Loading...
11/21/2002 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 , 2002 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, November 21, 2002 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Canton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Cindy Gust-Jenson, City Council Executive Director; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Michael Sears, Council Budget& Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Talitha Day, National League Conference Coordinator; Randy Hillier, CIP Admin/Budget and Policy Analyst; Laurie Dillon, Budget Analyst; Melissa Anderson, Sugarhouse/Long Range Planner; Jerry Burton, Police Administrative Services Manager; Jim Lewis, Public Utilities Finance Administrator; Sherrie Collins, Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Tim Campbell, Director of Airports; Jay Bingham, Airport Chief Accountant; Gordon Hoskins, Controller; Rick Graham, Director of Public Services; Parviz Rokhva, Public Services Technical Planner; Simarjit Singh Gill, City Prosecutor; Judge Zane Gill; Mary Johnston, City Courts Director; Marjean Searcy, Police Meth Initiative; Lieutenant Kyle Jones; Garry Griffiths, Public Services Compliance Impound; Krista Dunn, Grant Writer; Mac Connole, Police Department; Chris Burbank, Police; Larry Littleford, Deputy Fire Chief Support Service; Stuart Palmer, Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Facility; Romney Stewart, Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Facility; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Council Chair Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachment A discussion was held regarding the volume of E-mails and phone calls received in the Council Office for the Main Street right-of-way. See file M 02-5 for announcements #2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE LANDFILL BUDGET FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2003. View Attachment Rick Graham, Romney Stewart, Stuart Palmer and Michael Sears briefed the Council. Mr. Sears referred to a handout. Councilmember Saxton asked how support of the landfill was divided with regard to Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Mr. Graham said the overall operation of the landfill except construction management was managed by the County. He said the City held a place on the board and held an equal vote. He said the City's administration adopted the budget. A discussion was held regarding annual goals and budget. Councilmember Lambert referred to the Guiding Principles in the attached handout. Mr. Graham said within the $16 million budget there were funds allocated for ongoing projects at the landfill and recycling programs. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 11. View Attachment Issue No. 29: Military Drive. Councilmember Buhler referred to a letter from the 02 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 , 2002 Yalecrest Community Council. (See file M 02-1 for letter) He said when the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) came before the Council they had agreed to fund $85, 000 to reconstruct a triangle on Yalecrest Avenue above 1500 East. He said the Community Council had also forwarded another project on Military Drive and 900 South. He said because of a miscommunication between the neighborhood and the CIP Board the project came back as $1.2 million. He said when the Yalecrest Avenue project was advanced and the Military Drive project was not, the community reviewed the projects again and a new figure of approximately $100,000 was submitted for both projects. Councilmember Buhler said if both projects were bid together the second project could be done for $85,000. He said the savings could be $15,000 to $25, 000. He said the projects would be paid for from $460, 000 in the contingency fund which was already budgeted for CIP. He asked the Council to consider the projects. Councilmember Love said when she had approved the Yalecrest Avenue project she thought she had also approved the Military Drive project. She said she thought they were one project. Councilmember Saxton said another project had come before the Council which had not gone through the CIP process and the Council had asked that it go back to CIP. She asked if that was what should happen with the Military Drive request. Mr. Sears said this was the second year Military Drive had been requested through the CIP Board. He said the project had been over estimated with regard to what the neighborhood had asked for. Councilmember Buhler said the CIP Board had reviewed the project but the budget numbers were incorrect. He said this was an exception to procedure because the project was justified by the circumstances. He said the Yalecrest project was already being worked on by Engineering. Councilmember Buhler asked that the CIP Board adopt alternative A, at $85, 000, for Military Drive and combine it with the Yalecrest project. All Council Members were in favor of moving the project forward and adopting the alternate "A", proposed by the Yalecrest Community Council for $85, 000. #4. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT. View Attachment Michael Sears, Krista Dunn, Jerry Burton, Sim Gill and Mac Connole briefed the Council. Ms. Gust-Jensen said the grant was unique because it had the ability to fund several programs and needed a public review process ahead of time. She said the Council could choose to exercise greater discretion with this grant. She said other grants locked in what had been applied for but this grant did not. Mr. Sears referred to Page 3 of the handout, Mental Health Court. He said the Mental Health Court had not been operated by the City the previous year. He said Criminal Services had been contracted with for this service. He said the Mental Health Court proposal was case management for approximately 20 offenders with mental illness. Mr. Sears asked for direction from the Council with regard to treating the grant similar to a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) . Councilmember Buhler asked if the League of Cities and Towns was eligible to receive funding from the grant. Ms. Dunn said the League advised communities with regard to the issues which the grant was meant for. She said the Federal Government was comfortable with the League's representative. A discussion was held regarding the public hearing and advertising. Ms. Dunn said the hope was to get more citizens to 02 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 , 2002 attend the hearing. A discussion was held regarding sending notice to the Community Councils for announcement at their meetings. Councilmember Christensen said he felt someone else should be appointed to the board for the Local Law Enforcement Grant. Mr. Burton said several others could be appointed. A discussion was held regarding the board. A discussion was held regarding Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Service, Drug Court funding for $50,000. Mr. Gill said a felony level charge was required for enrollment into the program. Ms. Dunn said funds were not being duplicated. A discussion was held regarding Salt Lake City School District, Peer Court funding for $20,000. Councilmember Jergensen asked how much the School District contributed to this program. Ms. Dunn said the School District budget for this was approximately $180, 000. A discussion was held regarding Salt Lake County Restorative Justice Programs funding for $15, 000. Mr. Gill said Valley Mental Health had received a $240,000 grant. He said the Valley Mental Health portion funding should be removed. He said funding should be allocated to the Misdemeanor Drug Court. Councilmember Buhler said documents needed to be changed. A discussion was held regarding the Prostitution Outreach program. Mr. Gill said the program was an extensive program lasting approximately 40 weeks. He said this was necessary due to substance abuse and mental health issues. He said the program had become large and could use more funding. A discussion was held regarding the Officer Overtime funding for $22, 000. Mr. Connole explained funding for Community Policing Overtime. He said there were special issues in each community. He said these were nuisance issues and the overtime was used for abating those problems. He gave examples of the special issues such as neighborhood traffic and meth lab interference. A discussion was held regarding Peer Support Program funding. Councilmember Saxton asked about the $8, 000 request for overtime for peer counselors. Mr. Cannole said the program was counseling for police officers involved in a traumatic incident. He said other police officers within the department who were qualified would be used as peer support counselors. Councilmember Saxton asked if the wage was not an overtime wage would officers be willing to counsel. Mr. Cannole said the Federal Government restricted volunteer participation. A discussion was held regarding Civilian Training funding. All Council Members were in favor of moving the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant forward. #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AIRPORT EXPANSION PLANS. Tim Campbell, Jay Bingham, Gary Mumford, and Michael Sears briefed the Council. Mr. Sears said this was Initiative 22, in Budget Amendment No. 11 paperwork. (See attachment) . Mr. Campbell used slides to explain the new terminal complex. He said they were working with Delta Airlines on the design of the facility so it would fit Delta's operations. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Campbell about the TRAX line to the Airport. Mr. Campbell said the new design brought TRAX along the east side of the Airport and tied into the terminal complex. He said this was less expensive than previously planned and people would be closer to terminals. 02 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 , 2002 Councilmember Saxton asked about demolition of the parking structure. Mr. Campbell referred to a slide of the new plan. He said the parking structure was in the way of the South Concourse. He said this would not happen for approximately 10 years. He said another parking structure would replace the current structure. A discussion was held regarding surface parking vs. structure parking. Councilmember Christensen asked how many years airline carrier agreements were for. Mr. Campbell said current agreements were for 20 years and would be extended on a year- to-year basis. Councilmember Jergensen asked what the life expectancy of the airport expansion program was. Mr. Campbell said the intention for the program was a minimum of 20 years but would probably go to 30 or 40 years due to the expandability of the program. Mr. Mumford explained the proposed budget amendment issues for the Airport. A discussion was held regarding people movers vs. moving sidewalks. Councilmember Turner asked how poor the condition of the Airport No. 2 runway was. Mr. Campbell said the runway was useable but in poor enough condition to justify the use of grant money for the overlay. Councilmember Buhler said this issue would be moved forward. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING PROSECUTION OF STATE INFRACTIONS AND MISDEMEANOR CASES. (Item 18 of the Council packet for Budget Amendment No. 11) . View Attachment Rocky Fluhart, Laurie Dillon, Silvia Jones, Mary Johnston, and Sim Gill briefed the Council. Councilmember Buhler said the District Attorney was currently prosecuting State infraction and misdemeanor services. He said the City had the option to take them over. A discussion was held regarding whom in County government wanted Salt Lake City to take the State infraction and misdemeanor services over. Councilmember Buhler asked why an increase in staff was needed. Ms. Dillon said caseload for the Prosecutor's Office would increase by 2, 900 cases per year. She said 1,500 cases was the normal number for a prosecutor per year. She said it would not be possible to absorb that many new cases. Mr. Gill said new sources feeding into the Court system would be the University of Utah, the Community College and the Highway Patrol. He said the cases would be Class B or below, including driving under the influence (DUI) cases. Mr. Gill said the City would realize approximately $240,000 per year by taking these cases over. Ms. Dillon said she could provide Council with revenue to date for new traffic cases. Ms. Johnston said currently traffic cases were coming in but criminal cases took longer and funding also took longer. A discussion was held regarding revenue. Councilmember Buhler said a briefing at the first of the year to look at revenue should be held. Councilmember Jergensen asked what the compelling reason was for taking the State infraction and misdemeanor services over. Mr. Gill said his office would not have to share a calendar with the County. He said this would help the workload and flexibility. Ms. Johnston said it was an efficiency matter. Ms. Dillon said the Justice Court took care of traffic cases with a hearing officer. She said currently the Justice Court did the bulk of the work but got half of the revenue. She said prosecution would become more consistent. Mr. Gill said citizens would gain by the consistency and focus of cases. 02 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21 , 2002 Councilmember Buhler suggested contacting the County Council to make them aware of the City's interest in State infraction and misdemeanor services. He said the letter should state "at the direction of the District Attorney" Salt Lake City would be taking the issue over. Mr. Gill said he would draft a letter. Councilmember Buhler said this issue would be moved forward. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. cm 02 - 5 11 /2! Jp2 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 21, 2002 TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Proposed Transit Corridor and Walkable Communities zoning FROM: Janice Jardine,Land Use and Policy Analyst At the November 5,2002 Work Session,Council Members expressed their intent to schedule hearings for the Transit Corridor and Walkable Communities zoning ordinances. It would helpful to receive direction regarding changes Council Members would like to see in the proposed ordinances. Staff has identified a list of items that have been discussed throughout this process. Council Members may wish to choose one or a combination of items. Potential Options for Council Consideration ➢ Transit Corridor A. Do not change the Administration's original Transit Corridor ordinances. B. Change the Administration's original Transit Corridor ordinances to include: 1. Recommendations from the Council's consultants: • requiring building height to step back from existing residential areas • Allow a height bonus incentive up to 100 feet near the transit station platforms or on street corners. • removing properties fronting on 400 South between 500 and 600 East from the existing Historic District. 2. Previous recommendations from the Administration such as: • adding definitions • adjusting the permitted and conditional uses such as department stores • allowing additional height through the conditional use process, • removing some of the area to be rezoned 3. Previous recommendations from the East Central, Central City and Sugar House Community Councils such as: • adjust the height requirement in both TC-50 and TC-75 by requiring any building height over 30 feet to be processed as a conditional use(to ensure design review) • address height issues relating to solar access and air circulation(also identified by the Historic Landmark Commission)in the TC-50 and TC-75 zones on the north side of 400 South • maintain existing parking requirements and do not allow a reduction in parking • adjust permitted and conditional uses o include auto-related uses as conditional uses such as gas stations to ensure consideration of potential impacts on surrounding neighborhoods o remove specific uses such as: • drive through businesses • bus terminals • ambulance facilities • park and ride lots 1 • establish density limitations • establish a minimum lot area requirement for planned developments • establish design criteria for the rear and sides of buildings to address Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design(CPTED)criteria and architectural features and compatibility. • require a public process element as part of the Zoning Administrator approval procedure for building expansion requests • add design criteria for underground garage entrances/exits to assure maximum motorists/pedestrians visibility • remove some of the area to be rezoned—north side of 400 South east of 700 East • create compatibility or design review 4. An additional issue identified by Planning staff is billboards on the 400 South corridor. Planning staff notes that on-premise signage was addressed with the proposed text changes but billboards were not. The question has been raised as to whether the billboard regulations should be adjusted to encourage the removal of billboards. Planning staff provided the following recommendations for Council consideration: • address the issue as part of the proposed text changes(this will require modification of the proposed text and notification to the billboard industry) • leave the issue as it is • refer the issue to the Planning Commission for further study ➢ Walkgble Communities A. Do not change the Administration's original Walkable Communities ordinance. B. Change the Administration's original Walkable Communities ordinance to include: 1. Previous recommendations from the Administration such as adding definitions. 2. Recommendations from the East Central,Central City and Sugar House Community Councils such as addressing potential pedestrian/traffic conflicts,creating compatibility or design review and including criteria to address access to and from trail corridors or open space when appropriate. File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,Zoning Ordinance Text Change and Rezoning—Transit Corridors and Parking lots behind buildings"walkable communities" 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2003 DATE: November 15, 2002 BUDGET FOR: Salt Lake City/County Solid Waste Management Facility - Proposed FY (Calendar Year) 2003 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 budget for the 2003 calendar year budget for the City Council's consideration. Members of the Solid Waste Management Facility's Administration will be present at the November 19th briefing to answer Council questions. The Salt Lake County Council will hold a public hearing on December 10, 2002 and consider adopting this budget on December 10, 2002. The Salt Lake City Council may also wish to hold a public hearing and consider adopting this budget on December 10, 2002. ANALYSIS The Administration's paperwork outlines in detail the proposed changes to the Solid Waste Management Facility's budget. Calendar year 2003 revenues are estimated at $16,625,000; expenditures are estimated at $15,751,417. Since no additional landfill modules are planned for 2003, excess revenues over expenditures of $873,583 are proposed to accumulate in fund balance to be used for future capital costs. Revenue is expected to increase by $591,000 due to marginal growth in landfill tonnage while expenses are expected to increase by $591,000. The increase includes: • $46,762 increase for salaries, wages, and benefits • $58,500 increase for materials and supplies • $177,787 increase for contractual hauling costs and profession/regulatory fee increases • $308,000 increase for capital outlay The proposed calendar year 2003 Landfill budget can be summarized as follows: 1 Proposed 2003 Solid Waste Management Facility Budget Compared with prior years 2001 2002 2003 Adjusted Amended Proposed Category Budget Budget Budget _ Sources of Funds Fees and Charges $15,385,000 $15,140,000 $15,375,000 Interest 1,975,000 920,000 990,000 Other Sources 182,000 440,000 260,000 Fund Balance 1,641,229 Total Sources of Funds $19,183,229 $16,500,000 $16,625,000 Uses of Funds Personal services* 3,362,072 3,527,676 3,574,438 Materials&supplies 705,750 237,200 295,700 Charges/Services 13,597,186 9,236,592 9,414,379 Capital 1,494,000 2,158,900 2,466,900 Increase Fund Balance 1,339,632 873,583 Total Expenditures $19,159,008 $16,500,000 $16,625,000 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 Facility'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 the 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 2003 calendar year operating and capital improvement budget for the Facility. The Management Council reviewed and approved the proposed budget on September 20, 2001. According to the agreement both the City Council and the County Council must approve a budget for the Facility. Any changes the City Council makes to the proposed budget will be forwarded to the County Council for consideration. 2 3/22/02 SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY LONG TERM STRATEGIC PLAN Future Trends: - Competition is strong in an industry undergoing consolidations and vertical integration for ownership of key waste management components. - Public entities face the ongoing challenges of securing and maintaining revenues without flow control. - Economics is becoming a major factor in the structuring of integrated solid waste management components. - Interstate and inter-jurisdictional waste transport is a controversial issue with competitors and between some governmental entities. - Environmental issues to be considered in waste management are its effect on global warming,air pollution,fuel sources,traffic congestion,and natural resource depletion. - The annual growth rate projection for Salt Lake County over the next 5 years ranges from 1.3%(200242003)to 2.4%(200642007). Utah was fourth among states in the rate of population growth from 1990 to 2000. - The Utah economy is now on a moderate growth path with construction lower since the buildup for the 2002 Winter Olympics and the national recession. - Removal and disposal of debris due to natural disasters and terrorists attacks are becoming more common across the country. - Even though there is a general fall off in prices for most recyclable commodities there is a new demand for certain materials. (The comments underlined below show how the 2003 Budget addresses the Guiding Principles and helps accomplish many of the Long Term Initiatives) Guiding Principles: - Balance the large volume of waste coming to the landfill which lowers unit costs with our need to conserve landfill capacity by altering the landfill and transfer station waste inflow and disposal destination. - Retain our current market share of disposal volume and cash flow by providing Salt Lake Valley residents, institutions, and commercial enterprises integrated solid waste services at competitive rates. No fee increases are recommended in the 2003 budget - The public welfare and long term environmental benefits in addition to costs should always be addressed and considered when comparing cost competitive alternatives. - Establish a good working environment for employees, focus on customer service, and insure our facilities are safe and efficiently operated. An asphalt pad at the compost selling area will accomplish all of the above Long Term (5yr) Initiatives to be Accomplished by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility: - Continue to provide leadership in the implementation of an efficient, integrated network of solid waste facilities and programs. An additional transport truck will enable us to efficiently balance waste flows between the landfill and transfer station - Cities and other governmental entities should be viewed and treated as partners, not just as customers. The slower growth rate in landfill fee revenues reflects the expanded recycling program implemented by Salt Lake City - Establish price structures, hours of operation and interlocal/contractual relationships to adjust the flow of waste between the transfer station and landfill so as to balance both short and life-cycle costs. - Conduct an ongoing cost/benefit analysis of the landfill tipping face, transfer station, citizen unloading station, composting, recycling, and household hazardous waste facility. We do a revenue & cost summary by cost center on a monthly basis to determine the cost per ton for each program. Requested changes in budget line items are often based on this analysis. - Continuously monitor changes in the inbound tonnage,waste composition, customer base, and waste diversion from the tipping face. Our waste flow from various sources is monitored on a monthly basis. This data serves as a key factor in measuring our performance. - Examine various operational and design alternatives to increase the existing landfill life capacity by increasing the compaction of waste and the height, depth, and slope of modules. In Professional Fees line item#2930 we have included funding to engage a consultant to update our Landfill Master Plan and to maximize our life capacity. - Explore and evaluate opportunities to acquire an interest in additional landfill property or to enter into interlocal agreements for access to other landfills. In Professional Fees line item#2930 we have included funding to conduct a feasibility analysis for shipping waste to a remote regional landfill. We also have a reserve landfill replacement reserve fund for long term ownership. - Finish the north and east slopes of the landfill with a final cap so they can be vegetated to enhance the image of the landfill to adjoining property owners within the next five years. - Update the landfill master plan and post-closure end use plan to reflect current diversion programs, waste flow trends, and productive recreational uses with revenue potential. We will incorporate these elements in our landfill master plan update that is Budgeted in line item #2930 Professional Fees. - Promote a conservation ethic in the workforce and local community through education programs and projects about extending the life of resources,waste reduction, recycling, and beneficial reuse of waste materials. In the Personnel Budget two university interns will be hired to conduct recycling and environmental engineering research. Line item# 2383 Development Advertising will be used to promote the above to the public. - Explore and implement energy conservation and emission reduction measures at the landfill and transfer station. Line item#2930 Professional Fees will be used to properly adjust our methane gas collection system and to evaluate other means to improve air quality. - Develop a debris management plan and train staff in the event of a disaster; address the recycling of debris by working with state, local, and private entities. - Consider market timing in the collection and sale of recyclable materials. We conduct a yearly review of all contracts for recycled materials and they are put out to bid. Compost and salvage sales revenues are projected to increase based on increased volume. - Expand the number of Recycling Information Office demonstration centers, outreach programs, and workshops at off-site locations. NOV 1 3 2002 SALT ` W OTT GOlI`P 10 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDER5ON RICHARD GRAHAM $_ PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL November 4, 2002 I ifTZ TO: RockyFluhart, Chief Administration " Officer SUBJECT: Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Fiscal Year(Calendar Year) 2003 Budget RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed budget. FUNDING: This is an Enterprise Fund. Fees at the Transfer Station will be increased to reflect changes to the cost of hauling waste to Carbon County, while fees at the Landfill facility will not change. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The FY 2003 budget reflects changes to the ongoing Landfill operating costs. The proposed budget was reviewed and approved by the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Council on September 20, 2002. The Salt Lake County Council has scheduled its public hearing and formal adoption of the proposed budget on December 10, 2002. Schedules and narrative are attached. CONTACT PERSON: Greg Davis 535-6397 Stuart Palmer, SL Valley Solid Waste Facility, 974-6920 SUBMITTED BY: Rick Graham 535-7774 k 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-7789 ®necveeo vnPca SALT LAKE VALLEY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY Citizen Expectations The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility disposes of 75% of the commercial and residential solid waste generated in Salt Lake County. The 550 acre facility has an expected life of more than 25 years based on an annual waste growth of 1% and diversion of waste through the transfer station. The facility is jointly owned by Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County and is self- funded through user fees. This facility is the largest municipal solid waste disposal facility in the State of Utah. An average of 900 commercial and citizen vehicles enter both the landfill and transfer station daily. A Geographical Limitation Ordinance has been implemented since 1992 that prohibits the landfill disposal of waste material originating from outside of Salt Lake County. The Facility is open Monday through Saturday to serve the residents and businesses of Salt Lake County; it is open all holidays except Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Day. Two reduced fee disposal months are provided for residential customers each year during April and October; customers must be residents of Salt Lake County and dispose of items from their own home or yard. The Facility also provides a Recycling Information Office to sponsor programming and to respond to citizen recycling questions concerning topics such as: local recycling centers, drop-off points and curbside programs as well as grass recycling, home composting, office paper recycling and ways to Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Service Detail Landfill/Tipping Face Operations and Unloading Station The Division Administration and the Scalehouse Operations provide the appropriate administrative support to the landfill operation to include management, fiscal planning, purchasing, accounts receivable billing and collection, cost accounting, and computer support. The Environmental and Technical Services provides management for the construction of modules for the disposal of solid waste; evaluates landfill leachate generation potential for active and closed landfilled modules and collection systems for gas and utilization; and ensures the facility is environmentally designed and operated to meet or exceed all EPA, state and local regulatory requirements. Transfer Station Operation The Transfer Station Operation transfers solid waste in Salt Lake County to a remote landfill site located outside Salt Lake County. The operation will rail haul solid waste to save valuable landfill space and extend the expected life of the landfill. What is not reflected in the program budget is the value of space savings at the landfill as a result of diversion of waste through the transfer 11/6/02 1 station. There are also substantial savings realized in transportation costs to Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Sanitation fleets because of the shorter distance to the transfer station. Recycling and Waste Minimization and Composting Operation The Recycling and Waste Minimization and Composting Operation encourages recycling programs and efforts throughout Salt Lake County. Current waste diversion programs include contracts for the resale of recyclable materials, a soils regeneration site contract for blending waste materials into native soils to produce a final cover able to sustain vegetation, and a mulching and composting operation for yard and wood waste. Solid Waste Facility tours as well as presentations concerning recycling and waste reduction are given to school, church and civic groups by members of the Recycling Office Staff. Household Hazardous Waste Operation The Household Hazardous Waste Operation is a partnership with the Salt Lake Valley Health Department to divert, collect and safely dispose of household hazardous waste. Beginning in 1999 and for the foreseeable future, the Trans-Jordan Landfill will be used as a satellite site for household hazardous waste collection. The satellite operation was opened in an effort to increase collection efforts in the southern portion of the Salt Lake Valley. This satellite operation along with an increased number of day-events where the health department collects hazardous waste has increased the amount being collected year-over-year. REVENUES Landfill charges are slated to increase by $150,000 based on a projected 1% growth in tonnage being brought to the landfill and a modest increase in the Transfer Station fees. Landfill tipping fees will remain constant at $22.00 per ton for commercial loads, $22.00 for Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Corporation, $16.00 per ton for clean green waste and $8.00 per citizen load. Transfer station fees will be increased to $30.67 per ton for commercial loads and to $22.67 per ton for Salt Lake.County and Salt Lake City Corporation. Compost sales are projected to increase by $65,000 based on the continued strong demand for this product and an increase in tonnage of green waste coming to the facility. Interest income is budgeted to increase by $70,000 based on an increasing cash balance. The contribution to fund balance will decrease year-to-year by $466,049. The main factors driving this decrease are flat fees at the landfill, a decrease of $180,000 in vehicle sales proceeds and the "pass through" nature of the increased fees at the Transfer Station which in effect are forwarded to the East Carbon Development Corporation and will not be retained by the landfill. EXPENSES 11/6/02 2 The personal services budget is proposed to increase by $46,762. FTEs will stay flat at 71.40. Budget increases include $1,257 for insurance costs, a $34,344 increase for job reclassifications and seasonal employee pay increases and an $11,161 increase in pension /401K related expense. The final changes in the personal service cost of living adjustments will be determined by the County Council on December 10, 2002. The cost of the increase is not included in this budget request, but is estimated to be within $120,000 to $135,000. As in prior years the City Council will be notified of the adjustments once the final decisions are made. The fleet maintenance costs provided by the County are projected to decrease by $198,470. This decrease is based on prior year actuals. In addition, the cost of fleet fuel is projected to decrease by $70,000. The per gallon fuel expense being charged to the landfill during 2003 will be $.25 less than in 2002. The expensed cost to maintain buildings/equipment /grounds, HVAC and streets will decrease by $99,000 because more of these costs are being handled by other agencies within the Salt Lake County system. In turn the cost from intergovernmental and other professional fees will increase to cover these costs. It is anticipated that the cost to transport and dispose of solid waste from the Transfer Station to the East Carbon Development Corporation (ECDC) will increase by $320,000. This change reflects prices increases from ECDC and an expected volume increase of solid waste to be transported to ECDC. Landfill closure costs need to increase by $90,000. This increase will keep the post closure trust for the landfill in compliance with the latest EPA 5 year permit standards. The landfill is requesting $227,000 for improvements to the west wing of the administration building and for additional storage for office materials. In addition, the Facility is budgeted to spend $56,000 to install an asphalt pad at the compost area. The budget also includes a request for $2.184 million in capital equipment and includes items such as a motor grader, rolloff truck, three loaders, excavator, dozer, compactor, and transport truck. 11/6/02 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (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 2003, 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 2003, 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 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 2003 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 10, 2002 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 10, 2002, 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 2003, 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 2003, 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 Waste Management Council, for calendar year 2003, 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 , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G:\Ordinance 02\Adopting the Solid Waste Mgmt Facility Budget-Nov 4,2002.doc FY 2003 Initiatives in Landfill Budget Amendment - November FY 2002 FY 2003 Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Gen. Fund FTE Amount Impact Impact 1. SLVSWAIF (Landfill) $15,751,417 71.4 -0- Budget Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment FY 2003 (on Public Services calendar year) Department For Fiscal Year SLVSWMF(Landfill) Budget Landfill BA#3 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number House Keeping Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Interest 990,000 1,009,800 1,029,996 Landfill Fees 14,750,000 14,750,000 16,761,364 Compost Sales 340,000 350,200 360,706 Salvage Sales 180,000 185,400 190,962 Interfund Charges 105,000 108,150 111,395 Other Sources 260,000 267,800 275,834 Fund Balance -873,583 -808,976 551,287 Total $15,751,417 $15,862,374 $19,281,543 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 Various Landfill Expenditures 15,751,417 15,862,374 19,281,543 Total $15,751,417 $15,862,374 $19,281,543 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2,680,829 2,761,253 2,844,091 2. Employee Benefits 893,610 920,418 948,030 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 295,700 304,571 313,708 4. Charges and Services 9,414,379 9,696,810 13,487,715 5. Capital Outlay 2,466,900 2,179,321 1,687,999 6. Other(Specify) Total $15,751,417 $15,862,374 $19,281,543 Landfill BA#3 FY03 Initiative#1-Landfill Budget 2003 Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount County Employees-2003 71.40 n/a 3,574,438 County Employees-2004 71.40 n/a 3,681,671 County Employees-2005 71.40 n/a 3,792,121 Landfill BA#3 FY03 Initiative#1-Landfill Budget 2003 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. Issue Discussion: 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 2001 for calendar year 2002. SLVSWMF has submitted to Salt Lake its proposed budget for calendar year 2003 and is seeking approval from Salt Lake City. As in the past, revenue will match expense with a contribution being made to fund balance. Year- to-year, revenue and expense will increase by $591,059 after the contribution to fund balance of $873,583 has been factored in. The contribution to fund balance in calendar year 2003 is budgeted to be $466,049 less than in calendar year 2002. The major revenue and expense changes are as follows. Revenue, including a contribution to fund balance, is proposed to increase year-to-year by $591,000. This change is the result of decreased sale of vehicle revenue and generally low interest rates offset by marginal growth in landfill tonnage of 1%. Expenses are also proposed to increase by $591,000. Proposed increases in expense include $308,000 in capital, a $350,000 increase in contractual hauling costs and a $104,000 increase in other professional / regularory fees. Major decreases proposed in expense include a reduction in fleet fuel and maintenance of $256,470 and building / equipment/ streets maintenance of $110,000. It is recommended that the Council approve the SLVSWMF budget. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY Fees and Charges Landfill Compost Salvage Interfund Other Fund Funding Interest Fee Sales Sales Charges Sources Balance Total FY0001 Budget-Adopted 1,975,000 14,850,000 275,000 170,000 90,000 182,000 1,641,229 19,183,229 FY0102 Budget-Adopted 1,910,000 14,600,000 290,000 160,000 95,000 260,000 (2,443,807) 14,871,193 FY0102- Mid year adjustments (990,000) (15,000) 10,000 180,000 1,104,175 289,175 FY 0102 Budget-Amended 920,000 14,600,000 275,000 170,000 95,000 440,000 (1,339,632) 15,160,368 Significant Changes Cash balance increasing 70,000 70,000 Increased compost sales 65,000 65,000 Tonnage increase= 1%,takes into account increases in curbside recycling in SLC and SLCounty 150,000 150,000 Salvage sales 10,000 10,000 Health Department 10,000 10,000 Trade in value of heavy equipment less than anticipated + Miscellaneous Adjustments (180,000) (180,000) Fund Balance 466,049 466,049 Total Changes 70,000 150,000 65,000 10,000 10,000 (180,000) 466,049 591,049 FY0203 Budget 990,000 14,750,000 340,000 180,000 105,000 260,000 (873,583) 15,751,417 Personal Materials/ Charges/ Fund Budget History FTE Services Supplies Services Capital Balance Total FY 0001 Budget-Adopted 70.90 3,300,011 669,000 13,720,218 1,494,000 19,183,229 Technical Adjustments 62,061 36,750 (123,032) (24,221) FY 0001 Budget-As Amended 70.90 3,362,072 705,750 13,597,186 1,494,000 19,159,008 FY 0102 Budget-Adopted 71.40 3,402,305 762,200 8,547,788 2,158,900 14,871,193 Technical Adjustments 125,371 (525,000) 688,804 289,175 FY 0102 Budget-As Amended 71.40 3,527,676 237,200 9,236,592 2,158,900 15,160,368 Significant Changes Adjustment to Base 46,762 (2,158,900) (2,112,138) Janitorial Supplies 12,000 12,000 Computer supplies,software and components 23,800 23,800 Small Tools and Equipment 22,200 22,200 Fleet Fuel (70,000) (70,000) Fleet Maintenance (198,470) (198,470) Equipment, Building&Streets Maintenance (99,000) (99,000) Contract Hauling&Labor 320,000 320,000 Contract Labor 30,000 30,000 Landfill closure costs 90,000 90,000 Other Professional + Intergovernmental 104,000 104,000 West Wing-Admin Building&Storage Area 227,000 227,000 Asphalt Pad Installation at Compost Selling Area 56,000 56,000 Motor Grader 165,000 165,000 Rolloff Truck 65,000 Loader, qty 3 65,000 599,000 599,000 Tracked Excavator 184,000 184,000 D9N Dozer 554,500 554,500 836C Compactor 443,000 443,000 Transport Truck 85,000 85,000 Other Capital Projects and Equipment 88,400 88,400 Miscellaneous adjustments 500 1,257 1,757 Total Changes 46,762 58,500 177,787 308,000 591,049 FY0203 Budget 71.40 3,574,438 295,700 9,414,379 2,466,900 15,751,417 11/6/02 3:46 PM Landfill BA#3 FY03 Initiative#1-Landfill Budget 2003 budget sch SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY Bridge from County to City numbers FY0203 Budget Revenue Per County 16,625,000 Plus: net addition to fund balance (873,583) Per City 15,751,417 Expenses Per County 15,319,517 less: depreciation (2,035,000) add: capital 2,466,900 Per City 15,751,417 11/6/02 3:46 PM Landfill BA#3 FY03 Initiative#1-Landfill Budget 2003 budget sch " NOV 0 6 2002 RICHARD GRAHAM S 1 ® J C,moEdY GOR�P0:�°�At 4,04 ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR October 21, 2002 TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administration Offic171 SUBJECT: Outsourcing the City's Impound Lot Operation RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council support the Administration's recommendation to not outsource the Impound Lot operation, and instead, keep the operation in-house and fund it at full level for the remainder of the 2002/2003 budget year. FUNDING: The 2002/2003 budget only included three (3) months, or one quarter of funding for the Impound Lot operation, anticipating that the City would be successful in its efforts to outsource the operation to a viable and willing private operator. The one and only viable offer the City received required the City to pay the contractor approximately the same amount of money that the City would spend if it continued to operate the program in-house. Based on the City's recommendation to keep the program in-house, an additional $455,696 will need to be appropriated in expense budget, and $413,170 in revenue budget for fiscal year 2003. The majority, or$413,170 of the additional expense, will be covered by new revenue created by raising fees. The remainder, or $42,526, will be covered internally by the Public Services Department by delaying the purchase of Capital Outlay materials budgeted in the 2002/2003 operating budget. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: During the 2002/2003-budget process, the Administration proposed a plan to outsource the City's Impound Lot operation. The plan projected cost savings of$386,000 to the General Fund Budget and a continuation of the current level of service. The plan projected that operational changes would be made to the current program. The Administration felt that the local car towing market would be eager to take over the impound operation. It was assumed that the City would free itself of the impound lot's daily operation including the collection of towing, booting and storage fees. The City did expect to keep the sale of abandoned vehicles function, and the revenue associated with it, in addition to charging a nominal administrative fee to cover the City's cost of administering the contract. The Public Services Department, Contracts Division and Administrative Enforcement Division of Management Services, along with elements of the Police Department developed an RFP. The RFP contained two separate elements, a new outsourcing 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 148, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535.7775 FAX: B01-535-7789 ( aE «en v,.NFG initiative for management of the impound lot, and a new vehicle towing contract to replace the expiring five-year contract. Venders were given the options of bidding on either lot management or towing, or both. Early in the RFP development process it became evident that to conduct proper oversight of the process and to avoid conflict with State Law, the collection of fees would need to remain with the City. The RFP was advertised widely and nine companies responded to the advertisement. Three venders attended the pre-bid conference, and two responded to the RFP. One company responded to both elements (management and towing), and the other responded only to the towing element. The selection committee,with members from Management Services, Police Department and Department of Public Services, scrutinized the firms and recommended further analysis of the vender who responded to both program elements. This analysis, a due diligence process, included meetings with the management of the firm, the firm's CPA and the firm's insurance agent to explore the firms financial stability and ability to provide an acceptable level of service. The committee then reluctantly recommended contracting with the firm for outsourcing the entire operation. Upon receiving the recommendation of the RFP selection committee, the Public Services Department compared the cost of outsourcing the function against the historical cost the City spent operating the program. The comparison showed two things; that the cost to implement the outsourcing program, $527,520 for a contractor versus $537,921 for the City, was reasonably equal to the City cost; and that the 2002/2003 budget allocated to fund program was grossly understated. The outsourcing proposal showed that the savings projected by the department to the General Fund would not be realized. The outsourcing proposal revealed that the cost of towing had increased substantially from the cost set by contract five(5) years ago. The increased towing fees under the proposal reflect a doubling of insurance, an increase in fuel costs and an increase in labor costs. Attached to this briefing report is a cost comparison report that compares the cost of the outsourcing proposal to the current fiscal year budget and the projected cost to the City if the City retained the program. It also projects what the annual cost could be for fiscal year 2003/2004. The report shows that there is approximately$10,000 difference between the costs of outsourcing compared to the cost of City management. When the cost is compared to the current budget for the program, an under funded gap of approximately$455,000 exists for fiscal year 2002/2003. Regardless of which option the City chose to take, outsourcing vs. in-house, the funding gap would need to be closed. The majority of the funds required to close the gap will come from the raising of existing fees. The remainder will need to come from other General Fund resources. Having determined that the cost to outsource the program would be roughly equal to the City's cost, the department looked at quality of service issues. The outsourcing proposal submitted included an exception that the contractor would not keep the Impound Lot open 24 hours a day, like the City currently does. This represents a reduction in service that is a problem for the City. Not having an on-site presence beyond regular work hours opens the impound lot area to break-in and vandalism. Even through the storage area has security lights and surveillance cameras, they are not a complete deterrent. Not having an on-site presence renders them almost useless. Additionally, if vandalism and property damage occurs at the facility, it is likely that the City would be brought into the claim process even though the contractor would be responsible for the problem. The city could have demanded the 24-hour presence, but the cost would have been passed on to the City resulting in an increase in the management fee. Based on the results of the outsourcing process the Administration believes that the proposal received does not meet the principle objectives of cost reduction and continuation of current service. As a result, the Administration recommends that the proposal be rejected and that the operation of the current program remain in-house. Funding to cover the operation of the program beyond what is already budgeted would come from fee increases and delayed capital outlay purchases by the Public Services Department. No funding would come from the General Fund's fund balance, nor would the Department suffer operational impacts if the purchase of capital was delayed. A full cost analysis of current fees leads to the recommendation of raising the following fees: • Administration Fee $75.00 to $150.00 • Daily Storage Fee $10.00 to $15.00 • Base Towing Fee $30.00 to $40.00 Based on historical data, the fee increase will generate $413,170 in new revenue for this year. The last fee increase for this program was five (5) years ago. The Public Services Capital Outlay budget will delay the purchase of$42,526 of maintenance replacement tools and equipment. Overall, the Administration recommends that the fiscal year 2002/2003 expense budget for the Impound Lot be increased by$455,696 and the revenue budget be increased by $413,170. The difference of$42,526 would come from a reallocation of budget within the Public Services Department. STAFF CONTACT: Ron Love 535-6438 Nancy Sanders 535-7957 SUBMITTED BY: Rick Graham 535-7774 py Comparison of SLC Retaining Impound Lot Management to Cartow Managing Impound Lot FY0102 FY0203 FY0304 Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Assuming Assuming Assuming Assuming Assuming Actual Outsourcing Cartow SLC Retains Cartow SLC Retains Impound Fees $ 332,830 $ 119,991 $ 431,196 $ 431,196 $ 563,409 $ 563,409 Impound Fees - Overpay/Refund $ (4,541) $ (5,000) $ (4,620) $ (4,620) $ (4,620) $ (4,620) Booting Fees $ 2,635 $ 5,000 $ 2,860 $ 2,860 $ 2,635 $ 2,635 Booting Fees - Overpayment/Ref $ 220 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Narcotic Seizure/ Recovery Trust $ - $ - $ - $ 52,500 $ 52,500 Processing Fee - Special Event $ 135 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Sale of Vehicle $ 220,490 $ 183,000 $ 279,600 $ 279,600 $ 286,590 $ 286,590 Sale of Vehicles for Scrap $ 7,090 $ 4,864 $ 11,564 $ 11,564 $ 11,853 $ 11,853 Sundry Revenue $ 315 $ 395 $ 820 $ 820 $ 841 $ 841 Total Revenue $ 559,175 $ 308,250 $ 721,420 $ 721,420 $ 913,207 $ 913,207 Personal Service $ 328,817 $ 24,709 $ 151,635 $ 322,188 $ - $ 330,243 O&M $ 17,718 $ 4,471 $ 5,463 $ 17,392 $ - $ 17,827 Towing $ 122,098 $ 36,975 $ 146,856 $ 144,350 $ 178,350 $ 173,596 Impound Lot Mgt Fee $ 197,700 $ 405,285 Other Charges & Services $ 47,946 $ 16,070 $ 25,866 $ 53,991 $ 2,500 $ 55,341 Capital $ 206 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Total Expense $ 516,786 $ 82,225 $ 527,520 $ 537,921 $ 591,135 $ 582,007 Revenue - Expense $ 42,389 $ 226,025 $ 193,900 $ 183,499 $ 322,072 $ 331,201 Difference Budget vs Projected $ (32,125 $ (42,526 Expense Supporting Impound Lot Which Are Recorded in Other Cost Centers: $ 313,792 $ 313,792 $ 313,792 $ 321,637 $ 321,637 Revenue - All Expenses $ (87,767) $ (119,892) $ (130,293) $ 435 $ 9,564 10/21/2002 1:41 PM impound_lot_comparison rg requested sum . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: November 15, 2002 SUBJECT: Fiscal Years 2001-2002, 2002-2003 Biennial Budget Amendment #11 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears, Gary Mumford and Sylvia Jones Document Budget-Related Facts Policy-Related Miscellaneous TYPe Facts Facts Ordinance The proposed amendment includes The requested The ordinance is $29,370 from General Fund balance and amendment has presented to $1,625,000 from one-time General Fund issues related to amend the money. All other proposed amendments Grants, Public second year of relate to the CIP, Enterprise and Safety, CIP and the biennial Miscellaneous Grants Funds. donations to the budget. City. The briefing and discussion of the eleventh budget amendment of fiscal years 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003 is scheduled for November 19, 2002. At a future Council Meeting the Council may wish to set a date for a public hearing. 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: • "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.) As of the October 15, 2002 memo from the Administration, it is projected that this fiscal year's revenues could be down by $2,318,000. A portion of that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy. There are two aspects of the projected shortfall that are not subject to the economy, but are definite reductions to the City's revenue this fiscal year and in future fiscal years. The break down of those revenue sources follows ( a total of$586,500): • Liquor Law Funds ($221,500) • Motor Vehicle fees ($365,000) Page 1 The $2,318,000 also includes the Sales Tax going to UTA ($600,000). The Administration anticipates that this will be returned to the City this fiscal year, but there is no guarantee. The portion that is related to the economy is the retail sales tax. The projected shortfall is $1,131,500. Given this information, the City Council could elect to: 1. Wait until later in the year to determine whether the economy picks up enough to increase revenue to cover not only the projected shortfall related to the Retail Sales Tax receipts which is directly related to the economy, but also the shortfall related to the Liquor Law funds, Motor Vehicle fees which are not related to the economy and possibly the Sales Tax going to UTA. In taking this approach the Council would need to recognize that the later in the fiscal year cuts are made, the more significant the cuts would need to be. The Administration is confident that the Sales Tax that is going to UTA will be received this fiscal year. 2. Wait until later in the year to determine whether there is still a projected shortfall in the area that relates to the economy, but identify cuts now or in January to address the shortfall areas that are not related to the economy. 