($501,600) ($2,613,200) ($3,979,400) ($408,200) years or age 65 4. 95%of 5 years ($1,693,200) future service purchase(Police ($657,600) ($2,646,600) ($2,011,600) for n.a. and Fire not noncontributory • included) retirees 5. $20,000 lump ($470,400) ($1,333,200) ($1,165,600) ($1,828,100) ($837,400) sum payment No incentive (approx salary savings less leave ($150,400) ($13,200) $714,400 $191,900 $2,322,600 payout only over 3 years) For any retirement incentive, the cost of the incentive plus leave payouts will exceed the salary savings over the first three years. Five Year Projections: After five years, some of the proposals are likely to recoup all of the retirement costs to the City (leave payout and incentive costs). As mentioned previously, the data projections for longer time periods become less accurate because of other factors that may affect salaries. The total savings or cost that the City could see for the various retirement options are projected in Table 6. The amounts in the table represent the approximate total savings over a five year period for an individual retiree. There is no "average" annual amount because the salary savings are not realized until at least the fourth year. • 8 i • Table 6 Total City Savings or Cost of Retirement Over 5 Years (Approximate Salary Savings less Costs for Incentives and Leave Payout) Savings or Cost on a Per Retiree Basis (5 Year Projection) Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 30 or more 25-30 years of Police and Fire older,30 or 60 years or service(Police only-20 or more years older years of and Fire not more years of of service service included) _ service Approximate salary savings per retiree $65,700 $60,100 $67,600 $51,100 $75,900 after 5 years Proposed Incentives Net savings/(cost)per retiree over a 5 year period(salary savings less cost of incentive and leave payout) 1. Insurance premium(single $5,000 $20,500 ($1,900) ($43,800) ($30,400) coverage) to age 65 2. Insurance premium (single $5,000 $20,400 $20,600 $8,200 $17,900 coverage)for 5 years or age 65 3. Insurance premium(single $5,000 $20,300 $3,100 ($5,500) coverage)for 10 ($14,400) years or age 65 4. 95%of 5 years $100 per future service ($16,700) purchase(Police and ($12,200) $9,500 noncontributory n.a. . Fire not included) retiree 5. $20,000 lump sum payment ($5,000) $7,700 $18,500 $6,900 $17,100 No incentive(approx salary savings less $15,000 $27,700 $38,500 $26,900 $37,100 leave payout per retiree after 5 years) Analysis of the data demonstrates that programs which exclude Police and Fire employees will be less effective than others, since Police and Fire replace higher paid retired employees with entry level employees who progress step-by-step through the salary scale. In other departments, retired workers may be replaced with workers similarly placed at"market" rates. Range of Benefits to Individual Employees: For every option except the lump sum payment of$20,000, the City's cost for each employee varied within the group. For example, the cost of paying an employee's single medical premium for 10 years or up to age 65 is higher for someone age 54 (maximum of 10 years of payments) compared to an employee who is 64 years of age (1 year of payments). There is a broad range in the dollar value for each employee under every plan except the lump sum payment. In every case except the lump sum payment, criteria other than dollar value are used to determine the incentive. However, to better understand each proposal, it is useful to know the range of the dollar amounts estimated for the eligible employees. This information is listed in • Table 7. . 9 • Table 7 • Range of Individual Benefits for Retirement Incentives Potential Retiree Groups 60 years or 30 or more 25-30 years of Police and Fire older, 30 or 60 years or years of service(Police only-20 or more years older and Fire not more years of of service service included) service Proposed Incentives Range of dollar benefit for eligible individual retirees(over the life of the incentive-1 to 10 years) 1. Insurance $19,600 $19,600 $76,700 $152,500 $166,600 premium(single to$0 to$0 to$0 to$0 to$3,400 coverage)to age 65 2. Insurance premium (single $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 $19,600 coverage)for 5 to$0 to $0 to$0 to$0 to$3,400 years or age 65 3. Insurance premium(single $19,600 $20,400 $47,000 $47,000 $47,000 coverage)for 10 to$0 to $0 to$0 to$0 to $3,400 years or age 65 4. 95%of 5 years $108,400 future service $114,000 $114,000 $114,000 to$10,500 for purchase(Police to$0 to$0 to $0 noncontributory n.a. and Fire not included) employees 5.$20,000 lump $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 sum payment Post Retirement City Employment: There are employees who have retired from the City • and returned to City employment after six months. These individuals who meet the Utah Retirement System Post Retired eligibility requirements can continue to receive their monthly retirement benefits and work full time drawing wages. Although most retirees have secured positions in departments other than the one from which they retired, a few have been hired back in the same position they had before retiring. Some of the reasons given for coming back to work are boredom after retirement, the City being a great place to work, and the need to supplement their retirement income. If an employee is hired back at the same rate they previously earned, the salary savings would obviously not materialize. Institutional Effects: With an early retirement incentive, the City could lose many long- term, experienced employees. These employees make significant contributions in City departments, and often can provide key institutional memory, providing insight into current situations. Time Constraints: Should the City adopt a retirement incentive program, the Administration strongly recommends a very limited window of opportunity(one to three months), to prevent such incentives from becoming entitlement programs. • 10 _ NOV1 0 2003 ilk ROCKY ..I. FLU HART ---'_— 3 a Yas `��`'' O — ' ROSS G. ANDERSON HIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER -v } MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer • DATE: November 4, 2003 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 2 Recommendation: We recommend that on December 2, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on December 9, 2003, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 2. • Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on November 18, 2003. 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 641 1 1 TELEPHONE: 601-535-6426 FAX: 801-535-6190 aecvcieo PaPea SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 58 of 2003 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including,the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2003-2004) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 58 OF 2003 WHICH APPROV D, RATIFIED AND FINALI7ED THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003 AND ENDING DUNE 30, 2004. PREAMBLE On August 12, 2003, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004, in accordance with the • requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's 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. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on , 2003 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget, • including the employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as • required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on , 2003, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. 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 budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 58 of 2003. 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, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004, 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 2 a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. • SECTION 4. Filina 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. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. i CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR 3 • ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.1Ordinance 03Wmending budget 5-25.doc • 4 FY2004 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #2 -December FY 2004 FY 2005 Gen. • Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund Fund FTE Amount Impact Impa ct ct New Items 1. CIP Sidewalk Replacement S130,000 -0- -0- 2. Airport CIP S18,490,000 -0- -0- 3. Prosecutor and Justice S141,635 $141,635 8.0 S252,604 7.0 Court Staffing Grants Requiring New Staff Resources 4. COPS in Schools (three year S125,000 -0- 1.0 -0- funding) 5. EDGAR (five year funding) $57,500 -0- 1.0 $52,500 1.0 6. Drug Free Communities _0- Support Program $100,000 -0- 1.0 7. VAWA for Courts $58,003 -0- 1.0 -0- Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources 8. COPS in Shops $7,000 -0- OT -0- 9. Arrest Policies $500,000 -0- OT -0- 1.0 10. Weed and Seed $225,000 -0- 1.15 -0- OT .l"l. Project Safe Neighborhood $56,000 -0- OT _0_ Grants Requiring No Staff Resources 12. Catholic Community $22,840 -0- -0- Services-Marillac House 13. Volunteers of America $20,619 -0- -0- 14. State History-Cemetery $14,730 -0- -0- 15. UDOT Sidewalk $110,000 -0- -0- Replacement 16. Computer Clubhouse $3,000 -0- -0- 17. Homeland Security-Fire, $434,985 -0- -0- Police, Airport, Public Utilities 18. Homeland Security-Fire $32,420 -0- -0- 19. Criminal Justice Information $50,000 -0- -0- 20. Clean Cities $4,000 -0- -0- 21. Fire MMRS $280,000 -0- -0- Housekeeping Items 22. HUD Program Income $12,892.59 -0- -0- 23. Downtown Economic $150,000 -0- -0- Development Fund 24. Public Utilities Funds CIP $8,759,972 -0- -0- • 25. Early Warning Systems S116,871 -0- -0- 26. Encumbrance Carryover S40,000 $40,000 -0- -0- -0- Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 411 Public Services Engineering 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year CIP Sidewalk Replacement Amendment#2 Initiative#1 Initiative Name Joel Harrison/Sherrie Collins 535-6234/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person New Item NA Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscaf Impact of Proposed Change A..Revenue Impacted by Fund and.Source: lstYear 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-0.4 FY 2004-05 FY'2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 \. $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Property owners SID (CIP cost center 83-04048) 130,000 Total $130,000 $0 $0 E;Expenditures Impacted by Fund and:Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0- 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP cost centers, 83-99008, 83-98009, 83-02013 -$360,235 CIP FY2004 cost center 360,235 CIP cost center 83-04048 (increase budget only) 130,000 Total $130,000 $0 $0 G.Expenditure Impact Detalt 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Property Owner GF budget 130,000 Total $130,000 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#1 03CIP SID.xls11/6/20033:57 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D: Cost Centers Decrease Increase: Net • i Increase budget and move cash CIP Sidewalk Replacement SID 83-04048 360,235.37 Decrease budget 83-99008 120,788.88 82-98009. 49,442.29 83-98009 190,004.20 Totals 360,235.37 360,235.37 Increase budget only 83-04048 130,000.00 Total 130,000.00 83-04048 Grand Total 360,235.37 490,235.37 130,000.00 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#1 03CIP SID.xls11/6/20033:47 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 11111 E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective.The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference.if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect can riot be identified,there is ire finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult elemerht to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition vanes from the criteria.Sometimes the`answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Engineering is currently creating a sidewalk SID in the vicinity of 900 to 1300 South, 1100 to 1500 East and from 1300 to 2100 South. The City's portion of the project cost is approximately$760,000 which includes $50,000 for design. This request will bring the remaining cash of the three completed/closed projects forward into the current years Sidewalk Replacement allocation and provide • the necessary funds to move forward with this project. The total amount of construction costs are estimated at $710,000 general fund monies, $530,000 Property Owners funds and an additional $200,000 of Public Utilities funds for improvements. The current budget for the Property Owners portion of the SID is $400,000. It is necessary to increase the budget of the Property Owners CIP cost center to facilitate the additional$130,000 of SID funds collected. It is recommended that the City Council make the necessary budget adjustment to facilitate this project. • Jail L.a1.e Lily l,orporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? NA Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds III become unavailable ? NA Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Department of Airports FY 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Airport Capital Improvement Amendment Amendment#2 Initiative#2 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jay Bingham /Joseph Moratalla 575-2918 Prepared By Phone Number New Item WA Type of Initiative CFDA Number • Fiscal Impact of-Proposed Change A Revenue Impacted by Fund and_' Source:. - -1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year _ FY 2003-04, FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Airport Improvement Fund $0 Airport AIP Grant 14,150,00 Airport Passenger Facility Charges 4,340,00 Total $18,490,00 $0 $0 4. Other Fund • Total $0 $0 $0 Hk Expenditures Impacted by Fund-and Source:: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Airport 18,490,00 Total $18,490,00 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Betaii`. 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 18,490,001 6. Other(Specify) Total $18.490,00' $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#2 Airport amdl.xlsl l/6/20033:57 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Persannek Service Detail = FTE Grade/Step Amount= • No Impact N/A • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#2 Airport amdl.xlsl1/6/20033:48 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization,or plans. his action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Department of Airports submitted its FY 2003 -04 in March 2003 and was adopted as a component of the City's budget in June 2003. Included in this budget was a capital improvement 6rogram request with a total of$ 122,158,400 for the fiscal year. This capital improvement budget is ng amended by adding two new projects with a total costs of $18,490,000. West Apron Paving - Phase III and Supporting Structures This project includes new apron construction to connect existing ramp pavement to the concrete apron that was constructed under Phase II. This will allow large jet aircraft access from the ramp to Taxiways A and B. This project will also construct the structural shell of an underground reinforced concrete tunnel. Funding for this project is made up of $14 million in Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and the balance with passenger facility charges (PFC). Airport II Master Plan Update The Master Plan of Airport II was last updated in March 1990. During the last 13 years significant developments has occurred adjacent and in the surrounding areas of this airport. The study will evaluate the existing conditions and facilities, land uses on and off the airport, future facility requirements and other components of an airport master plan. This project is being funded by the FAA's general aviation AIP grant for $150,000. This budget amendment request was reviewed with the Airport Board Finance Committee on September 29, 2003 and with the Airline representatives October 2, 2003. The Airport Advisory Board approved this budget amendment during its regular eeting on October 15, 2003. Salt Lake City Corporation , Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet - for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services, Attorney's Office FY 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year Prosecutor's Office and Justice Court Staffing Amendment#2 Initiative#3 Initiative Name Initiative Number Laurie Dillon 535-7766 Prepared By Phone Number New Item N/A Type of Initiative CFDA Number Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change - • A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: -. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year ' - . - FY 2003-04 _ -FY 2004-OS FY 2005-OS 1. General Fund Fund Balance '90,345 Projected on-going revenue 295,904 304,021 Total $1\90,345 $295,904 $304,021 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B..ExpendituresImpacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Justice Court positions 88,995 164,325 169,099 III Prosecutor's Office positions 101,350 131,579 134,922 Total $190,345, $295,904, $304,021 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C..Expenditure,Impact Detail: :. 1. Salaries and Wages-Justice Court 68,100 140,286 144,495 Salaries and Wages - Prosecutor's Office 50,220 102,370 105,441 2, Employee Benefits-Justice Court 18,300 18,849 19,414 Employee Benefits- Prosecutor's Office 12,490 25,729 26,501 3. Operating and Maint. Supply-Prosecutor's Office 750 1,500 1,000 4. Charges and Services -Justice Court 2,595 5,190 5,190 Charges and Services-Prosecutor's Office 990 1,980 1,980 5. Capital Outlay-Prosecutor's Office 6,900 6. Other(Specify) Plaza 349 building remodeling to 30,000 0 0 accommodate the Prosecutor's need for additional space Total $190,345, $295,904, $304,021 III BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#3 Prosecutor's Office and Justice Court Staffing.xlsl1/6/20033:56 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 4111/ - Grade/Merl delSep Amount Case Manager Clerk 4 218 $34,980 Office Tech I /Court Clerk 1 216 $32,886 Associate City Prosecutor 1 607 $59,700 Office Tech I 2 216 $32,710 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#3 Prosecutor's Office and Justice Court Staffing.xlsl1/6/20033:53 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization, or plans. . This action will assist the Prosecutor's Office in attaining all of their targeted measures in their FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan. This action will assist the Justice Court in attaining its targeted measure in customer service of satisfed customers in their FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. • Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is�the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Justice Court and the Prosecutor's Office are understaffed based on comparable information from other Prosecutor's Offices and Courts. Prosecutor's Office: A recent audit by Deloitte & Touche considered the 2002 prosecutor workload reasonable at 1472 cases per prosecutor per year, when compared to Glendale, Arizona, Henderson, Nevada, and Scottsdale, Arizona. However, the audit also found that the ratio of prosecutors to support staff was much higher (meaning fewer support staff) than in the other cities. The results of the comparison are listed in Table 1, attached. In 2003, the number of cases has increased, and the upward trend is continuing. Two prosecutor positions and one staff position were added in January 2003 to handle the increased caseload from the District Attorney cases, maintaining an average close to 1500 cases per prosecutor per year, and decreasing the prosecutor to staff ratio to 1.33 (see Table 1). The number of criminal cases expected for FY 2003-04 is expected to be at least 19,500 based on the number of cases filed in the first quarter (July - September 2003). This will require at least one more prosecutor and two additional support position to keep the workload at 1500 cases per prosecutor and bring the prosecutor to staff support ratio to a lower level. The criminal case filings are expected to increase by about 3600 cases this year from 15,900 in FY 2003 to 19,500 projected for FY 2004, based on information from the first quarter (July - September). Each City Prosecutor will address an average of 1667 criminal cases in the Justice Court alone this year, with the recently re-criminalized traffic cases in addition to that number. With too many cases and not enough support staff, prosecutors must prioritize the types of cases to address and/or minimize the time and attention for each case. The restorative justice programs the Prosecutor's Office has implemented may also suffer if prosecutors are extremely limited in the the time they have available. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment ustice Court: Compared to other Courts in the Salt Lake metropolitan area and in other western states, the Salt Lake City Justice Court handles a much higher number of cases per clerk/hearing officer per year. Several local courts were surveyed as well as six large municipal courts from Oregon, New Mexico, Arizona and Washington to determine approximate numbers of annual cases per staff position. The results of the survey are listed in Table 2, attached. The average case load per staff position for the seven Utah Justice and District Courts was 1360 (excluding Salt Lake City), and the average for the out- of-state Municipal Courts was 1159 cases per staff position. The Salt Lake City Justice Court clerks are staffed at a ratio of 6586 cases annually per staff position (including the newly acquired grant-funded clerical position), much higher than any other local or regional court. . Without enough clerical support, the public must wait Ion er to speak with someone about their cases, especially with hearing officers. This increases both t e public's and the hearing officer's anxiety over this process. Also, keeping up-to-date records is critical for the Court. This includes the initial inputting of information about the cases as well as following up on past due fines, and other compliance issues. The Court does not want to get in the position of losing jurisdiction over cases and fines because of insufficient staff to complete the follow-up necessary to keep a case active. The criminal caseload is increasing. The current average amount for fines, fees, and court costs per criminal case is about $44, comparing case filings from six months prior to payments received. This is lower than what was anticipated when the Justice Court was initiated, so revenue projections are not higher than anticipated. Even with more cases, the revenue from these additional cases may not be 4111rlized for up to a year.- The total revenue for the Justice Court is projected to be $5.5 million, mpared to expenses totaling $5.1 million for the Prosecutor's Office, and the Justice Court staff and building. Recommendation The caseload continues to increase in the Justice Court. This requires additional staff support. The Prosecutor's Office and the Justice Court are currently understaffed based on comparisons with local and regional agencies. Increasing the staffing for both agencies will aid in making sure all cases are processed in a timely manner. Fund two new positions in the Prosecutor's Office - one prosecutor and one staff position. Fund five new positions in the Justice Court -four Case Manager positions and one clerical position. The new prosecutor and staff position are needed to address the increasing case load. The four Case Managers will each be assigned to a judge to ensure compliance with all sentencing conditions. The additional clerical position will file case pleadings, follow up on payment plans, and work with preparing calendars for Court proceedings. The costs are adjusted for a January 1 start date for all the positions in FY 2004. Table 1 Prosecutor Workload and Staffing Ratios • City No. Cases per Prosecutor Prosecutor to Staff Ratio Salt Lake City, UT(2002) 1,472 1.43 Salt Lake City, UT(Jan-June 2003) 1,461 1.33 Glendale,AZ 1,825 1.00 Henderson, NV 1,394 0.55 Scottsdale, AZ 1,204 0.55 Salt Lake City (FY 2003-04, no increase) 1,667 1.33 Salt Lake City (FY 2003-04, proposed) 1,500 1.30 Table 2 Court Staff*to Caseload Ratios II Traffic/ Misdemeanbrs/ No. Cases Court Staff* Parking-Cases Infractions, Small Claims per Staff Sandy Justice Court 13.25 22,561 2,022 430 1,888 West Valley Justice Court 19.00 35,700 11,000 950 2,508 Salt Lake County Justice Court 20.50 11,250 3,250 0 707 South Ogden Justice Court 13.00 4,900 4,320 432 742 Provo District Court 42.00 14,394 8,257 1,871 584 Salt Lake District Court 74.00 28,612 11,727 22,484 849 Ogden District Court 14.00 21,593 5,451 4,353 2,243 Bernalillo, New Mexico, Metro Court 153.00 63,462 39,128 not included 671 Roseburg, Oregon, Circuit Court 11.00 12,428 1,195 not included 1,238 Phoenix, Arizona, Municipal Court 342.00 144,552 54,078 not included 581 IIISeattle,Washington, Municipal Court 263.00 287,109 21,824 not included 1,175 Bakercounty, Oregon, Municipal Court 3.00 6,073 470 not included 2,181 Tacoma, Washington, Municipal Court 29.00 30,827 1,350 not included 1,110 Salt Lake City Justice Court(FY 2003)** 32.50 198,172 15,870 15,907 6,586 Salt Lake City Justice Court(proposed) 37.50 198,172 19,500 15,907 5,805 *Staff includes clerks, cashiers, hearing officers/referees **The number of staff positions for the SLC Justice Court includes the new grant-funded clerk. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Police Department 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year US Department of Justice Office of Community Policing Services (COS) Amendment#2 Initiative#4 COPS in Schools Initiative Name Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring New Staff Resources N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: lstYear 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 200S-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund . Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 125,000 Total $125,00 $0 $0 .Expenditures Impacted by Fund and 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 125,000 Total $125,000 $0 $0 Expenditure-ItrtpactQetaiC 1. Salaries and Wages 125,000.00 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total 125,000.00 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#4 03COPS Schools police.xlsl1/6/20033:56 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D Personnel-Service DetaiL FTE Grade/Step Amount_ • Officer 1 $ 125,000.00 Total Salary 125.000.00 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#4 03COPS Schools police.xlsl1/6/20033:55 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases. it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. 1 Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change inpolicy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The SLC Police Department received this annual grant from the US Department of Justice, Office of Community Policing Services. These funds will be used to hire one (1) additional Officer to be • placed within the Salt Lake City School District schools in an effort to deter crimes committed during school hours. These funds will be used to pay the salary of the new hire and the City will contract with the Salt Lake City School District to provide funds for the benefit portion of this position. It is recommended that the City Council sign the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept this grant and any additional agreements that may stem from this grant and to adopt the necessary budget for grant facilitation. • gait _Lake t_,ity uorporanon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet ' for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 1 G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. S 1 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for pro/ects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes, 1 additional Officer. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? None at this time. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? The PD will continue to apply as funding availability permits. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes, however, it has been the practice that if a cost savings can be determined within the PD's General Fund budget, the Officer will be retained. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the • grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable ? Probable. Program could discontinue if no funds become available. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. 0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services -YouthCity 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year U.S. Department of Education Amendment#Initiative#5 Supplemental Congressional Appropriation Initiative Name Janet Wolf/Sherrie Collins 535-7712/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person 84-215K Grant Requiring New Staff Resources FIE Earmark Appropriation Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal impact of Proposed Change Zndyear of biennium Biennial Period A..Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 3StYear ndYear- — 3rdYear-- FY 2003-04 F12004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund • Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 . 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 57,500 52,500 216,340 Total $57,500 $52,500 $216,340 E.Expenditures Impacted by-Fund and SourceN 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 57,500 52,500 216,340 Total $57,500 $52,500 $216,340 C.Expenditure'ImpactBetaif 1. Salaries and Wages 32,500 37,500 133,500 2. Employee Benefits 15,840 3. Operating and Maintenance 5,000 5,000 9,000 4:Charges and Services -Contractual 20,000 10,000 50,000 5. Capital Outlay 5,000 6. Other(Specify)Travel 3,000 Other Total $57,5001 552,500 $216,340 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#5 03EDGAR22.xls11/6/20033:59 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment eisanne epi ce I etail Amauntr _ Amount Amount i Program Assistant 1 FTE -1 New position 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 Teachers 125 hrs x$20.- Existing position 2,500.00 2.500.00 2,500.00 Teachers Intel 416 hrs x $12.- Existing position 5,000,00 5,000.00 Teachers 1200 hrs. x $25. Existing position 30.000.00 Site Coordinators Existing position 66,000.00 Site Coordinators 3 FTE's- Existing position Manager 1 FTE - Existing position Teachers Intel 162.5 x $12 Fiscal Monitor 156 hrs x 22. Fringe Site Coordinators 2 Fringe Manager Position Total 1 New Position Total Salary 32,500.00 37,500.00 133,500.00 Total Benefits S • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#5 03EDGAR22.xls11/6/20033:59 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simi4ly identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management • Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The YouthCity Program was awarded an additional Congressional Appropriation in the amount of $894,150 from the US Department of Education. This appropriation was awarded for a five year period from 2003 to 2008. These funds are to be used for continuation and expansion of the current programs and services provided by YouthCity. The budget for this appropriation has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Education to continue paying salaries and benefits of three Site Coordinators, hourly teacher positions, a Program Manager, Fiscal Monitoring and 1 additional position, an Administrative Assistant. The Assistant would be a new FTE with the first 3 years of salary and benefits paid for from this appropriation. It is anticipated that additional funds will be raised for the remainder of the grant period and beyond. In addition, other approved expenses include travel; equipment and supplies; media publications; operating and maintenance of sites; and contractual components that include various businesses and organizations that provide special workshops/classes designed for youth. The planned program expansion is geared toward outreach to, and providing services for, the Hispanic youth population within Salt Lake City. The City Council previously adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the US Department of Education appropriation and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budgets to facilitate this Grant. halt LaKe Uity corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. I • I - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. It-will continue to fund 4 existing FTE's that are currently funded with the $1.2 Edgar appropriation the City received last year. Those positions include the Program Manager and 3 Site Coordinators. This grant will also provide funds for the hourly teacher positions and administrative services of the Fiscal Monitor. In addition, it will fund an Administrative Assistant position which is a request for 1 FTE. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This program provides youth services to Salt Lake area residents at four sites located around the City. Since program start up this past summer, YouthCity served approximately 160 youth at Glendale Intermediate facility, the Northwest Recreation Center site provided services to approximately 103 youth, Central City provided services to approximately 120 youth and Fairmont Cottage served 403 youth. In addition, Global Artway served approximately 31,767 0 youth and their families in the Imagination Celebration program. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This is an additional appropriation for a 5 year period. Additional appropriations may or may not be available to the City, however, Youth City will continue to request funding for continuation and expansion of services. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes, however, it is a program goal to make all YouthCity programs self sustaining and to seek additional private and federal funds for continued operation. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact_on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. Program will cease to function or will be forced to provide a lesser service. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another_jurisdiction or entity? No. These programs are geared to the needs of Salt Lake City youth and provide services within their neighborhoods. YouthCity partners with government, private and non-profit entities to collaborate on programming and leverage 0 existing resources. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Mayors Office 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year US Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice Drug Free Communities Support Program Amendment#2 Initiative#6 Initiative Name Dave Nimkin/Sherrie Collins 535-7706/536-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring New Staff Resources 16.729 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change /k Revenualmpacted-by Fund and_Source: _ 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 --FY 2005 06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 • 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 100,000 Total $100,00 $0 $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: - 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 - 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 100,000 Total $100.000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 38,000 00 2.Employee Benefits 12,322.00 3.Operating and Maintenance 2,918 4.Charges and Services 42,850 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify) 3.910 Total $100.0001 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#6 03MayorsDrugFree.xlsl l/6/20034:00 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel`ServiceeDetaiC FTE - Grade/Step Amount ;- • Coalition Coordinator 1 $ 38,000.00 Benefits FICA&Med 7.65% 2.908 00 Pension 8.69% 3,302.00 Retirement 600.00 Insurance 5.512.00 Total Benefits 12,322.00 Total Salary and Benefits 50,322.00 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#6 03MayorsDrugFree.xlsl l/6/20034:00 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 4111 E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifyinl Fg why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Mayor's liaison for the Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Policy Task Force applied for and received this grant from the US Department of Justice. The purpose of the grant is to formalize a prevention coalition to guide and develop the city's substance abuse prevention policies and prevention • strategies. The key prevention focus will target drugs, alcohol and tobacco prevention activities, public awareness and policy recommendations. These funds will be used for salary and benefits of the coordinator position,'travel and supplies, and a contractual component to provide and independent evaluation of the coalition's key strategies, conference presenters to provide training workshops for the Mayor's Conference on Substance Abuse Prevention, and Demonstration Projects that will seek, community input for the implementation of substance abuse prevention programs that are aligned with the coalitions goals and objectives. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any grants or agreements that stem from the grant. • J ill l LiUie Lily ' orporanon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. III i - in some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? This grant will fund a coordinator position to formalize the efforts of the City's Alcohol and Tobacco Policy Task Force/Prevention Coalition. The Coalition's purpose is to raise drug awareness concerning adolescent drug abuse, recommend alcohol and tobacco policy and increase best practice prevention programs in schools and city youth programs. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This is a discretionary grant that is available for one year only. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? IIYes. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable ? No Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Management Services Justice Court Division 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year State of Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations VAWA Amendment#2 Initiative#7 Initiative Name Mary Johnston/Sherrie Collins 535-7173/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring New Staff Resources 16.729 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable - Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue impacted-by Fund and Source: IstYear. 2nd Year 3rd Year _ . , FY 2003-04 _FY 20114O5_ _PC 200.5 O6_ 1. General Fu d Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund IMS 21,119 Total $21,119 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 58,002.E • Total $58,002.6 $0 $0 B:-Expenditures~Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund IMS 21,119 Total $21,119 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 58,002.6 Total $58,002.6 $0 $0 - -G..Expenditure impactaetaif 1. Salaries and Wages 26,145.60 2. Employee Benefits 10,738.00 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services-Contractual(IMS) 20,075.00 5,Capital Outlay (IMS) 1,044.00 6. Other(Specify) Total $58,002.60 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#7 03VAWA Courts.xlsl1/6/20034:01 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D' Fersonnet Servic Batait FTE GradelStep Amount = • Court Clerk 1 $ 26,145.60 Benefits FICA & Med 6.20% 1,621.03 Pension 1.45% 379.11 Retirement 2,515.21 Insurance 6,222.65 Total Benefits 10,738.00 Total Salary and Benefits 36,883.60 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#7 03VAWA Courts.xlsl l/6/20034:01 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization No impact on 6-Year Balanced Scorecard Business Plan, however, this does support the Police Department's Plan goal to reduce Violent Crimes by 5% over the next five years. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding: Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes duper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By' doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Management Services City Courts Division applied for this grant from the State of Utah, Office • of Crime Victims Reparations, Violence Against Women Formula Grant (VAWA). These funds will be used to hire a full-time court clerk to process domestic violence cases filed with Salt Lake City Justice Court. The court clerk will track, manage, and provide follow-up on each case to monitor offender compliance with court ordered probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. The remaining funds will be used to provide computer and phone rental for the position and a contractual component for computer program design and development. The City Courts, will collaborate with the Prosecutor's Office, SLCPD and the SLCPD Victim Advocate Program to implement a domestic violence computer system that will provide a beginning framework for agencies to exchange accurate and up-to-date information of crimes committed against women. Once this is complete, expansion efforts will be addressed to include external partner agencies at the State, County and local level. The is a 25% match requirement that is being fulfilled by part of the Court Director's salary. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any grants or agreements that stem from the grant. • .Daii i.axe Lity Lorporatlon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G.Grant Criteria:A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1_In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2=Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 -Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes, 1 New FTE. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? In July, 2002, the City Justice Court initiated a Domestic Violence Court for all related cases in the City. Prior to this, these cases were handled by the 3rd District Court who processed approximately 3,000 domestic related cases per year. It is anticipated that the City Court will process a similar caseload. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Although not guaranteed, it has been the norm of continued VAWA funding for expansion of programs funded with these monies. Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? • Yes. Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable?Yes,if program is cut. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 1111 Salt Lake City Police Department 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year State of Utah -Department of Public Safety COPS in Shops Amendment#2 Initiative#8 Initiative Name Kyle Jones/Sherrie Collins 799-3402/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Pass through funds Grant Requiring Existing Staff Resources OJJ3-J109 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year - - FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05- FY 200S-06_ 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund 40 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 7,000 Total $7,000 $0 $0 8.-Expenditures Impacted by-Fdntt and=Source 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 7,000 Total $7,000 $0 $0 Q;.Expenditure Impact Qetail . 1. Salaries and Wages 7,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges acid Services-Contractual 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify)-Travel Total $7,000 $0 $0 4110 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#8 03COPS SHOPS.xls11/6/20034:04 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment :=I PeesannetSer+nceDetaiL_ FIE: _ GradelStep Amount • Officer OT $ 7,000.00 Total Salary and Benefits 7,000.00 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#8 03COPS SHOPS.xls11/6/20034:04 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measureable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The SLC Police Department received this annual grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. These funds will be used to pay undercover Officers who will be placed at convenient stores • and markets to observe and to cite underage persons attempting to purchase alcoholic beverages. Use of underage decoys will be used for compliance checking. Other illegal activities will also be noted and handled. Sites will be selected based on expressed need and cooperation of store management. Posters and other education and information efforts will be made to announce the program and deter youthful purchasing. Media attention will also be solicited. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant. • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 9 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund I or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant finding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. OT for Existing Officers. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Good. The City does receive this grant on an annual basis and will continue to apply. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. • Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable ? No Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 111 Management Services IMS/SLC Police Department 2003-04 US Department of Justice OJP-Grants to Encourage Arrest Polices Amendment#2 Initiative#9 Initiative Name Bill Haight/Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 535-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring Existing Staff Resources 16.590 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source:. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 200 A 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund IMS contract labor and equipment 85,000 Total $85,000 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 500,000 Total $500,00 $0 $0 • B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:. - 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund IMS contract labor and equipment 85,000 Total $85,000 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 500,000 Total $500,000 $0 $0 C..Expenditure Impact detail: 1. Salaries and Wages (police and IMS) 166,520 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services-Contractual 308,480 5, Capital Outlay (IMS) 10,000 6. Other(Specify) -Travel 15,000 Total $500,000 $0 $0 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#9 03PROMIS IMS and PD Arrests.xlsl l/6/20034:07 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet - for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Q:.Personnel Service Detail FTE_ Grade/Step Amount • Officer OT $32 hr. x 520 x 2-FY 03 2 $ 33,280.00 Officer OT $32 hr. x 390 x 2- FY 04 2 24,960.00 Officer OT $32 hr. x 520 x 2- FY 05 2 33.280.00 IMS Technology Engineer(Existing Position) 1 75,000.00 • Total Salary and Benefits 166,520.00 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#9 03PROMIS IMS and PD Arrests.xlsl l/6/20034:07 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. " Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Management Services IMS Division and Salt Lake City Police Department received this grant to develop and install a data collection and communication system and provide training on the use of Sthese systems to effectively link police, prosecutors, and courts, for the purpose of identifying and tracking protection orders and violations of protection orders in Salt Lake City. The Protective Restraining Order Management Information System (PROMIS) will provide a coordinated computer tracking system to ensure communication between police, prosecutors and family courts, strengthen legal advocacy service programs for victims of domestic violence and provide technical assistance and computer equipment to police departments, prosecutors and courts to facilitate widespread enforcement of protection orders. These funds will be used for Officer OT to issue Class A warrants and protection order violations and the administrative services of an IMS Technology Engineer to develop web-service linking City departments data systems to State's data system and for collaboration of participating non-profit agencies; travel; equipment to include application server; and contractual components to include Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification for the development of PROMIS, Bach-Harrison Evaluation Services, Utah Third District Court, Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake, and translation services. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any grants or agreements that stern from the grant. • Jail .Laity ..,Hy l,orporatlon , Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 1 G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. III 1 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 -1Will this grant fund employee positions? No. It will reimburse IMS for administrative services of program linkage and development of web-server and Officer OT. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? This is a discretionary grant that is available for a two year period. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the • grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable ? No Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. II Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Weed and Seed 03-04 US Dept. of Justice Office of Justice Programs Amendment#2 Initiative#10 Initiative Name Jacob Brace/Sherrie Collins 535-6035/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring Existing Staff Resources 16-595 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source:: 1st Year 2nd'Year _3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund • Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 225,000 Total $225,00 $0 $0 -- Expenditu>Ges<Impacted by-Fund-and Source:- . General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 225,000 Total $225,00 $0 $0 G Expenditure Impact Detail . 1. Salaries and Wages 84,872.00 2. Employee Benefits 14,914.00 3. Operating and Maintenance-Supplies 2,042 4.Charges and Services-Contractual 96,067 5. Capital Outlay- Program Equip 4,600 6. Other(Specify)Travel 7,505 Buy money 15,000 Total $225,000 $0 $0 BA#2 FY2004 I nitiative#1 0 03-WeedSeed.xls11/6/20034:08 PM Salt Lake City Corporation ' Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Q:PersonnelServicn Detail F'CE _ Grade/Step: . _ Amount • Coordinator Salary 1 606 $ 39,204.00 Fiscal Monitor Salary 15% 606 6,212.00 SLCPD Overtime- Narcotics Task Force $32/hr @ 162 hrs 5,184.00 SLCPD Overtime- Project Safe Neighborhoods $32/hr @ 240 hrs 7,680.00 SLCPD Bike Overtime- Bike Patrol Weed & Seed area (2) $32/hr @ 168 hrs 10,752.00 Sorenson Tech Center Instructor 11/hr @ 1440 hrs 15,840.00 Total $ 84,872.00 Benefits Coordinator 1.2,053.00 Fiscal Monitor 1,649.00 Tech Center Instructor 1,212.00 Total 14,914.00 Grand Total $ 99,786.00 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#10 03-WeedSeed.xlsl1/6/20034:08 PM Salt Lake City Corporation _ Management and Fiscal Note W'orksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference; if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a -` ervice level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. ause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition Kanes from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Salt Lake City has received Weed and Seed funds for the past 7 years from the US Department of Justice. These funds are to be used to "Weed" out crime and to "Seed" programs for residents and youth living within the Weed and Seed targeted area. The targeted area encompasses Glendale, • Poplar Grove, and State Fairpark neighborhoods. The contractual components of this grant include Americorps, Salt Lake County Court Services, Boys and Girls Club, Utah Federation of Youth, Salt Lake Housing Authority, Peer Court and the Neighborhood Housing Services - Paint your Heart Out Program. This is a continuation grant. The City Council previously adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this Grant. • �•���..- v.a y v v a.V V A Ll 11 V 11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund ' or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. This Grant funds the Coordinator's salary and benefits, reimburses the monitors time spent on grant related duties, Police Officer OT and an hourly wage for the Sorensen Technology Centers Instructor. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Programs funded with this grant include law enforcement OT which resulted in 16+ felony arrests (numbers for year end have not been received yet); Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center - Intel Computer Tech Center included 1178 participants, Summer Soccer Program - 97 youth served, twelve winter Sunday center openings, Global Artways 437 participants, and the Tennis Program served 32 youth; AmeriCorps'Reading Promotes Program - 400 students served and 80 volunteers trained; Boy's and Girl's Club teen night - 391 teens, family night 162 parents; • Utah Federation for Youth Summer Camp - 75 youth; Salt Lake City Housing Authority's Enforcement Coordinator monitored 166 units, security officers provided over 223 hours of patrol and 62 background checks completed. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Salt Lake City is eligible to apply for Weed and Seed funds for the current targeted area, up to and including year 2006. Salt Lake City will continue to apply. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. However, it is believed that the Weed and Seed Committee that guides the grant will continue to function in a collaborative effort with local agencies, law enforcement and the community. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Youth Service contractual components provide direct services to youth and residents living within the Weed and Seed targeted area. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Community and Economic Development Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Project Safe Neighborhood State of Utah -West Valley Pass Through Amendment#2 Initiative#11 Initiative Name Jacob Brace/Sherrie Collins 535-6035/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring Existing Staff Resources N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal,Impact of Proposed Change A�Revenue Impacted by Fund and Sources 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year ----------- --- - - - — FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 56,000 Total $56,000 $0 $0 Et-Expenditures Impacted by Fund anctSource: 1. General Fund Include detail in this cell, add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Include detail in this cell, add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Include detail in this cell, add rows if necessary Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 56,000 Total $56,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages $34,944 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance- Supplies 2,336 4. Charges and Services-Contractual 18,720 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $56,000 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#11 03-Projectsafe.xls1 1/6/20034:09 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment ,ff Personnet Service,Dletail ... _ FTE Grade/Step Amount . • SLCPD Overtime- Detective $32/hr @ 624 hrs 19,968.00 SLCPD Overtime-School Resource Officers & Gang Unit $32/hr @ 468 hrs 14,976.00 Total 34,944.00 • • 41111 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#11 03-Projectsafe.xlsl 1/6/20034:09 PM ' Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment eE. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization g This action has in impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and I targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference. if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is so imnetimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Housing and Neighborhood Development applied for and received this pass through funding from West Valley City. It is a State pass through grant to West Valley with the City being a Sub recipient of • West Valley. This program is targeted 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 facilitate cross-jurisdictional data sharing. Funds will be used to pay SLCPD over-time for an Officer to accompany a Parole Officer from Adult Probation & Parole, contractual services with Adult Probation and Parole, and printed materials that include resource - accountability cards and PSN 4-step guides that include information on what to do if you find a gun. It is recommended that the City Council adopted the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant award and to appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate this Grant. 0 J illl .J_ t1.0 % iLy t..urpuraiiur1 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 9 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No it will fund existing Officer Over-time. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the • grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? NA. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 411 CED -Housing and Neighborhood Development 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Catholic Community Services Marillac House Improvements CDBG Cost Center 71-27045 Amendment#2 Initiative#12 Initiative Name LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grants Requiring No Staff Resources N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04- _FY_2oa4-Qs--—.FY 2005-116— 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG Cost Center 71-27045 Increase budget 22,840 CDBG Contingency Cost Center 71-27099 (Decrease) -$22,840 $0 $0 $0 B Expenditures:Impacted by Fund and Source. 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG Cost Center 71-27045 Increase budget 22,840 CDBG Contingency Cost Center 71-27099 (decrease) -$22,840 Total $0 $0 $0 C-Expenditure Impact Detaih 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services (Contingency) -$22,840 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Marillac House Improvements 22,840 Total $0 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#12 03CDBGCCS Marillac House Air.xlsl l/6/20034:10 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment iT PersonnetServrce Detail _ Grade/Step` Amount S NA . • I BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#12 03CDBGCCS Marillac House Air.xlsl l/6/20034:10 PM ' Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 411 E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.l/an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Catholic Community Services (CCS) Marillac House Project was awarded $12,000 of 27th Year CDBG funds for a new air conditioning system. This project was put on hold while CCS determined if it were feasible to continue program operations at this site or to sale the building. When providing • building improvements with CDBG funding, CDBG guidelines require the building be used for the purposes of original programming for 5 years. CCS has recently committed to keep the building and move forward with the project, however, the costs associated with the installation of the air conditioning system has increased since the project was awarded funds 4 years ago. Additional work is needed for the mechanical and electrical systems as well as the cost of the equipment has This amendment will increase the 27th Year CDBG Marillac House Project budget and decrease the 27th Year CDBG Contingency budget. This will leave a Contingency budget of $83,365.60. It is recommended that the City Council increase the CDBG Marillac House budget by $22,840 and decrease the Contingency by this amount to facilitate this project. • halt Lake city Corporation , Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 1 G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. II 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant finding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund emp,ioyee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds • become unavailable? No Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED --Housing and Neighborhood Development 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Volunteers of America -Detox Center CDBG Cost Center 71-29036 Amendment#2 Initiative#13 Initiative Name LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grants Requiring No Staff Resources N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change • A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year -FY-2003-04-- -FY-2004-05—---FY 2005-06- 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG Cost Center 71-29036 Increase budget 20,619 • CDBG Contingency Cost Center 83-04098 (decrease) -$20,619 $0 $0 $0 11.EcpendituresImpaicted by Fund:anctSaurce. 