3. Ask the Administration whether they would be willing to provide a list of recommended cuts in relation to the revenue sources listed in either option 1 or 2 above, and brief the Council in January after the Administration has the benefit of an additional quarter of revenue data. 4. Direct staff to begin to identify options now for revenue expense reduction and / or revenue enhancement with the intention of considering the options in January. 5. Other. It should be noted that there are proposals within this budget opening that are projected to increase the general fund. If the Council elects to support these approaches and they do indeed increase revenue, the shortfall projected would be reduced. (For example a one-time infusion of cash from the risk fund, and revenue from ticket processing.) MATTERS AT ISSUE Issue *1: Impact Fee Exemptions ($29,370 - General Fund) ("Housekeeping") The City has exempted three entities from paying impact fees on their development projects. Under the City's Impact Fee ordinance the City's General Fund is responsible for the payment of impact fees for exempted projects. Traditionally, funding has come from fund balance. The total so far this year is $29,370. The City Council may wish to delay action on this request until the last budget opening of the year to allow the Administration the opportunity to include all impact fee exempt projects into one budget request. The Council may wish to request that the City Attorney review the State Statute relating to impact fees to determine whether an exemption was recently made for low income housing, as has been reported by housing advocates. Page 2 The City Council received a briefing, formed a subcommittee and held a public hearing on proposed revisions to the Impact Fee ordinance. The hearing was continued indefinitely. The proposed revisions would not affect these three impact fee exemptions. Future exemptions would not be granted if the revised Impact Fee ordinance were adopted. The Council may wish to schedule another hearing on the Impact Fee ordinance revisions and decide whether or not automatic impact fee exemptions will be granted. Issue #2: RDA Funds for 500 West($900,000 - CIP Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $900,000 in Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake (RDA) funds for use on the ongoing 500 West street reconstruction project between 200 and 400 South. The RDA will reimburse cost centers associated with the project for past expenditures and future expenditures that will be incurred. The $900,000 appropriation will be split into two cost centers, $439,502 into the Class C cost center and $4,460,498 into the Gateway Savings cost center. Funds in the Class C cost center can be transferred into the Class C Contingency fund for later use on a Class C eligible project. The Gateway Savings cost center will also have excess and the excess amount of $460,498 will be transferred into the Capital Improvement Program Contingency cost center for later use on a capital project. Issue #3: Risk Subrogation Funds Transfer to the General Fund ($423,000 - General Fund) The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate excess subrogation funds to General Fund Balance. The subrogation account in the Insurance and Risk Management Fund has $423,000 in excess revenue that can be used as a revenue source for the General Fund. Revenue for the subrogation consists of reimbursements to the City for workers compensation expenditures. The subrogation fund revenue was used to provide occupational hazard training. Training needs have lessoned and excess funds are available for appropriation. The Administration recommends that the excess subrogation funds be transferred into the General Fund to help fund the projected General Fund revenue shortfall. If it were not for the revenue shortfall, these funds could be accumulated within the Insurance and Risk Management Fund for other purposes such as to begin to fund the liability for retirement payouts. This $423,000 would be considered a one-time infusion in to the general fund, as the funding will not be available in future years. Issue #4: Department of Justice (COPS) Grant, Communications Upgrade ($640,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a grant from the Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The grant funds are to be used to purchase four additional Quantar Repeaters, operating equipment, a one-year maintenance agreement and installation costs for the purpose of upgrading the Police Department's communication equipment. A complete listing of the intended uses of this grant is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. Page 3 The City currently operates its communications system through Salt Lake County's Zone Controller. The County is negotiating merging their communication system with the Utah Communication Agency Network (UCAN). If this occurs, the City will be forced to purchase a Zone Controller or merge with another agency. By upgrading the City's system now, the City can more easily negotiate collaborative use with other agencies as well as with UCAN in the future. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for communication upgrade. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Issue #5: American Architectural Foundation Grant - Sugar House Handbook ($3,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ('"Grant requiring existing staff focus's The Salt Lake City Planning Department applied for and received a grant from the American Architectural Foundation. The grant funds are to be used in conjunction with Community Development Block Grant Funds, and National Trust for Historic Preservation funds to develop, produce and print a Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook relating to Historic Preservation. The combined grant funds will also provide for the development and production of a small area plan to review and study transportation and parking needs, street modifications and streetscape of the Sugar House Business District. By combining the grants, the City can experience a cost savings by addressing two issues in the Sugar House Master Plan within one RFP. A complete listing of the intended uses of this grant is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for Sugar House handbook. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Issue #6: National Endowment for the Arts Grant ($86,250 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Planning Division applied for and received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The grant funds are to be used in conjunction with a private donation to create and solicit a design competition for a pedestrian crossing on 1300 East which links Sugar House Park and Hidden Hollow. A complete listing of the intended uses of this grant is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. Page 4 This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for design competition costs. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Issue #7: Local law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) ($273,181 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a continuation of a Local law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) for fiscal year 2002-2003. Grant funds are proposed to be used in the following areas: Officer overtime, police equipment, drug court, peer court, civilian and police training, the McGruff program, Restorative Justice Programs, and Officer Peer Support training. The receipt of this grant allows the Police Department to continue the same budget level of service as last fiscal year. The required match amount of $30,353 was budgeted for within the Police Department's budget. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for operating and maintenance supply, contractual services and overtime only. Additional information is provided in a separate staff report on the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant for a separate briefing. Issue #8 Department of Justice Grant -Early Intervention Systems ($125,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a grant from the Department of Justice, Office Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The grant funds are to be used for travel and purchase of a comprehensive Early Intervention Computerized System. The computer system will identify and track precursors to police office problem behaviors. Identification of these precursors will allow intervention to occur before the behaviors become police misconduct. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Grant funding is paying for travel and computer operating equipment. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Page 5 Issue #9: Department of Justice (COPS) Grant - Methamphetamine Program ($295,103 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a grant from the Department of Justice, Office Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The grant funds are to be used to purchase equipment necessary to detect narcotics or explosives, police equipment, pay registration for officers and other support personnel to attend the Drug Endangered Conference, travel and other contractual components. A complete listing of the intended uses of this grant is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. This grant is a supplemental grant that was awarded because of the City's status as and original "Pilot Site" for the Methamphetamine Initiative Program and allows the Police Department to expand the current Methamphetamine Initiative Program. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution was previously adopted that, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for equipment, registration fees, travel, contractual expenses and overtime. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Issue #10: You Film - IRC - Department of Health 8s Human Services Grant ($2,000 -Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus') The Salt Lake City Mayor's Office applied for and received a grant from the International Rescue Committee. This is a pass through grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services. The grant funds are to be used to contract with Spy Hop productions to assist with producing a short video about ten refugee students who attend Highland High. The video will be used as an educational tool in the Salt Lake City School District and neighboring districts. This grant does not have a new resolution for the Council to sign. A resolution for grant funds from the US Department of Health and Human Services was previously adopted that, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the budget appropriation. The Council may wish to ask for clarification on whether this grant is directly related to the grant for which the original resolution was adopted. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for the production of an educational video. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Page 6 Issue #11: Hansen Faintly Trust/Estate - Fire Training and Safety Equipment ($100,000 -Misc. Grant Fund)("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Fire Department as a beneficiary of the Hansen Family Trust/Estate of Harry and Myrtle Hansen has received a disbursement to be used for fire fighting safety and training purposes. Possible equipment purchases include T- pass 3 system (automatic locating system), heat sensing cameras, hoses, protective clothing, etc. The Fire Department plans to use $30,000 of the funds to act as the local match for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Fire Grant. The FEMA grant also supplies fire safety equipment and training. This donation does not have a resolution for the Council to sign. The only needed Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of this donation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this donation and approve the appropriation request. Issue #12: FEMA - Operations & Fire Safety Grant ($72,709 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Fire Department applied for and received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The grant funds are to be used for the purchase of Fire Department safety equipment. The department will purchase 120 Evacuate PASS Devices and 2 LCD Receiver Units. Purchase of these devices will allow for the location of a lost or downed fire fighter. The grant requires a local match of $30,000. The local match will be met with funds received from the Hansen Family Trust. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the grant is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant and the grant funding is paying for safety equipment. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this grant. Issue #13: Emergency Medical Services Grant ($98,250 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The City has received a continuation of a grant from the Utah State, Bureau of Emergency Management Services. Funds from this grant are used for equipment, medical supplies and training. This grant requires a local match that is met with expenditures within the Fire Department's General Fund budget. 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. Page 7 The number of FTE's will not increase as a result of this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #14: Hansen Family Trust/Estate - West Point Leadership Program ($67,180-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff focus") The Salt Lake City Police Department as a beneficiary of the Hansen Family Trust/Estate of Harry and Myrtle Hansen has received a disbursement to be used for "insuring individual safety of its officers by purchasing safety equipment and training". The Police Department is proposing that the department participate in the West Point Leadership Program. The transmittal from the Administration contains a detailed explanation of the West Point program. The Police Department received $100,000 but is asking for a revenue and expenditure budget of$67,180. The remaining $32,820 budget appropriation will be requested at a later date when a suitable use is identified. This donation does not have a resolution for the Council to sign. The only needed Council action is the adoption of the budget to allow for the facilitation of this donation. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this donation and approve the appropriation request. Issue #15: FEMA - Hazard Mitigation Grant ($20,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant providing additional staff resources") The City has received a grant from the State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM). The grant is awarded to the City to defray the costs associated with the Emergency Manager's position, as has been the case in prior years. 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. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt the budget to allow for the facilitation of this grant. Issue #16: One-Time Money($1,625,000 - General Fund) ("New Item") The City has $1,626,290 remaining in available one-time money. The money is currently budgeted within of the General Fund Balance. At the Council's work session on Oct. 17, 2002, the Council tentatively indicated that it may be willing to appropriate $1,625,000 as follows: $800,000 to the Housing Trust Fund, $700,000 to the Neighborhood Legacy Project ($100,000 to each of the seven Council districts to construct a project of the neighborhood's choosing), $75,000 to construct a Police memorial and $50,000 to be paid to The Leonardo trust fund to assist with the Page 8 hosting of cultural events celebrating the successful hosting of the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Council may wish to clarify any intended restrictions, matches or desired outcomes associated with the trust fund that The Leonardo would create. Issue #17: Jordan River Parkway Rail Crossing ($30,000 — CIP Fund) ("New Item") Salt Lake City, through a contract with the Utah Department of Transportation, is constructing a segment of the Jordan River Parkway Trail. The trail crosses a railroad spur at approximately 1800 South 1100 West. UDOT requires fencing, warning signs, pedestrian and bicycle gates and other improvements for the at-grade crossing. The appropriated funds for the Jordan River Parkway Trail improvements in that area have been used. It is necessary to use CIP Contingency funds to cover the costs for these additional improvements. $30,000 is being requested, and any unexpended portion will be returned to CIP contingency once the project is finished. A complete listing of the intended uses of these funds is contained in the transmittal from the Administration. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution, when adopted by the Council, authorizes the Mayor to sign an interlocal agreement with the Utah Department of Transportation and sign any additional contracts or awards related to this project. The Council action necessary for the facilitation of the project is the adoption of the resolution and budget appropriation. No additional FTE's are associated with this project and the CIP funding is paying for the parkway improvements. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the receipt and disbursement of this money. Issue #18: State Infractions and Misdemeanor Services ($21,855 — General Fund) rNew Item") Salt Lake City has the option to assume the responsibility of prosecuting infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors for the County District Attorney (DA). These cases, including Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) traffic cases, are currently filed in the City's Justice Court, but are prosecuted by the DA. As a result of this joint process, the County and Salt Lake City split the fines and forfeitures. If the City decides to prosecute these cases, it would retain all of the fines and forfeitures, rather than splitting the revenue with the County. Assuming the City prosecutes these cases, the anticipated annual net revenue is $255,000. The Council may wish to note that the estimated annual net revenue is based on year 2000 data from the state. The City only has data history for a two- month period. City data indicates a lower case load. The Council may wish to delay this change until the end of the fiscal year. Page 9 If implemented by January 1, 2003, net revenue of approximately $109,000 could be expected for the current fiscal year. If the Council elects to support this proposal, they may wish to ask whether an implementation date of January 1, 2003 is realistic. To support this change, the Administration is recommending the addition of three new positions in the Prosecutor's Office (two prosecutors and one clerk), a hearing officer for the Justice Court, and Legal Defense support totaling $270,000 in expenses annually. The Administration asserts that regardless of the Council's decision, an additional Justice Court hearing officer is needed for the increased amount of UHP cases requiring a hearing. Refer to the Administration's transmittal for additional details. The Administration recommends that the City should assume the responsibility of prosecuting state infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors that are currently prosecuted by the County. The Council may wish to receive assurance from the Administration that the additional revenue projections are reliable and obtain an understanding of why the County is willing to give up this excess revenue. The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration that an agreement is not necessary to terminate the County's interest in prosecuting these cases. Issue #19: Water: Carryover / Replacement Water Lines ($3,421,877 - Water Enterprise Fund)("New Item") The Public Utilities Department is recommending that $3,421,877 be appropriated for expenses and capital improvements in the Water Enterprise Fund. Uses will include $2,956,761 for water carryover projects, and a $465,116 budget adjustment for the construction of replacement water lines on South Temple - State Street to Virginia Street and 6400 South from Highland to 1500 East. The water carryover projects are the unexpended portions of projects that were appropriated during the last budget cycle and are currently under construction. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Issue #20: Sewer; Carryover / New Projects ($3,418,457 - Sewer Enterprise Fund) ("New Item') The Public Utilities Department is recommending that $3,418,457 be appropriated for expenses and capital improvements in the Sewer Enterprise Fund. Uses will include $2,828,784 for water carryover projects, and a $589,673 budget adjustment for the construction of replacement sewer lines on 2100 South from 1480 to 1700 East, 2100 South from 2300 to 2600 East, and additional projects associated with South Temple Construction project on M Street, L Street and Virginia. The sewer carryover projects are the unexpended portions of projects that were appropriated during the last budget cycle and are currently under construction. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Page 10 Issue #21: Stormwater: Carryover / Replacement Stormwater Lines ($1,300,111 - Stormwater Enterprise Fund) rNew Item") The Public Utilities Department is recommending that $1,300,111 be appropriated for expenses and capital improvements in the Stormwater Enterprise Fund. Uses will include $1,238,219 for stormwater carryover projects, and a $61,892 budget adjustment for the construction of replacement stormwater lines on East Liberty Park Phase II and line replacement on 1700 South and 500 West to the Jordan River. The stormwater carryover projects are the unexpended portions of projects that were appropriated during the last budget cycle and are currently under construction. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Issue #22: Airport Operating and Capital Budget Amendment ($9,671,000 - Airport Enterprise Fund)rNew Item") The Transportation Security Administration has requested that the Airport provide law enforcement personnel on a reimbursement basis at terminal screening areas. Under new regulations, the Transportation Security Administration is responsible for having a law enforcement officer at each screening area. Airport police have been providing the services using overtime reimbursed by the Transportation Security Administration. The Airport is requesting authorization for 11 FTEs at a cost of $311,400 to be reimbursed by the Transportation Security Administration. The Council may wish to ask representatives of the Department of Airports for more information regarding the contract such as the length of the contract and the likelihood of being requested to provide this service for many years. The Airport is requesting appropriation of $307,500 of Airport reserves for the following terminal and airfield maintenance items that were not previously anticipated. Airfield painting modifications $68,000 Hanger demolition / pavement $55,000 Parking Lot 3 modifications $48,000 Runway friction $76,500 Radio Transmit Relay site paving $30,000 Recycle bins in the concourses $30,000 The Council may wish to ask representatives of the Department of Airports for explanations or more descriptions regarding some of the above maintenance projects. The Council may also wish to inquire about the amount of reserves currently available in the Airport Fund. A snow blower budgeted in fiscal year 2001-02 was not received before the end of the fiscal year due to the time it takes after ordering for the equipment to be manufactured and delivered. The Department of Airports is requesting a carryover appropriation of$309,000 to pay for the snow blower. Each year the Airport also requests timing adjustments to the budgets of on-going capital projects. Capital projects are fully budgeted when first approved to give the Airport authorization to enter into contracts. However, only the amount of actual Page 11 completed work is recorded as capital outlay. The budget doesn't automatically carryover past the end of a fiscal year. The Department of Airports calculates and estimates the actual amount of expenditures and requests decreases to budgets for the estimated unexpended amount. The budget for some projects needs to be increased because the adjustment made during previous budget amendments was not reduced enough or was reduced too much based on actual construction completed. There are also some adjustments requested because of projected project overruns or because projects were completed•under budget. The total adjustment requested for ongoing projects is a decrease of $7,163,300. (See the attached schedule from the Department of Airports.) The Department of Airports has historically requested a budget amendment at this time of year for some new capital projects in order to benefit from more favorable bidding during winter months and to take advantage of the full construction season beginning in the early spring. The Department is requesting an appropriation of $2,999,400 for the following proposed projects: • Car rental counter space expansion from 6 to 10 agencies (This expansion will increase convenience for passengers who are currently bussed off site to rent cars from these agencies. Cost will be reimbursed by the agencies through rents.) $ 417,000 • Security cameras, motion sensors, security stations (Walls in the control center will also be reconfigured to expand the area for digital recording equipment. Funding is proposed from passenger facility charge [PFC]revenue) $ 725,400 • Security gate modifications, inspection area, guardhouse (Project includes asphalt paving,fence relocation,hardware, software, and modifications to electrical/communications systems. Funding is proposed to be from PFC revenue) $ 250,900 • Queuing modifications in Terminal 2 (Project includes relocating flight information displays and replacing oversized doors with smaller doors to create additional space. Funding is proposed to come from PFC revenue.) $ 134,300 • Tooele —Apron/taxi lane expansion for future hangars (Hangars will be relocated as part of an instrument landing system installation in 2003. Funding is from Airport Improvement Program [AIP] federal funds with PFC for the match portion.) $ 213,100 • Airport II — Runway overlay (The runway surface is in poor condition. Resurfacing will extend the pavement's life. Funding will be provided by AIP federal funds with PFC as match.) $1,258,700 The Council may wish to ask Department representatives for additional explanations regarding some of the above proposed projects. The budget for the development program (new terminal and concourses) is proposed to increase by $12,907,000 for the following: • Mid-concourse pedestrian/utility tunnel (To increase the budget for this project to $17,597,000. After the new terminal is constructed, the proposed tunnel will be one of two tunnels connecting the north and south concourses. This tunnel will not have Page 12 a people-mover train. The immediate need for this tunnel is to provide a regional jet concourse for SkyWest. Council staff understands that Delta approval is required before construction will commence.) $7,607,000 • Terminal access road (First phase of a$60 million project to reconfigure the access road to serve the future terminal location. The first phase is for an engineered fill, drainage, and three bridges. Council staffs understanding is that Delta will need to endorse the project before construction commences). $5,300,000 The Council may wish to receive the briefing on the development program prior to approving the above two projects. The Council may wish to make appropriations for these projects contingent upon endorsement and commitment by the airlines. On September 25, 2002, this amendment request was reviewed by the members of the Airport Affairs Committee, which is a committee of representatives of the airlines. On October 16, 2002, the Airport Board approved this budget request to be forwarded to the City Council. Issue #23: E911 Carpet and Furniture ($13,000 -E911 Fund) rNew Item") The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposing that the Council appropriate $13,000 of E911 funds for the purchase of new chairs and carpet replacement in the E911 service area. There is approximately $3 million of fund balance available in the E911 Fund. This fund balance is restricted for the replacement of equipment or other expenses relating to answering emergency telephone calls. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Issue #24: E911 Hiring Process ($10,000 -E911 Fund) ("New Item") The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposing that the Council appropriate $10,000 of E911 funds for the purchase of a hiring program to streamline the call taker hiring process. The purchase of the hiring program will eliminate the need for overtime to test potential call makers. There is sufficient E911 Fund Balance available for this request. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Issue #25: E911 Logging Recorder($130,000 -E911 Fund) ("New item") The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposing that the Council appropriate $130,000 of E911 funds for the purchase of a new telephone call-logging recorder. The new recorder would replace the current, outdated recorder. The new recorder will have additional necessary capacity. There is sufficient E911 Fund Balance available for this request. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Page 13 Issue #26: E911 Center Backup Power System ($400,000 - E911/General Fund) ("New item") The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposing that the Council appropriate $400,000 of E911 funds for the purchase of a new backup power system for the 911 Communications Center. The total cost of the backup power system for the Public Services building will be less than $500,000. The remaining $100,000 will come from deferred maintenance funds in the Public Services Budget. There are sufficient E911 Fund Balance and Public Services maintenance funds available for this request. The Administration recommends that the Council approve the appropriation request. Issue #27: Impound Lot -Retain Management ($413,170 - General Fund) ("New item") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate $413,170 in General Fund revenue (from Impound Lot fees and vehicle sales) and $455,696 in General Fund expenditures (for Impound Lot staffing and operation) for the continued management and operation of the City's Impound Lot. The difference between the revenue and expense budget ($42,526) will be absorbed within the Public Services' existing budget. The City issued a Request for Proposals (FRP) to outsource the Impound Lot operations. The RFP resulted in no saving opportunities and as such the Administration is recommending that the City continue to operate the Impound Lot with the current employees and management that is in place currently. The transmittal from the Administration contains additional information and explanation. Some of the projected revenue is contingent upon the increase of impound fees. The Administration recommends increasing the administrative fee at the Impound Lot from $75 to $150 and to increase the daily storage fee from $10 to $15. Associated ordinances necessary for the fee increase will be provided to the Council. If the Council desires, the public hearing necessary for the fee increase can be scheduled on the same date as the public hearing for Budget Amendment #11. The Administration forecasts that another fee increase will be necessary in 2005 before the Impound Lot will be able to self-supporting. The current staffing document will increase by 5 full-time FTEs and 1.83 seasonal FTEs to restore positions that were in place as of fiscal year 2001-2002. The amendment requests additional seasonal positions equal to 0.46 full-time equivalent positions. The Administration is planning to cover the $42,526 difference in this year's costs for this program through reducing or delaying capital projects within the Public Services Department budget. The Council may wish to request information on this. Page 14 The Administration recommends the fee increases and the adoption of the necessary ordinances relating to the fee increase in addition to the appropriation of the recommended budget necessary to continue the Impound Lot operations. Issue #28: Recycling - Multi and Single Family ($209,079 -Refuse Fund) ("New item") The Administration is requesting that the Council appropriate $23,400 in multi-family fees and $185,679 in Refuse Fund balance for the implementation of an automated curbside multi-family recycling program. The City does not currently provide curbside recycling for multi-family units and will need to purchase cans in order to commence with the multi-family recycling program. Participation in the single-family recycling program is higher than anticipated for fiscal year 2002-2003. The current projections for participation in the single family recycling are 33,000 households by the end of fiscal year 2002-2003. The Administration recommends that the Council approve funding for an automated curbside multi-family recycling program and approve the funding to support the increased participation of single-family households. The Council should note that this program will be funded from Refuse Fund balance. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Luann Clark, Chief Dinse,Mac Connole,Jerry Burton, Chris Dunn,Gordon Hoskins,Mary Beth Thompson,Randy Hillier,Krista Dunn, Dan Mule,Rick Graham, Max Peterson, Melissa Anderson, Shannon Ashby,DJ Baxter, Chief Querry,John Vuyk,Sherrie Collins,Mary Johnston,Laurie Dillon,Susi Kontgis,and Kay Christensen Page 15 NOV 0 6 2002 ROCKY J. FLU HART SALT'LAKE OI Y CORPORATION: ROSS G. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: October 29, 2002 FROM: Gordon Hoskins, Finance Director RE: Written briefing concerning the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) awarded to the Salt Lake City Police Department from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. STAFF CONTACT: Krista Dunn, 535-3265 DOCUMENT TYPE: Written Briefing/Announcements BUDGET IMPACT: $273,181 of Department of Justice (Grant) Revenue DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Police Department is eligible to receive and has been allocated $273,181.00 of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds from the US Department of Justice. This is a formula grant based on the number of Part 1 Crimes committed within Salt Lake City's jurisdiction. The SLCPD proposes to allocate funds in the following categories: $116,000 for contractual purposes that include Salt Lake City School District McGruff and Peer Court Programs, County Criminal Justice Services Drug Court and Restorative Justice Programs and Officer Peer Support Trainers; $28,000 for Training/Travel; $30,000 for Officer Over-time; $128,534 for Equipment; and$1,000 for Supplies The $30,353 required match, budgeted for within the PD's general fund budget, is included in the proposed project budgets for a total programming budget of$303,534. Attached for review is the project narrative and dollar amount for each project proposed for funding, an overall explanation that includes match requirements and eligible project criteria, and information pertaining to the Advisory Board review/recommendations and Public Hearing held September 30, 2002. The $273,181 of LLEBG funding is slated to be included in the December budget opening. This information is being transmitted to the Council for their advanced review and consideration before the scheduled budget opening. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 248, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7676 FAX: 801-535-7682 ®RecYcco PnPew L , 2002 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTRACTUAL Salt Lake City School District, McGruff Program -$15,000 The McGruff Crime Dog program has been in existence for many years. This program takes McGruff out into the community via neighborhoods and schools to teach children basic concepts about personal safety and laws. This has been a very visible and popular program with the citizens, and especially with children. McGruff has been an ongoing recipient of these funds for the past five years. The Salt Lake City School District is responsible for establishing and maintaining a database of the 215 "Safe Houses, Businesses, and Trucks". All participants in the Safe House, etc. programs must have background checks, and make contact with the administering agency at least every six months. This allows the school district to update the database when people or businesses move out of a listed location and to keep the PD abreast of these changes. Further, the school district schedules community, neighborhood, and school events for McGruff to be present and share information. This Program works closely with the PD's COP program to staff these events in 15 different schools and approximately 10 neighborhoods each year. Salt Lake City School District, Peer Court- $20,000 The Peer Court program is designed to intercede with juvenile offenders before they become serious habitual offenders. The project assigns non-violent first- or second-time offenders to peers who act as mentors and assign them restitution. The program pays a percentage of one staff person to oversee the youth members of the Peer Court. The Peer Court works much like a regular court in that the court has all of the staff(bailiff, recorder,prosecutors and lawyers, and judges) except that several judges review and decide the case. The judges do not decide if the defendant is guilty, as he must admit guilt before being brought to Peer Court,but decides the restitution and the program that the defendant will become involved in. This program has a great reputation, and has data that shows that the program is effective in deterring youth from further criminal behavior. The peer court's 100 volunteers decide approximately 300 cases per year, and those volunteers contribute approximately 8 hours to the program each week. Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services, Drug Court- $50,000 This is an ongoing program that the PD has participated in since 1993. It is also a requirement of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. Each year the PD participates through a $50,000 earmark that provides for enhanced administration of the Drug Court Project. Approximately 70% of the Drug Court's clientele are SLC residents. This is a continued contractual component with The Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services Division that will fund a percentage of salary and benefit expenses of the Program Manager, Program Coordinator, Therapist, three (3) Case Manger Positions and a Program Analyst. Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services, Restorative Justice Programs - $15,000 The national trend in criminal justice is creating restorative justice programs that work with offenders to deter future crime through education, restitution, and in some cases, treatment. The PD is working closely with the prosecutor's office and the courts to provide therapeutic jurisprudence for the purpose of preventing recidivism. Last year, the City contracted with the Criminal Justice Services Division for the following programs and proposes to continue those programs with this year's allocation. Those programs include: Passages -will manage the cases of 25 early offenders providing guidance and education, and requiring restitution from individuals; Mental Health Court- will work closely with the PD's nationally recognized Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT) to provide case management to 20 offenders with mental illness; and Prostitution Outreach -will target 10 young female prostitutes and track them through education, substance abuse treatment, and occupational guidance so that they have an avenue for leaving prostitution. Each of the three programs will receive a percentage of the total $15,000 for the purpose of paying a case manager or court worker to manage the cases within each program. Officer Peer Support Program- $16,000 Law Enforcement is an occupation with incredible levels of stress. Officers are involved in cases every day that most people never have to witness or be involved with. This program trains officers to act as peer counselors, and offers support groups and counseling. It also offers support groups for the spouses and children of officers. The $25,000 will be used as follows: Overtime for peer counselors: $8,000; Supplies: $1,000; Training/Trainers (contractual): $16,000. TRAINING/TRAVEL Crisis Intervention Team Recertification Training-$5,000 The Crisis Intervention Team was implemented in 2000 to train officers to work more effectively with citizens exhibiting mental illness. In partnership with local hospitals, mental health agencies, and the Utah State Division of Mental Health, the certification program was developed. Officers certify as Crisis Intervention Team members. The program has been exceptionally successful, and was praised by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) in a recent award banquet. The creators of the program have received awards for their efforts from the Rotary Club, and the program has been mentioned in state and national publications. 4 In order for officers to retain their certification status, there must be a process to recertify and update the officers' skills and training. This funding will be used to design and implement a recertification program within the department, providing printed materials, speakers/trainers, and certificates. It is anticipated that all SLC officers trained in 2000 and 2001 will be recertified during this funding year. The "Communicator" or Reverse 9-1-1 System Training/Licensing—$8,000 Reverse 9-1-1 allows the City to notify citizens and businesses in the event of an emergency or an urgent situation. The system is programmed to call all residents and businesses in geographic areas, with an automated message, in a short period of time. An example of how this system works is when a child is missing or abducted. With this system, a call could go out immediately to every home and business in a specified geographic area to alert citizens or businesses to be on the lookout for the child or any suspected persons. This system already exists in the police department, but all of the officers who were trained to use the system have been transferred to other assignments. The proposed allocation for this project will provide training for officers and civilians assigned to this project, and will provide the required licensure for the system. Two to four officers and civilian personnel will attend a training academy and will return to the department to train other personnel on the operation and best uses of the program. Civilian Training- $15,000 The SLCPD annually budgets for the initial training and the ongoing training of sworn law enforcement officers. This cost is budgeted for within the PD's general fund budget,but does not include the training of non-sworn employees. The PD's civilian employees are responsible for operation and maintenance of high-tech equipment, as well as for operations of programs that require regular training. Currently, there is no funding available for training civilian employees. This grant has allocated $15,000 for this purpose since 1999. It is proposed that $15,000 be allocated from the current LLEBG for this purpose OFFICER OVER TIME Community Policing Overtime—$22,000 The Police Department has a budget for overtime that is overextended every year. This overtime is generally used for high priority calls and special events sponsored by the city. The purpose of this project is to make an effort to assist citizens and local businesses that report lower priority, nuisance issues in their neighborhoods, and have them assigned to officers to handle on a more immediate basis. These cases include issues referred by the CAT's, Mobile Neighborhood Watch, local businesses and citizens that involve nuisances, traffic problem,parking, drug houses,juvenile problems, etc. An example of an issue that might be assigned to this program is Pedestrian Traffic Enforcement. In this case, officers would be assigned at targeted crosswalks to enforce traffic laws. Another example is when the PD receives several complaints of speeding in a specific neighborhood. That neighborhood could be targeted for traffic enforcement during the hours that appear to be the most troublesome. This procedure has been tested and found highly successful, in neighborhoods and cities across the country, in abating nuisances and building confidence in law enforcement by local citizens. Officer Peer Support Program - $8,000 Law Enforcement is an occupation with incredible levels of stress. Officers are involved in cases every day that most people never have to witness or be involved with. This program trains officers to act as peer counselors, and offers support groups and counseling. It also offers support groups for the spouses and children of officers. The $25,000 will be used as follows: Overtime for peer counselors: $8,000; Supplies: $1,000; Training/Trainers (contractual): $16,000. EQUIPMENT SWAT/VICE Surveillance Equipment- $10,000 Surveillance Equipment in the SWAT/VICE department is antiquated and must be replaced for the safety of the officers and victims, as well as the success of producing evidence to prosecute cases. Without good evidence, many cases are thrown out of court, or never make it to court. The funding will purchase video and audio surveillance equipment. Crime Prevention /Mini Remote Police Car—8,000 Officers conduct community educational programs throughout the year in neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc. The mini car is a fun, interesting way for citizens, especially children to learn about crime prevention,personal safety, and law enforcement. The PD has had a mini car for many years, and it is no longer in working order. It has survived through many repairs, but the cost is now more to repair than to replace. The new model has many more capabilities than the old one, and at $8,000, is 25% less than the one originally purchased. Internal Affairs Interview Room Audio/Visual Equipment- $6,000 Currently the PD has no place to interview officers being investigated by the Internal Affairs Division. The only interview rooms that operate in the PSB are in the detective division. This poses a problem in that the officer being investigated has the right to confidentiality, which is impossible when the interview conducted by Internal Affairs investigators is in a division of the department that is very visible to other employees. For this reason, it is imperative to equip an interview room with audio and visual equipment, and make the necessary improvements to the room for conducting confidential interviews and retaining the information necessary. Community Policing and PSB Office Furniture/Equipment-$22,534 This project will address the need to replace broken and worn out furniture and office equipment in some of the PD's community substations, and offices within the PSB. These upgrades are above and beyond any Capital Improvements that have been funded by the department, and would be seen as lower priority because we can"do the job"without the replacement. However, it is important to have a professional look when dealing with the public, and to have equipment that operates safely and adequately when dealing with the public. The funds will be used to purchase furniture and lower cost office equipment. LED Emergency Vehicle Lighting- $25,000 Last year a SLCPD officer was killed in the line of duty when he stopped to assist motorists on the freeway who were involved in a minor accident. Because he was in an unmarked vehicle, the car was difficult for motorists to see. Consequently, his car was hit at freeway speed, and he died instantly. It is imperative that the City provides the safest work environment possible for it's officers. Because the City's sergeants, detectives, and high-ranking officers operate unmarked vehicles, they are at greater risk of being injured or killed. This project will provide $25,000 in emergency lighting for unmarked vehicles. Funding will provide lighting for sergeants and detectives, who are more likely to respond and therefore be more vulnerable. Other funding sources will be sought to obtain lighting for all unmarked vehicles in the future. Officer Safety Equipment- $42,000 The SLCPD has set a goal to have every officer in a ballistic helmet by the end of 2003. This project will allow the PD to purchase the remaining helmets ($42,000) needed to outfit all patrol, detectives, sergeants, watch commanders and SWAT officers by that date. This leaves only high-ranking supervisors to purchase helmets for in the future. Training Division Software and Record Keeping—$15,000 Training is an integral part of the SLCPD strategic plan. Officers and civilians are expected to maintain the highest standards in performance and knowledge. The Training Division currently operates without a program that tracks the training officers have completed, need to complete, deficiencies, or the ability to "flag" an individual who has not been attending the required training. This funding will provide $3,000 for the software to complete the capability, and $12,000 to upgrade the "RoboTutor"program. RoboTutor provides educational information and tests officers on competency in several areas of police operations and tactics. The funding will upgrade the current program, and will add several additional areas of competency. SUPPLIES Officer Peer Support Program - $1,000 Law Enforcement is an occupation with incredible levels of stress. Officers are involved in cases every day that most people never have to witness or be involved with. This program trains officers to act as peer counselors, and offers support groups and counseling. It also offers support groups for the spouses and children of officers. The $25,000 will be used as follows: Overtime for peer counselors: $8,000; Supplies: $1,000; Training/Trainers (contractual): $16,000. Overall The City's eligible award amount is $303,534. However, this amount is reduced annually by 10% because the SLCPD is considered a"disparate" agency. "Disparate" agency means that the PD does not meet the Public Safety Officers Health Benefit (PSOHB) requirement, which would require the City to provide the same health and safety benefits to officers after retirement as when they are employed full time. Because of the 10%reduction, the City's adjusted award amount is $273,181. The grant requires a 10% match of the full eligible award amount or$30,353. This amount has been budgeted for within the Police Department's general fund budget and has been included in the proposed funding for the proposed projects listed. The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant has a wide range of discretion in the distribution of the funds. The only mandated requirement is to fund the Drug Court. Regulations also require that each project fit within the seven purpose areas as outlined by the Department of Justice. Those areas include: Law Enforcement, Enhancing Security, Drug Courts, Enhancing Adjudication, Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces, Crime Prevention and Indemnification Insurance. If the program does not fit into one of the purpose areas, it is probable that it is not an allowable expense. The Department of Justice does have some recommended high priority areas. They are Crime Prevention and Restorative Justice project/programs. The Department of Justice highly recommends that each jurisdiction have at least one project/program within each of those areas. The Salt Lake Tribune Classifieds Legal Notices Print Basket Items Page 1 of 1 beaLtakegribnnt Legal iVotic _ . H = AUTt? SALES IL'at k i] !tLl:!.'2 Classified Legal Notices Print Basket Items Previous Page I Empty Print Basket I I New Search • NOTICE There will be Public Hearing regarding the proposed budget of the Salt .` Lake City Police Department's award of the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. The meeting is Which to be held on Monday, September 30, 2002 at the Public Safety Building, 315 East �lQer 200 South, 5:30 p.m. in the 3rd floor North Classroom. Public Comment welcome. Publish: September 16, 2002 8201QPJT 7 What is goir .this wee The Nation's Leading Online University click Here Salt Lake Tribune Front Page I Classifieds Main Menu Automotive &Transportation I Jobs & Employment I Homes & Real Estate Advertising Information I Help Desk & Questions Copyright©2002.Newspaper Agency Corporation.All material found herein is copyrighted by the Newspaper Agency Corporation.The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services.No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from the Newspaper Agency Corporation,The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services.All rights reserved. http://www.slc-classifieds.com/Main/slt/legal/basket.asp 9/18/2002 NOTICE- There will be Public Hearing regarding the proposed budget of the Salt Lake City Police Department's award of the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the Department of Justice,Bureau of Justice Assistance.The meeting is to be held on Monday,September 30,2002 at the Public Safety Building,315 East 200 South,5:30 p.m.in the 3rd floor North Classroom. Public Comment welcome. Publish: September 18,2002 0 slips C5357871L07 Sent to NAC 9-12-02 SEP-1.2-200z 09:02,41 FROIHIPPAPER AGENCY CORP +801Z3r2mT6 T-35T P.002/O02 F-852 EM {r;:,', a,y "N �_ ,.w : .rE.ary~ ++►0gr C.'s�rry► cas-yc3i s=a ..,,... 7 .,_ t Legal Proof • e! ;•T:.::. Q701QP]7 f 1'.,.;'.,4. 3 -_.. CP11O1 •r 8Qi`535-7671 . : ,i4 . :'�,'.:,s.`,;' " /O 40* _a, NI, f �g1o4.C. ��/+6/2002 F'l•!Msr �1 �.�1. - NI, ,,,. 09/1 5 O.00 ('tom'.;: i rr crry RE{;CRDHt •,I _•1 1 :;: $23.92 e t.iFiv / tCS% Noa ory iio. .