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG Cost Center 71-29036 Increase budget 20,619 CDBG Contingency Cost Center 83-04098 (decrease) -$20,619 Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail_ 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services (Contingency) -$20,619 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) VOA building improvements 20,619 Total $0 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#13 03CDBGVolunteers of America.xlsl1/6/20034:11 PM gait Lake city corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment :,D Pe sonnet'Service i]etail FTE - Grade/Step Amount • NA • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#13 03CDBGVolunteers of America.xlsll/6/20034:11 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment IIIE. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a • service level impact. if an effect d nnot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult ele rent to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Volunteers of America Detox Center was awarded $24,000 of 29th Year CDBG funds for a new air conditioning system. A more detailed engineer report indicated that substantial electrical and • mechanical work, more than what was originally indicated and budgeted for, would be necessary. The bid, which includes the additional work, and the engineering review increased the project cost to $17,619. In addition, during the bid process, sprayed material was found on the roof decking. Because the roof decking will be penetrated it will need to be tested for asbestos which will cost an additional $3,000 to test and do spot abatement where it is necessary to penetrate the roof for the electrical work. The total budget increase is $20,619. This action will increase the CDBG VOA Project budget and decrease the 29th Year CDBG Contingency budget. This will leave a remaining Contingency budget of $47,639.90 It is recommended that the City Council increase the VOA budget by $20,619 and decrease the Contingency by this amount to facilitate this project. U Cl1L LCLt1C '. 1ly VVL�JVL�I.LIVII Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 9 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 9 - Will this grant fund employee posi4ons? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds . become unavailable ? No Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services Department 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year State of Utah, Dept. of Community and Economic Development Division of State History Amendment#2 Initiative#14 Initiative Name Greg Davis/Sherrie Collins 535-6397/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring No Staff Resources 10369G-A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable FiscatImpact of Proposed.Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year. 3rd Year _ FY 2003-04 FY2Q04-O5_ ___FY_2005 06_ 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 14,730 • Total $14,730 $0 $0 B..Expenditures Impacted by`Fund and Source._. 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 14,730 Total $14,730 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services-Contractual 11,915 5. Capital Outlay -` 6. Other(Specify)- Previous Consultant Fees 2,815 Total $14,730 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#14 03Cemetery pubserv.xls11/6/20034:12 PM bait _Lake uity Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D Personnel Service Detail - FTE Grade/Step" Amount • NA 111111 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#14 03Cemetery pubserv.xls11/6/20034:12 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 111 E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be idiintified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to ide tify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer,is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Public Services Department received this grant award to create a computer inventory of all the burials in the Salt Lake City Cemetery and create a geographic information system (GIS) database of their locations. A copy of this database must be submitted to the Utah State Historical Society once • complete. Funds will be used to hire a consultant to provide Cemetery numbering, link map and data base, provide database in GIS format and provide custom reports, installation, training and printed maps. Funds will also be used to pay previous consultant fees who provided database work, troubleshooting and evaluation. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any grants or agreements that stem from grant. • bait Lane city Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G.Grant Criteria:A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1- In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2_Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. • Question 1 -Will this grant fund employee positions?No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program?'-NA Question 2 -What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? None at this time. Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. • Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable?No Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services Engineering 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Utah Department of Transportation Sidewalk Replacement Amendment#2 Initiative#15 Redwood Road,1000 North 1700 North Initiative Name Joel Harrison/Sherrie Collins 535-6234/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring No Staff Resources NA Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable - Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue impacted by Fund and Source: 1st year 2nd Year -_ 3rdYear - FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund CIP Sidewalk Replacement $82,500 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 82,500• Total $165,00 $0 $0 B..Expenditures impacted by Fund_and Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund CIP Contingency-New appropriation -$27,500 CIP Sidewalk Replacement 110,000 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 82,500 Total $165,00 $0 $0 C..Expenditure Impact Detair 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 110,000 6.Other(Specify) Total $110,000 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#15 03Grant and CIP DOT.xls11/6/20034:15 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D_Personnel Service Detail: FTE GradelStep Amount • NA • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#15 03Grant and CIP DOT.xls11/6/20034:15 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment . E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there;is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simpleas a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Public Services Engineering Division received this award from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). It is a legislative appropriation to UDOT under the safer sidewalk program. A 25% cash match, or $27,500 is required of the City. It is being requested that this amount be illappropriated from CIP Contingency. These funds will be used for sidewalk replacement on the west side of Redwood Road, 1000 North to 1700 North. This will leave a Contingency balance of approximately $906,000. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any grants or agreements that stem from the grant. Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G.Grant Criteria:A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1_In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3!Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What'programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA `- Question 2 -What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? None at this time. Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 -is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. • Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable?No Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services 2003-2004 Department For Fiscal Year Sorenson/Computer Clubhouse Amendment#2 Initiative#16 Initiative Name Sean Martin/Sherrie Collins 908-6234/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grants Requiring No Staff Resources N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted,by Fund and Source: lstYear 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Misc 72 grant Fund 3,000 • Total $3,000 $0 $0 B. Expenditures_Impacted by Fund and Source:: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Misc 72 grant Fund 3,000 Total $3,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 3,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $3,000 $0 $0 • v u.a i+caa>a,., vty VV1t.JVl Ql1V11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment =.D personnel Services _ F E GradelStep Amount • No Impact • • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference. if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a • service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center has been awarded $3,000 in cash grants from the Boston Museum of Science for to be used for training and travel related costs. One grant for $2500 and one for$500• These funds will be used towards travel expenses for training sessions and conferences. The travel grants will provide funds to attend conferences and trainings related to the Computer • Clubhouse learning model It is recommended that The Mayor and City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate the grant requirements. 111 bait _Lake city corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: Grant satisfies #2 below. • - in some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No What programs are finded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will pay for travel related costs for training and conferences. No Employee Positions will be funded Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA NA Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes • NA Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? No These are a one-time grants Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? NA • Salt Lake City Corporation -Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Fire Department Salt Lake City Police Department 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Utah Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security Amendment#2 Initiative#17 Initiative Name John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 535-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring No Staff Resources 16.007 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscar Impact.of Proposed Change A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source:. 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2004-05 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-05 1. General,Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund ill Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 434,985.0 Total $434,985.0 $0 $0 —a Expenditures-Impacted by Fund-and-Soureew 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 434,985.0 Total $434,985.0 $0 $0 C.,Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services- 5. Capital Outlay 434,985.00 6. Other(Specify)Training Total $434,985.00 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#17 03MMRS police fire.xlsl l/6/20034:16 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D,_Personnel Service i7etait kTE- -'_ Grade/Step> Amount • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#17 03MMRS police fire.xlsl l/6/20034:16 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or,budget but often goes peeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Salt Lake City Management Services Emergency Management Program applied for and 41 received this grant in a joint effort with the SLC Fire, Police, Airport and Public Utilities. The funds are to be used for equipment based on the City's priority of equipment needs in the event of an attack with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To determine the needs of the City, a committee was formed and all equipment needs were reviewed and a priority given. Funding is to be used to purchase equipment given a number 1 priority and proceed down the list in numerical order until all funds are expended. The following is the priority listing as it was submitted and approved in the grant application. The Fire Department is to purchase various items of Personal Protective Equipment totaling approximately $75,380, detection equipment that includes a Travel IR HCI Haz Mat Chemical Identifier at approximately $62,500 and a Mobile Command Incident Response Vehicle at approximately $270,000. No other items are eligible and funds must be spent in priority order. The Incident Command Vehicle will be a combinded use type vehicle to be used by SLCPD and SLCFD on any and all major incident scenes. This unit will be a replacement for our current Incident Command Trailer that is over 15 years old and outdated in all aspects of technology. in the past, the trailer has been used by Police only and Fire has not had any type of command vehicle. The Police Department is to purchase metal detectors and weather tight containment logistical support equipment totaling approximately $26,000, If funds remain the Airport is to purchase a vehicle mounted GPS unit and Public Utilities is to purchase physical'security enhancement items for water reclamation security. • The vehicle will be outfitted with the latest in surveillance and communication equipment. It will have a conference room and in the front and dispatch areas for both fire and police in the rear. It also includes a 40' surveillance camera and recording capabilities. • • : -- '''''''''''''a. - - ,,,,,, ,,,. ,,,,,.:,.,,‘ „ ., ,,,,, t.?� �` .a '‘4*:7-:-?i*4',.- ' , •,":7,r4'.g;'-',i:C4•7's;,,'.,4:!.t!l','•':if':• i, ,'''2';‘,S" ,,illIt':.".4; il , .''',`4':-:‘4",i,, ' ;:ii‘ ,', ; . r � E la. • �zx e' 1�2 5 N-E , ta.T1 rka S • 4 Wn. .• rri .ram a ::;„, fir � • • • • ....... ._.... . ?a 7..1.i .=------- 5AI'N,N• f„ 1 NN, ........„,,,....J ...\ . -=- ' •\ 't -17-1 \/-:.1:i - --- - c---4 k I - [....,j : A' < 7S-71-)----1 = ,. - [ k:, l'- ':'' ---‘ --.\ El ---' i _ z .- 101 m n• --, g" yi ---, 1,' gi :.. _., 4 6 .1 t-I° ''g IT, \ • ) El 1 ). .. .., i .,- _ - Iii o \ \ , . ,11 , •---,1/ . :", El \ -;11::::::, :up (,) o--- -- , ru i=.= -----, r --1 •II rn \ yl , CI —7! l ..% , ..... , 7A. , .''' ,4 PT 1174''°'' --.„... —-fdrf.Yi , lase. eal , )ir „..--..,,' I 12_.4TI ' I i‘•t'.::; ‘1"F Y.' -',7-- ,== _.= E, _,..._______ 7 7.1.,), _ _____, fl ---.: - '.cji0 r"--- -------------Th ro- " ______ . ,. ''.____} '4..n------, x A A9 11 r______ .... i i..' . ...- , Li Li I:, • y :• . -il 3 L .. . i. '. - i ...._ 0 i 1.1;1 , ,----„, 6I .....9 i , .'i 7= 9 7„ 1 0,14,-, rmy20 ,..P-14!19-4 "Ali: ,, , •, ISO) tagivii ,' ,., .1 hvot4 1 Pi59 r A 10:.'W' ., ..----, r.'P9 lA [ "2 i; 2 5 •. " "1 i. ,4 S'il 0." ,:,', . - I .• " ------ . A 1,4 .18 • ..! ''. i'il CO F.1 h , . k i 41„: PU '.1911,1 i'-.;•L ..j,,, 1,h at f • al ! I-,, ... .. I. . ' „I . ....• 7.;..:P±_—'±IL-.:-== ,--:::::-_-_:-_-_-:..., --(N.,•=.....,..:.7.-1-_,....i...___1::,,_____.5. ..___./ ... . Vig — r. 3-1ir1 .•,..;fi 1._. __. ,.........''. / / 11 1 , ,*.ii 114:•4:11 '' ' I ig II L. • I\/I .. . -.....,.....„.... II I 1 : g• a a IAl . '•• 41I-I •il.‘.11! IC-..S..`41 int i --.1-•-• 5..:', ...- • [41 il ,...!, 1 • 41-.: i'll :---..-2.1/\ — 1 x'n --•-t_4.4, ___ .......12 i 1.1,_____.4,, --- ..1 • ca.'.::...-ah .-------.71 ,...FritTPIghlir-kg.-t(72'4 _ .....---• I ii - N--- _._... ...-, ,II: I---I ipr ifH' Z 1 ... :!1:1 q.T •. AgFi' _. ".7-_-..L....7..: 1:,....::===-.-_=• "! +2aPW 1 , _1',.. ..--.._ ....r.-...= F,,,,, m ••t1 C' 7_...__ 0 1 717.1 (i --; 1 ., •,' - .._. !. ,dri4.„,..,` rit - :,:: -., on -u 101----) 1-'!- - III ,-- Al_, ..,••• ,,ri,( ,.,..t.ii •-). ,,, ii .,., ,./ ,n,1,, i4,..‹1/I.„- 1,11: '''' ./' ''''; • - '<::::-. ..,LI 1 1--- -__ ', Ir 1 II . '",.. ..irx . 4 ...-;-...-:. •-I----Y,u". t)) „ , ___- ,-,.....,1.5,,,,- 1.----- 1 ,.. --- „:______ i..... j, , , , .rr 1 NI a..,g 1-71 --1- 1.'/-1 1--- . ix, '' -- Al ,, \• f-5111-;:ri -1' ,,,, I ,,, • .4 \\,i - . I , ''.... I . .1. ...--- ii..........3\-• - iJ I • ' 4 . • _lq --: P. l'f! 1 t ' --------.: lilli17- - s „,.n.... ,.; :., '.„VVLVV . .„...,„..::„„ . ....„ anp ,-,.L- q I, Z,, :1 to " ,,i - . e3 .!'.. •,`, 4.,.,-•mr, 5! F- 'AO T' ,?.', T I." " 1 4 ° '.0 / 2 7!"! IirgIO ''l A • I 'l (5 ii ' (-1 .%1 -114 M 4P ''.1.;fl ,. ,3 Gi . _... , I\A lc A r,, tli Ili f.i ,- oi ?,-,.,.. F,5 A "! :_.' . ,..- •t .4 q t= lie. il A 7 v\1 1,•\1 a 41 .!, • .,,, Y ?,i',1 A [i P I., ,•: :2 , ;:t P. 8g :2 § E 1'4, - 7 1i ill 8 9 ,.: ;1:5 (1(!i. 11,11 L'i y'A(' C(.' 8 rj si ,, , m ::4:, -.;...,, PA (4 Ft - 9 - - 2 6 ; II 8 i i, I .4 . -:.." ,- ,., ii il 1 9 ,1:, i,1 ' I I .i - r.: t., : h 'l V i-.1 0!, :I ill 2a!I!.LILI.Ia 6 1r; '!' d •,-2 v; :., 7.. 0 A 9 y ; ,• II q V ' ,' Pi .• .. .1:! 11 P I 8:1 il iri n vi .22,-, ..,.,, .„ .J,,,,,,,i:iii.,, . II • , 1 !: 21 2 ,1 m 3 VI a. P VI la g'-' 2 5! z 2 ,I4 ?IWO, ag27,1 I'ILI,Li';g!..LI:L"I.aaa 1! iSII. I. (..; :!.''0. I,-1',..9,7 1;1;gi..',! i) -, . ,?..,, '' . c4.311- lii CI q 9'0- 88g7nr., fiNEF =in111411f-..',4,,'d..)11t, til 511.1 4'' ,471?, y 9. 1 1.-'a 4';'''2 0-4,,,T vr.0•11- --;,o,4.,,:r •-•• - 4---•,., .,) I "4" "'k •h i: -2(2 _ L1 ,ili .II. f3. r2.5 ril ,-------:\ ......- t.o, ,*,el -•• ' 1'AL/A _. 1) S: hi ';'.1 r x h45(00, y 1-,2 ,5! ,H 1 x ,___.., ',8,8 p(I y T Mi',;-_,O . •?i;)1.. •'.i!,?,1 P;g1..,,:!;1:1„r. Er.D.1 ,.:-.1 -_ ....... _..... •--__ ._.._.. • — ! 13 - • ax{{ 41,1Zrw Yr ni=�mwar> ti v * .. ix t �_� 4 ti,.3' MIa+'3� ar• .+z E..' . fie 1. t 5 ti`c,� A� ;w" °" t r s' 1.4 }�/' kf k 44 , .; i'e 4 .,T.p y `.I A,. `�y R'A ht i .i C r 1� " . y .�» r fig} }" 3� a �rk 4 M ag. 4` ,' :'tea`. t1 w �, 4.!� '�a 1 Ate'.^ '4v' `""t, �_.+*,vim e ,�,a. 't. ,, - .k„ ,A,$ `4 �fiwixr ` xy:, loss.zn_, L z ` - '� ,,. es..'-b.�,tet�.�::.a ' 1 �.nn:�"r'e.-.,:... _.,.,... '"..�.Y �°*' .. _.sx.-s -- .....r e6 aK.. �._a.. • tl R1L LCLL O,1Ly QLlV11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? NA. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds • become unavailable ? NA. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Fire Department 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Utah Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Services&Homeland Security 2002-TE-CX-0138 Amendment#2 Initiative#18 Initiative Name John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 535-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Pass through funds Grant Requiring No Staff Resources 16.007 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact.of Proposed Change • A.Revenue Impacted hY Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 • 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 32,420 Total $32,420 $0 $0 B..Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:. 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0_ $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 32,420 Total $32,420 $0 $0 • C Expenditure impact Detail: 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance 4.Charges and Services • 5.Capital Outlay-Equipment 32,420 6.Other(Specify) Total $32,420 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#18 03WMD fire.xlsl l/6/20034:19 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment _6 PersortneHServico Detail _ FTE Grade/Step Amount. • S • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#18 03WMD fire.xlsl l/6/20034:19 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is e definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective.The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.in other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect caihnot he identified,there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Salt Lake City Fire Department received this grant from the State of Utah, Utah Department of • Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services & Homeland Security. This is a pass through grant from the State to the City and is received approximately every two years. It is to be used specifically for protective equipment in relation to a Weapons of Mass Destruction attack. Equipment could include breathing apparatuses, protective clothing/gear,etc. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this grant and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any grants or agreements that stem from the grant. • L1L J1LLl1\. ul LV v 1-71VV1 CI LIV11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. . 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? NA. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable ? NA. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. 41 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Department of Management Services-IMS 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year State of Utah CCJJ-Criminal Justice Information Grant Amendment#2 Initiative#19 Initiative Name Steve Whittaker/Sherrie Collins 535-7736/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring No Staff Resources 01-E-05 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2ndyearof biennium Biennial Period A.Revenue Impacted.by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year ' FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 .General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2 Internal Service Fund IMS 50.000 Total $50.000 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 50,000 Total $50,006 $0 $0 • - B.Expenditures.Impacted by Fundand Source: 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund IMS 50,000 Total $50,000 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund _ 50,000 __ _ Total $50,000 $0 $0 C Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 50,000 6.Other(Specify) Total $50,000 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#19 03IMS Police Equipment.xlsl l/6/20034:20 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment PersonneVS'ervitd.Detait FTC Grade/Step; Amount • I BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#19 031MS Police Equipment.xls1 1/6/200 34:20 PM ' Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 11 PE. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identif qd, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is ass simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes,deeper into management , Recominendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: IMS applied for and received these funds from the State of Utah Commission on Criminal and • Juvenile Justice for the Criminal Justice Integration Grant Program. This grant will allow IMS to purchase the necessary computer equipment for the City's Police Department to interface with the State of Utah Criminal Justice Information Systems (UCJIS). Equipment includes video camera, computers w/CD-Rom, processor server, MSA 1000 storage array with 500 gigabytes of storage, tape array for near line storage and backup, Microsoft server with SQL server software and other equipment necessary in the development of the XML transaction between the States system and the Police Department. The equipment will be used to write new criminal history programs. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept this grant and appropriate the budget necessary to facilitate the grant. • J d1C J ar%.c l.ny t..urpuraiion Management and Fiscal Note Worksh eet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions?1No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? NA. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Mayor's Office 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Clean Cities U.S. Department of Energy Amendment#2 Initiative#20 Initiative Name Beverly Miller/Sherrie Collins 535-7736/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant Requiring No Staff Resources N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change • 2ndyearof biennium Biennial Period A Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source 1st Year 2nd Year_._ ..__3rdY_ear____ . FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05- FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund S Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 4,000 Total $4,000 $0 $0 H::Expenditures-Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 4,000 Total $4,000 $0 $0 C..Expenditure Impact Details 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4,000 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $4,000 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#20 03CIeanCities.xlsl1/6/20034:21 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment - 1 PeraanneGSentiO4 eta( _ ETE_ _, Grade/Step- ;Amount • 41111 BA#2 FY2004 I nitiative#20 03CIeanCities.xls11/6/20034:21 PM ' Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is`o finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essenial to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as\Q change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: ill The Mayor's Clean Cities program receives these supplemental vouchers annually from the U.S. partment of Energy to be used for costs associated with alternative vehicle workshops. Typically, requests for reimbursement include printing costs, paper, supplies and certificates of recognition in education outreach efforts concerning Alternate Fuel Vehicles. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate budget necessary to facilitate the grant. a/ Jan i.aice v,iiy t.orporanon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet _ for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for protects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? NA. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. I Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Salt Lake City Fire Department 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Department of Health and Human Services Fire MMRS Amendment#2 Initiative#21 Initiative Name John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grants Requiring No Staff Resources OMB 0999-0115 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal,Impact of Proposed Change A Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd.Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund 1110 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 280,000 Total $280,000 $0 $0 B Expenditures-Impacted--by EurnE and-Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 280,000 Total $280,00 $0 $0 C<Expenditure Impact Detail' 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services 280,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $280,000 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#21 03FireHHS.xls11/6/20034:22 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D QersonneEervice Detail FTE Grade/Step: Amount • • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#21 03FireHHS.xls11/6/20034:22 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Fire Department received this grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services. The grant was awarded to jurisdictions across the country to plan and prepare a response mechanism to a mass casualty, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) terrorist attack. $50,000 of these funds will be used to complete, prepare and produce an in-depth inventory of valley wide available resources and the capabilities of response to a WMD attack. This report will identify pharmaceutical caches, personal protective equipment, detection and monitoring equipment and the location/jurisdiction of these items. $150,000 of these funds will be used to produce a sustainment plan which includes an estimate of the identified resources needed, a Response Plan Maintenance, Pharmaceutical/Equipment Maintenance, training of existing and new personnel, and drills/exercises. $80,000 of the grant funds will be used to produce the findings in an operational/verification report and a interagency operation which includes an excercise/drill of the valley wide MMRS Expansion. All reports must be submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services and approximately $80,000 will be used for a contractual component to produce the reports. This operation will be conducted over a two year period. It is recommended that the City Council sign the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept this grant and any additional agreements that may stem from this grant and to adopt the necessary budget for grant facilitation. • Jit1t LitnC v.-ay 1..u1puraL1ul1 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 1 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What progr rns are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? None at this time. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? The Fire Department will continue to apply as funding availability permits. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable ? No. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • CED -Housing and Neighborhood Development 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year HUD Program Income Amendment#2 Initiative#22 Initiative Name LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping NIA Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A,Revenue Impacted by Fund and.Source: 1st Year 2ndYear 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 71 Grant Funds 12,892.5 • Total $12,892.59 $0 $0 B..Expenditures Impacted by FundandSource. 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 71 Grant Funds 12,892.5 Total $12,892.59 $0 $0 C Expenditure Impact Detail- 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Reprogramming Funds for 12,892.59 Total $12,892.59 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#22 03CDBG Program Income.xlsl1/6/20034:24 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Prograin,hicome_, - - Cost Center Amount 71-20015 CDBG Utah Heritage Foundation $ 5,373.18 71-70631 CDBG Cleaning and Securing 7,519.41 Total Program Income $ 12,892.59 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#22 03CDBG Program Income.xlsl1/6/20034:24 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impactor a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply dentifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: These Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded programs, have received program income from re-payment of loans or other reimbursement costs due to liens etc. This action establishes a budget for those funds and allows the program income to be reallocated back into the individual 41) program for continued programming. It is a HUD Federal guideline that Program Income be reallocated to programs that have same eligible activity. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary adjustment for these budgets. U Ult. .L d11C % 1Ly 1.U1pUIaiiuI1 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet _ for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. III i - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 9 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? NA Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds • become unavailable ? No Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. III Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Community and Economic Development 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Downtown Economic Development Fund Amendment#2 Initiative#23 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number Housekeeping N/A Type of Initiative CFDA Number Fiscal Impactof Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source:: lstYear 2nd Year 3rd.Year FY 2003-04 . FY 2004-05.. _ FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Downtown Economic Development Fund 150,000 0 0 Total $150,00 $0 $0 B:;Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 411 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Downtown Economic Development Fund 150,000 0 0 Total $150,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail- 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 150,000 0 0 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $150,000 $0 $0 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#23 EDF Downtown Alliance Funds CED.xls11/6/20034:24 PM Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment ersonne Servied QetaiL . :, F Grade/Step= Amount • No Impact • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#23 EDF Downtown Alliance Funds CED.xls11/6/20034:24 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet - for Budget Development and Budget Amendment easured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization, or plans. This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifyin why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management \, Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: In 2000, the City Council created a three-year special improvement district to fund the activities of the Downtown Alliance. At that time it was estimated that the assessment would generate approximately $2,000,000 in revenue. The City has now collected $97,188 in excess of the projection, with an additional $,000 yet to be collected. These funds should be appropriated by the City Council so they can be 4 ended for the purposes they were assessed. It is recommended that this adjustment be approved. • J A1L L[L11C 1.1ly \.UIpulauUII Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. • 9 - In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 'I - Will this grant fund employee positions? What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? S Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilities 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Water, Sewer, and Storm water Capital Improvement Amendment Amendment#2 Initiative#24 Initiative Name Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change, A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source. 1`stYear 2nd Year 3rd Year - — - - -- - 2003-04 FY 2004-05- -FY-2005-06- 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Sewer Utility 5,863,74 Storm water Utility 947,000 Water Utility 1,949,228 Total $8,759,97 $0 $0 4. Other Fund • $0 $0 $0 B:.Expenditures=tmpactecdbyfimd`and Source.. 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Sewer Utility 5,863,74 Storm water Utility 947,000 Water Utility 1,949,228 Total $8,759,97 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure impact Detail: 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services (Contingency) $60,000 5. Capital Outlay 8,699,972 6. Other(Specify) Marillac House Improvements Total $8,759,972 $0 $0 I BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#24 Water Sewer Stormwater CIP.xls11/6/20034:25 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D:Pe�sonnel_Sew�c �etaif FTC Grade/Step- Amount • NA • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#24 Water Sewer Stormwater CIP.xls11/6/20034:25 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 4111 E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straighfforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. • Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper ipto. management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Sewer Utility: The Public Utilities Department will require this amendment to the Sewer CIP program to cover the cost of prior year projects started but not completed during the prior year plus additional funding for the treatment plant based on new engineering cost estimates The cost of the change is an increase of $5.8 million. A review of current expenses and cash flow • will allow these changes to be adopted into the current departments financial plan. Additional funding is required for the sewer treatment plant upgrade, to cover actual bids received which were $3.4 million over engineering estimates. The remaining $2.4 million adjustment relates to projects budgeted last year which require an adjustment. Funding is available through prior year reserves. Each year projects budgeted in prior years but uncompleted require a new appropriation_of funds to ensure completion. This is not a change in the CIP program but reflects a more reasonable expectation of results than previously available when budgeted so far in advance. It is recommend approval of the increase in cost of capital projects previously approved but requiring funding in the current fiscal year to complete. • Storm water attachment BUDGET AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT • Carryover Project from prior Fiscal Year: COGENERATION SYSTEM $325,000 RECLAMATION PLANT UPGRADE(engineering) 1,000,000 South Temple Main to Virginia St. 302,000 VARIOUS OTHER PROJECTS 836,744 Total $2,463,744 Additional Funding Sewer Treatment Plant Upgrade $3,400,000 Total $3,400,000 Total Amendment $5,863,744 11111 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal-Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 40 E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, g structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria.'It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be-dentified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to i entify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Storm water Utility: The Public Utilities Department will require this amendment to the Storm water CIP program to complete projects that have been delayed and needed in the system to meet the publics needs and to improve areas that have become critical to meet the on-going needs of our infrastructure. • The cost of the change is $950,000. The major impact of this amendment is a shift of funding from last year to this year. This is normal and expected as part of the flexibility required as budget expectations anticipated many months in advance do not always meet construction expectations or replacement time tables. Funding is available through prior year reserves. Each year projects budgeted in prior years but uncompleted require a new appropriation of funds to ensure completion. This change in the CIP program reflects a more reliable expectation of results than was previously possible. It is recommend approval of the increase in cost of capital projects previously approved but requiring funding in the current fiscal year to complete. • Storm water attachment BUDGET AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT • Carryover Project from prior Fiscal Year: 650 WEST 500 NORTH 120,000 CRESTVIEW DR. OAKHILLS WAY TO EMIGRATION CREEK 119,000 MONTGOMERY ST. GLENDALE CIR.TO 1300 SOUTH 225,000 2100 SOUTH 900 WEST TO REDWOOD ROAD 483,000 Total Carry' overs f $947,000 New Projects: None Total New Projects 0 Total Admendmei $ 947,000 • • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 4111 E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference. if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Water Utility: The Public Utility Department will require this amendment to the Water CiP program for projects that have been started or delayed as carryover items from last fiscal year that were planned and • budgeted but not finished in 2003. These are needed in the system to meet the public's needs and to improve areas that have become critical to meet the on-going needs of our infrastructure. There is one carryover under Charges & Services, Expenditure Category which is required to cover the watershed sign educational program started last year and completed this fall for $60,000. The cost of the change is $1.95 million. The major impact of this amendment is a shift of funded projects from last year to this year. This is normal and expected as part of the flexibility required as parts of the system do not always meet construction expectations or experts replacement time tables. Funding is also needed to finance a new water line replacement project on 300 West from 800 to 1300 South in the amount of $750,000. Funding is available through prior year reserves. Each year projects budgeted in prior years but uncompleted require a new appropriation of funds to ensure completion. This is not a change in the CIP program but reflects a more reasonable expectation of results than was previously possible to budget so many months in advance. It is recommend approval of the increase in budget to charges and services and capital projects items previously approved but requiring carryover funding in the current fiscal year to complete. Water Attachment BUDGET AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT Carryover Project from prior Fiscal Year: CHARGES & SERVICES Watershed Educational Signage $60,000 Carryover Waterlines 950,317 950,317 CARRYOVER EQUIPMENT POLYMER FEEDERS FOR PLANT FILTERS 8,156.00 BRYNEER BRINE TANK SYSTEM 40,000.00 CITY CREEK PERISTALTIC PUMP 5,355.00 PARLEY'S BOILER 80,000.00 SCADA UPGRADE/TREATMENT PLANTS 55,400.00 Total Carryovers 1,199,228 New Projects: 3rd West Watermain 750,000 • Total New Projects 750,000 Total Amendment Change $1,949,228 • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Management Services -Information Management Services 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Early Warning System Grant Funds for IMS Projects Amendment#2 Initiative#25 Initiative Name Mike Freeland 535-6115 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal,Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund IMS 116,871 Total $116,871 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 • B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund IMS 116,871 Total $116,871 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact:Detail: 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services-Contractual(IMS) 100,000.00 4. Charges and Services-Other 16,871.00 5. Capital Outlay(IMS) 6. Other(Specify) Total $116,871 $0 $0 • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#25 031MS EWS police grant.xlsl1/6/20034:27 PM Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D Personnel_Sertrice ETetaii _ FTE Grade/Step Amount • Contractual labor 0 $ 100,000.00 • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#25 03IMS EWS police grant.xlsl1/6/20034:27 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the'difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Police Department previously received and budgeted for this grant. This adjustment will appropriate within the IMS Fund the approved expenses associated with IMS functions, specifically contractual labor and some miscellaneous charges and services. . It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate this passthrough of grant funds. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services Department 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year General Fund Encumbrance Carryover Amendment#2 Initiative#26 Initiative Name Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003414_ FY 2004-05 -FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Ftnd Balance 40,000 Total $40,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 • B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:- 1. General Fund Encumbrance carryover to 0100028-222505 40,000 Total $40,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditures Impact Detail: 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services 40,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $40,000 $0 $0 BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#26 03Encumbrance.xlsl1/6/20034:29 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment R� Personnel ServicegDeta F , FTE = Grade/Step_ Amount N/A • • BA#2 FY2004 Initiative#26 03Encumbrance.xlsl1/6/20034:29 PM J GU-1 Ln111. 1..1Ly N..L/11,01a L1U11 Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet ` for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization1 • This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is sir,ply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or`dget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: General Fund departments comparison to budget includes encumbrances that are outstanding at fiscal year end. Without Council action, the General Fund departments' Fiscal 2004 appropriation will be forced to fund encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end. This particular commitment for Justice Court software was omitted from the original carryover request • approved by the Council for Fiscal 2004 It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding commitment in Management Services for Justice Court software a SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF.REPORT • BUDGET ANALYSIS— FISCAL YEAR 2004 DATE: November 18, 2003 BUDGET FOR: Early Retirement Program STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Budget & Policy Analyst cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Brenda Hancock and Jodi Langford The Administration has responded to a Council request for proposals for an early retirement program. Attached in the transmittal are five proposals with varying levels of cost and benefit for different employee groups. The Administration does not recommend acceptance of any one proposal and does caution that an early retirement incentive could cause experienced employees to leave the City's employ. As noted in the transmittal, all of the proposals show a net cost to the City for the first three years, but some may have a net savings over a five year period. It is important • to realize that the costs as calculated in the transmittal include vacation leave and other accumulated leave amounts in addition to the retirement incentives. With the exception of retirement incentives, all of the other retirement costs are a liability that will be paid regardless of inception of an early retirement incentive program. As noted in the transmittal, if the accrued but not yet paid retirement costs are excluded from the calculation of the incentive programs costs, the payback period is cut significantly. By Council staff calculations, without regard to an incentive, if all retirement eligible employees (approximately 400 employees) opted for retirement during fiscal year 2003-2004 at their current accumulated retirement costs (vacations, personnel leave, sick leave, and retirement leave accounts) the City would have to pay close to $14 million dollars. Approximately 57% of the full-time positions are within the General Fund. A retirement payout of this size would reduce the General Fund balance by about $8 million. ANALYSIS Rather than recreate the Administration's transmittal I have posed several questions and comments about the information in the transmittal that might be of value to Council members as they determine the possible strengths and weaknesses of each of the five proposals as outlined in the proposal. It is important to understand that approximately 62% of the City's budget is used to pay the salary and benefits of the approximately 2,700 employees currently employed • by the City and 640 retired employees still receiving benefits from the City. In each of the past several budget adoption processes, the City has been forced to trim the City's 1 4 employee base through the elimination of vacant positions or staff reductions. This analysis does not address turn-over expenses or costs associated with operating the City with a reduced workforce. • The completed analysis does not point to an actual cost savings to the City with an early retirement program. If the City does have a need in the future to reduce its workforce due to budget constraints, this data could be useful in identifying the pros and cons of using early retirement incentives as a tool. • The Administration's paperwork outlines in detail the retirement costs that the City has incurred since calendar year 1997. The average retirement cost to the City is over $1 million each year, yet the City budgets only about $650,000 for General Fund employees and less for enterprise and other fund employees. The budgetary difference between actual and budgeted retirement costs is covered by delays in replacing employees and requests for fund balance appropriation. The Council may wish to consider increasing the allocation for retirement costs. • Even without an incentive to accept retirement (currently eligible or near eligible employees) the cost to the City is close to $14 million. Once new employees are hired at lower entry salaries the City still incurs a cost of almost $6.4 million. This number is certainly much higher once training costs and hiring lag expenses are included. The Council may wish to confirm that the City has sufficient funds available to cover the potential retirement costs associated with the current retirement eligible employees. • As calculated in the transmittal, the net cost of retirement incentives per retiree over 3 years results in a positive savings for the City in most of the potential • retiree groups. The possible savings for the City in each of the categories does not equal the savings possible if no incentive were offered and the City maintained its current retirement rate. In short, the savings are greater if no incentives are offered than if incentives are offered. The Council may wish to ask what the effect of an increased natural retirement rate would be on the City's budget. • Table 5 of the transmittal shows the Total City's Savings or Cost of retirement over 3 years with the leave payouts and incentives included in the calculation. As noted, even without an incentive, the City does not realize a savings through year three for a few of the potential retiree groups and very minimal amounts for the rest. Given this information, the Council may wish to ask the Administration what options are available to the City to reduce retirement expenses and reduce the gap between long-term employees and their retirement payouts and new hire employees. The information provided by the Administration indicates that the pay-back period for retirement with the incentive is three years. Even without the incentive the time it takes to recoup costs associated with retirement appears to exceed standards for like organizations. Confirmation of this information may reinforce the idea suggested by some Council members that the City should consider creating a scaled-back benefit package for new hires. The Administration will be providing information to the Council on the City's benefits package during February of 2004. • 2 BACKGROUND During the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget review and adoption process the City • Council asked the Administration to review the City's workforce and recommend an array of options of early retirement program proposals to the City Council for consideration. During the discussions some possible incentive program benefits that were mentioned were minimized exposure to high accumulated employee leave accounts and increased turn-over among employees. No conclusions concerning the possible benefits or drawbacks to an early retirement incentive program were voiced by the Council; instead the Council asked that the Administration report back to the Council with fmdings concerning different scenarios that could work for Salt Lake City. Typically, there are two early retirement incentive programs that government and private entities employ. The first incentive type is a program that encourages employees eligible for retirement to retire and leave the City's employ. The second is a program that provides some incentive to employees who are near retirement eligibility the means necessary to become retirement eligible and leave the City's employ. Either program can be effective if employees choose retirement at a rate greater than the City's current retirement rate and subsequent employees are hired at a rate lower than the retiring employee. During the 1980 and into the 1990's early retirement incentive programs that were designed to encourage and facilitate the retirement of employees before a regular retirement age were becoming increasingly popular. These programs are an • arrangement between an employer and an employee that provides an inducement or reward for early retirement. The choice to participate in such a program is voluntary, yet incentives are consistent within established criteria. Each participant in the program is given the same incentive choices as other participants. Incentive programs must be matched to the basic retirement program and not contain participation requirements that are at odds with the retirement plan. Also, compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations must be considered when the program is being developed. • 3 17 :.LAKE::€%IT %QIIN + +:. T1 IMPORT:::.:.:::::: : :: :.: . .::: : BUDGET AMENDMENT #2 FISCAL YEAR 20 DATE: November 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget Amendment #2 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, DJ Baxter, Rick Graham, Ed Rutan, Steven Allred, Chief Dinse, Chief Querry,Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Greg Davis, Jerry Burton, John Vuyk, Gordon Hoskins, Elwin Heilmann, Shannon Ashby, Sherrie Collins, Laurie Dillon, Susi Kontgis, and Kay Christensen The briefing and discussion of the second budget amendment of the fiscal year 2003-04 budget is scheduled for November 18, 2003. The proposed amendment includes several state and federal grants relating to youth programs, public safety, emergency management and police and fire functions. There are requests to use General Fund balance for prosecutor and Justice Court staffmg and an encumbrance carryover for Justice Court software. Other budget amendment initiatives relate to grant funding, housekeeping items and capital budgeting. At a future Council Meeting the Council may wish to set a date for a public hearing. MATTERS AT ISSUE The Council on November 6, 2003 decided to draft and adopt a resolution requiring current revenue collection data and forecasts to be submitted to the Council at least 4 times each year and in advance of each budget amendment briefing. The proposed resolution has been drafted and will soon be ready for Council briefmg and consideration. The Council may wish to ask representatives from the Administration what the current fund balance is as of the end of October 2003 and what it will be if the budget amendment is adopted as proposed and also inquire about the City's revenue forecast and collection efforts. The Council may wish to hold the budget amendment briefing as scheduled but request the fund balance and revenue information before the public hearing is held. As noted, this budget amendment contains requests for staffmg. Historically the Council has been reluctant to consider increased staffmg requests outside of the budget process. This is a standard reluctance for legislative bodies because considering requests at a time other than during the regular budget process does not allow the body to fully weigh the issues against all City priorities. While a case can easily be made that additional staffmg is needed outside the budget process, that request may not be approved in a regular budget process because it does not compare favorably with other budget priorities. To avoid the situation of considering requests out of context, the Council could delay consideration of the requests for additional employees to until the regular budget process, or the Council could attempt to assure a complete context by scheduling time to review upcoming demands on Page 1 fund balance, the revenue picture for the coming year, options for addressing the potential gap created for next year by using $2.7 million in fund balance in this year's budget, and budget priorities that were not funded in this current year before considering requests for • enhanced staffing. This budget amendment also includes a number of items that relate to the creation of computer programs. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the focus will be to provide these services in-house, or whether these can be contracted out or purchased from other organizations. The Council may also wish to ask about the impact these grants will have on the existing staffing resources. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, Council staff has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows where possible: • "New" - those items that are new issues that the Council may have discussed but now need budget appropriation to be carried out. • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "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. • "Grant providing 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. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus" -- those grants that will require the City's • existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications, since employees involved with these projects have less time to focus on other projects within the scope of their work.) Issue #1: CIP- Sidewalk Replacement($130,000- CIP Fund) ("New Item") During the adoption of the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget the City Council adopted a CIP - Sidewalk Replacement project. The total cost of the project is higher than originally anticipated and as such the Administration is requesting that the Council approve the recapture and appropriation of CIP funds in completed or closed CIP Sidewalk Replacement cost centers to the current fiscal year sidewalk replacement project. In addition to the recapture and appropriation of City funds the budget for the property owner's portion of the Special Improvement District will be increased by $130,000. The Sidewalk Replacement Special Improvement District covers an area in the vicinity of 900 to 2100 South from 1100 to 1500 East. The total cost of the project is expected to be approximately $1.49 million, $200,000 of which is funded by Public Utilities. Issue #2: CIP - Airport CIP Budget Amendment ($18,49O,OOO - Airport Enterprise Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program grant money ($14,150,000) and passenger facility charge revenue ($4,450,000) to complete two additional capital410 improvement projects in the Airport Enterprise Fund. The Airport Enterprise Fund Page 2 capital improvement program is currently budgeted at $122,158,400, the program budget will increase by $18,490,000. • The two projects that will be added to the program are the Airport II Master Plan Update ($150,000) and the West Apron Paving - Phase III and Supporting Structures project ($18,340,000). The master plan update for Airport II will evaluate the existing conditions and facilities and look at future facility requirements. The last update to the Airport II plan was in March 1990. The West Apron Paving project will connect existing ramp pavement constructed under Phase II and allow large jet aircraft to travel between the ramp and Taxiways A and B. This project will also construct the structural shell of a tunnel that is part of the new development program (new terminal and concourses). The tunnel portion of this budget request was approved during a budget amendment in fiscal year 2002-2003. But the construction did not take place, and the budget lapsed at year end. The reason for constructing the tunnel shell at the same time as the apron is so that the apron doesn't have to be demolished later to put in the tunnel. This tunnel will become a walking tunnel, which is west of a planned larger tunnel that is proposed to contain a people mover train. No additional FTE's are associated with this appropriation request. This request has been reviewed by the Airport Finance Committee, Airline representatives and the Airport Advisory Board. The Council has not received a recent briefing on the status of the Airport expansion plans. Would the Council like to request such a briefing? Issue #3: Prosecutor's Office and Justice Court Staffing ($190,345 - General Fund) ("New Item") • The Administration is recommending that the City Council appropriate $190,345 from fund balance in the General Fund to the Justice Court and Prosecutor's Office to add additional FTE's to address increased caseloads. The Administration is seeking approval for 8 additional positions (6 at the Justice Court and 2 at the Prosecutor's Office). The requested fund balance would be used to hire 4 Case Manager Clerks, one court clerk, one associate City Prosecutor and one Office Tech. The transmittal details the increased caseload at the Justice Court and provides justification for the increase. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a review of the revenue provided by the Justice Court to determine if the court is revenue neutral or in a revenue positive position. The Council may also wish to consider the staffing levels of the other departments that are below optimal staffing levels and inquire why this staffing request was not recommended during the budget adoption process when other positions were being eliminated. The Council may also want to consider the future year budgetary impacts of approximately $300,000 that this proposed staffing increase will cause. The Council may wish to ask whether inefficiencies and systems issues between the Court and the Prosecutor's Office. A number of issues have been raised with the Council Office recently, including: • A citizen recently complained about the wait time required of the public desiring to resolve traffic infractions. Currently, an individual that doesn't have legal counsel has to wait several hours, until cases for those with legal counsel and those individuals from the jail are heard. • Based upon a request from a Council Member, the Administration is reviewing this scheduling issue. Page 3 • A citizen also complained that he was given incorrect information about the scope of authority of the hearing officers and as a result had to return on more than one day to have his problem addressed. The • Council may wish to inquire about whether the scope of the hearing officers' authority is clear and is available to the public in writing in advance. • Given the significance of this staffing request, the newness of the Justice Court and the issues relating to the computer system raised in the Council's audit, the Council may wish to use some of its audit funding to engage an expert on court management to review the resource allocation for the City's Justice Court. • The neighborhood nuisance abatement program has been of interest to the Council in the past. The Council may wish to ask the Prosecutor's Office for information on how this program is prioritized compared to other needs in the office. The Council may also wish to ask the Prosecutor's Office about how priorities are set to determine the cases screened for actual prosecution. This could include a request for information on the current focus and how that focus would change without this additional staffing. In addition, the Council may wish to ask about the impact of diversion programs on the Prosecutor's and the Justice Court's workload (`John's program, Drug court, Mental Health Court, etc.). Issue #4: COPS in Schools ($125,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant Requiring New Staff Resources") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $125,000 in grant funds from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Policing Services. The grant funds will be used to hire one police officer to be placed within Salt Lake City School Districts schools. This grant of $125,000 will pay the salary expenses of the officer for 3 years. The City will contract with the school district to provide the benefit portion of this new officer's position. The grant requires that the position be retained for at least one budget cycle beyond the conclusion of the federal funding. General Fund participation would be required in fiscal year 2006-2007. The Council discussed the application of this grant during review of the Police Department budget in May 2003. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. The Administration is requesting that one additional FTE position be added to the City's staffing document. The Council will need to consider this FTE and remaining budget during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 budget processes as this grant covers a period from August 2003 through the end of July 2006. Issue #5: U.S. Department of Education - Youth Programs ($57,500 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant Requiring New Staff Resources") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $57,500 in grant • funds from the U.S. Department of Education for the continuation and expansion of the current programs and services provided by the Youth City program. The grant funds will Page 4 pay for an additional program assistant and salary and benefits for existing staff associated with the program. The grant period is from fiscal year 2003 to 2008. The new • FTE is funded for 3 years in this grant. Additional expenses such as travel, equipment and supplies, operating and maintenance expenses at the program sites and contracts with program providers are included as eligible expenses under this continuation grant. The Council may wish to consider whether or not the operation of the Youth City program is a core service of the City. The Council may also wish to receive an accounting of the current $1.2 million grant that the City has received. The Council may also wish to review the number of youth served by the Youth City program compared to the amount of personnel and funding needed to support the program. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution, which was previously adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only needed Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. There is one additional FTE associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #6: Drug Free Communities Support Program ($100,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ('"Grant Requiring New Staff Resources") The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office has applied for and received a grant from the U.S. • Department of Justice to create and formalize a drug prevention coalition. The coalition will be used to develop the City's substance abuse prevention policies and prevention strategies. Grant funds will be used for coordinator salary and benefits, travel and supplies, conference presenters and contractual obligations. The conference presenters will conduct workshops for the Mayor's Conference on Substance Abuse Prevention. The Council may wish to determine if a City Alcohol and Tobacco Policy Task Force/Prevention Coalition is a core City service. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. The Administration is requesting that one additional FTE position be added to the City's staffing document. Total Salary and Benefits for this additional position will be $50,322. The Council will need to consider this FTE and remaining budget during the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget process as this grant covers a period from October 2003 through the end of September 2004. Issue #7: VAWA (Justice Court) ($58,003 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant Requiring New Staff Resources") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $58,003 in grant money from the State of Utah, Office of Crime Victims Reparations (VAWA Grant) for the hiring of a full-time court clerk to process domestic violence cases at the Justice Court. The FTE position salary and benefits will cost approximately $37,000 with the remaining grant funds being used for computer and phone rental and computer Page 5 program design and development. The Justice Court, City Prosecutor's Office, Police Department and Police Department Victim Advocate Program are seeking to implement a domestic violence computer system to allow different agencies to exchange • information about crimes committed against women. The Council may wish to ask why the Administration did not ask for an additional FTE in the Police Department Victim Advocate program rather than an additional Court Clerk position. The Council may also request information concerning the interaction of the existing Victim Advocate program and how this proposed position will be effective in coordinating with the Police Department and Prosecutor's Office. The Council may wish to ask whether this one-year period will be an adequate time- frame in which to create the proposed computer program and whether resources exist within the City to operate the program in the future without the grant- funded position. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. The Administration is requesting that one additional FTE position be added to the City's staffing document. Total Salary and Benefits for this additional position will be $36,884. The Council will need to consider this FTE and remaining budget during the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget process as this grant covers a period from January 2004 through the end of December 2004. Issue #8: COPS in Shops ($7,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff • resources") The State of Utah, Department of Public Safety has awarded the City a continuation grant to pay to place undercover police officers in convenience stores. The Police Department is requesting that the grant funds be used to pay police overtime. The goal of the Cops in Shops program is to prevent alcohol/drug related car accidents. The Council may wish to note that in past briefings the Council has had concern regarding the use of grant funds for overtime. This grant pays enough to cover expenses for the program when officers are assigned. The grant is not large enough to pay for a full time position to operate this program. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution, which was previously adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only needed Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #9: U.S. Department of Justice -Arrest Policies ($500,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $500,000 in grant 40 money from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women for the purpose of encouraging arrest policing and enforcement of protection orders. The Page 6 Administration proposes that police overtimes expenses of$33,280 and salary expenses of $75,000 for an IMS technology Engineer be covered with this appropriation. The • overtime funds will be used for Police Officers to issue Class A warrants and protection order violations, the IMS employee will develop a web service that will link City department data systems 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 in Salt Lake City. The Council may wish to ask why the Administration proposes that police overtime expenses and an existing IMS position be covered with this grant and not utilize this grant to hire additional police officers or outsource the computer programming associated with this request. The Council may also wish to confirm that this program will cost only $166,520 as noted in the transmittal and confirm that the remaining $333,480 in budget appropriation is planned to be spent in this program. The transmittal identifies travel, computer equipment and contractual components as additional expenses but does not provide an accounting of the expected expenditures. The Council may wish to receive a breakdown of these proposed expenditures and clarification of what contractual services will be provided to Salt Lake City. Given the IMS workload as documented in the previous budget session, the Council may wish to inquire about the use of an existing FTE to perform this additional function. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt • the resolution. The Administration is requesting that one FTE position in IMS and Police overtime expenses be funded with this grant. The Council will need to consider this existing FIE and police overtime budget during the fiscal year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 budget processes as this grant covers a period from September 2003 through the end of August 2005. Issue #10: U.S. Department of Justice - Weed and Seed ($225,000 — Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Administration is requesting that the Council establish a budget for the continuation of a Weed and Seed grant awarded to Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Weed and Seed program aims to prevent, control and reduce violent crime, drug abuse and gang activity in targeted high-crime neighborhoods. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the salaries and wages for existing FTE's. • Page 7 Issue #11: State of Utah - Project Safe Neighborhood ($66,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $56,000 in grant • money from the State of Utah pass through grant from West Valley City for deterring gun violence in the Weed and Seed area of the city. Pass through grant funds will be used to pay Police department over-time and for officer time to accompany a Parole Officer. The funds will also pay for contractual services with Adult Probation and Parole and printed material. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for police overtime for existing FTE's. Issue #12: CDBG - Catholic Community Services ($22,840 - CDBG Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The City's Community and Economic Development/Housing and Neighborhood Development received grant funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make improvements at the Marillac House. The Council appropriated these funds during the 27th year of CDBG funding. Construction and use of these funds were delayed while the operator of the Marillac House determined if they would be staying at that location. During the 4 year delay in construction the costs • associated with the project increased. The Administration is recommending that the Council approve the transfer of $22,480 in CDBG contingency funds to the Marillac house improvement project so that the project can be completed as planned. There is sufficient CDBG contingency to accomplish this request. Issue #13: CDBG - Volunteers of America ($20,619 - CDBG Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The City's Community and Economic Development/Housing and Neighborhood Development received grant funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make improvements at the Volunteers of America-Detox Center. The Council appropriated these funds during the 29th year of CDBG funding. During a more detailed review of the reconstruction work, it was determined that an additional $20,619 would be needed to complete construction as proposed. The Administration is recommending that the Council approve the transfer of $20,619 in CDBG contingency funds to the Volunteers of America - Detox Center improvement project so that the project can be completed as planned. There is sufficient CDBG contingency to accomplish this request. • Page 8 Issue #14: State of Utah - State History - Cemetery ($14,730 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("grant requiring no staff resources") . The Salt Lake City Public Services Department has applied for and received a grant from the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of State History to create a computer inventory of all the burials in the Salt Lake City Cemetery and to create a geographic information system (GIS) database of their burials. Grant funds will be used to hire a consultant, complete the data collections and necessary reports. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #15: UDOT - Sidewalk Replacement ($110,000 - Misc. Grant / CIP Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Public Services Engineering Division has applied for and received a grant from the State of Utah, Department of Transportation (UDOT) for the replacement of sidewalk on the west side of Redwood Road, 1000 North to 1700 North. The grant ($82,500) requires a 25% local match ($27,500) which is proposed to be funded from existing CIP Contingency. The remaining contingency amount will be approximately • $906,000. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #16: Computer Clubhouse - Sorenson Center ($3,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center has applied for and received a grant from the Boston Museum of Science to be used for training and travel related costs related to the Computer Clubhouse. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #17: State of Utah - Homeland Security - Fire, Police, Airport, Public Utilities • ($434,985-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Emergency Management Program has applied for and received a grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety for the purchase of equipment Page 9 for response in the event of an attack with weapons of mass destruction. The Fire, Police, Airport and Public Utilities Departments participated in the application of this grant. The Fire Department will be the responsible department. Funding for the • equipment follows the priority ranking given each of the equipment requests made by each department. The grant funds will be used to purchase: • Personal Protective Equipment - $75,380 • Detection Equipment-Travel IR HCI Haz Mat Chemical Identifier - $62,500 • Mobile Command Incident Response Vehicle - $270,000 • Metal Detectors and containment equipment $26,000 • Remaining funds for vehicle mounted GPS unit and then physical enhancement items for water reclamation security. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #18: State of Utah - Homeland Security - Fire ($32,420 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Fire Department has applied for and received a grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety for the purchase of protective equipment for use in the response of a possible weapon of mass destruction attack. • This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #19: State of Utah - Criminal Justice Information ($50,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Information and Management Services Division has applied for and received a grant from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice for the purchase of computer equipment for the City's Police Department. The computer equipment will allow the City's computer system to interface with the State of Utah criminal Justice information Systems. The equipment will be used to write new criminal history programs. The Council may wish to note that the grant requires that the equipment be purchased by December 1, 2003. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Page 10 Issue #20: U.S. Department of Energy - Clean Cities ($4,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) 41) ("Grant requiring no staff resources, The City has received supplemental vouchers from the U.S. Department of Energy to help offset the operational expenses associated with the Clean Cities program. The Clean Cities program is organized to promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuels. Typical reimbursement requests include printing costs, paper, supplies and certificates of recognition. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #21: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Fire ($280,000 - Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Fire Department has applied for and received a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the purpose of planning and preparing to respond to a mass casualty, weapon of mass destruction terrorist attack. Of the $280,000 in grant funds, $50,000 will be used to produce an inventory of available resources and response capabilities in the Salt Lake Valley. $150,000 of the grant funds will be used to produce a sustainment plan. This latter plan includes training, • drills and maintenance of equipment and resources. The remaining $80,000 will be use to produce the findings in an operational report. This report is based on the drills and exercises of the various agencies and the cost of performing the drills is included in this grant. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #22: HUD Program Income ($12,893 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council recognize $12,893 in program income from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded programs. The program income is the result of the repayment of loans and will be available for further distribution through the program by the City. Issue #23: Downtown Economic Development Fund ($150,000 - Downtown Development Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council recognize $150,000 in special • improvement district assessment revenue that has or will be collected ($97,188 collected, $53,000 yet to be collected) in excess of the budgeted revenue. The Administration is requesting that the additional revenue be budgeted so that it may be expended for the purposes for which property owners in the district were assessed. Page 11 Issue #24: CIP - Water, Sewer, and Storm Water Funds ($8,759,972 - Enterprise Funds) ("Housekeeping") • The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $8,759,972 for projects or contracts entered into fiscal year 2002-2003 but not paid by June 30, 2003 within the Water, Sewer and Storm Water Utility enterprise funds. Because the budget from fiscal year 2002-2003 lapsed, it is necessary to appropriate funds to cover the purchase commitments made in the prior fiscal year and cover any adjustments to the scope of these projects. There is adequate fund balance available in each fund to accomplish this request. The requested budget amounts for the CIP projects are $5,863,744 in the Sewer Utility Fund, $947,000 in the Storm Water Utility Fund and $1,949,228 in the Water Utility Fund. Issue #25: Early Warning System Grant - IMS ($116,871 - IMS Internal Service Fund) ("Housekeeping' The Administration is recommending that the Council appropriate funds in the Information and Management Service (IMS) Fund to allow approved expenses associated with IMS functions to be entered and accounted for on the City's accounting system. This request relates to a grant that the Police department received and that was budgeted for, but when adopted by the Council did not include the IMS component. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and expense of grant funds with the IMS Fund. • Issue #26: General Fund Encumbrance Carryover ($40,000 - General Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate General Fund balance to cover an encumbrance that was omitted from the original encumbrance amendment on the previous budget amendment. This encumbrance is related to Justice Court software. The accounting software accepted a partial payment on this software contract in June as final payment which dropped the contract from those contracts that became part of the encumbrance carryovers. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of this request is the adoption of the budget appropriation. • Page 12 r ? •� �,,1 J)/���t r YY � ) !T yv > ALISON WEYHER SALT � ` 1COR�P0'°A r G4'4 v+til�: ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR • COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL th TO: c7 Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: November 3, 2003 FROM: David Dobbins, Deputy Director ,/ a RE: Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept a $58,002.60 grant from the State of Utah Office of Crime Victim Reparations VAWA Grant. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolutions BUDGET IMPACT: $58,002.60 DISCUSSION: The State of Utah awarded these funds to the Salt Lake City Justice Court to hire a full-time clerical position to process domestic violence cases filed with Salt Lake City Justice Court. This position will track, manage, and provide follow- up on each case to monitor offender compliance with court ordered probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. Other expenses include administrative costs associated with the position and a contractual component to develop of a computerized tracking database. S 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 8O1-535-6230 FAX: 80 1-535-6005 �� wecvcieo Pwrers • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF UTAH OFFICE OF CRIME VICTIM REPARATIONS VAWA GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $58, 002 . 60 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of : Hiring a full-time clerk to process domestic violence cases filed with Salt Lake City Justice Court. This position will track, manage, and provide follow-up on each case to monitor offender compliance with court ordered probation, community service, counseling, drug treatment, etc. Expenses include other administrative costs associated with the position including contractual development of a computerized tracking component . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Salt L At t ney' s Office By: Date:_ • r• OF Tj ' • 0.4 57, E � .9 laa htti) at!ol Michael O.Leavitt Governor Edward S.McConkie 101 State Capitol•Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0651 Executive Director _ (801)538-1031 • FAX: (801) 538-1024•www.justice.utah.gov October 29, 2003 Salt Lake City Corporation Attn Mary Johnston, City Courts Director 333 South 200 East Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Ms. Johnston, It is my privilege to inform you that the Utah Office of Crime Victim. Reparations has approved the grant application submitted by Salt Lake City Corporation in the amount of $58,002.60. Please use the assigned grant number 02-VAWA-45 in all correspondence regarding this project. Enclosed is one copy of the approved Contract with conditions. The Contract period is from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. Also enclosed are copies of the • Financial Status Report, Quarterly Grant Progress Report, Grant Change Request Form, and the Annual Performance Report. Make additional copies of these forms as needed and submit the reports to CVR as required. The Grant Progress Report is due quarterly within 30 days of the end of each federal reporting period (October 30, January 30, April 30, and July 30). The Annual Performance Report is due on January 15, 2005. Please note that all project related materials and accounting records must be maintained for a period of three years from the submission date of your Financial Status Report unless an audit has been initiated or unresolved audit findings remain. All records must be maintained until the audit findings are resolved. Please notify CVR when financial compliance audit requirements(stipulated in Form 2, Grant Conditions#3) have been met for the Contract period. If you have any questions, please contact Christine Watters, Victim Services Coordinator, Office of Crime Victim Reparations, at telephone number 801-238-2369. We look forward to working with you during the coming program year. Sincerely, Edward S. McConkie, Executive Director ., Utah C tmission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice L TT • J'` Where ideas connect" NOV 1 2 2033 ALISONWEYHER .; 1214t+J itfl � �1�® rlti�►s BOSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: October 31, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher C �-6) RE: Nine(9)resolutions authorizing the Mayor's signature on the agreements between Salt Lake City Corporation and the grant awarding agencies STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolutions BUDGET IMPACT: $1,593,135 in Grant Revenue DISCUSSION: These Agreements, between Salt Lake City and nine (9) State and Federal Grant awarding agencies will allow for facilitation of various programs by Police,Fire, Management Services' IMS Division, Public Services' Parks Division and the Mayor's Office. The granting agencies and budgets are listed below. 1. The Fire Department received a$32,420 grant from the Utah Department of Public Safety to be used to purchase personal protective equipment in the event of a weapons of mass destruction attack. 2. The Fire Department received a$280,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for developing and preparing an in depth inventory of locally available resources and the capabilities of a valley wide response to a weapons of mass destruction attack. 3. The Fire Department, Police Department, Public Utilities Department and the Airport received a$434,985 grant from the Utah Department of Public Safety,Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security to purchase equipment that would be necessary in the event of a weapons of mass destruction attack. 4. The Police Department received a$125,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), to hire an additional officer for a three year period, to be placed within Salt Lake City School District schools to deter crimes committed during school hours. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 ��� RECYCLED PAPER 5. The Police Department received a$500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice (Grant to Encourage Arrests) to provide funds for Police Officer over-time to issue Class A • warrants and protection order violations, to pay administrative services of an IMS Technology Engineer to develop web-service linking City departments' data systems to the State's data system, collaboration of participating non-profit agencies, computer equipment, and other administrative costs associated with the grant. 6. Housing and Neighborhood Development received a$56,000 pass through grant from West Valley City to pay officer over-time, a contractual component with Adult Probation and Parole and other related grant costs to case manage adult and juvenile violent offenders in a re- entry pilot program that targeted to deter gun violence in the City's Weed and Seed area. 7. The Mayor's Office received $100,000 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Free Communities grant. This grant will fund coordinator salary and benefits, a contractual component for program evaluation, associated costs with workshops and training for the Mayor's Conference on Substance Abuse Prevention. 8. Public Services' Parks Division received a $14,730 grant from the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development for contracting a consultant to create and develop a data base and computer inventory of all the burial locations in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. GIS database must be compatible to State History database. 9. Management Services' IMS Division received$50,000 from the State of Utah, Criminal Justice Information Grant. These funds will be used to purchase computer equipment for the • City's Police Department to interface with the State of Utah Criminal Justice Information Systems for development of a criminal history database accessible by both City and State RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 411 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $32 , 420 . 00 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of : Purchasing personal protective equipment for Fire Department personnel in relation to a weapons of mass destruction attack. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and 110 other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to For , : Salt L 1 At -:rney' s Office By: Date: //5 -106_3 111 o� a P;� \'i1=o Utah Department of Public Safety �� i ROBERT L.FLOWERS *� .e°fo0 Commissioner ee tate of Utah Division of Emergency Services&Homeland Security • SCOTT A.BEHUNIN Division Director MICHAEL O.LEAVITT Governor OLENE S.WALKER Lieutenant Governor October 9, 2003 Chief Querry Salt Lake City Fire Dept. 