-011- o K .a q_1'�. , I• !D M hid Ali t.. a JpG 8 3 436 ,0 ^p` i,) 7.r ( o 16, gr11� Mtn Page 1-1 an Newspaper Agency Cturpc)retio Ili alit Paa Pihmar a i*saasr 1rwwvs Oat) s °0�* OM a°at A aas-ma a et tar ss Mt) +� b a w r mobileti 227 xfss p.e.n6tte " Page 1of1 Public Hearing, Certification OMB Clearance 7: 1121-0204 Direct award recipients are required to hold at least one Public Hearing on the proposed use of LLEBG funds prior to receipt or obligation of funds. Steps should be taken by the unit of local government to encourage the fullest possible participation in the Public Hearing. 17 I certif' that Salt Lake City, UT has given sufficient public notification and has held the required Public Hearing to request_dral doticn_of FY 2002 LLEBG_f ends..__ Were minutes taken? Yes (43. No Date Public Hearing was held: 30 SEP I200 Continue https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:8004/gms_user/plsgl/rfd_main.gen phearing_scr 10/17/2002 rage1ori Advisory Board Certification OMB Clearance m: 1121-0204 Direct award recipients are required to hold at least one Ad\ isor', Board meeting to discuss proposed use of LLEBG funds prior to receipt or obligation of funds The Advisory Board must include at least one representative from each of the following local organizations: law enforcement agency (Police Department or Sheriffs Department), prosecutor's office, court system, local school system, and nonprofit group (e.g. educational, religious, or community) active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or treatment. Date the FY 2002 Advisory Board completed its review and made non-binding recommendations 130 'SEP 12002 Please enter the names and positions of the representatives of the agency or agencies that comprise your Advisory Board who met on the proposed allocations. Position (not prefix) Name Law Enforcement Agency(Chief of Police or Sheriff Assistant Chief (Mac Connote could represent law enforcement) Prosecutor's Office 'City Prosecutor fSimarjit Gill Court System Juvenile Court Prog !Dennis Martinez Local School System SLC Schools Safe E !Betty Moffat Nonprofit Group (e.g., educational, religious, or community) active in crime prevention or drug abuse Utah League of Citil (Kerry Nakamura prevention or treatment. I certifi• that each of the above Advisory Board members have reviewed and made non-binding recommendations for the allocation of FY 2,002 LLEBG Program funds. Please Note: If the above required Advisory Board members did not review the proposed allocations, your jurisdiction can complete the remainder of the drawdown forms, but will not be able to submit the Request for Drawdown until such time as another Advisory Board meeting has been held with the required members present. Continue https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov:8004/gms_user/plsgl/rfd_main.process_phearing 10/17/2002 _ OCT-17-2002 THU 02:28 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 01 2002 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING September 30, 2002 AGENDA : 1:30 Welcome/ Introductions 1:40 Krista Dunn: Overview of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 1:50 Krista Dunn: 2002 LLEBG Budget Review 2:00 Asst. Chief Connole: Comments on the use of LLEBG funds 2:10 Discussion of Block Grant Budget by Advisory Board Members 2:30 Adjourn OCT-17-2002 THU 02:28 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 02 • SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT 2002 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING September 30, 2002 Attendance: Assistant Chief Mac Connole SLCPD Krista Dunn, Grant Manager SLCPD Sim Gill SLC Prosecutor Dennis Martinez, Operations Manager Juvenile Court Kerri Nakamura, Budget Analyst Utah League of Cities & Towns Excused: Betty Moffat, Safe/Drug-Free Schools SLC School District 1:30 Krista Dunn brought the meeting to order and had members introduce themselves. She excused Betty Moffat who is ill, and explained that she will send the minutes and the budget to her by e-mail for comment and approval. 1:40 Krista gave a brief overview of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. SLC has received the grant since 1993. The funding a allotted by formula by the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, according to the frequency of Part I or serious crimes. SLC has received approximately $350,000 for the past 9 years, but due to cuts in the BJA budget, that allocation has been reduced to $303,000 this year. Additionally, SLC loses 10% for non-compliance with the PSOHB (Public Safety Officer Health Benefit) initiative. This initiative requires jurisdictions to offer the same health insurance benefits to officers after retirement as they receive while employed, in order to receive the full grant allotment. 1:50 Krista reviewed the proposed budget for the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. OCT-17-2002 THU 02:29 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 03 • 2:00 Krista opened the meeting for discussion of the Block Grant Budget items. Sim Gill made a recommendation that the Therapeutic Courts __ programs be renamedestorative Justice Programs". He believes that is a better term for the programs, and will alleviate some of the concern that City Council members might have with offering "social service" types of programs. Kern Nakamura made the comment that training programs be listed together as "Ongoing Training Issues". She thought that the Council would be more supportive if training was approached as an important, over-arching priority. Kerri also mentioned that we should give more detail about each of these projects and how they affect Community Policing. Krista assured her that the Council would get a detailed write- up on each of the items. Sim suggested that the directed overtime be listed as Community Policing Overtime to better show the purpose of the overtime to be funded. Kern asked about the Record Keeping Software and the Robo- Tutor programs. She wanted to know what our capabilities are now, and what these programs will enhance. Krista explained that our current record keeping system is inadequate, and it takes weeks for us to research what training officers have attended, and what they are lacking. This program will allow us to input an employee's IBM # and immediately see what courses he has completed, as well as required classes or hours he is lacking. It will also link with a new "Early Intervention"program being purchased on another grant so that we can see when an officer needs intervention before he is in enough trouble to end up in.an Internal Affairs Investigation. Krista said that the Robo-Tutor program currently trains and tests on two different courses. The proposal is to update those OCT-17-2002 THU 02:29 PM S L POLICE ADIIIN hAX NU. 8U1799364U P. U4 courses, and to add five additional courses. The program provides the educational materials and tests the officers at the conclusion. Chief Connole reiterated that the Robo-Tutor program is ideal for recertifications. This way the officer can receive updated information and can test on the materials at his convenience. Kern. inquired about the funding for departmental improvements. Krista explained that it was for furniture and equipment that no longer worked in places like the Community Policing Substations. Kern. suggested that it be listed as Capital Outlay for Community Policing substations and offices. Dennis Martinez reiterated that he was comfortable with the comments and suggestions that have been made. Kerri asked if the funding for the LLEBG was like the CDBG funding. Krista explained that they are very much alike. Kerri suggested that it might be a good idea to present it to the Council in that way, as the Council is very supportive of the CDBG program. Chief Connole and Krista thanked everyone for their participation, and the meeting adjourned at 2:20. Dunn, Krista From: betty.moffat [betty.moffat©slc.k12.ut.us] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:42 AM To: Dunn, Krista Subject: Re: SLC Police Department's LLEBG Advisory Board Meeting Krista, Thanks for sending the minutes of the LLEBG Advisory Board meeting. I was pleased to see that Peer Court and McGruff has ongoing funding. I am directly involved with Peer Court and work closely with Kathleen. I plan on attending the next meeting and will give input at that time. Please send me a reminder as to the date of the next meeting. Betty Moffat Safe and Drug Free Schools Original Message From: "Dunn, Krista" <Krista.Dunn@ci.slc.ut.us> To: " 'betty.moffat@slc.kl2 .ut.us '" <betty.moffat@slc.kl2 .ut.us> Sent: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10 :12 :55 -0600 Subject: SLC Police Department's LLEBG Advisory Board Meeting > Betty, > I was sorry to hear you were ill last Monday and unable to attend our > Advisory Board Meeting for our 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block > Grant. I am attaching the minutes and a copy of the budget for your > review. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the Advisory Board > to review the proposed budget and comment on the appropriateness of > the expenditures in terms of your view of Law Enforcement in your > community. > > Please feel free to review and respond with any comment or opinion. > We are very open and anxious to hear your remarks and crticism of > our plans. > > Thank you for taking the time to do this, and for accepting the > offer to become a member of our Advisory Board. > > Krista Dunn, > Grants Manager > SLC Police Department > «LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT.doc» End of Original Message 1 OCT-17-2002 THU 02:29 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 F. Ub LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT POTENTIAL ITEMS FOR FUNDING IN 2002 (as of 9/30/02) • Ongoing Funding: S50,000 Drug Court $15,000 McGruff Program (contracted through SLC Schools) $20,000 Peer Court(contracted through SLC Schools) S15,000 Civilian Training and Travel S 15,000 Restorative Justice Programs (Passages, Domestic Violence Court, Prostitution Outreach) $115,000 Total for Ongoing Programs New/Short Term Items/Programs: Approx. Cost: CIT Recertification Training $ 5,000 VICE/ SWAT Surveillance Equipment $ 10,000 LED Emergency Vehicle Lighting(unmarked vehicles) $ 25,000 Officer Peer Support Program $ 25,000 Community Policing Directed Overtime $ 22,000 Mini Remote Police Car(TC)for use with McGruff, etc. $ 8,000 Training Division Software for Record Keeping $ 5,000 Upgrade RoboTutor-Computer Testing/Training System $ 10,000 Ballistic Helmets $ 42,000 "Communicator" (Reverse 9-1-1) Training & License $ 8,000 Internal Affairs Interview Room $ 6,000 Community Substation/Police Offices (replacement of Non-functional equipment, furniture, etc.) $ 22,000 Total for new projects $188,000 Grant Funds $273,200 Local Match $ 30,300 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT TOTAL $303,500 OCT-17-2002 THU 02:29 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 06 Advl:507 3 rd . 3o aao?. ,4 c C . Jya. c TA ' DY l o1. 0,,,fdIJ £. 4,70J /144. �G i gZC aiSd. 06- /�i111 �eiv�o T z C lioz f A? fld/412ded , K&ity NA,kouvri uwa. (4 Gii?s/ (1.s OCT-17-2002 THU 02:30 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 08 s. SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING MEETING and PUBLIC HEARING for September 30, 2002 5:30 Welcome by Assistant Chief Mac Connote Overview of Community Oriented Policing 5:45 Public Hearing on Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; Reported by Krista Dunn 6:00 Crisis Intervention Teams by Detective Ron Bruno 6:10 Meth Initiative Report by Marjean Searcy 6:20 Community Policing Highlights by Sgt. Lamar Ewell 6:30 Adjourn OCT-17-2002 THU 02:30 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 10 • ., .,1,?L)fi0 e 0 P 141atzA, 2u .. ,. J1d3o fie4- ! gamtt _.,__ ___ .!1, 5i-i- eweA___L___ -,,,--f_c_n) Y ,r h Se 4 r c. 1 s �c, .D �1 �xo-f-t (S . SLR to b ,. (4u icLA 5t..v.oK.3 Li Lc.-. ..3> :, (,t v0A-Uoi4 kisah) 3LG41.0 . KINA, GU-6>-3 5 LC.9100w K k L c#J . ..-----..c=0..--, &.---4.--....,c,, ....r..e --- - ,?.. e-42.14.1- S cc. pi),f�, %�r` sccPZ H /vi; ke 14Qrn ; 5Z-G-PC c.P4. 4-e L DLL SIGXd ! /e..A-- k,uPig, ricAe i L., IE.,),,t_). -:-I.)1x..):1 a., - t_t__-io 0 eiZL --- , _ ‘.5 ._. 0Lc PI) ? '° Oix, „1,) SLG . ThAA/ 4 6)00%1 E ELG1' 0 1lcKltYLA COo7c.-tFF6 nf'.z OCT-17-2002 THU 02:30 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO. 8017993640 P. 11 • SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR 2002 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT September 30, 2002 Attendance: Sgt. Lamar Ewell Matjean Searcy Asst. Chief Scott Folsom Laura Simonson Linda Johnson Kim Guess Brendon Kirkwood Ron Bruno Lyman Guest J.R. Smith Derek Coats Mike Hamideh Kevin Joiner Krista Dunn Dianna Goodliffe McKala Goodliffe Chief Rick Dinse Asst. Chief Mac Connole 5:30 Asst. Chief Scott Folsom opened the meeting and welcomed everyone. Asst. Chief Mac Connole thanked everyone for their attendance and turned the tune over to Krista Dunn to introduce the 2002 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant(LLEBG). 5:40 Krista Dunn gave a brief overview of the LLEBG. She noted that the PD has received this grant since 1993, generally in the amount of approximately$350,000. This year, due to some cuts federally, our amount is $303,000. She explained about the PSOHB requirements and that due to non-compliance that our total grant is cut each year an additional 10%. She distributed copies of the 2002 LLEBG tentative budget and explained that the final budget would be based on the discussion in this meeting, suggestions made by the Advisory Board earlier in the day, and the City Council,who will approve the final budget. She went through each of the items proposed on the budget,and explained the purpose of each. She then opened the Public Hearing for comment. Chief Dinse commented that he would really like to hear from the group if they had comments. He reiterated that the final budget would be based on suggestions made by this group and the Advisory Board. Kim Guess commented that she believed that TC the remote talking police car may be a waste of money because it is always broken,takes two people to run it, and is difficult to transport. She believes that the funding could be more wisely spent. OCT-17-2002 THU 02:31 PM S L POLICE ADMIN FAX NO, 8017993640 P. 12 Brendan Kirkwood had a differing opinion. He commented that TC is a very popular item with the children, and that he gets numerous calls from schools,neighborhood groups, etc. requesting TC. He noted that at Community gatherings,without TC, all of the citizens gather around the Fire Trucks, and other visibly attractive displays, and nobody comes around the police display of educational pamphlets. Several others commented on the popularity of the little car,noting that other agencies bring their"toys"for the people to see, and that it promotes a lot of interest in what the police departments are doing. Kevin Joiner asked about the possibility of having better educational materials for presenting in Public meetings. Krista Dunn and Chief Dinse mentioned that dollars were just approved for that purpose through another grant. Derek Coats requested more training for Community Oriented Policing. Krista Dunn mentioned that another grant has dollars for that purpose. Lamar Ewell said that there are several good conferences available on that topic. Chief Dinse stated that training is a very valuable part of this department, and that he supports any good training that we can get our people to. Kevin Joiner commented that since we are throwing out wish lists, he would like to see a mounted patrol in this department. Chief Dinse acknowledged the request and said he agrees. A horse mounted horse patrol is not only impressive,but offers some good advantages in law enforcement. He commented that the Utah Highway Patrol has a new mounted division that is very impressive. He further commented that these are very expensive and there is some extensive planning that goes into implementing a program like this. He hopes that at some point that this department will have a mounted patrol. Kevin Joiner also asked about the possibility of have Community Policing be an integral piece of the FTO(Field Training Officer) program. Sgt. Ewell replied that that idea is already being acted upon and Chief Dinse agreed. He commented that community policing is a philosophy of this department,not a division. It's a way of doing business, and anything we can do to further that way of thinking is encouraged. UUT-11-'2UUL THU UL;J1 YN 5 L YULIUt HUNIN YHA NU, eUilyu o4U r. 1J Krista Dunn closed the Public Hearing and thanked everyone for their suggestions and comments. Chief Dinse thanked everyone for being in attendance. He went on to say that he appreciates his officers and the work they do to further the Community Policing philosophy. He understands the stresses and pressures these officers undertake each day and commends them for their efforts. He invited everyone to feel free to contact him whenever they have questions and concerns. Chief Dinse invited Detective Ron Bruno to report in the Crisis Intervention Teams and Marjean Searcy to report on the Methamphetamine Initiative. Ron and Marjean each gave short reports on their programs,and the meeting adjourned at 6:45. I LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT POTENTIAL ITEMS FOR FUNDING IN 2002 (as of 9/30/02) Ongoing Funding: S50.000 Drug Court S 15.0(10 MIcGruff Program (contracted through SLC Schools) S-10.000 Peer Court (contracted through SLC Schools) S 15.000 Civilian Training and Travel S 15.000 Restorative Justice Programs (Passages. Domestic Violence Court, Prostitution Outreach) S115,000 Total for Ongoing Programs New/Short Term Items/Programs: Approx. Cost: CIT Recertification Training S 5,000 VICE SWAT Surveillance Equipment S 10,000 LED Emergency Vehicle Lighting (unmarked vehicles) S 25,000 Officer Peer Support Program y S 25,000 Community Policing Directed Overtime S 22,000 Mini Remote Police Car (TC)for use with McGruff, etc. S 8,000 Training Division Software for Record Keeping S 5,000 Upgrade RoboTutor-Computer Testing-Training System S 10,000 Ballistic Helmets S -42.000 "Communicator" (Reverse 9-1-1) Training & License S 8,000 Internal Affairs Interview Room S 6,000 Community Substation,'Police Offices (replacement of Non-functional equipment. furniture, etc.) S 22,000 Total for new projects S188,000 Grant Funds S273,200 Local Match S 30,300 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT TOTAL S303,500 Accept Award Confirmation Page 1 of 1 , _ c FY 200 Local jaw Eni�r carmen _. �: � �ant y�';'' ` ;` _ Pro+�,-arm ,. r Salt Laita Cti,' L ,< 1Switch to ... RFD Grant Changes Reports Correspondence Application Award 9 p ---- Award Handbook Accept Award Confirmation Congratultations!-You-h-ave-accepted your jurisdiction's FY 2002 LLEBG Award Overview and its corresponding special conditions. Review CEO Information FY 2002 LLEBG Final Award Amount: $273,181.00 Matching Amount: $ 30,353.00 Accept Award LLEBG Award Number: 2002-LB-BX-0378 View Award Document LLEBG Award Date: 10-JUL-02 Financial Institution Information Remember, acceptance of this Award and special conditions DOES NOT result in an automatic payment of LLEBG funds. You must submit the RFD in order to Decline Award receive funds, and you must submit it within 90 calendar days from the award date. You may begin the RFD process now by clicking on the RFD Tab above. Help/Frequently Asked Click here to view and print your official FY 2002 LLEBG Award documents and Questions special conditions. LLEBG Home Log-Off httns://arants.oip.usdoi.gov:8004/gms_ user/olsal/award.accept award confirmation 8/13/2002 w . NOV 0 6 2002 SALT[ IL iL- ITt CORPORATION' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDER5DN COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSIVIITTAI TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer. DATE: October 25, 2002 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Small Business Revolving Loan Fund Quarterly Report for Fiscal Year 2002-03 (first quarter) STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, HAND Director, 535-6136 DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing DISCUSSION: The City Council has requested a Small Business Revolving Loan Fund quarterly report from the Community and Economic Development Department. • No new loans have been made during the quarter. Thirty-nine loan applications were sent out. One application was returned, though it was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant due to a poor credit report. • The loan fund has a balance of$4.6 million. • There are 40 outstanding loans that total $910,000. Twelve are small business loans, none of which is more than 60 days past due. Twenty-eight loans are Main Street and Fourth South light rail impact loans, three of which are more than 60 days past due. The City is pursuing collection on all three. • The loan committee approved writing off two light rail impact loans for a total of $21,000. One case involved a loan to a business on Fourth South that closed. The City obtained a judgment against the defunct corporation, but couldn't collect against the individuals. The other case involved a loan made in 1998 to a business on Main Street that moved out-of-state and stopped making payments in 2000. • Outreach activities include placing the loan application fount and program criteria on the City's website; sending letters explaining the program and requesting assistance in publicizing it to public, business, ethnic and nonprofit organizations; discussing the program with the Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund, Vest Pocket Business Coalition, and The Economic Development Corporation of Utah; producing new program brochures; and placing an advertisement in The West View distributed in Council Districts 1 and 2. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: S01-535-6330 FAX: 501-535-6005 ®aEcrcco PnPea • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LLEBG BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 DATE: November 15, 2002 SUBJECT: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Budget Amendment #11 Initiative #7 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears;Budget and Policy Analyst Document Budget-Related Policy-Related Facts Miscellaneous Facts Type Facts Resolution The proposed As part of the The proposed uses of LLEBG initiative is also approval process, the funds are McGruff Program included as part of Block Grant Advisory ($15,000), Drug Court($50,000), Budget Board has reviewed Peer Court($20,000), Restorative Amendment#11. the proposed uses Justice Program($15,000), Officer The City is in and a public hearing Peer Support Program($16,000), receipt of the to receive citizen Training/Travel($28,000), officer $273,181 in input was held on overtime ($30,000), equipment LLEBG funds. September 30, 2002. ($128,534), and supplies($1,000). The Police Department has received the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) for the past 7 years. The LLEBG is not a competitive grant; the number of major crimes committed with the City in previous years determines the amount of funding. The City is obligated to provide a 10% match to receive the grant. The City budgeted for this local match in the General Fund portion of the Police Department budget. The required match amount was $30,353 for a total LLEBG program total budget of $303,534. BACKGROUND/MATTERS AT ISSUE In previous fiscal years the LLEBG has been used to provide salary for officers involved in LLEBG related programs. The proposed uses of the LLEBG funds this year do not include regular salary expenses but do include Police Officer overtime. The Police Department indicates that the only requirement of the LLEBG is that the City participates in a drug court. The Department of Justice does not require a municipality to participate in any other program, but uses of LLEBG funds must fit within one of the seven purpose areas as outlined by the Department of Justice. The areas include: Law Enforcement, Enhancing Security, Drug Courts, Enhancing Adjudication, Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces, Crime Prevention and Indemnification Insurance. The Department of Justice has Crime Prevention and restorative Justice project/programs as high priority areas. Which programs the City chooses to participate in are left to the discretion of the City. Page 1 The LLEBG application is completed electronically. The awarding of funds takes place before any program activity. Most grants require a submission for reimbursement after program activities are completed. The City is in receipt of the full $273,181 award amount. The application and award documents of the LLEBG specify that an Advisory Board must review the program and that a public hearing must be held. The Block Grant Advisory Board includes representatives from the Police Department, local court system, juvenile court system, local school district and a non-profit group. Previously the group that served as the advisory board included a number of community members that had originally convened in association with the Salt Lake Area Gang Project. The Mayor or City Council does not select this advisory board. The Block Grant Advisory Board has reviewed the proposed uses and a Public Hearing was held on September 30, 2002. The City is required to certify that individuals representing the following categories serve on the advisory board: 1. Law Enforcement Agency (Chief of Police or Sheriff could represent law enforcement) 2. Prosecutor's Office 3. Court System 4. Nonprofit Group (e.g. educational, religious, or community) active in crime prevention or drug abuse prevention or treatment. A representative of the Utah League of Cities and Towns filled the number four requirement. The Council may wish to ask the Police Department to confirm that the Utah League of Cities and Towns meets the definition required by the Federal Government for this grant ('active in crime prevention or drug abuse prevention or treatment'). The LLEBG program has been compared to the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) in that it is a block of funding with which the City has broad discretion. Both programs require an advisory board and a public hearing. Although a hearing was advertised for LLEBG, only police department personnel attended. If the Council wished to see the LLEBG process become more like the CDBG process, the Council could request that: 1. Greater public input be sought through notifying community councils and non-profit community groups and organizations interested in crime prevention and related topics. 