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Chief Querry: Per this letter, please be advised that Salt Lake City Fire is authorized to purchase equipment relative to their portion of the 2002 Department of Justice, Weapons of Mass Destruction Equipment Grant, as authorized by Salt Lake County and approved by the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security (DES). The details of this grant are as follows: I. 2002 Department of Justice, Weapons of Mass Destruction Equipment Grant a. CFDA#16.007 b. Granting Federal Agency: Department of Justice c. Grant Period: August 1, 2002 thru July 31, 2004 d. Award Allocation for Salt Lake City Fire: $32,420 e. Identifying #2002-TE-CX-0138 If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact Kris Hamlet, Financial Officer at 538-9553. Sincerely, Scot A. Behunin Director SAB/kh o°F Ga coo a tr,y,Cd * * 1110 State Office Building,Salt Lake City,UT 84114Uta °F4„°sf telephone(801)538-3400•facsimile(801)538-3770•http://des.utah.gov • Where ideas connect a RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY • CORPORATION accepting the $280, 000 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of : Developing and preparing an in depth inventory of locally available resources and the capabilities of a valley wide response to a weapons of mass destruction attack, produce a sustainment plan with an estimate of the resources needed, and 411 participate/host a valley wide weapons of mass destruction training/drill with other local jurisdictions. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to For : Salt A orney' s Office By:, Date: • CT IS A 3 Y AWARD / CONTRACT 1. UNDER RO PAS(15 CFR 350)D ORDER RATING PAGE OF PAGES 1 I 29 2. CONTRACT(Proc.Inst./dent.)NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4.REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST PROJECT NO. 233-03-0093 09/30/2003 000135 • 5. ISSUED BY CODE 6. ADMINISTERED BY(If other than Item 5) CODE DHHS/Program Support Center Administrative Operations Service Division of Acquisition Management Room 5-101,Parklawn Building OMB No.0990-0115 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville,MD 20857 7. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR(No.,street,city,county,State and ZIP Code) 8. DELIVERY Salt Lake Fire Department-Training Division Tl / FOB ORIGIN 1 / OTHER(See below) 1600 S.Industrial Road 9. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT Salt Lake City,UT 84104 N/A TIN: 876000279 DUNS:072957822 10.SUBMIT INVOICES ITEM (4 copies unless other- CODE FACILITY CODE ADDRESS SIiOWN IN: See Section G.2. 11. SHIP TO/MARK FOR CODE / 12. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE N/A See Section G.2. 13. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN 14. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA COMPETITION: ❑ 10 U.S.C.2304(c)( ) Ili}41 U.S.C.253(c)(02 ) 7030700 H974438 25.2Z 15A. ITEM NO. 15B. SUPPLIES/SERVICES 15C. QUANTITY 15D.UNIT 15E.UNIT PRICE 15F.AMOUNT TITLE: MMRS Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 Program Support TYPE: Firm Fixed Price PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: September 30, 2003, through September 29, 2004 • This contract is awarded unilaterally. ( 15G. TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT ► $ 280,000 16. TABLE OF CONTENTS (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) PART I-THE SCHEDULE PART II-CONTRACT CLAUSES X A SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM 1 X I CONTRACT CLAUSES I 22-28 X B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES&PRICES/COSTS 2 PART III-LIST OF DOCUMENTS,EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH X C DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT 3-12 X I J I LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 29 X D PACKAGING AND MARKING _ 13 PART IV-REPRESENTATIVES AND INSTRUCTIONS X E INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 14 REPRESENTATIVES,CERTIFICATIONS AND X F DEUVERIES OR PERFORMANCE 15-16 X K OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS 1-13 X G CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 17-20 L INSTRS.,CONDS.,&NOTICES TO OFFERORS X H SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 21 M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 17 OR 18 AS APPLICABLE 17. 0 CONTRACTOR'S NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT(Contractor is required 18. 0 AWARD(Contractor is not required to sign this document.)Your to sign this document and return - copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all Items or perform all the services set forth or offer on Solicitation Number otherwise Identified above and on any continuation sheets for the consideration stated including the additions or changes made by you which additions or changes are set forth herein.The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and ineetfull above,wIs hereby consummates a ates the to the Items listed above and onf any continuation � sheets.This award contract which consists of the following documents: governed by the following documents:(a)this awardicontract,(b)the solicitation,if any, (a)the Government's solicitation and your offer,and(b)this award/contract.No further and(c)such provisions,representations,certifications,and specifications,as are attached contractual document necessary. or Incorporated by reference herein.(Attachments are listed herein.) 19A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER(Type or print) 20A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER Signature not required Michele Trotter 19B. NAME OF CONTRACTOR 19C.DATE SIGNED 20B. N D STAT A 1CA 19C.DATE SIGNED • BY B ke2-5(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) NSN7540-01-152-8069 PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE 26-107 STANDARD .4-85) Prescribed GSA FAR(48 CFR)53.214(a) Crated by:PSC Media Arts Branch(301)443.2454 IEF T 233-03-0093 • Page 2 of 29 SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS B. 1. CONSIDERATION *Amount - $ 280, 000 The Contractor shall be reimbursed upon submission of an invoice and completion and acceptance by the Project Officer, of the required deliverable items as indicated below. Invoices shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions contained in FAR Clause 52 .232-25, Prompt Payment and Section G of this contract. PAYMENT SCHEDULE ITEM AMOUNT OF PAYMENT* SOW #1 Inventory of $ 50, 000 Capability Report SOW #2 Sustainment Plan $ 150, 000 411 SOW #3 Submit an Operational $ 80, 000 Verification Report and SOW #4 Document MMRS Expansion Efforts (Optional) • • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFTY DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $434, 985.00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of: Equipment that would be needed by the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Airport and Public Utilities in the event of a weapons of mass destruction attack. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003. Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to Fo m: Salt L ' ty A orney` s Office By: Date: ,DeD Q3 • Ott it 1,. �,\ Utah Depai linent of Public Safety L� (,a 0) a ROBERT L.FLOWERS ��• Commissioner 1gg6 . Division of Emergency Services&Homeland Security otate of Utah SCOTT A.BEHUNIN Division Director MICHAEL O.LEAVITT Governor OLENE S.WALKER Lieutenant Governor October 9, 2003 Chief Rick Dinse Salt Lake City Police Dept. 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT84111 gt Dear Chise: Per this letter, please be advised that Salt Lake City is authorized to purchase equipment relative to their portion of the 2003 Homeland Security Grant, Part I and Part II, as authorized by Salt Lake County and approved by the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Services and Homeland Security (DES). The details of these grants are as follows: I. 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program, Part I II a. CFDA#16.007 b. Granting Federal Agency: Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness c. Grant Period: April 1, 2003 thru March 31, 2005 d. Award Allocation for Salt Lake City: $102,702 e. Identifying #DES-2003-ODP1-02 II. 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Program, Part II a. CFDA#16.007 b. Granting Federal Agency: Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness c. Grant Period: May 1, 2003 thru April 30, 2005 d. Award Allocation for Salt Lake City: $332,283 e. Identifying #DES-2003-ODP2-02 If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact Kris Hamlet, Financial Officer at 538-9553. Sincerely, &r.- , Scott A. Behunin Director • • SAB/kh 1110 State Office Building,Salt Lake City,UT 84114Uta 9,,,,,„o,E ,r telephone(801)538-3400•facsimile(801)538-3770•http://des.utah.gov 1 Where ideas connect • • • UTAH DIVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OBLIGATING DOCUMENT FOR AWARD/AMENDMENT Expires March 31,2005 1. AGREEMENT NO. 2. RECIPIENT 3. TYPE OF ACTION 4. AMENDMENT NO. DES-2003-ODP1-02 REGION II X AWARD AMENDMENT AWARD 5. RECIPIENT AND ADDRESS: 6. ISSUING STATE OFFICE AND ADDRESS: Region II State of Utah Homeland Security Region Division of Emergency Services&Homeland Security(DES) 1110 State Office Building,Salt Lake City,UT 84114 7. NAME OF RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER PHONE NO. 8. NAME OF STATE PROJECT COORDINATOR PHONE NO. Dennis Stanley (801)743-7101 Kris Hamlet (801)538-3400 9. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACTION 10. METHOD OF PAYMENT 06/01/03 _x_STATE REIMBURSEMENT CHECK 11. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION a. (Indicated funding data for awards or financial changes) PROGRAM ACCOUNTING DATA PRIOR AMOUNT AWARDED CURRENT PERFORMANCE NAME TOTAL THIS ACTION TOTAL PERIOD ABBREVIATION AWARD +OR(-) AWARD THRU WMD 3 FY 2003 Homeland Security Grant-Part I $0.00 $1,679,816.00 $1,679,816.00 03/31/05 CFDA#16.007 b. To describe changes other than funding date or financial changes,attach schedule and check here 12. RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND RETURN(1)ORIGINAL C PY OF THIS DOCU ENT TO THE STATE OFFICE IN BLOCK 6._X_Yes_I 13.--" P E CINT IGNATORY— Hs OFF�ICIAL(Name and Title): DATE rf C�i ref Oj 14. STATE SIGNATORY OFFICIAL(Name and Title): Scott .Behunin,State D irector DATE 07/11/03 State CEM Form 76-10,JAN 95 • • • UTAH DIVISION OF COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OBLIGATING DOCUMENT F!R AWARD/AMENDMENT Expires April 30, 1. AGREEMENT NO. 2. RECIPIENT 3. TYPE OF ACTION 4. AMENDMENT NO. DES-2003-ODP2-02 REGION II X AWARD AMENDMENT AWARD 5. RECIPIENT AND ADDRESS: 6. ISSUING STATE OFFICE AND ADDRESS: Region II State of Utah Homeland Security Region Division of Emergency Services&Homeland Security(DES) 1110 State Office Building,Salt Lake City,UT 84114 7. NAME OF RECIPIENT PROJECT MANAGER PHONE NO. 8. NAME OF STATE PROJECT COORDINATOR PHONE NO. Frank J.Neumann,Assistant Chief (435)649-6706 Kris Hamlet (801)538-3400 Ext.1302 9. EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACTION 10. METHOD OF PAYMENT 05/01/03 _x_STATE REIMBURSEMENT CHECK 11. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION a. (Indicated funding data for awards or financial changes) PROGRAM ACCOUNTING DATA PRIOR AMOUNT AWARDED CURRENT PERFORMANCE NAME TOTAL THIS ACTION TOTAL PERIOD ABBREVIATION AWARD • +OR(-) AWARD THRU ODP 3 FY 2003 Homeland Security Grant-Part II $0.00 $5,442,908.00 $5,442,908.00 May 1,2003 Through CFDA#16.007 April 30,2005 b. To describe changes other than funding date or financial changes,attach schedule and check here 12. RECIPIENT IS REQ ED TO AND RETURN(1)ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE STATE OFFICE IN BLOCK 6._X_Yes_ 13. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL(Name and Title): DATE Fr ah k T. I-(eu.vna...t, Ass;sfv—t C. j-2.9- 03 14. S TE SIGNAT OFFICIAL.(Name nd rtle)) " / Scott A.Behunin,State DES Director DATE it Ov 09/25/03 Sta CE�ID JAN95 //// • • • 1 .,, 03B-ODP-SUM-13 Training&Exercise Expenses-Including Directly Related Overtime $20,676.00 1 $20 676 Summit :�� $465,305 038-ODP-TOO-1 Scotts SCBA w/Pass $2,500.00 8 $20,000 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-2 Scotts SCBA Spare Cylinders $750.00 8 $6,000 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-3 Survivair SCBAs $3,000.00 8 $24,000 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-4 Ballistic Threat Body Armor Level 4 $1,200.00 25 $30,000 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-5 Fiber Optics Kit $8,000.00 3 $24,000 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-6 Ballistic Tactical Shield $1,600.00 2 $3,200 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-7 Exothermic Cutting Torch $1,345.00 2 $2,690 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-8 Poly Cribbing&Wedge Kit $5,985.00 2 $11,970 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-9 Thermal Imaging Cameras(MSA Evolution 4000) $12,000.00 4 $48,000 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-10 Night Vision Goggles $2,500.00 2 $5,000 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-11 Hydraulic Rescue Tools(Pump,Cutter,Spreader,Ram,etc.) $58,450.00 1 $58,450 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-12 Hydraulic RAM $4,500.00 1 $4,500 Tooele 03B-ODP TOO-13 Air Bag Lifting System-234 Ton(Maxiforce) $8,345.00 2 $16,690 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-14 Evacuation Chair $630.00 2 $1,260 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-15 Ram Fan Blower $1,300.00 1 $1,300 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-16 Confined Space Axial Blower(Allegrol) $631.00 1 $631 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-17 VOX Noise Attenuating Headsets for 2-Way Radios $1,165.50 6 $6,993 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-18 Laptop Computers for WMD Response Coordination $2,250.00 2 $4,500 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-19 Motorola Portable Radios w/Accessories $2,741.00 5 $13,705 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-20 Laptop Computer Mobile Display Terminals $4,500.00 27 $121,500 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-21 HAZCAT Kits $3,500.00 1 $3,500 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-22 RKI Eagle Air Monitor Replacement Sensors $175.00 4 $700 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-23 Portable Water Heaters $1,580.00 4 $6,320 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-24 Wire Stokes Decon Stretchers $200.00 12 $2,400 Tooele 03B-ODP-TO0-25 Video Camera Monitor $1,800.00 1 $1,800 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-26 Night Vision Scope $1,000.00 4 $4,000 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-27 Law Enforcement Surveillance Equipment(Night Tracker) $15,000.00 1 $15,000 Tooele 03B-0DP TOO-28 20X60X80 Spotting Scope,Water Resistant $500.00 2 $1,000 Tooele 03B-0DP TOO-29 Bull Horn,Megaphone $95.00 2 $190 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-30 GPS $690.00 2 $1,380 Tooele 03B-0DP-TOO-31 PALM M515 5300.00 2 $600 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-32 Gear Bags $35.88 34 $1,220 Tooele 038-ODP-TOO-33 Binoculars $200.00 20 $4,000 Tooele 03B-0DP TOO-34 Range Finder $500.00 5 $2,500 Tooele 038-0DP TOO-35 Misting System $775.00 2 $1,550 Tooele 038-ODP TOO-36 HAZMAT Response Vehicle Special Service Unit $35,000.00 1 $35,000 Tooele 038-ODP-TOO-37 Emeiency Stretcher w/Wheels $275.00 6 $1,650 Tooele 03B-ODP-TOO-38 Triage Tag System $1,850.00 2 $3,700 Tooele 0313-4DP-TOO-39 CAS Monitor $2,875.00 1 $2.875 Tooele - • 9 • Fiscal Year 2003 Equipment Budget Detail Worksheet Local Jurisdiction Version Jurisdiction:Salt Lake City Date: 30-Apr-03 Instructions Indicate for each Equipment Budget Category the Item,Quantity,Estimated Total Cost,Discipline(s)and priority of each requested equipment item.Use additional pages as ne • Indicate the jurisdiction's overall(non category specific)priority for each requested Item of equipment • Indicate the total jurisdiction allocation request at the bottom of the page. • Abbreviate Disciplines as follows: Law Enforcement-LE Emergency Medical Services-EMS Emergency Management-EMA Fire Service-FS HAZMAT-HZ Public Works-PW Public Health-PH Governmental Administrative-GA Public Safety Communications-PSC Health Care-HC Other-Please Identify di tix} TM ✓'1r `"� I :. ti, iai3i •S"cFy,'`� 3,fi3'a h .R;:.'4}c.\s s vsy r sy.4, £� :t ,u. r, ". 3s .a.. «. x ., �. ;<,a a ro ..,<. ' tl,Y.. :` %'.. .`"ac, n �s c .r .;,L... - roc � ,, r...-. .;�;`. d :; r..:.,.,. .�.. ! S ........ ..., 2 t.�......�< :. {�1. .,; t .�w. ,✓." YY. ,... n.. „-7.v ..« .,.V. ,.i..: J., ..,., i .. A f._.: .fd.. ...... � Y... i fa'.:� �:.:, ,a,.�. } ;h W �,u r fi f..vp v �' i'.,, � .� t. v.. dui� .< ,. c �+ .�..w.� f p,. on �..... .. ��, . .'ii L_ .,,?t)� .... , ,., R t -.� ` w ��tis tF,z .,�,u're 5a«A,.>....,,,,,. ...•� 'a�2,da�Y ��..l�..yV t� ��.... ,1. � ,5 t,,..,��` v.ur, is.�F ,F^� ",k,.1 t . yr, ? � : • V ,,..IVI. � d,. + t «�' ' u '',.:..scc,'.SA 6s clad �. __... iaixe' mv. .S� k • mute wi approval H-CM51310-0C122-0 4 $18,350 4-HZ,FS SCBA MSA MMR 60 Minute with CBRNE approval H-CM513110-0C122-1 4 $18,665 4-HZ,FS MSA Amplifier radio interface kit 10024073 30 $12,900 30-HZ,FS Personal Protective Equipment MSA PTT Lapel mic kit 10025553 8 $3,492 8-HZ,FS MSA PremAire air line respirator B-PS3104-00000 8 $8,728 8-HZ,FS MSA Airline hose neoprene 455022 24 $3,744 24-HZ,FS MSA Ultra Elite Face pieces 815854 30 $9,090 30-HZ,FS $74,969 1 1 MSA Stealth H-60 Air bottles 807588 8 $9,752 8-HZ,FS 2 15 CBRNE Compatible total containment vessel 1 $210,000 1-LE 1 6 Explosive Device Mitigation 2 7 Robot 1 $160,000 1-LE,EMS,HZ,FS • • ti CBRNE Search&Rescue Equipment ir`r,t 2-FS(Airport),2-LE (Airport),6-PSC 1 8 Vehicle Mounted GPS Units 10 $7,500 .(Airport) Interoperable Communications TravellR Haz MatID Command System 1 $62,500 1-HZ 1 2 CI,pH,TOC,and residual analyzers 8 sites $300,000 8-Public Utilities 2 13 Detection Equipment Water sampling 50 $250,000 50-Public Utilities 3 14 Decontamination Equipment Metal Detectors 6 $24,000 6-LE 1 5 2 9 Water Reclamation Plant Access Control $29,000 Public Utilities Physical Security Enhancement $45,000 Public Utilities 3 10 Security Cameras Fencing&Gates $15,000 Public Utilities 4 11 IDS System $51,000 Public Utilities 5 12 Terrorism Incident Prevention • S i CBRNE Logistical Support Equipment Medical Supplies&Pharmaceuticals Mobile Command 1 $270,000 1-LE 1 3 CBRNE Incident Response Vehicles Emergency Response to Terrorism Job Aid 140 $1,750 140-EMA 1 4 CBRNE Reference Materials t,ta e i 9}•7'P} �b tip.ft "r�� ,na ,•"� '''ru F� Total Judsdlotion Allocation Request- �.0 $1,510,471 ...e ,., Salt Lake City Corporation Authorized Signature: Ross C.Anderson,Mayor Date: • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY POLCIING SERVCIES (COPS) COPS IN SCHOOLS GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $125, 000. 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of: Paying the salary and benefits of an additional Police Officer, for a three year, period to be placed within the Salt Lake City School District schools in an effort to deter crimes committed during school hours . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Salt L e ' ty A rney' s Office By: Date: /e 31poc9,3 • j C • a{ U.S.Department of Justice 4 °`� Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS) Office of the Director ---r 17. 0- q:D • 1100 Vermont Avenue,NW _ Washington,DC 20530 1 '_ September 4,2003 way 6 4 J • SE C.P.D. Chief Charles Dinse =s f E OFF6CE Salt Lake,City of CHI�.r S 315-East 200 South Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 RE: Grant for Salt Lake, City of ORI:UT01803 Grant Number: 2003SHWX0140 Dear Chief Dinse: It is with great pleasure that I write to inform you that your department will receive a COPS in Schools grant award for 1 new,additional full-time officer(s)and 0 part-time officer(s) • at an estimated cost of$125,000.00. This is an estimated amount of federal funds to be awarded to your jurisdiction for a three-year grant period. The grant award start date is August 1,2003, which means that your agency can be reimbursed for salaries and benefits of additional officers hired after this date. Upon budget approval for the officer positions,your agency will be mailed the official grant award document that will provide the actual award amount for this grant. Once your agency receives this document,please sign the award to officially accept the grant and return it to the COPS Office within 90 days. Failure to submit the signed award document in this 90-day period could result in COPS withdrawing your agency from the grant program and de-obligating your agency's funding from this grant. We are pleased that your department has elected to participate in the COPS in Schools grant program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your Grant Program Specialist will be happy to provide you with assistance. Sincerely, aSVZ,DO Carl R.Peed - - Director - • ' - , '_ U.S.Department of Justice 1 9Ia Office ofCommunityPolicing r ff ommuni Oriented Services li‘ liii;' ' COPS in Schools Award Application Organization's Name: Salt Lake, City of Grant#: 2003SHWX0140 ORI#: UT01803 Vendor#: 876000279 Law Enforcement Executive Name: Chief Charles F.Dinse Address: 315 East 200 South Street City,State,Zip Code: Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Telephone: (801)799-3800 Fax: (801)799-3640 Government Executive Name: Mayor Ross C.Anderson Address: 451 South State Street City,State,Zip Code: Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Telephone: (801)535-7743 Fax: (801)535-6331 Award Start Date: August 1,2003 Award End Date: July 31,2006 Award Amount: $ 125,000 Number of Officers: Full Time: 1 Part Time: 0 Lit,„6.)...c\A„.9 S E P 0 3 2003 Carl R.Peed Date Director By signing this award,the signatory officials are agreeing to abide by the Conditions of Grant Award found on the reverse side of this document: Signature of Law Enforcement Executive with the Typed Name and Title of Law Enforcement Date authority to accept this grant award. Executive. Signature of Government Executive with Typed Name and Title of Government Date the authority to accept this grant award. Executive. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci Att rney's Office Date ® 3/ 3 • BY Award ID: 76355 U. S. Department of Justice = Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grants Administration Division III 1100 Vermont Avenue,NW Washington,DC 20530 Memorandum To: Charles Dinse, Chief Salt Lake,City of From: Robert A.Phillips,Assistant Director, Grants Administration Frederick Filberg,Grant Program Specialist,Grants Administration Stephanie Takane, Staff Accountant,Finance Division Re: Approved Budget, COPS in Schools A financial analysis of budgeted costs has been completed. Costs under this award appear reasonable,allowable,and consistent with existing guidelines. ORI: UT01803 Grant Number: 2003SHWX0140 OJP Vendor Number: 876000279 Year 1 - Costs Per Changes Change Full-Time Officer: Approved Breakdown Reason Annual Base Salary $31,428.00 $0.00 Fringe Benefits: $16,116.00 $0.00 Social Security $0.00 $0.00 Exempt per Application Medicare $456.00 $0.00 1.45%of the base salary Health Insurance $6,216.00 $0.00 Life Insurance $0.00 $0.00 Vacation $0.00 $0.00 Sick Leave $0.00 $0.00 Retirement $9,444.00 $0.00 Fixed Amount Worker's Compensation $0.00 $0.00 Exempt per Application Unemployment $0.00 $0.00 Exempt per Application $47,544.00 $0.00 Full-Time Officer Costs: Total Changes: $0.00 Project Costs Per Officer: Total Project Costs: Salaries and Fringe Benefits: $155,830.00 Total Officers: Salaries and Fringe Benefits: $155,830.00 Federal Share: $125,000.00 Federal Share: $125,000.00 Applicant Share: $30,830.00 08/28/2003 S-0 1 Applicant Share: $30,830.00 G t _ n i a _ Aril d�t a 1r is e t ar tl d_ _ _ _ 4L 3 0^ �.r �1 l4 Slt�ti'�TL"t. Budget Cleared Date: 08/07/2003 Overall Comments: The total project cost was increased by$1 due to a miscalculation of total Fringe Benefits in year 2. The amount of the award reflects the maximum amount allowable($125,000 per officer for three years or the total project cost per officer for three years, whichever is less). No contact was made. s U.S.Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS) • Office of the Director 1100 Vermont Avenue,NW Washington,DC 20530 September 2,2003 Chief Charles Dinse Salt Lake, City of 315 East 200 South Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Re: Grant for Salt Lake,City of UT01803 -2003 SHWX0140 Dear Chief Dinse: Congratulations on receiving a COPS in Schools grant award from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(COPS)for 1 new,additional full-time officer(s)and 0 part-time officer(s)in the amount of$125,000. The grant award start date for your COPS in Schools award is 8/1/2003,which means that your agency may be reimbursed for entry-level salaries and benefits of additional officers hired on or after this date. Enclosed in this award package is your grant award document with a list of corresponding grant conditions that apply to this program. Please read and familiarize yourself with these grant conditions prior to signing the document. As a reminder,departments awarded funding under the COPS in Schools grant program are required to attend a COPS in Schools Regional Training Workshop. The COPS Office,or our designee,will be the sole provider for the training,and • COPS will reimburse all reasonable costs up to$1,200 for each required participant to cover travel,lodging and per diem. hn order to satisfy this condition,the specific COPS in Schools officer(s)assigned to the school(s)as a result of receiving this COPS grant,as well as one representative from the partnering school or school district,must attend one of these training workshops. Your agency will receive information on the training dates and locations in the near future. Also included in this package is the COPS in Schools Grant Owner's Manual,which summarizes and explains the conditions of your agency's COPS in Schools grant award. This manual also has information relating to payment methods and procedures for receiving your grant funds. Furthermore,in an effort to assist your agency with completing the required financial reporting forms that must be regularly submitted to the COPS Office under this grant,a Helpful Hints Guide has been included in this award package. For your convenience,a set of mailing labels has been enclosed which may be used to submit correspondence to the COPS Office. To officially accept your grant,please sign the enclosed award document and return the original to the COPS Office within 90 days. Failure to submit the signed award document within this 90-day period may result in withdrawal of the grant without further notice from the COPS Office. We are pleased that your agency has elected to participate in the COPS in Schools grant program and look forward to working with you in a productive partnership to further your community policing efforts. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the COPS Office at 1-800-421-6770. Your Grant Program Specialist will be happy to provide you with assistance. Sincerely, Carl R.Peed • Director 110 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARRESTS WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $500, 000 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of : Providing funds for Police Officer over-time to issue Class A warrants and protection order violations, the administrative services of an IMS Technology Engineer to develop web-service that will link City departments data systems to State' s data system, collaboration of participating non-profit agencies, computer equipment and other administrative costs associated with the Grant . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to For : Salt L ity At orney' s Office By: Date: Qp U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE • OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS PAGE 1 OF 3 r Office on Violence Grant Against Women 1.RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS(Including Zip Code) 4.AWARD NUMBER: 2003-WE-BX-0030 Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Room 248 5.PROJECT PERIOD:FROM 09/01/2003 TO 08/31/2005 Salt Lake City,UT 841 1 1-3 1 02 BUDGET PERIOD:FROM 09/01/2003 TO 08/31/2005 6.AWARD DATE 09/17/2003 7.ACTION IA.GRANTEE IRS/VENDOR NO. 8.SUPPLEMENT NUMBER Initial 876000279 9.PREVIOUS AWARD AMOUNT $0 3.PROJECT TITLE 10.AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD $500,000 FY 2003 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program 11.TOTAL AWARD $500,000 12.SPECIAL CONDITIONS THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED 2 PAGE(S). 13.STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT This project is supported under Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.42 U.S.C.3701,ET.SEQ.,as amended. 15.METHOD OF PAYMENT LOCES AGENCY APPROVAL GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE 16.TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OJP OFFICIAL 18.TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GRANTEE OFFICIAL Diane M.Stuart Ross Anderson Acting Director,Office on Violence Against Women Mayor 17.SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OJP OFFICIAL 19.SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED RECIPIENT OFFICIAL I9A.DATE Qiair AGENCY USE ONLY 20.ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION CODES 21. W403D00066 FISCAL FUND BUD. DIV. YEAR CODE ACT. OFC. REG. SUB. POMS AMOUNT X B W4 29 00 00 500000 OW FORM 4000/2(REV.5-87)PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) By � Date fl //. -0-Q3 • U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AWARD CONTINUATION OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS SHEET PAGE 2 OF 3 Office on Violence Grant Against Women PROJECT NUMBER 2003-WE-BX-0030 AWARD DATE 09/17/2003 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1. The recipient agrees to comply with the financial and administrative requirements set forth in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs(OW)Financial Guide. 2. The recipient acknowledges that failure to submit an acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan(if recipient is required to submit one pursuant to 28 C.F.R.Section 42.302),that is approved by the Office for Civil Rights,is a violation of its Certified Assurances and may result in suspension or termination of funding,until such time as the recipient is in compliance. 