2. The information be presented in a format that indicates the funding amount for each program in previous years. The Council has already adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept the grant and sign any additional contracts or awards relating to the grant. This grant does not increase the amount of General Fund FTE positions. In fiscal year 2000- 2001 the LLEBG paid the salaries for six City employees at a total cost of$235,000. These positions were funded through the end of fiscal year 2001-2002 with the previous year LLEBG grant. In the Mayor's Recommended Biennial Budget for fiscal years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 these six employees were funded with General Fund revenue. The Council may wish to urge the Administration to identify new grant funding for the positions that support LLEBG programs. Page 2 In previous years, the LLEBG has provided funding for the Urban Scouting Program, Boy Scouts of America. Two years ago the Administration reported to the Council that the funding would be used for a youth program that included both males and females. Last year the LLEBG funds included money for the Boy Scouts of America, Explorer Scout program. The Police Department did not recommend funding from the LLEBG to youth programs (as proposed two years ago) or scouting programs. The current year LLEBG proposal does recommend funding for the McGruff - Salt Lake City School District program. This is the only program within the LLEBG that has a target audience who is school aged. The following paragraphs detail the proposed uses of the fiscal year 2002-2003 LLEBG funds. Of the $273,181 received in the fiscal year 2002-2003 LLEBG, $30,000 is proposed for use as officer overtime, $1,000 in supplies, $28,000 in training/travel, $128,534 for equipment and $116,000 in contractual expenses. The LLEBG requires a match of $30,353, which was budgeted for in the Police Department General Fund allocation. Total source of LLEBG and local match funds is $303,534. Proposed use of funds: McGruff Program ($15,000) The City is proposing that the City continue their participation in the McGruff Program. The program is contracted through the Salt Lake City School District. The McGruff program is designed to prevent youth crime. Services include identifying and recruiting safe houses within the SLC School District. There are currently 215 sites within the district. The funds will be used to conduct background checks on people offering to host "safe houses" and to have a person dressed as McGruff present the program to school aged children. Drug Court ($50,000) The Administration is proposing that the City contract with the County Adult Drug Court to facilitate a program that replaces the traditional sentencing of drug offenders. The Administration is recommending that $50,000 be allocated to this program. This program is partially funded by the County general fund budget, client fees and County tobacco settlement funds. Over one-half of clients served are Salt Lake City residents. The Council may wish to note that Salt Lake City residents pay taxes for the County General Fund, and therefore, may be paying twice for some of these services. A majority of the participants reside in the City. The Administration has indicated that the grant requires a contribution to the drug court. The Council could request clarification on the specific grant requirements (dollar amount, whether this specific program is mandated, etc.) The proposed $50,000 allocation will pay for a program manager, three case management positions, a program analyst position, a coordinator position, and a therapist position. The Department can provide specific data on the success of this program. Page 3 Peer Court ($20,000) The Administration is proposing that the City contract with the Salt Lake City School District and the Juvenile Court to provide an alternative to the Juvenile Court process. As part of the Peer Court program youth offenders are sent to mediation, conflict resolution and peer training instead of detention. The contract to provide these services will be with Salt Lake City School District. The District has provided these services for the past five years. The allocation to this program was $20,000 last year. The Administration is proposing that the allocation remain at $20,000 this year. Restorative Justice Program ($15,000 to be split between the following sub-programs) Passages Mediation Program The Passages program is an alternative to incarceration for misdemeanor offenses. As part of this program, defendants are required to attend and participate in mediation/resolution counseling, pay restitution charges including class costs and officer time spent investigating. The Community Review Panel outlines the program and the individual defendant requirements. If the defendant is successful in complying with the requirements, all charges will be dismissed. If they do not complete the requirements, they are ordered to jail without going through the court system. The requested money will be used to pay for case management services. This was a pilot program last year, and there isn't a long history of performance measurements available. The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration what measurements were used and what the results are. It is anticipated that by participating in this program, the City will save court costs and legal fees, etc. Municipal Mental Health Court The Administration is proposing that the City participate in a Mental Health Court. The City will to contract with the County's Mental Health Court for the operation of this program. This program is designed as an alternative to incarceration for persons with mental illness. The program administrators will work with Valley Mental Health staff, and funds will be used for case management. The goal is 20 people in the program. Salt Lake City residents pay taxes for the County General Fund. County Tax revenue is used by the County to contract with Valley Mental Health. This City Prosecutor's Office will be participating with Valley Mental Health, Legal Defenders Association, Salt Lake City Police Department Crisis Intervention Team, and the County Court System. Council staff is still researching this item and will provide additional information during the briefing on November 19, 2002. Page 4 Prostitution Outreach Program The Administration is proposing that the City continue participation in the Prostitution Outreach program. The City will contract with the County Court system to operate a program that provides case management services to defendants arrested for prostitution. The services to be provided include employment education, job readiness education, life skills training and on- going counseling. The goal is to have 10 participants. The Council may wish to review the past performance of this program and compare it with available performance measures. Officer Peer Support Program ($16,000) Officer Peer Support Program ($16,000) This is a new program. The Police Department has assigned an officer to organize this program and an administrative committee is currently meeting to implement it and clarify boundaries and links between this program and existing city programs. The Administration is proposing that the City train officers to act as peer counselors and to have support groups and counseling available through the Officer Peer Support Program. $16,000 is requested for the training/trainers of this program. Currently, counseling services are available to all City employees through an employee assistance program, Comprehensive Psychological Services. Eight visits are available to all City employees free of charge. Further counseling is available through the health insurance programs offered to City employees. The Council may wish to consider the counseling services that are available to all City employees and determine whether this program is a duplication of services or whether this program builds upon the services currently available. Part of the City's contract with its provider requires that the program be capable of providing crisis counseling, post incident counseling and on-going counseling to employees and their dependents. The Council may also wish to consider possible liabilities of having the Police Department offer peer counseling services. Another consideration is whether this program creates a benefit for Police Officers that is not available for Fire Fighters who also face stressful situations. The Council may wish to request that the Police Department provide information on any perceived inadequacies with the City's current program. (The total grant funding proposed for this program from LLEBG is $25,000) Training / Travel ($28,000) The Administration is proposing that $28,000 be spent on travel and training for the following: • Crisis Intervention Team Re-certification Training ($5,000) • Reverse 911 System Training / Licensing ($8,000) • Civilian Training ($15,000) Page 5 Officer Overtime ($30,000) The Administration is proposing that $30,000 be spent on Officer overtime: • Community Policing Overtime ($22,000) • Officer Peer Support Program ($8,000) The Council may wish to receive a separate briefing on Community Oriented Policing. A review of the purpose of Community Oriented Policing program and the current service level with performance measurements and feedback from participants in the program could be provided as part of the briefing. As part of the transmittal there are minutes of the Advisory Board Meeting that was held on September 30, 2002. The Council may wish to inquire about the Record Keeping Software that is mentioned in the minutes and see if the system can be used to enhance the Community Oriented Policing program. Law Enforcement Equipment ($128,534) The Administration is proposing that $128,534 be spent on equipment to outfit the Police Department. • SWAT / VICE Surveillance Equipment ($10,000) • Crime Prevention / Mini Remote Police Car ($8,000) • Internal Affairs Interview Room Audio / Video Equipment ($6,000) • Community Policing and PSB Office Furniture / Equipment ($22,534) • LED Emergency Vehicle Lighting ($25,000) • Officer Safety Equipment ($42,000) • Training Division Software and Record Keeping ($15,000) Regarding the funding of furniture and equipment for some of the Police Department's community substations and offices within the Public Safety Building, the Council may wish to request clarification from the Police Department on the extent to which the community substations are actually used by the community and / or officers. While there are some substations that are used for public meetings there are others that may not be used regularly by the Police or the public. Supplies ($1,000) The Administration is proposing that $1,000 be allocated for the supplies associated with the Officer Peer Support Program. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Steve Fawcett, Chief Dinse, Mac Connole, Jerry Burton, Krista Dunn, Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Luann Clark, Gordon Hoskins,Sherrie Collins,and Shannon Ashby Page 6 /i,/ , /7-79 -,�� YALECREST COMMUNITY COUNCIL November 18, 2002 Hon. David L. Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council (hand delivered) Dear Chairman Buhler, In response to our conversation yesterday, please find enclosed the written proposal and our cover letter submitted to the CIP Citizen's Board on September 5th. Most of the issues we discussed are addressed. I've also included the city engineer's estimate, names of residents who signed the petition, along with a blank copy of the petition(originals given to CIP Board),and photographs we presented to the Board. As a community, we have determined that"Alternative A" is the overwhelming preference, insofar as only one homeowner of the total of 55 households (87 signatures)that signed our petition initially favored "B"and has subsequently agreed to support"A"; and two of the homeowners (Corey and Lisonbee)who live adjacent to the large areas of landscaped parks strip that would be added by "Alternative B"oppose this alternative and did not sign the petition given a possibility that"B" might be selected. Reasons for their opposition include the added cost of maintenance of the lawn areas, noise associated with three stop signs, added length of driveways,and concern about the ability to park cars on the street in front of their homes given restrictions imposed by stop signs. They favor"A", as the added area of park strip and maintenance cost is equitably shared by neighbors on the opposite side of the street and there would be no change in noise impact due to stop signage. As we discussed,the SLC Engineer's construction cost estimate of$103,975 includes re-alignment of sidewalks parallel to the new curbs. As no resident favors this, we are hopeful that this cost($5,538)can be deleted,along with associated costs for removal of existing trees in the path of realigned sidewalks. We like the current sidewalk configuration and question removal of mature trees. If no change in the configuration of street trees is recognized and augmenting of trees can be accomplished with assistance of the SLC Urban Forester, homeowners are willing to assume the cost of$1,250 indicated in the city's estimate. Costs for excessive sidewalk removal and sod should also be deleted. Once a more detailed surveying is accomplished,other costs associated with backfill and paving will also be reduced. I've talked with Mark Montgomery, P.E. who prepared the city's estimate and we should have a revised cost available for your review within a few days. I expect the overall cost will be reduced by $15-18,000. Hopefully, the enclosed information and the above analysis are responsive to concerns you may have. I look forward to an opportunity to further discuss this matter as you may desire. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this effort to improve the safety and livability of our community. terel , Ja les . ebster V cc-chair JI)W:jw cnc. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment :ode of the c v Department For Fiscal Year piP-MilitatiDrive curb realignment: Initiative Name Initiative Number •• . - cheel Seats: • .535-5295 Prepared By Phone Number j41ew Item:. Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 85,000 Total $85,000 $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 CIP-Military Drive curb realignment 85,000 Total $85,000 $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(Per attached request) 85,000 6. Other Total $85,000 $0 $0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. if an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Criteria: Condition: Effect: Cause: Recommendation: Please see attached request for full program explanation and detail. 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. 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? 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? NOV 1 3 2002 SALT: : = 41,.°GITY`GORPO IOI s ROCKY J. FLUHART _ -= ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Dave Buhler, Chairman Salt Lake City Council FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer 179/--? DATE: November 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 11 Recommendation: We recommend that on December 3, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on December 10, 2002, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 11. Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on November 21, 2002. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6426 FAX: SO1-535-6190 R EC VALco PAPER SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2002 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001 which adopted the Final Biennial Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 32 OF 2001 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BIENNIAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING JULY 1, 2001 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2002 AND BEGINNING JULY 1, 2002 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2003. PREAMBLE On June 14, 2001, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said biennial 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 biennial 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 , 2002 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the biennial 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 biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said biennial budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on , 2002, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the biennial budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said biennial 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 biennial budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2001. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The biennial 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 biennial budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002 and beginning July 1, 2 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the biennial Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said biennial 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 , 2002. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 3 f Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER if- 7-o Z (SEAL) Bill No. of 2002. Published: G\Ordinance 02\Amending budget 9-10 doc 4 FY 2003 Initiatives in Budget Amendment - November FY 2003 FY 2004 Initiative Gen. Fund Gen. Initiative Name FTE Fund FTE Amount Impact Im I act Housekee$in 1. Impact Fee Exemptions $29,370 $29,370 -0- -0- 2. RDA Funds for 5t" West $900,000 -0- -0- 3. Risk Subrogation Funds $423,000 $423,000 -0- -0- Transfer to the General Fund Grant Re$uirin Existin Staff Resources 4. Department of Justice $640,000 -0- -0- (COPS) Grant, Communications Upgrade 5. American Architectural $3,000 -0- -0- Foundation Grant—Sugar House Handbook 6. National Endowment for the $86,250 -0- -0- Arts Grant—Pedestrian Crossing Design Competition 7. Local Law Enforcement $273,181 -0- -0- Block Grant (LLEBG) 8. Department of Justice $125,000 -0- -0- Grant—Early Intervention Systems 9. Department of Justice $295,103 -0- -0- (COPS) Grant— Methamphetamine Program 10. You Film—IRC — $2,000 -0- -0- Department of Health & Human Services Grant 11. Hansen Family Trust/ $100,000 -0- -0- Estate—Fire Training and Safety Equipment 12. FEMA —Operations & Fire $72,709 -0- -0- Safety Grant 13. Emergency Medical $98,250 -0- -0- Services Grant 14. Hansen Family Trust/ $67,180 -0- -0- Estate—West Point Leadership Program Grant Providin Additional Staff Resources 15. Federal Emergency $20,000 0.3 -0- Management Agency— Hazard Mitigation Grant New Items 16. One-Time Money $1,625,000 $1,625,000 -0- -0- 17. Jordan River Parkway Rail $30,000 -0- -0- Crossing 18. State Infractions and $134,940 4.0 -0- Misdemeanor Services 19. Water: Carryover/ $3,421,877 -0- -0- Replacement Water Lines 20. Sewer: Carryover/New $3,418,457 -0- -0- Projects 21. Stormwater: Carryover/ $1,300,111 -0- -0- Replacement Stormwater Lines 22. Airport Budget Amendment $9,671,000 11 -0- 23. E911 Carpet and Furniture $13,000 -0- -0- 24. E911 Hiring Process $10,000 -0- -0- 25. E911 Logging Recorder $130,000 -0- -0- 26. E911 Center Backup Power $400,000 -0- -0- System 27. Impound Lot—Retain $413,170 8.0 -0- Management 28. Recycling—Multi and 23,400 -0- -0- Single Family 2 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Impact Fee Exemptions BA#10 01 Initiative Name Initiative Number David Dobbins 535-7236 Prepared By Phone Number House Keeping Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 Impact Fee Fund(Transfer In) 29,370 Total $29,370 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund General Fund Balance for Exempted Impact Fees (29,370) General Fund Balance Transfer to Impact Fee 29,370 Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Impact Fee Fund(Expenses) 29,370 Total $29,370 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6.Other(GF compensation for exempted Impact 29,370 Fees) Total $29,370 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#1-Impact Fee Exemption 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. Issue Discussion: The Impact Fee Ordinance allows for exemptions to the fee for affordable housing and for projects that receive financial support from the City or RDA. When exceptions are made the General Fund must cover the entire amount. Three entities have received exemptions for their projects in this budget amendment. Peter Caroon of Green Street Partners has built 25 affordable units, equaling an exemption of $24,920. Community Development Corp. of Utah has built 1 unit and will receive an $890 exemption, and the Utah Housing Corp. is constructing 4 units and is eligible for an exemption of $3,560. These exemption together total $29,370 which must be covered by the General Fund according to ordinance. It is recommended that the General Fund provide reimbursement for exempted impact fees. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year RDA Funds for 5th West BA#11 02 Initiative Name Initiative Number Gordon Hoskins/Randy Hillier 6394/6353 Prepared By Phone Number House Keeping Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 5th West Class C Funded(83-02049)Transfer in 439,502 from RDA 5th West Class C Funded(83-02049)Transfer to (439,502) Class C Contingency Class C Contingency 439,502 5th West:Main Street(Gateway)Savings Funded 460,498 (83-02050)Transfer in from RDA 5th West:Main Street(Gateway)Savings Funded (460,498) (83-02050) CIP Contingency 460,498 Total $900,000 $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 Class C Contingency 439,502 CIP Contingency 460,498 Total $900,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#2-RDA Funds Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Revenue to Class C and CIP 900,000 Contingency) Total $900,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#2-RDA Funds 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. Issue Discussion: RDA has identified $900,000 in excess funds which have been deemed available for use on the ongoing 5th West street reconstruction project between 2nd and 4th South. In order to utilize these funds, RDA will reimburse cost centers 83-02049 and 83-02050 for past expenditures on the 5th West project, as well as for upcoming expenditures the project will incur, until the funds have been fully expended. The full appropriation of $439,502 in the Class C cost center 83-02049 will be transferred into the Class C Contingency fund for later use on a Class C eligible project. Similarly, $460,498 in the Gateway Savings cost center 83-02050 will be transferred into the CIP Contingency cost center for later use. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Finance FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Risk Subrogation Funds Transfer to the General Fund BA#11 03 Initiative Name Initiative Number Mary Beth Thompson 535-6403 Prepared By Phone House Keeping Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund 0100035 197407 Transfer in from Risk 423,000 Subrogation Fund Total $423,000 $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 Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund 8760870 291008 Transfer out from Risk to the 423,000 0 General Fund Total $423,000 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $0 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#3-Risk Transfer 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. Issue Discussion: Approximately six years ago, the Risk Fund began collecting all third party checks that reimburse the city for workers compensation expenditures. Since then, these reimbursements have been accumulating into a fund called subrogation. The fund now has approximately $423,000 in excess which may now be used as a revenue source for the General Fund. Up till now the fund has been used for various occupational hazard training needs. These needs have lessened over the past several years. Due to this fact, it is being recommended that the excess funds be transferred into the General Fund to serve as a hedge against the projected shortfall in General Fund revenue for the current fiscal year. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Department of Justice (COPS)-Communication Upgrade BA#11 04 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Krista Dunn 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type 'Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium 'Biennial Period 1. evenue'Impacted by Fund and Source: st Year :-2nd Year 3rd Year 1FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 US Dept of Justice Grant to Miscellaneous 72 640,000 Grant Fund Total $640,000 $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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund for 640,000 Communications Upgrade Total $640,000 $0 $0 FC.`Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other- (Equipment) 640,000 Total $640,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#4-02PDUCAN 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. Issue Discussion: The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received this grant from the Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and is to be used to address public safety needs. These funds will be used to upgrade the Police Department's communications infrastructure equipment by purchasing four additional Quantar Repeaters, the associated operating equipment, a 1-year maintenance agreement and installation costs. SLC is currently experiencing radio transmittal "dead spots" in several areas of the city. These areas include several blocks in three different locations as well as building penetration. This creates problems for officers, when trying to send and receive information when responding to citizen's needs because the officer must move to an area where communications are clear. If the officer needs assistance in providing safety for the citizen or him/herself, it is imperative that they be able to request backup immediately. In Addition, the City currently operates its communications system through the Salt Lake County's Zone Controller. The County is currently negotiating merging their communication system with the Utah Communication Agency Network (UCAN). If so, SLC will be forced to purchase their own Zone Controller or merge with someone else. By upgrading the City's system now, the City will be in a better place to negotiate collaborative use with other County-wide agencies as well as position it self for possible UCAN collaboration in the future. These repeaters will be a necessary upgrade to the current system and will be purchased from Motorola for compatibility reasons. The City currently leases Motorola 800 Mhz radios and repeaters that are located in various areas of the City. If the City does not upgrade the current system to fix the "dead spots", and if the County merges with UCAN, the City will be forced to purchase this equipment or replace the entire system. This would be a more cost effective use of funds and is eligible under the COPS grant guidelines. It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary Resolution, authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to establish the budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: Grant Satisfies #2 below. 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. Grant pays for system equipment. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable, grant is for equipment purchase only. 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. Funds benefit SLCPD. 