3. The recipient agrees to comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133,Audits of States, Local Governments,and Non-Profit Organizations,as further described in the current edition of the OW Financial Guide,Chapter 19. 4. The grantee agrees to comply with all relevant statutory and regulatory requirements including,but not limited to,the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,P.L.103-322,the Violence Against Women Act of 2000,P.L.I06-386,the Safe Streets Act,42 U.S.0 3711 et seq.,and STOP Violence Against Women Formula and Discretionary Grants Program Final Rule,28 CFR Part 90. 5. The grantee agrees to submit one copy of all reports and proposed publications resulting from this agreement twenty (20)days prior to public release for OVW review and approval.Any publications(written,visual,or sound),whether published at the grantee's or government's expense,shall contain the following statements:"This project was supported by Grant No. awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women,Office of Justice Programs,U.S.Department of Justice.Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily • represent the official position or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice."(NOTE:This excludes press releases, newsletters,and issue analyses.) 6. Approval of this award does not indicate approval of any consultant rate in excess of$450 per day. A detailed justification must be submitted to and approved by the OVW Director prior to obligation or expenditure of such funds. 7. The grantee will provide the Office on Violence Against Women(OVW)with the agenda for any training seminars, workshops,or conferences not sponsored by OVW that project staff propose to attend using grant funds.The grantee must receive prior approval from OVW before using OVW grant funds to attend any training,workshops,or conferences not sponsored by OVW. 8. The recipient agrees to submit quarterly financial reports on Standard Form SF 269A. These reports will be submitted within 45 days after the end of the calendar quarter,and a final report is due 120 days following the end of the award period. The reports shall be submitted to the Office of Justice Programs,Office of the Comptroller,Attn: Control Desk,Room 5303,810 7th Street,N.W.,Washington,D.C.20531. OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) • U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AWARD CONTINUATION • OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS SHEET PAGE 3 OF 3 Office on Violence Grant Against Women PROJECT NUMBER 2003-WE-BX-0030 AWARD DATE 09/17/2003 SPECIAL CONDITIONS 9. (a)The grantee agrees to submit semiannual progress reports that describe project activities during the reporting period.Progress reports must be submitted within 30 days after the end of the reporting periods,which are January 1-June 30 and July 1-December 31 for the life of the award.Future awards and fund drawdowns will be withheld if the progress reports are delinquent.Two copies of the report should be submitted to the Office of Justice Programs Office of the Comptroller,Attn:Control Desk,Room 5303,810 7th Street,NW,Washington,DC 20531.(b)A final report,which provides a summary of progress toward achieving the goals and objectives of the award,significant results,and any products developed under the award,is due 120 days after the end of the award.Future awards and fund drawdowns will be withheld if the final report is delinquent.The report should be submitted to the Office of Justice Programs Office of the Comptroller,Attn:Control Desk,Room 5303,810 7th Street,NW,Washington,DC 20531. 10. The grantee shall include in each progress report that it submits to the Office on Violence Against Women the cumulative number of persons that have received services through the project,detailing the nature of victimization (domestic violence,sexual assault,and/or stalking),for what kind of case the person received services,as well as the number of those persons that received services during each respective reporting period,the number of persons who were refused services and the reason for the refusal of services.Additionally,where applicable,the grantee shall detail project attorney's and/or advocate's caseload. I I. The grantee agrees that grant funds will not support activities that may compromise victim safety,such as:pre-trial diversion programs or the placement of offenders charged with crimes of domestic violence in such programs; mediation,couples counseling,family counseling or any other manner of joint victim-offender counseling;mandatory counseling for victims of domestic violence;forcing the victims to testify against their abusers;or the placement of perpetrators of domestic violence in anger management programs. 12. The grantee agrees to submit for OVW review and approval any anticipated addition of,removal of,or change in collaborating partner agencies or individuals who are signatories of the Memorandum of Understanding,and if applicable,the Internal Memorandum of Agreement. 13. The grantee agrees to allocate project funds as designated by the Office on Violence Against Women for allowable costs to participate in OVW-sponsored technical assistance.Funds designated for OVW-sponsored technical assistance may not be used for any other purpose without prior approval of OVW. Technical assistance includes,but is not limited to,peer-to-peer consultations,focus groups,mentoring site visits,conferences and workshops conducted by OVW-designated technical assistance providers or OVW-designated consultants and contractors. 14. In accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act(GPRA),Public Law 103-62,which addresses the collection and reporting of performance measurement data,and the program effectiveness initiatives of OVW,the grantee agrees to report to OVW,in its progress reports,information pertaining to the outcomes or benefits of grant funded activities,including increased skills,new knowledge,and changed attitudes or values.The information must be valid and auditable.Grantees may also be asked to report the numbers of persons served and the types of services provided,and the number of persons seeking services who could not be served(e.g.the number of arrests,911 calls, recidivism rates,protection orders,etc.).Data will be collected annually from grantees through standardized reporting mechanisms(e.g.an annual survey and interviews with grantee agencies).Finally,the grantee agrees to cooperate with OVW and the National Institute of Justice on officially-sponsored initiatives to measure the effectiveness of their programs. OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) • • U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT MANAGER'S MEMORANDUM,PT.I: OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS PROJECT SUMMARY Office on Violence Grant Against Women PROJECT NUMBER 2003-WE-BX-0030 PAGE 1 OF t This project is supported under Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.42 U.S.C.3701,ET.SEQ.,as amended. 1.STAFF CONTACT(Name&telephone number) 2.PROJECT DIRECTOR(Name,address&telephone number) Susan L.Williams Beth J.Myers Kris{Q-D unn (202)616-3851 G cquisition And Project Coordinator c r_ _{� „,_„yf 451 So h State Street G/�� OJAa'" Room 2 315 E. ),0D $• Salt Lake ,UT 84111-3102 (801)535-66 SLC, UT Opil (so:) 714-3�.b5 3a.TITLE OF THE PROGRAM 3b.POMS CODE(SEE INSTRUCTIONS FY 2003 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program ON REVERSE) 4.TITLE OF PROJECT FY 2003 Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program 5.NAME&ADDRESS OF GRANTEE 6.NAME&ADRESS OF SUBGRANTEE Salt Lake City Corporation 451 South State Street Room 248 Salt Lake City,UT 84 1 1 1-3 102 7.PROGRAM PERIOD 8.BUDGET PERIOD FROM: 09/01/2003 TO: 08/31/2005 FROM: 09/01/2003 TO: 08/31/2005 9.AMOUNT OF AWARD 10.DATE OF AWARD $500,000 09/17/2003 11.SECOND YEAR'S BUDGET 12.SECOND YEAR'S BUDGET AMOUNT 13.THIRD YEAR'S BUDGET PERIOD 14.THIRD YEAR'S BUDGET AMOUNT 15.SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT(See instruction on reverse) The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program(Arrest)implements certain provisions of the Violence Against Women Act,which was enacted in September 1994 as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and reauthorized in the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.The program enhances victim safety and offender accountability in cases of domestic violence and dating violence by encouraging jurisdictions to implement mandatory and pro-arrest policies as an effective domestic violence intervention that is part of a coordinated community response.An integral component of Arrest Program initiatives is the creation and enhancement of collaborative partnerships between criminal justice agencies,victim services providers,and community organizations which respond to domestic violence. OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) • With this initial Arrest Award,Salt Lake City Corporation will create the Protective Restraining Orders Management Information System(PROMIS),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 system will be accessible to state,county,and city agencies and partner non-profit domestic violence victim service providers.The goals of PROMIS are to facilitate timely offender accountability,improve victim safety,improve coordination among government and non- government victim service support agencies,and decrease language and cultural barriers to non-English and non-Spanish speaking victims of domestic violence. PROMIS will be developed by an ad-hoc committee including representatives from Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake,Salt Lake City Information Management Services,Salt Lake City Justice Court,Salt Lake City Police Department,Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office,Salt Lake County District Attorney,Utah Department of Public Safety/Bureau of Criminal Identification,Utah Third District Court,and the YWCA of Salt Lake City. The City will:1)develop PROMIS;2)implement protocols to expedite the upload of all ex parte orders,protection orders,orders of dismissal,and orders of modification into Utah BCE mainframe;3)assign overtime to two patrol officers to issue Class A warrants;4)assign overtime to two officers to issue protection order violations;5)hire a court clerk to scan protection orders and court documents into PROMIS;6)hire a bi-lingual paralegal;7)provide partnering agencies with in-person translation services for non-English,non-Spanish speaking victims of domestic violence and an in-person language translation for domestic violence victims who are hearing impaired;and 8)provide AT&T telephone translation services. CA/NCF 4110 • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF UTATH PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $56, 000. 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of: Paying Police Officer over-time, a contractual agreement with Adult Probation and Parole and other related costs to case manage adult and juvenile violent offenders in a re-entry pilot program that is targeted to deter gun violence in the City' s Weed and Seed targeted area. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson - - ATTEST: Approved as to F rm: Salt ' ty torney` s Office By: Date: 9 3/ • Salt Lake City Project Safe Neighborhood Summary Salt Lake City Weed & Seed is requesting $56,000 to initiate Salt Lake City Project Safe Neighborhood(SLC-PSN). The proposed program is targeted to deter gun violence in the Weed& Seed area through an adult and juvenile violent offender reentry pilot program, gun violence prevention education for at-risk youths, and integrating new crime-mapping software to facilitate cross jurisdictional data sharing. The grant request supports the goals of the Utah Project Safe Neighborhood Task Force to increase investigations of firearm crimes,reduce gun violence among juveniles through increased supervision and education, and foster law enforcement and community pal tuerships. Collaborative Agencies and Resources SLC-PSN draws upon the resources of Salt Lake City Weed& Seed, Salt Lake City Police Department(SLCPD), and Utah Department of Corrections Adult Parole &Probation(AP&P)to decrease the likelihood for repeat violence and weapons offense by juvenile and adult parolees and • probationers in the Weed & Seed area. Additional partner agencies include Third District Juvenile Courts and Salt Lake County Sheriff's Serious or Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Plan (SHOCAP). The inter-agency collaborations will improve communication between agencies and create a mechanism to support offenders' successful transition back to the community and prevent at- risk youths from becoming firearm offenders. Organization Background& Project Need Since 1996, Salt Lake City Weed& Seed has successfully utilized local resources to identify and weed out violent criminals associated with drugs, gangs, guns, and prostitution while seeding social and economic stability in the community. The Weed& Seed target area includes the Glendale, Poplar Grove, State Fairpark, and Guadalupe neighborhoods in west Salt Lake City. The area has • 1 of 5 approximately 32,000 residents, is one of the city's most diverse ethnic communities, and has a • disproportionately high incidence of crime. Between 1997 and 2001, 25% of the city's weapons charges and firearm-related arrests occurred in the Weed& Seed area. Additionally, 14,354 violent crimes were committed by young people ages 10-17 in Weed& Seed neighborhoods between 1995 and 1999. In 2002, a total of 494 violent offenders were paroled or probationed in the Weed& Seed area, accounting for 46% of serious violent offenders released in Salt Lake City in that year. The State reports that in 2001 the recidivism for offenders placed on parole was 59.4%within twelve months. In support of the Salt Lake City Weed &Seed's goal to promote community-based crime prevention, Salt Lake City is seeking funds to implement a SLC-PSN. The anticipated impact of the program is a decrease in the number of weapons and violent offenses committed by serious/violent adult and juvenile offenders re-entering Weed& Seed neighborhoods and an increase in the number of reported possible PSN violations. • Project Design SLC-PSN aims to deter gun violence in the Weed & Seed area by supporting adult and juvenile offenders' transition into the community, increasing protective factors for at-risk youths, and improving SLCPD's predictive crime mapping abilities and data analysis. Year one of the project is dedicated to implementing the pilot strategies in the community, and year two is dedicated to following re-offense rates of the offenders participating in the program to provide a short-term measurement of effectiveness. Serious, violent adult offenders, who are re-entering the Weed& Seed area and who are recommended by the Salt Lake City Police Review Board,will participate in an intensive field supervision pilot program. The selected offenders will receive additional random follow-up • probation and parole visits conducted by AP&P and SLCPD detectives. The offenders contact with 2 of 5 both an AP&P agent and a police detective will increase offender accountability; decrease the likelihood of re-offenses involving firearms, and improve the two agency's coordination of offender supervision. AP&P agents and SLCPD detectives will spend approximately 12 overtime hours a week conducting random field visits to adult offenders. A similar intensive field supervision pilot program will be implemented with serious,violent juvenile offenders re-entering the Weed & Seed area. Third District Juvenile Courts and SHOCAP will refer appropriate youths for SLCP School Resource Officers and the SLCPD Gang Suppression Unit to make additional random follow-up contact. SLCPD School Resource Officers and the SLCPD Gang Suppression Unit will spend approximately 9 overtime hours a week conducting the random field visits. In addition to intensive field supervision, adult and juvenile offenders will receive a Resource &Accountability Card detailing offenders' restricted actions (specifically relevant to firearms) and community support resources. Juvenile Courts and AP&P will track repeat offenses committed by • juvenile and adults offenders participating in intensive field supervision pilot program over the two year period. SLC-PSN is also targeting gun violence prevention education to at-risk youths attending Glendale Middle School and Northwest Middle School. The SLCPD School Resource Officers will provide junior high students with an age appropriate four step-guide for reporting possible PNS violations. Youths' tendencies to be involved in gun related incidences will potentially be mitigated through increased contact with the resource officers and by an increased awareness of protective actions they can initiate to prevent gun violence in their schools, families, and community. SLC-PSN involves using the i2-Analyst Notebook Software to improve the predictive crime mapping capabilities and data analysis of SLCPD and to promote cross jurisdictional crime data sharing. The i2-Analyst Notebook Software is one of the most powerful visual investigative analysis • 3 of 5 f � tools available. The software enables investigators and crime data analysts to consolidate data from • multiple sources, discover seemingly unrelated links, and display the data in visual, geographic format. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Maryland State Police have endorsed the efficacy of the product in facilitating the resolution of several recent high-profile criminal investigations. SLCPD will make i2 crime data analysis available to AP&P and SHOCAP in an effort to begin cross jurisdictional data sharing of predictive crime trends. SLC-PSN will request quarterly gun violence mapping statistics, adult and juvenile offender re-offenses, and weapons offenses occurring in the Weed & Seed area from the i2 Analyst Software that correspond to the Weed&Seed area. Methods to Measure Success The impact of the project will be based on an anticipated decrease in the number of offender violence and weapon offenses when compared with Utah 12-month recidivism rate of 59.4%. The • following evaluative measures will be used. Program Objective Process Measure 2-Year Outcome Measures Provide intensive parole and • Number of adult parolees • Number of adult parolees probation supervision to adult participants that re-offend violent offenders re-entering • Number of information Weed& Seed area cards distributed Provide intensive parole and • Number of juvenile parolees • Number of juvenile probation field supervision to participants parolees that re-offend juvenile violent offenders re- • Number of information entering Weed& Seed area cards distributed Increase school resource • Number of at-risk youths • Number of at-risk youths officer contact and distribution contacted who do not commit an of gun violence prevention • Number of information offense education material to at-risk cards distributed • Number of reported youths in Weed& Seed area. possible PSN violations The Program Coordinator for Salt Lake City Weed & Seed will serve as the project coordinator for SLC-PSN. Utah Department of Corrections, Juvenile Courts, and SLCPD will provide offender and crimes statistics to measure program's impact. The project coordinator will 4 of 5 a LL report performance measures and relevant corresponding data to the Utah Project Safe Neighborhood Task Force in semi-annual reports, as well as participate as a member of the Task Force. The city's • grant monitor will track grant related expenditures and submit all necessary expense reports to the Task Force. Project Budget Year 1 Year 2 Personnel SLCPD Detective (624 overtime hrs @$32/hr) $19,968 $0 SLCPD School Resource Officers &Gang Unit (468 overtime hrs @$32/hr) $14,976 $0 Subtotal $34,944 $0 Contract Services Adult Probation&Parole (624 overtime hrs @ $30/hr) $18,720 $0 Subtotal $18,720 $0 • Supplies Resource-Accountability cards and PSN 4-step guides (1,557@ $1.50 ea.) $2,335.5 $0 Subtotal $2,335.5 $0 Total $56,000.00 $0 5 of 5 tools available. The software enables investigators and crime data analysts to consolidate data from • multiple sources, discover seemingly unrelated links, and display the data in visual, geographic format. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Maryland State Police have endorsed the efficacy of the product in facilitating the resolution of several recent high-profile criminal investigations. SLCPD will make i2 crime data analysis available to AP&P and SHOCAP in an effort to begin cross jurisdictional data sharing of predictive crime trends. SLC-PSN will request quarterly gun violence mapping statistics, adult and juvenile offender re-offenses, and weapons offenses occurring in the Weed& Seed area from the i2 Analyst Software that correspond to the Weed& Seed area. Methods to Measure Success The impact of the project will be based on an anticipated decrease in the number of offender • violence and weapon offenses when compared with Utah 12-month recidivism rate of 59.4%. The following evaluative measures will be used. Program Objective Process Measure 2-Year Outcome Measures Provide intensive parole and • Number of adult parolees • Number of adult parolees probation supervision to adult participants that re-offend violent offenders re-entering • Number of information Weed& Seed area cards distributed Provide intensive parole and • Number of juvenile parolees • Number of juvenile probation field supervision to participants parolees that re-offend juvenile violent offenders re- • Number of information entering Weed & Seed area cards distributed Increase school resource • Number of at-risk youths • Number of at-risk youths officer contact and distribution contacted who do not commit an of gun violence prevention • Number of information offense education material to at-risk cards distributed • Number of reported youths in Weed& Seed area. possible PSN violations The Program Coordinator for Salt Lake City Weed & Seed will serve as the project coordinator for SLC-PSN. Utah Department of Corrections, Juvenile Courts, and SLCPD will • provide offender and crimes statistics to measure program's impact. The project coordinator will 4 of 5 report performance measures and relevant corresponding data to the Utah Project Safe Neighborhood Task Force in semi-annual reports, as well as participate as a member of the Task Force. The city's • grant monitor will track grant related expenditures and submit all necessary expense reports to the Task Force. Project Budget Year 1 Year 2 Personnel SLCPD Detective (624 overtime hrs @ $32/hr) $19,968 $0 SLCPD School Resource Officers & Gang Unit (468 overtime hrs @$32/hr) $14,976 $0 Subtotal $34,944 $0 Contract Services Adult Probation&Parole(624 overtime hrs @ $30/hr) $18,720 $0 Subtotal $18,720 $0 Supplies Resource-Accountability cards and PSN 4-step guides (1,557@$1.50 ea.) $2,335.5 $0 Subtotal $2,335.5 $0 Total $56,000.00 $0 • 5 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE U.S . DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG FREE COMMUNITIES GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $100, 000 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of: Funding the salary and benefits of the Coordinator Position, a contractual component to provide an independent evaluation of the prevention coalition' s key strategies, associated costs of training workshops for the Mayor' s Conference on Substance Abuse • Prevention, and other grant related costs in formalizing a substance abuse prevention coalition to guide and develop the City' s substance abuse prevention policies and strategies by providing public awareness campaigns and policy recommendations . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003. Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST : Approved as to Form: Salt L its Att ney' s Office By: • Date: /0 .720.03 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE • OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS PAGE 1 OF 2 Office of Juvenile Grant Justice and Delinquency Prevention I.RECIPIENT NAME AND ADDRESS(Including Zip Code) 4.AWARD NUMBER: 2003-ND-FX-I009 Salt Lake City 451 South State Street 5.PROJECT PERIOD:FROM 10/01/2003 TO 09/30/2004 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-3102 BUDGET PERIOD:FROM 10✓012003 TO 09/30/2004 6.AWARD DATE 09/302003 7.ACTION IA.GRANTEE IRS/VENDOR NO. 8.SUPPLEMENT NUMBER Initial 876000279 9.PREVIOUS AWARD AMOUNT S 0 3.PROJECT TITLE 10.AMOUNT OF THIS AWARD 5100,000 FY 2003 Drug-Free Communities Support Program I1.TOTAL AWARD S 100,000 IS.SPECIAL CONDITIONS THE ABOVE GRANT PROJECT IS APPROVED SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS OR LIMITATIONS AS ARE SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHED 1 PAOE(S). 13.STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR GRANT This project is supported under Pub.L.No.107.82,115 Stat.814(2001) IS.METHOD OF PAYMENT • LOCES - AGENCY APPROVAL - GRANTEE ACCEPTANCE 16.TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING OOP OFFICIAL 18.TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GRANTEE OFFICIAL 1.Robert Flores Ross C.Anderson Administrator Mayor 17.SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OJP OFFICIAL 19.SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED RECIPIENT OFFICIAL I9A.DATE iza— mommommommim AGENCY USE ONLY 20.ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION CODES 21.ND03T00481 FISCAL FUND BUD. DIV. YEAR CODE ACT. OFC. REG. SUB. POMS AMOUNT X F ND 70 00 00 100000 OJP FORM 40002(REV.5-87)PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE. APPROVED AS TO FORM - Salt Lake City Attorneys Ofto. Date A.1//- 3 OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) Date,". / • • U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AWARD CONTINUATION OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS SHEET PAGE 2 OF 2 Office of Juvenile Grant Justice and Delinquency Prevention PROJECT NUMBER 2003-ND-FX-1009 AWARD DATE 09/30/2003 SPECIAL CONDITIONS I. The recipient agrees to comply with the financial and administrative requirements set forth in the current edition of the Office of Justice Programs(OP)Financial Guide. 2. The recipient acknowledges that failure to submit an acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan(if recipient is required to submit one pursuant to 28 C.F.R.Section 42.302),that is approved by the Office for Civil Rights,is a violation of its Certified Assurances and may result in suspension or termination of funding,until such time as the recipient is in compliance. 3. The recipient agrees to comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133,Audits of States, Local Governments,and Non-Profit Organizations,as further described in the current edition of the OW Financial Guide,Chapter 19. 4. The Project Director and key program personnel designated in the application shall be replaced only for compelling reasons and with the concurrence of OJP.OJP will not unreasonably withhold concurrence.All successors to key personnel must be approved,and such approval is contingent upon submission of appropriate information,including, but not limited to,a resume.Changes in other program personnel require only notification to OW and submission of resumes,unless otherwise designated in the award document. • 5. Approval of this award does not indicate approval of any consultant rate in excess of$450 per day.A detailed justification must be submitted to and approved by the Office of Justice Programs(O1P)program office prior to obligation or expenditure of such funds. 6. The current edition of the OJP Financial Guide provides guidance on allowable printing activities.In addition,the recipient must submit all reports and written products resulting from this award to OJJDP for review and comment prior to publishing.The recipient must submit to OJJDP for approval any reports or written products that the grantee will publish using grant funds.Any publication,report or other written product produced with grant funds must prominently display the OJJDP and ONDCP logo on the cover page. 7. Grantee agrees to comply with all confidentiality requirements of 42 U.S.C.section 3789g and 28 C.F.R.Part 22 that are applicable to collection,use,and revelation of data or information.Grantee further agrees,as a condition of grant approval,to submit a Privacy Certificate that is in accord with requirements of 28 C.F.R.Part 22 and in particular, section 22.23. 8. Grantee agrees to comply with the requirements of 28 C.F.R.Part 46 and all Office of Justice Programs policies and procedures regarding the protection of human research subjects,including obtainment of Institutional Review Board approval,if appropriate,and subject informed consent. • OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) U.S.DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANT MANAGER'S MEMORANDUM,PT.I: • OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS PROJECT SUMMARY Office of Juvenile Grant Justice and Delinquency PROJECT NUMBER Prevention PAGE 1 OF I 2003-ND-FX-1009 This project is supported under Pub.L.No.107-82,115 Stat.814(2001) I.STAFF CONTACT(Name&telephone number) 2.PROJECT DIRECTOR(Name,address&telephone number) Kim Norris Elizabeth J.Myers (202)307-2076 Grant Acquisition and Project Coordinator 451 South State Street Room 248 Salt Lake City,UT 84111-3102 (801)535-6671 3a.TITLE OF THE PROGRAM 3b.POMS CODE(SEE INSTRUCTIONS FY 2003 Drug-Free Communities Support Program ON REVERSE) 4.TITLE OF PROJECT FY 2003 Drug-Free Communities Support Program 5.NAME&ADDRESS OF GRANTEE 6.NAME&ADRESS OF SUBGRANTEE Salt LakeCity • 451South h State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84 1 1 1-3 102 7.PROGRAM PERIOD 8.BUDGET PERIOD FROM: 10/01/2003 TO: 09/30/2004 FROM: 10/01/2003 TO: 09/30/2004 9.AMOUNT OF AWARD 10.DATE OF AWARD S 100,000 09/30/2003 11.SECOND YEAR'S BUDGET 12.SECOND YEAR'S BUDGET AMOUNT 13.THIRD YEAR'S BUDGET PERIOD 14.THIRD YEAR'S BUDGET AMOUNT 15.SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT(See instruction on reverse) The Salt Lake City Corporation is the fiscal agent for the Mayor's Drug,Alcohol,and Tobacco Policy Task Force/Prevention Coalition.The coalition serves Salt Lake City,UT.To achieve the two goals of reducing substance abuse among youth and strengthening community antidrug coalitions,the coalition will implement the following strategies:I)educate the public on findings about local needs;2)host a planning conference;3)fund up to 10 targeted youth planning teams to implement drug use prevention demonstration projects;4)host a conference with presentations and training workshops on best practices for coalition members and prevention agencies;5)raise public awareness about adolescent drug abuse;6)recommend alcohol and tobacco policy;and 7)increase best practice prevention programs in schools and city youth programs. ca/ncf OJP FORM 4000/2(REV.4-88) • • U.S.Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Comptroller Washington,D.C. 20531 The Honorable Ross C.Anderson Mayor 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111-3102 Reference Grant Number:2003-ND-FX-1009 Dear Mayor Anderson: I am pleased to inform you that my office has approved the following budget categories for the aforementioned grant award in the cost categories identified below: Category BUDGET PERSONNEL $87,582 FRINGE BENEFITS $22,301 • TRAVEL $3,910 EQUIPMENT $2,721 SUPPLIES $2,918 CONSTRUCTION $0 CONTRACTUAL $71,850 OTHER $8,718 TOTAL DIRECT COST $200,000 INDIRECT COST $0 TOTAL PROJECT COST $200,000 Federal Funds Approved: $100,000 Non-Federal Share: $100,000 • U.S.Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Comptroller Washington,D.C.20531 If you have questions regarding this award,please contact: -Program Questions,Kim Non-is,Program Manager at(202)307-2076;and -Financial Questions,the Office of the Comptroller,Customer Service Center(CSC)at(800)458.0786,or you may contact the CSC at askoc@ojp.usdoj.gov. Congratulations,and we look forward to working with you. Cynthia J.Schwimer Comptroller i • 111 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF STATE HISTORY WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $14, 730. 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of: Contracting a consultant to create and design a geographic information system (GIS) database for a computer inventory of all the burials and locations in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby 4110 authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003. Salt Lake City Council By , Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Salt Cit Attorney' s Office By. Date: 1 i �Ofp n J>: §2 1.. .« .ax'w �"'mia>"�> U tali ",USA fATE� kigr416AL\,,‘ Z„t tk i it y 1 § y � —A y �4 Department of Community and Economic Developmentiv.- ' Zi Division of State History Utah State Historical Society • Michael O.Leavitt i 300 Rio Grande Governor 1 Salt Lake City,Utah 84101-1182 Max J.Evans l (801)533-3500 FAX: 533-3503 TDD: 533-3502 Director i ushs@history.state.ut.us http://history.utah.org March 11, 2003 Mark E. Smith Salt Lake City Cemetery 200 N Street Salt Lake City, UT 84103 Dear Mark: Enclosed is a copy of the signed contract amendment with which the Division of State History continues the contract agreements with your organization. Please contact me if you need any reimbursement forms, or otherwise need assistance. We wish you success with your project. Sincerely, (--- -aa.?:St,,Dc3- - --- Debbie Dahl Grants Manager 801-533-3537 email: ddahl@utah.gov • Preserving and Sharing Utah's Past for the Present and Future C. STATE OF UTAH CONTRACT M jfJ � Contract# 01081Z .sue T 1. CONTRACTING PARTIES: This agreement is between the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development Division of State History, referred to as STATE, and Salt Lake City Corporation Legal Status of Contractor (Contractor) [ ]Sole Proprietor [ ] Non-Profit Corporation 1965 West 500 South [ ]For-Profit Corporation (Address) [ ] Partnership [x]Government Agency Salt Lake City, UT 84104 (City) (State) (Zip) Referred to as CONTRACTOR Federal Tax ID No. S76 000 2 7 7 Vendor Number: 10369G-A Commodity Code: 99999000000 Agency Code: 710 2. GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: The general purpose of this agreement is: To Undertake the Inventory of Historic Cemeteries Project 3. PROCUREMENT: This contract is entered into as the result of the procurement process on requisition # Grant— N/A , FY- N/A 4. CONTRACT PERIOD: This contract is effective July 1, 1997 and will terminate on November30, 2001 unless otherwise extended or terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this • contract. 5. CONTRACT COSTS: CONTRACTOR will be paid a maximum of$ 14,730.30 for costs authorized by this contract(See Attachment C,for details) 6. ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT: Attachment A-Standard Terms&Conditions Attachment B-Special Provisions Attachment C-Scope of Work In the event of conflict between the provisions of Attachment A and the provisions of other attachments to this Contract,the provisions of Attachment A shall prevail. 7. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THIS CONTRACT BY REFERENCE BUT NOT ATTACHED HERETO: a. All other governmental laws, regulations, or actions applicable to services provided herein. b. _ 8. COMPLETE ON COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS ONLY: a. AUDIT INFORMATION:Provide the name address and telephone number of the STATE staff person responsible for the contract audit and review function. Roger Roper,300 Rio Grande,Salt Lake City,Utah 84101:801-533-3561 1. What audits and reviews are required of this contract? Financial? Yes[x]No[ ] How Often? With each reimbursement request By Whom? Tania A. Tully Program Compliance? Yes[x] No[ ]How Often? With each reimbursement request By Whom? Tania A. Tully b. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS:Are any declared by CONTRACTOR? Yes[ ] No See RELATED PARTIES-Attachment A. Paragraph 15. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties sign and cause this contract to be executed. CO T STATE: `,, _ Si ture,Auth 'ze epresentative gzMa:Thn "" V s,Director,Division State History 1V.._ o?C Name and Title of Signer(Type or Print) Director,Division of Purchasing • CONTRACT RECEIVED AND �alC�`s IVLStO PROCESSED BY Director,Division of Finance DIVISION OF FINANCE tc, e.A0 ' Aug" 21 03 10:49a Salt Lake City Parks 801 972-7805 p. 1 010812 Attachment C • Scope of Work . Salt Lake City Cemetery Documentation Project--Phase 2 The purpose of this project is to create a computer inventory of all the burials in the Salt Lake City Cerrcetery and _ create a geographic information system(GIS)database of their locations. The data must be in a format acceptable to the Division of State History and the Automated Geographic Reference Center(AGRC). The target date for the completion of all work items is October 31.2001,unless otherwise noted or agreed upon. If there are any unforeseen problems,the project may continue until November 30,2001. The Division of State History must approve any changes to this Scope of Work. Gram funds and matching local contributions will be used to hire a qualified computer consultant who will create a database and computerized GIS map of the cemetery. The following products will be generated from this project • A computerized database of all the burials in the cemetery. • A computerized GIS map of the cemetery. • A copy of the database on a computer file for the Utah State Historical Society. The map and database are to be kept and maintained at the local level. A copy of the database(without the GIS portion)will be provided in a compatible computer format to the Division of State History for inclusion in thc statewide inventory of burials. Database fields must conform to the standards of the statewide database to facilitate transfer of data and to maintain a necessary degree of consistency. This standard is to be determined in consultation with the Division of State History. The GIS map must meet the standards as set by the AGRC. Work that does not meet these standards is ineligible for reimbursement. Payment will occur in one reimbursement at the completion of the project. If circumstances require,there may be a preliminary payment of not more than 50%of the grant amount. • Burver Description State Grant Local Cash Local In-kind Money Match Match 1. New Consultant Fees $11,915.00 Cemetery numbering,Link map and database,Make anomalies known, "Move"data in GIS,custom reports,installation,training,printed maps 2. OId Consultant Fees(post July 1997) S2,815.30 Database work,troubleshooting,evaluation 3. Computer Upgrades $3,286.34 4. Now Computers $7,193.43 5. Prior Staff Time(post July 1997) $870.98 67 hours data entry @$9.30 per hour 20 mien.hours @ various rates per hour 6. Staff Time-data entry,data veriEeation,training $3,390.00 226 hours @$15.00 per hour S14,730.30 $14,740.75 $0.00 Subtotals S14,730.30 S14,740.75 Total Project Budget* $29,471.05 *Includes grant amount and local match. .».. • STATE OF UTAH CONTRACT • Contract# 01081Z. 7 t 1. CONTRACTING PARTIES: This agreement is between the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development Division of State History, referred to as STATE,and Salt Lake City Corporation Legal Status of Contractor (Contractor) []Sole Proprietor []Non-Profit Corporation 1965 West 500 South []For-Profit Corporation (Address) []Partnership [x]Government Agency Salt Lake City,UT 84104 (City) (State) (Zip) Referred to as CONTRACTOR Federal Tax ID No. $74 Coo 277 Vendor Number: 10369G-A Commodity Code:99999000000 Agency Code:710 2. GENERAL PURPOSE OF CONTRACT: The general purpose of this agreement is: To Undertake the Inventory of Historic Cemeteries Project 3. PROCUREMENT:This contract is entered Into as the result of the procurement process on requisition # Grant— NIA ,FY- N/A 4. CONTRACT PERIOD: This contract Is effective July 1,1997 and will terminate on November 30, • 2001 unless otherwise extended or terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract. 5. CONTRACT COSTS: CONTRACTOR will be paid a maximum of$14,730.30 for costs authorized by this contract(See Attachment C,for details) 6. ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS CONTRACT: Attachment A-Standard Terms 8.Conditions Attachment B-Special Provisions Attachment C-Scope of Work In the event of conflict between the provisions of Attachment A and the provisions of other attachments to this Contract,the provisions of Attachment A shall prevail. 7. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THIS CONTRACT BY REFERENCE BUT NOT ATTACHED HERETO: a. All other governmental laws,regulations,or actions applicable to services provided herein. b. �� • 8. COMPLETE ON COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS ONLY: a.AUDIT INFORMATION:Provide the name address and telephone number of the STATE staff person responsible for the contract audit and review function.Roger Roper,300 Rio Grande,Salt Lake Cify,Utah 84101:801-533-3561 1.What audits and reviews are required of this contract? Financial? Yes[x]No[ ] How Often? With each reimbursement request By Whom? Tanis A.Tully Program Compliance?Yes[x] No[ ]How Often? With each reimbursement request _By Whom? Tanta A.Tully b.RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS:Are any declared by CONTRACTOR?Yes[ ] No Ix See RELATED PARTIES-Attachment A.Paragraph 15. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties sign and cause this contract to be executed. CO�T�tA�T1; STATE: Sig tuure,Autthhilmtze epresentative Ma � Diriirecto�n State History \ mo o?S. Name and Title of Signer(Type or Print) Director,Division of Purchasing CONTRACT RECEIVED AND Packs t��1- 4', PROCESSED BY Director,Division of Finance )IVISION OF FiNANC. c } f w,(--, r J:r w fa tw r'.1.. ,,,,.. y.„,„•',. .?s t�TfiF1STFlTE�• z 2,It ,..li J W cVito lET `. • �;ti�, _ ��t Department of Community and Economic Development s4-v %:_ "''''o , Division of State History ��,, LtiiiiiN;I `e 'J-' Utah State Historical Society Michael O.Leavitt 300 Rio Grande Governor - Salt Lake City,Utah 84101-1182 Max J.Evans i (801)533-3500 FAX: 533-3503 TDD: 533.3502 Director , ushs®history.state.ut.us http//history.utah.org March 11,2003 Mark E. Smith Salt Lake City Cemetery 200 N Street Salt Lake City,UT 84103 Dear Mark: Enclosed is a copy of the signed contract amendment with which the Division of State History continues the contract agreements with your organization. Please contact me if you need any reimbursement forms,or otherwise need assistance. • We wish you success with your project. Sincerely, _____). ,... .. ",..1..,....„10 Debbie Dahl Grants Manager 801-533-3537 email: ddahl@utah.gov II Preserving and Sharing Utah's Past for the Present and Future iyeyy� ._ . �. CONTRACT AMENDMENT Amendment #1 Contract# 010812 TO BE ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF the above numbered Contract by and between the State of Utah, Department of Community and Economic Development, referred to as STATE, and, Salt Lake City Corporation referred to as CONTRACTOR. REASON FOR AMENDMENT: To extend the Contract term to 6/30/04. The parties agree to amend the Contract as follows: A. Contract Agreement, page 1, paragraph 4, is amended to read: 1. CONTRACT PERIOD: This Contract is effective 7/1/97 and will terminate to 6/30/04, unless otherwise extended or terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract. • Effective Date: 2/11/2003 All conditions and terms in the original Contract, not specifically modified hereby, remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties sign and cause this Amendment to be executed. Contractor: State: Signature,Authorized Representative Division of State History \J L Name (Type or Print) Director,Division of Purchasing Title of Signer Director,Division of Finance I RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF UTAH CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $33 , 000 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and an additional $17, 000 at a later date to expend for the purposes of : Purchasing computer equipment for the City' s Police Department to interface with the State of Utah Criminal Justice Information Systems for development of a criminal history database accessible by both the State and the City. 410 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf .of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Salt Atto ney' s Office By: j� Date: � 30 ed3 1. Applicant Agency Name, Mailing Address, Phone STATE. OF UTAH Number COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE 101 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114 (801)538-1812 NGA/Byrne Grant Application 2. Type of Application (check one) 3. Level of Government (check one) G State G City 0 Initial G Continuation of Grant # 0 County G Other 4. Funding Amount Requested 5. Beginning/Ending Dates of Program 33, 000 6/20/2003 12/1/03 6. Project (subgrant) Title 7. Federal Tax Identification Number UCJIS Interface to Salt Lake City Police Department 8. Project Budget Summary Total Costs Grant Funds Cash Match a. Personnel b. Contracted Fees c. Equipment 33, 000 d. Travel e. Supplies f. Other Costs TOTAL COSTS 33,000 9. Typed Name of Official Authorized to Sign: 10. Typed Name of Program Director: Ross C. Anderson, Mayor 11. Signature of Authorized Official: 12. Signature of Program Director: For UCCJJ use only Elk Approval Signature Date APPRLakeOVED Cty AS TO Attomey'sFORM Salt Office Date l° 3 3� EQUIPMENT .t Request $ (Federal portion:$ ;Match portion:$ TOTAL List only those items which have a unit acquisition cost of $1,000.00 or more. Items of lesser amounts are to be listed in the "Supplie and Operating" budget. Include a full description of the equipment, with an explanation regarding why it is needed; number of units; unit cost and total costs. Complete the ADP form (on following page) if you are requesting computer-related equipment. SAMPLE D. Equipment--List nonexpendable items that are to be purchased. Nonexpendable equipment is tangible property having a useful life of more than 1 year and an acquisition cost of$1,000 or more per unit. Explain how the equipment is necessary for the success of the project. Attach a narrative describing the procurement method to be used. Note: Expendable items should be included either in the"Supplies"category. Applicants should analyze the cost benefits of purchasing versus leasing equipment, especially high-cost items and those subject to obsolescence due to rapid technical advances. Rented or leased equipment costs should be listed in the"Consultants/Contracts"category. Item Computation Cosi 3-486 Computers w/CD-ROM ($2,000 x 3) $6,000 Video Camera 1,000 The computers will be used by the programmers to write new criminal history programs. The camera will be used for training seminars. TOTAL$7,000 Proliant DL-380 dual processor server $8,000 Proliant MSA 1000 storage array with 500 gigabytes of storage $10,000 Tape array for near line storage and backup services $9,000 •Microsoft server and SQL server software $6,000 Total: $33,000. This equipment will be used to develop the XML transaction between the UCJIS system and the Salt Lake City Police Department. is ti;. • • August 11, 2003 Steven Wittaker Salt Lake City Corp. 349 South 200 East Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Wittaker, We have received your grant application under the Criminal Justice Integration Grant Program,reviewed and approved the request. This letter severs as an official notice to the Salt Lake City Police Department of the grant award in the amount of$33,000 for your justice integration project. The grant has been designated as 01-E-05 for administrative purposes and will have an award period of June 20,2003 through December 1, 2003. Enclosed is a copy of the signed grant coversheet. 40 We will also be sending you electronic copies of the financial status report used to request reimbursements on a quarterly basis and grant change forms. Use the change forms to request extensions, changes in budget categories (i.e. Personnel, Contracts,Equipment etc.) of greater than 10%per category or other miscellaneous changes. In addition to financial status reports a quarterly narrative report is also required 30 days after each calendar quarter, which should include a description of the progress or problems, related to each of the goals or objectives stated in your application. We appreciate your efforts to improve the criminal justice information systems in Utah and I look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions or if I can be of assistance,please call me at(801) 538-1055. Sincerely, Jennifer E. Hemenway Technology Grant Manager • GENERA.L INSTRUCTIONS A 6 1) An original and an electronic copy (e-mail (jhemenway@utah.gov) or on disk) must be sent to tt Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, 101 State Capitol Salt Lake City, Utah 84114. Only one set appendices is required, attached to the original grant application. Be sure each application is stapled once in tt left hand corner, not bound or in a folder. 4111 2) The applications should include the following: a. Cover Sheet b. Problem Identification Section c. Strategy to Address the Problem Section d. Project Administration Section e. Program Evaluation Section f. Budget Narrative Section g. Appendices-attached only to the original application Appendix 1 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusio Appendix 2 Certified Assurances/Grant Conditions Appendix 3 Lobbying (include only if your application requests $100,000 or more) Appendix 4 Civil Rights Appendix 5 Drug-Free Workplace Certification (State programs only) 40 • RIGHARD GRAHAM S7'' i A\ Q all 11""O D}e' 111)1 " -$'Q ,k1 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR RECEIVED NOV 10 2003 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: November 7, 2003 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rick Graham,Director r'?il 535-7774 Public Services d SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT) for sidewalk construction on the west side of Redwood Road— 1000 North to 1700 North, UDOT No. SW1194 and City Job No. 102116. STAFF CONTACT: Richard A. Johnston, P.E. 535-6232 III DOCUMENT TYPE: Cooperative Agreement RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City and UDOT, subject to the appropriation of City matching funds. The City will receive $82,500 from this agreement. A separate request, included in the upcoming Budget Amendment, is being made to create a City budget for this project and to appropriate and create a budget for the City's $27,500 match requirement. The City match will come from general fund CIP contingency. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: Funding of pedestrian safety projects is made available by an appropriation from the Utah State Legislature for distribution by the Utah Department of Transportation. The intent of the Utah State Legislature if that pedestrian safety projects be funded on a 75% state, 25% local match basis. The City will design, construct and maintain the improvements as a non-hazardous pedestrian facility. PUBLIC PROCESS: None cc:Vault • VAULT : pyUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775801-535-7789 �� aecrceo PAocn RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 III AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13,Utah Code Ann., 1953, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION REGARDING A CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON SR-68,REDWOOD ROAD, 1000 NORTH TO 1700 NORTH. 2. The effective date of the agreement shall be the date it is signed by all parties to the agreement. II 3. Ross C. "Rocky"Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or his designee, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to such minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder and as shall be approved by the Mayor, his execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON • • ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ASSIST T SALT L�9/KKE CITY ATTORNEY RESOLUTI\Interlocal UDOT Redwood Road 10-22-03.doc • 2 Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, Redwood Road; 1000 North to 1700 North COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH • Salt Lake City Charge ID No. SW1194 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 20 , by and between the UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the "UDOT", and SALT LAKE CITY, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah, hereinafter referred to as the "City", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in the interest of public safety, it is the desire of the parties hereto to • construct and thereafter maintain a pedestrian safety project on SR-68, curb, gutter&sidewalk, at the locations described as follows: west side of Redwood Road between 1000 North and 1700 North, install 5 foot wide sidewalk and pedestrian access ramps; and WHEREAS, funds for the construction of pedestrian safety projects have been made available by an appropriation from the Utah State Legislature for distribution by the UDOT; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Utah State Legislature that participation in the pedestrian safety project be on a 75% State, 25% Local match basis; and WHEREAS, the UDOT has determined by formal finding that payment for said work on public right of way is not in violation of the laws of the State or any legal contract with the City. THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT is made to set out the terms and conditions where under said work shall be performed. • 1 4 Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, Redwood Road; 1000 North to 1700 North • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH Salt Lake City Charge ID No. SW1194 NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The City with its regular engineering and construction forces at the standard schedule of wages and working hours and in accordance with the terms of its agreement with such employees, or through qualified contractors with whom it has obtained contracts upon appropriate solicitation in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah, shall perform the necessary field and office engineering, furnish all materials and perform the construction work covered by this agreement. 2. All construction work performed by the City or its contractor shall conform to UDOT's standards. City's construction may conform to local standards if they are equal to or greater than the UDOT standards. 3. All construction performed under this agreement shall be barrier free to wheel chairs at • crosswalks and intersections according to State and Local standards. 4. The City shall submit plans for the work covered by this agreement to UDOT's Region Two Sidewalk Coordinator for review and approval. Upon approval of the plans, and before commencing any construction within the highway right of way, the City or its contractor shall obtain a Highway Right of Way Encroachment permit from the Region Two Encroachment and Permits Officer. 5. The City will participate a minimum of 25% of said project. City's participation can be through financial contribution, preliminary or construction engineering costs, donated labor or equipment, etc. Supporting documentation will be required to support all costs. 6. The total estimated cost of the pedestrian safety project including City's participation is as follows: UDOT Funds (Allocated Amount) $82,500.00 City's Match (25% Minimum of Total) $27,500.00 TOTAL PROJECT $110,000.00 411 Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, Redwood Road; 1000 North to 1700 North COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH Salt Lake City • Charge ID No. SW1194 7. Upon UDOT approval of the pedestrian safety project plans and satisfactory evidence that the project is ready to proceed, the UDOT will deliver to the City a one time lump sum amount of$82,500.00 for the construction of the facilities covered by this cooperative agreement. This amount is the maximum sum of UDOT's contribution. If the project should overrun the estimated project amount contained herein the City's match shall be revised to cover the additional amount. 8. The City will furnish to the UDOT a statement upon completion of the project for which the grant was made certifying the amount of State-funds expended, verification of City participation amounts, and certification that the project was completed in accordance with the standards and specifications adopted for the project by this cooperative agreement. 9. UDOT shall have the right to audit all cost records and accounts of the City pertaining to this project. Should the audit disclose that City's expenditures for the project are less than the grant, all unexpended funds shall be refunded promptly to the UDOT. For purpose of audit, the City is required to keep and maintain its records of work covered herein for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of the project. • 10. If for any reason, the City has not commenced construction of said project within a two (2) year time period from UDOT Commission approval of the safety project, the City will relinquish the grant allocation or refund the funds already paid to the City for the project upon request from the UDOT. Upon commencement of the construction, the City agrees to complete the construction in an expeditious manner and in a reasonable time frame. Should the UDOT determine that the work is not proceeding in an expeditious manner, and upon thirty (30) days written notice, it may withdraw said grant and require the City to refund any portion of the grant funds not expended for approved items at the time of withdrawal. 11. Upon completion of the work covered by this cooperative agreement, the City shall, either directly or by ordinance, cause any sidewalks covered by this cooperative agreement to be maintained, renewed and/or repaired to perpetuate a secure and non-hazardous pedestrian facility. Said maintenance is to include snow removal. 12. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: UDOT represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person • Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, Redwood Road; 1000 North to 1700 North • COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH Salt Lake City Charge ID No. SW 1194 to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 13. Interlocal Co-operation Act Requirements. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Co-operation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"), in connection with this Cooperative Agreement, the City and UDOT (for purposes of this section, each a "party" and collectively the "parties") agree as follows: (a) This contract shall be approved by each party, and shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by the attorneys authorized to represent the respective parties, pursuant to § 11-13-202.5 of the Act; • (b) A duly executed original counterpart of this contract shall be filed with the keeper of records of each party, pursuant to § 11-13-209 of the Act; (c) Each party shall be responsible for it own costs of any action done pursuant to this contract, and for any financing of such costs; (d) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this contract. To the extent that this contract requires administration other than set forth herein, it shall be administered by the mayor of the City and the Region Two Director of UDOT, acting as a joint board. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the parties as a result of this contract. To the extent that a party acquires, holds, and disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this contract, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. • 4 Curb, gutter & sidewalk Construction SR-68, Redwood Road; 1000 North to 1700 North COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH • Salt Lake City Charge ID No. SW1194 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by its duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: SALT LAKE CITY, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Utah By: By: Title: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office (IMPRESS SEAL) Date V( - -� By ----Z<N11( ******************************************* ******************************************* UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: APPROVED: Region Safe Sidewalk Coordinator Region Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: The Utah Attorney General's Office has previously approves all paragraphs in this Agreement as to form. Division of Finance S 5