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 or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Planning Department applied for and received $3,000 from the American Architectural Foundation. These funds will be used in conjunction with Community Development Block Grant Funds, and National Trust for Historic Preservation funds received, in developing and producing/printing the Sugar House Business District Design Guideline Handbook as it pertains to Historic Preservation. Planning received a $15,000.00 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation and $5,000 of Historic Trust Funds, to develop and produce a small area plan, to review and study transportation and parking needs, street modifications and streetscape of the Sugar House Business District. These funds will be used in conjunction with this allocation to address both issues in one plan. The purpose of the historic design guidelines are to assist with the implementation of the goals of the Sugar House Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for new buildings in the business district to honor the historic character of the area and to retain the historic scale and massing of existing buildings. The area plan will address the multi-modal transportation system. Planning anticipates that the project will begin in the Fall of this year and be completed within six months. Further, the final Design Guideline should be ready for Council adoption by Summer of 2003. By combining these funds, Planning can address two issues in the Sugarhouse Master Plan within one RFP at a cost savings to the City. The Guidelines will be published as an addendum to the Sugarhouse Master Plan. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the Award and to appropriate the budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment CED Planning Division FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year The American Architectural Foundation-Sugar House Handbook BA#11 05 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Melissa Anderson 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type fiscal Impact of Proposed Change nd year of biennium ',Sienna! Period A.'Revenuelmpacted by Fund and Source: :1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year fY 2002-03 `FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 American Architectural Foundation Grant to 3,000 Miscellaneous Grant Fund 77 Total $3,000 $0 $0 13. 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 Grant Fund 77 for Sugar House 3,000 Business District Guideline Handbook Total $3,000 $0 $0 C.'Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services Travel/Printing 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Contractual) 3,000 Total $3,000 $0 $0 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. This grant relates to 2. 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? These funds will be used in conjunction with other funds received to produce and develop a small plan addendum, which addresses Historic Preservation as well as Transportation issues, to the Sugarhouse Master Plan. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 Planning Division FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year National Endowment for the Arts Grant-Pedestrian Crossing Design Competition BA#11 06 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Melisa Anderson 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Resources Initiative Type fiscal impact of Proposed Change ..,,And year of biennium 'Biennial Period 1.411evenueimpadted by Fund and Source: 1st Year ;fin d Year 3rd Year TY 2002-03 -fY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72/Arts Endow 50,000 UDOT 5,000 Private Contributions 1,250 RDA 30,000 Total $86,250 $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 Grant Fund 72/Arts Endow 50,000 UDOT 5,000 Private Contributions 1,250 RDA Contribution 30,000 Total $86,250 $0 $0 C.-Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance 4. Charges and Services Travel/Printing 12,750 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Contractual/Stipends) 73,500 Total $86,250 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#6-02PZArts Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment .funding Detail: Revenue: Arts Endowment 50,000.00 UDOT 5,000.00 Private Contribution 1,250.00 RDA 30,000.00 Total amount of funds available $ 86,250.00 Expenses: Travel 1,500.00 Participant Stipends 5@ $10,000 50,000.00 Design Award 1 @ $5,000 5,000.00 Contract competition consultant 16,500.00 Design, Printing, Supplies 7,500.00 Out of State Juror Fees 2 @ $1,000 2,000.00 Exhibition of final designs 1,250.00 Catalog of Exhibition 2,500.00 Total Expenses $ 86,250.00 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#6-02PZArts 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 or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Planning Department applied for and received $50,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts, $5,000 from the Utah Department of Transportation, commitments for $1,250 from a private individual and $30,000 from the Redevelopment Agency. Funding will be used to create and solicit a design competition for a pedestrian crossing on 1300 East, linking Sugarhouse Park and Hidden Hollow. These funds will be used for stipends, juror fees, supplies, exhibition, catalog of exhibition and competition consultant/coordinator services. Planning will host a juried design competition that will result in five design teams being selected from a national request for qualified teams. Each team selected will be awarded a stipend of $10,000 each with the chosen design team receiving an additional $5,000. Possible designs could include a tunnel or bridge and must include ADA accessibility requirements. Stage two of this competition would be to award the construction facilitation to the team whose design is chosen at a future date and as funds become available. A 100% match is required for the $50,000 NEA funds, and will be met with the $30,000 RDA cash, the $5,000 UDOT cash, the $1,250 private donation, and Planning and Engineering Staff time. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the Award and to appropriate the budget to facilitate the grant. 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. This grant relates to 2. 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? A Design Competition process and award will be funded with these funds. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) BA#11 07 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Krista Dunn 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type 9scal I! pact Of Proposed Change tnd year of biennium iennial Period ifti.lievenueiffaciaaled by fund an I ource: 1st Year rtntl Year 3rd Year 2002-03 'fY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund ' Total $0 • $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund ' Total $0 I $0 $0 4. Other Fund LLEBG to Miscellaneous Grant Fund 71' 273,181 Total $273,181 I $0 $0 B.`Exuenditures Impacted by Fund And Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund ' Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund -.'-- Total $0 • $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 for LLEBG Related 273,181 Expenditures Total $273,181 I $0 $0 CC.txpenditure Impact Detail , 1. Salaries and Wages 30,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance-Supplies 1,000 4.Charges and Services -Training 28,000 5. Capital Outlay 128,534 6. Other(Specify)Contractual 116,000 Note: $30,353 Match included in proposed project funding Total $303,534 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#7-02PDLLEBG Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment ' Detail of Prop•s Projects/Budgets Amount Officer Over-time 30,000.00 Officer OT @ $30 x 734 hrs. 22,000.00 Officer Peer Support Counselors (trained officers) 8,000.00 $30. X 264 hrs. Supplies 1,000.00 Officer Peer Support Program Supplies 1,000.00 Training/Travel 28,000.00 Crisis Intervention training 5,000.00 Reverse 9-1-1 communication system training/licensing 8,000.00 Civilian Training 15,000.00 Equipment 128,534.00 SWATNICE AudioNideo Surveillance Equipment 10,000.00 Crime Prevention/Mini Remote Police Car 8,000.00 IA Interview Room audio/visual equipment 6,000.00 Community Substation & PSB furniture &office equipment 22,534.00 LED Emergency Vehicle Lighting 25,000.00 Officer Safety Equipment (ballistic helmets) 42,000.00 Training Division Record Retention Software 3,000.00 Training Division Robo-Tutor(Officer testing equipment) 12,000.00 Contractual 116,000.00 McGruff-SLC School District 15,000.00 Peer Court-SLC School District 20,000.00 Officer Peer Support Trainers/Trainings 16,000.00 Drug Court-County Criminal Justice Services 50,000.00 Restorative Justice Programs-County Criminal Justice 15,000.00 10% required match-$30,534 included in programming Total 303,534.00 303,534.00 *funding Breakdown Grant Allocation Amount 273,181.00 273,181.00 Required Match $30,353 (budgeted from PD General Fund) 30,353.00 30,353.00 Grand Total 303,534.00 303,534.00 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#7-02PDLLEBG 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 Substantial Impact. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) funds for FY 2002-2003, to provide operational support and services in the eligible areas of law enforcement, crime prevention and drug courts. These funds are allocated on an annual basis and the amount awarded is based on the number of Part 1 Crimes committed in the jurisdiction. Part 1 Crimes include murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape, etc. The SLCPD was awarded grant funds in the amount of $273,181. The required match is $30,353. for a total program amount of $303,534. The SLCPD proposes to fund the following projects/programs at the levels detailed on the Fiscal Data sheet: Officer Over-time for Community Policing purposes and to provide Officer Peer Court Support Program counseling services, Officer Peer Support supplies, Crisis Intervention Team Recertification Training, Reverse 9-1-1 communication system training and licensing, Civilian Training, SWAT/Vice audio/video surveillance equipment, Crime Prevention/Mini Remote Police Car, Internal Affairs Interview Room audio/visual equipment, Community Police substation and Public Safety Building furniture and office equipment, LED Emergency Vehicle Lighting for unmarked cars, Officer Safety Equipment (ballistic helmets), Training Division record retention software, and Robo-Tutor (Officer testing equipment), Contractual programs that include: McGruff Program, Peer Court, Peer Support Trainer/Trainings, Drug Court and the Restorative Justice Programs that includes Passages, Mental Health Court and the Prostitution Outreach Programs. (Please see attached transmittal packet for details of programs and projects listed.) These funds will allow the PD to continue to provide the same level of law enforcement services and crime prevention, and to provide funds for needed equipment, training and various contractual programs. The LLEBG requires both an Advisory Board review and a public hearing for citizen comment. The Advisory Board reviewed the proposed funding recommendations on September 30, 2002. The Advisory Board consists of several individuals from the Police Department, the Prosecutor's Office, Juvenile Court, Utah League of Cities & Towns and the SLC School District. The Public Hearing was held in conjunction with the Community Oriented Policing Meeting. The Public Hearing was advertised in the Salt Lake Tribune on September 16, and was held on September 30, 2002. Please see meeting minutes and advertisements included in transmittal package for additional details. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to facilitate these projects and to pass the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant on behalf of the City. 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. The overall grant satisfies #2 as listed below, except for those specifically stated on additional criteria sheets. 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. Officer over-time as outlined in Fiscal Data Worksheet. 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? Probable. Grant is awarded annually based on the number of Part 1 Crimes committed in the each jurisdiction. Part 1 Crimes include murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, rape etc. The SLCPD will continue to apply for funding as available from the Department of Justice. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Over-time for grant related programs will discontinue. 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 bulk of funds are for equipment purchases. Contractual components would need to seek other funding sources or drop programs. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Funds are awarded for Salt Lake City programs and purposes. G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. Officer Overtime satisfies #2 as listed below. 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. Officer over-time only as outlined in Fiscal Data Worksheet. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Officer over-time for community and local business based issues on minor infractions such as Pedestrian Traffic Enforcement, motorist speeding in specific neighborhoods, etc. Officer Peer Support over-time funded as needed for officer and family support counseling. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. The SLCPD will continue to apply for funding as available from the Department of Justice. 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. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. Funds are awarded for Salt Lake City programs and purposes. G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. The McGruff Program satisfies criteria #4. 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? The SLC School District continues to monitor 215 sites, provides community outreach to 15 schools, and education/outreach to community groups as requested. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. The SLCPD will continue to apply for federal grant funding as available and may propose to continue contracting with SLC School District for the McGruff Program. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 could cease to function or operate at a lower service level. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. This is a collaboration effort between the City and the Salt Lake City School District. G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. The Peer Court satisfies criteria #4. 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? Peer Court has been successfully operating for the past five years. Approximately 300 cases are processed by the Peer Court each year, with approximately 100 (75 Youth 25 Adults) volunteers receiving mediation/resolution training. Volunteers contribute approximately 8 hours per week to the program. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. The SLCPD will continue to apply for federal grant funding as available and may propose to continue to contract with the SLC School District for the Peer Court Program. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 could cease to function or will function at a lower level of service. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. The Peer Court Program is a collaborative effort between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake City School District. G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. The Officer Peer Support Program satisfies criteria #2. 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? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Officer over-time has been requested for the trained officers who provide Officer and family counseling services in the support program. Funding will allow for 4 Trainings with approximately 50 Officers attending each training session. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. The SLCPD will continue to apply for federal grant funding as available and may propose funding for this program again. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 could cease to function or will function at a lower level of service. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. The Drug Court satisfies criteria #4. 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? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? The Drug Court has been successfully operating for the past nine years. The Drug Courts current annual budget is $800,000. Approximately 400 cases are processed each year by the Drug Court, with 75% of these cases involving Salt Lake City residents who receive drug treatment services through the program. The cost is currently$2,000. per case. Drug Court pays partial salary and benefit expenses for Program Manager, Therapist, Program Coordinator, 3 Case Managers and a Program Analyst. This is a continuation program funded with LLEBG. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. The SLCPD will continue to apply for federal grant funding as available. Drug Court is a Department of Justice mandatory component/condition of grant funding. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 could cease to function or will function at a lower level of service. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. The Drug Court Program is a collaborative effort between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following four criteria. The Restorative Justice Programs satisfies criteria #4. 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? The City will contract with the County Criminal Justice Services for the Restorative Justice programs. The components of these programs include Passages that will provide court costs and case management services to approximately 25 early offenders. The Mental Health Program that will provide case management services to approximately 20 offenders with mental illness. The Prostitution Outreach Program that will provide case management and counseling services to approximately 10 young female prostitutes. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. SLCPD will continue to apply for federal grant funding as available and may continue to propose contracting with the Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services for these programs. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 could cease to function or will function at a lower level of service. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? No. The these court programs are a collaborative effort between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Department of Justice Grant- Early Intervention Systems BA#11 08 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Krista Dunn 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type • lacalImpact of froposed Change ' Znd.year of biennium ',Biennial Period s. evenuelmpedted 3v` and tind Source t Year *nd Year 3rd Year Y 002-03 Y 1003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund ' Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund ' Total $0 I $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund ' Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Department of Justice COPS Grant to 125,000 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund Total $125,000 • $0 $0 B.Expenditures impactedbvfund 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 for Early 125,000 Intervention Computerized System Total $125,000 $0 $0 • Expenditure'impact`Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 122,250 6. Other- (Travel) 2,750 Total $125,000 II $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#8-02PDErlyInterven 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. Issue Discussion: The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received this grant from the Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). These funds will be used for travel and to purchase technology equipment to establish a comprehensive Early Intervention Computerized System that adequately identifies and tracks precursors to police officer problem behaviors, and intervention before these behaviors become police misconduct. Possible infractions tracked include excessive tardiness, combining sick leave with holidays/weekends in excess, minor insubordination and issues related to respect for fellow employees, superiors, and citizens. The PD Internal Affairs Division currently has a system that identifies officer infractions after the officer receives four complaints within a 12-month period. However, these complaints are often major misconduct issues, and do not qualify as "early warning" of an officers behavior. By identifying less serious offenses early in an officers career, and providing necessary intervention training, it could prevent more serious problems related to the line of duty down the road. These funds will be used to purchase the following equipment: Server, User Administration Services which allows the PD to control access to the databases containing confidential information, Analytical Reporter for Web Browsers that provides the ability to extract and display system data for various reports, Relational R/W Adapter for SQL Server that is a protocol license that allows access to SQL database, Production, installation and testing of equipment by vendor, and travel costs for two PD representatives to the National Community Policing Conference in Washington DC. Travel costs include airfare, hotel and per diem. This grant will provide the resources necessary for the Police Department to establish a new system, including design, necessary training, installation, testing and integration of existing PD programs and systems. This grant will provide funding for purchasing the equipment. All other costs associated with the project inlcuding labor, production/design, installation and maintenance costs, will be budgeted for within the PD's general fund budget. It is recommended that the Council adopt the necessary Resolution, authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and to establish the budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: Grant Satisfies #2 below. 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. Grant pays for system equipment. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable, grant is for equipment purchase only. 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. Funds benefit SLCPD. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Department of Justice (COPS) Grant- Methamphetamine Program BA#11 09 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Mariean Searcy 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type acaUlTipat Of Proposed Ohange ,: ndyear ofbiennium iennial Period �evenue mpad a un !end Source: ; i4st tifear . end ear 3rd Year wv110Y 2002=b3 elf 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 Department of Justice COPS Grant to 295,103 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund Total $295,103 I $0 $0 Expenditures mpacted bvlund 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 for Meth Task 295,103 Force Total $295,103 $0 $0 xpenditurelmpact Detail 3 EK , _ 1. Salaries and Wages 25,050 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 22,450 4. Charges and Services 47,000 5. Capital Outlay 81,500 6. Other(Contractual) 119,103 Total $295,103 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#9-02meth Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment .4PerSonnel Service-Detail: ATE Grade/Step Amount Over-time$32 per hr x 783 hrs 25,050.00 Officers and Meth Team over-time to provide training to Community Groups&for Special Meth Operations BA#11 FY03 Initiative#9-02meth 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. Issue Discussion: The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received this grant from the Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). It is a supplemental grant, awarded because of the City's status as an original "Pilot Site" for the Meth Initiative. The PD received a Meth Initiative grant four years ago for start up costs to establish a Methamphetamine Task Force, provide children services for children exposed to Methamphetamine drugs, and Public Education and Training. These funds will be used to purchase equipment to include an Ion Scan (scanning device that can detect narcotics or explosives from outside of storage units, bags, etc.), a surveillance van and associated surveillance equipment, pay registration fees to the Drug Endangered Conference for approximately 200 Officers, Prosecutors, Child Protective Workers, Health Workers, Drug Treatment Providers and Medical Providers, travel to include two conferences and an Ion Scan trainer to travel to SLC, program supplies to include bus displays and banners, contractual components that includes $30,094. to Primary Children's Medical Center for the Drug Exposure Medical Plan, $49,193. to the Children's Justice Center for the Clinical Coordination Program, and $39,816. to West Valley City Police Department for the Prosecution Program and Officer and Meth Team overtime for Community Support Education. This grant will provide the resources necessary for the Police Department to expand and further the current Meth Initiative Program. The City Council passed the initial Resolution to accept the original Meth Initiative grant. The previous grant was a 1-time allocation that was initiated over a 3-year period. The grant was closed in December of 01. This is supplemental funding to that grant, to be used within the PD's three most successful areas of the original grant. It is recommended that the City Council establish the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment G. Grant Criteria: Grant Satisfies #2 below. 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. Grant pays for Officer and Meth Team over-time for community education, a condition of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)grants. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Grant funds over- time for grant related purposes. Bulk of grant is for equipment, training and contractual purposes. Activities will cease or be implemented into PD budget if no other grant resources are available. 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? Yes. Quantitative quality and depth of services may not be provided. 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. The Salt Lake City Meth Initiative has allowed a collaborative effort with other entities City/County wide. These funds will enhance the current program. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayors Office FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year You Film/IRC-Department of Health & Human Services Grant BA#11 10 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Tahmina Martelly 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type kcal impact of Proposed Change and year of biennium leiennial Period 4evenue1moac'hed by`Fund and Source .5-kjAtifeff 2nd Year 3rd Year Y 2002.03 fY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 International Rescue Committee Grant to 2,000 Miscellaneous Fund 72 Total $2,000 $0 $0 4$. xnenditures°impaCted by R nd 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 Grant Fund 72 for "A Day in the 2,000 Life" Video Total $2,000 $0 $0 4C;Expenditureilmpact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other (Contractual) 2,000 Total $2,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#10-02MayorlRC 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 Substantial Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Mayor's Office applied for and received a $2,000 pass through grant from the New York based International Rescue Committee. This is a pass through grant from The US Department of Health and Human Services. The Mayor's Office of Refugee Youth and Family will contract with Spy Hop productions to provide creative direction and technical assistance in producing a short, 20 minute video, of "a day in the life" of ten refugee students who attend Highland High. The students will be responsible for shooting the film, editing, proofing and producing the final product. The goal is to capture the interactions of the Refugee Youth with mainstream American students as well as with other groups of racially and ethnically diverse refugee students. The finished product will be used as an educational tool to increase awareness for schools within the Salt Lake City School District as well as neighboring districts. These funds will be used to contract with Spy Hop who will also provide camera/sound equipment, editing bay use, DV Tape and duped VHS tape as well as administrative instruction to the Youth. The Mayor's Office received a $2,000 check from the International Rescue Committee. These funds were deposited into a grant cost center within the State required 3 day period. The Council passed the necessary Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the Health and Human Services Grant and any other grants/contracts relating to that purpose, 3 years ago when the City received the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium grant. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to accept and facilitate these funds. 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. This grant relates to 2. 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? Funding will provide the means of creating and producing a video about ten Refugee Youth and will be used as a learning tool through the school districts. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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 Salt Lake City Fire Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Hansen Family Trust/ Estate Donation - Fire Training and Safety Equipment BA#11 11 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/John Vuyk 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 42nd year of biennuim =biennial Period A:Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year ''FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 Hansen Family Trust Donation to Miscellaneous 100,000 Fund 77-77137 Total $100,000 $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 Miscellaneous Grant Fund 77-77137 for Various 100,000 Training& Safety Equipment Total $100,000 $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 100,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $100,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#11-02FDHansen 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 Substantial Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City's Fire Department, as beneficiary of the Hansen Family Trust/Estate of Harry and Myrtle Hansen, received $100,000. to be specifically used for fire fighting safety and training purposes. Possible expenditures of funds include a T-pass 3 system, heat sensing cameras, fire hoses, Self Contained Breathing Apparatus' Fire Protective Clothing, etc., and Fire Safety Training drills. The Fire Department also plans to use $30,000 of these funds as their match for the FEMA Fire Grant which is also for Fire Safety Equipment and/or Training. These funds will provide the Fire Department with resources for additional equipment and training and is a conditional use of the donated funds. The Fire Department received a $100,000 check from the executor of the estate, Rowe & Walton PC Attorneys at Law. These funds were deposited into a donation cost center within the State required 3 day period. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to accept and facilitate these funds. 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. This grant relates to 3. 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? Provides the Fire Department with equipment, supplies and training. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. Question 4 - Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Not applicable. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Not applicable. 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? Not applicable. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Fire Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year FEMA-Operations& Firefighter Safety Grant BA#11 12 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/John Vuyk 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of:Proposed Change end year of biennium `Biennial Period ' .Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source 11 st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 fY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 FEMA Grant to Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 72,709 Total $72,709 $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 Grant Fund 72 for PASS Safety 72,709 Devices Total $72,709 $0 $0 'C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other (Equipment) 72,709 Total $72,709 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#12-02FDFEMA 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 Substantial Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City's Fire Department applied for and received this allocation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Funds for this grant will be used to purchase 120 Tpass 3 Evacuate PASS Devices and 2 LCD Receiver Units. The PASS device, which is the approximate size of a transistor radio, is worn on the fire fighter's self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) or coat. If the fire fighter should collapse or remain motionless for approximately 30 seconds, the PASS will emit a loud, pulsating shriek. It can also be activated manually. This allows rescuers to follow the sound to locate the lost or downed fire fighter. The use of Pass devices is mandatory under Standard 1500 of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that departments provide PASS devices and ensure that fire fighters wear and activate them when involved in fire fighting, rescue or other hazardous duties. Currently, there are 273 fire fighters and 2 battalions within the SLC Fire Department. These funds will purchase 120 Pass devices and will be issued to 85 front line positions with a dedicated SCBA, 25 special emergency/incident response positions and 10 replacement devices. Each Battalion will receive 1 LCD Receiver Unit. Grant requires a $30,000 match which is budgeted for in the Hansen Trust funds received by the Fire Department. It is recommended that the Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant and to appropriate the necessary budget to accept and facilitate this grant. 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. This grant relates to 2. 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? Provides the Fire Department with equipment. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Not applicable. 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. City would be required to purchase equipment. Grant use is specifically for that purpose. 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 - Grant is awarded to help defray Salt Lake City Fire Department costs. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Fire Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Emergency Medical Services Grant BA#11 13 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/John Vuyk 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium -=Biennial Period ; . levenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 State Bureau of EMS Miscellaneous Grant Fund 98,250 72 Total $98,250 $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 Grant Fund 72 for Fire Fighting 98,250 Equipment Total $98,250 $0 $0 -C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Equipment) 98,250 Total $98,250 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#13-02FDEMS 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 Substantial Impact F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The City's Fire Department applies for and receives these funds annually from the State of Utah, Bureau of Emergency Management Services (EMS). Funds from this grant will be used to purchase fire equipment that could include pharmaceuticals, health and safety supplies, i.e., gloves, masks, safety glasses, etc., medical equipment including 2 defibrillators, emergency medical training and a John Deere Gator with a bed (specialized ATV unit). This ATV is used to move/haul people or equipment in an emergency situation, when the usual transport means is not feasible. This is an annual Grant that is awarded based on percentage of Fire fighters who are EMT, EMD or paramedic certified. Funds are to be used for equipment and/or on-going training. The grant requires a $7,500 match which is budgeted for within the Fire Department's general fund budget. It is recommended that the Council adopt the Resolution authorizing the mayor to sign and accept the grant award and to sign any additional contracts and awards related to the grant and to appropriate the necessary budget to accept and facilitate this grant. 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. This grant relates to 3. 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? Provides the Fire Department with equipment, supplies and training. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Not applicable. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Not applicable. 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. City would be required to continue fire services and to provide equipment and training at a greater cost to City and 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 - Grant is awarded to help defray Salt Lake City Fire Department costs. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Hansen Family Trust/Estate-West Point Leadership Program BA#11 14 Initiative Name Initiative Number Chris Burbank 799-3808 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Requiring Existing Staff Focus Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 Funds from the Hansen Family Trust into 77- 67,180 77136 1895 Total $67,180 $0 $0 13.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 West Point Leadership Program 67,180 Total $67,180 $0 $0 -C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 1,130 4. Charges and Services 66,050 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $67,180 $0 $0 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. Issue Discussion: The Police Department was the recipient of a trust award of $ 100,000 from the Hansen Family Trust with the written purpose of "insuring individual safety of its officers by purchasing safety equipment and training". The Department proposes to fund a high quality leadership program with the following estimated budget: $1,130 for material and supplies, instructor fees of $ 47,000, instructor lodging $ 5,250, instructor travel $7,500 and meeting facilities $ 6,300. The remainder of the funds will stay in the trust account. The proposed training tool is the West Point Leadership Program. At this time, the Police Department has not determined a use for the remaining $32,820. Those funds will be brought into budget a budget opening as needed. West Point Leadership Program The West Point Leadership Program is an intensive, college-level course designed to provide practical tools for modern day leadership positions. Instruction for the course is provided by police executives from around the country, college professors and a West Point Military Academy General. Information will be provided in the form of a course textbook and study guide, computer-assisted instruction, definition/application instruction, a student journal and relevant case studies. The attained knowledge of participants will be measured and graded through three exams and a final. Credit earned through the West Point Leadership Program may be applied toward a bachelor's degree. The goal of the course is to provide a framework by which individuals are better able to organize thoughts and solve problems through presented theories on human behavior. The course will challenge individual leaders to develop and achieve their personal potential, inspiring a pursuit of leadership skills. The course will be open to selected city employees, individuals in leadership positions within the Police and Fire Department and other law enforcement agencies. The program is presented in weeklong blocks, once a month over a period of four months. Representatives attending the initial course will be trained to instruct future classes, increasing program availability to additional city employees and potentially to selected community members. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Police Department to spend the trust funds to initiate this training program. 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. Relates to #3 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 Iona-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? Provides Police Department with equipment, supplies and training. 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? NA Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Federal Emergency Management Agency- Hazard Mitigation Grant BA#11 15 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sherrie Collins/Michael Stever 535-6150 Prepared By Phone Number Grant Providing Additional Staff Resources Budget Type .fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennium A.'Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 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 FEMA Grant to the Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 20,000 Total $20,000 $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 Miscellaneous Grant Fund 72 for Emergency 20,000 Manager's Position Total $20,000 $0 $0 =C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 20,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other (Specify) Total $20,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#15-02EmergencyMgmt Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment -D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Emergency Program Director 1 Exempt 54,966.00 Benefits 15,564.00 Current Cost of Position $ 70,530.00 $20,000 grant supplements existing expenses. BA#11 FY03 Initiative#15-02EmergencyMgmt 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 Major Impact. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management or personnel issues. Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: Emergency Management Services receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Division of Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM). The grant is awarded to Salt Lake City to defray the costs associated with the Emergency Manager's Position. These funds will be used to help defray the salary and benefit costs of the Emergency Managers Position. The Emergency Managers Position is responsible to design, implement and apply the Emergency Operating Procedure manual and to educate Salt Lake City Corporation, Community Groups, and local businesses of emergency procedures and policies in the event of a natural disaster, hazardous materials, bombs, terrorist attacks, etc. The Resolution for this grant was previously adopted. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget to accept and facilitate this grant. 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. This grant relates to 2. 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? Partially, the other part of this position is budgeted for within Management Services General Fund Budget. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Salt Lake City's Emergency Management Program, consisting of 1 FTE and .50 FTE, is partially funded with these funds. These funds are to help defray the costs of the FTE. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? The City receives this grant annually and will continue to apply as long as the State funding is available. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Funds received fund partial costs of position. If Management Services were unable to absorb the $20,000., the position would be eliminated. 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 Office of the City Council FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year One-Time Money BA#11 16 Initiative Name Initiative Number Michael Sears 535-6295 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative 'Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period .. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: .1st Year '2nd Year 3rd Year <!FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 1. General Fund General Fund Balance 1,625,000 Total $1,625,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Fund 775,000 Housing Trust Fund 800,000 Total $1,575,000 $0 $0 13. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Non-Departmental-The Leonardo 50,000 CIP Fund 775,000 Housing Trust Fund 800,000 Total $1,625,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Neighborhood Legacy Project-CIP Fund 700,000 Housing Trust Fund(Cost Center 72-17004) 800,000 Police Memorial-CIP Fund(New CC) 75,000 Total $1,575,000 $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 775,000 6. Other(Allocation to Housing Trust Fund) 800,000 (Allocation to The Leonardo) 50,000 Total $1,625,000 $0 $0 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 General Fund Balance will be reduced by $1,625,000. The Housing Trust Fund will receive $800,000, the CIP Fund $775,000 and $50,000 will be paid to The Leonardo to assist with the capital renovation costs of the old Library building. The allocation to the Housing Trust Fund will result in more available funding for housing needs in the City. The allocation to the CIP Fund will result in construction of community oriented capital projects. The transfer of General Fund Balance to these projects will result in less available funding were the City faced with emergency expenditures or revenue shortfall. 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 Council has since May 7, 2002 considered several uses for fiscal year 2002-2003 one-time revenue. The Council has indicated that the uses of the one-time money would be decided as additional information and discussion time became available. The Council has finished their deliberations on the allocation of funds and in the Oct. 17, 2002 Council work session meeting finalized budget appropriation recommendations. Approval of this budget initiative as part of an ordinance revising the ordinance that adopted the biennial budget will accomplish the intended appropriations. The City has $1,626,290 remaining in available one-time money. The money is currently part of the General Fund Balance. The Council on Oct. 17, 2002 indicated that $1,625,000 would be appropriated as follows: $800,000 to the Housing Trust Fund, $700,000 to the Neighborhood Legacy Project ($100,000 to each of the seven Council districts to construct a project of the neighborhood's choosing), $75,000 to construct a Police memorial and $50,000 to be paid to The Leonardo to assist in the fundraising necessary for the renovation of the old City Library. The approval of this initiative as part of Budget Amendment #11 will allow the Council's intended appropriations to be made. The effect of making the appropriations as specified on Oct. 17, 2002 will be a reduction in available General Fund Balance in the amount of$1,625,000. It is recommended that the Council approve this initiative and appropriate the $1,625,000 into the following categories: $800,000 to the Housing Trust Fund, $100,000 to each of the seven Council districts for the construction of a Neighborhood Legacy Project, $75,000 for the construction of a Police Memorial and $50,000 to The Leonardo to assist with the capital expenses relating to the renovation of the old City Library. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services Engineering FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Jorday River Parkway Rail Crossing BA#11 17 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joel Harrison 535-6234 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 for Jordan River Parkway Rail 30,000 Crossing Total $30,000 $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 Jordan River Parkway Railway Crossing(83- 30,000 97007) Total $30,000 $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 30,000 6.Other(Specify) Total $30,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#17-JR Parkway Rail Crossing 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. Issue Discussion: The City, through a contract administered by the Utah Department of Transportation, is constructing a segment of the Jordan River Parkway Trail. The proposed trail crosses a railroad spur at approximately 1800 South 1100 West. The at-grade crossing requires fencing, warning signs, pedestrian and bicycle gates and other related improvements. Such upgrades are required by UDOT. It is necessary to enter into an agreement with Union Pacific Railroad to authorize their crews to construct railroad improvements. The cost center which is germane to this portion of the Jordan River Trail project has been fully expended. In order to cover the costs associated with the crossing, CIP Contingency funds will be needed. The estimated cost of the improvements is $25,551 and the City will be responsible to pay actual costs incurred. $30,000 is being requested in the case that unforseen costs arise. The unexpended portion will be returned to CIP contingency once the project is finished. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Prosecutors Office FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year State Infractions and Misdemeanor Services BA#11 18 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sim Gill, Laurie Dillon, Steven Allred 535-7766 (Laurie) Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund Court Generated Revenue 134,940 269,880 269,880 Total $134,940 $269,880 $269,880 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 Personal Services in Prosecutor's Office 83,465 166,930 166,930 Contractual Services in Prosecutor's Office 27,550 55,100 55,100 Personal Services in Justice Court 23,925 47,850 47,850 Total $134,940 $269,880 $269,880 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 107,390 214,780 214,780 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 27,550 55,100 55,100 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other Total $134,940 $269,880 $269,880 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#18-02ProsStateCases Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Associate City Prosecutor 2.00 607 129,900 Clerk 1.00 213 37,030 Hearing Officer 1.00 219 47,850 Legal Defenders contractual with private party 55,100 Total 269,880 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#18-02ProsStateCases 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 Increased net revenue of about$255,000 annually is expected. In addition, the Justice Court will not be required to keep separate calendaring and accounting for State misdemeanor and infraction cases. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Issue Discussion: Salt Lake City has the option to take on the prosecution of infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors for the District Attorney (DA). These cases are primarily comprised of traffic citations issued by the Utah Highway Patrol and criminal cases brought by the District Attorney. These cases are required to be tried in the Salt Lake City Justice Court, rather than the District Court. The choice the City has is whether or not to prosecute the cases under the City Prosecutor's Office, rather than having the DA prosecute the cases. If the City both prosecutes and tries the cases, all the revenue would be retained by the City. If the DA prosecutes these cases, the revenue is split between Salt Lake City and the State of Utah. These cases are currently being filed in the SLC Justice Court, but are being prosecuted by the DA. Because of this joint handling, Salt Lake City and the State split the fines and forfeitures. UHP Traffic Cases: It was anticipated that the City Justice Court would handle the traffic citations that occur in Salt Lake City but are cited by the Utah Highway Patrol. These were estimated to be about 7700 per year. However, actual numbers of traffic cases to date are higher than what was expected. After two months, an average of 1020 traffic tickets per month were issued from the UHP. These traffic cases are handled primarily by the Justice Court staff, but some of the cases may require a prosecutor if they go before a judge. At this time the State is responsible for the prosecution of these cases, and the fines and forfeitures for these cases are split with the State. These cases differ from the City civil traffic cases in that the UHP citations are still criminal citations. No provision was made in the original estimates about City Prosecutor time for these criminal traffic citations, but if they were transferred to the City, a prosecutor might need to get involved in as many as 300 cases per year. This estimate is based on having the same percentage of UHP cases going to trial as what is seen for City traffic cases, which was 2.3% in FY 2001-02. The actual traffic caseload has resulted in a slightly different mix than the projection made in October of 2000. A total of 52,700 traffic cases were anticipated, 45,000 from Salt Lake City and 7700 from UHP. The UHP projection was based on average numbers of cases from prior years. Although the UHP numbers appear to be higher than projected, the Salt Lake City numbers may actually be somewhat lower. The average number of City traffic cases for the last two years was 43,600. A projection based on the last two years for City cases and the last two months for UHP cases would result in 55,800 cases, or about 3000 more than what was projected two years ago. What was not anticipated, though, was that 45% of the cases would require a hearing officer. This aspect of the program is suffering because of its success, and in order to maintain timely responses (less than 30 minutes waiting time) for people who call or come in personally, another hearing officer is needed. Regardless of whether the City takes on the prosecution of these cases, additional hearing officer staffing is required for this increased caseload. The original Administrative Enforcement Program decriminalized many traffic violations and was intended to make it easier for people to"have their say" about traffic citations. This apparently has been successful, as 45% of the cases go before a hearing officer. The 4500 additional UHP cases (12,240 actual v. 7700 projected) can be expected to result in about 2000 more hearings per year. In FY 2001-02, a staff of 8 hearing officers heard 16,481 cases, or an average of 2060 each. The additional UHP cases warrant an additional hearing officer. State Criminal Cases: The infraction and Class B and C misdemeanor cases from the District Attorney were not included for either prosecution or adjudication in the original estimates for the Justice Court. However, the City is required to adjudicate these cases in the Justice Court. If they are heard in the Justice Court but prosecuted by the DA, the City splits the fines and forfeitures with the State. This requires the City to provide a separate calendar in the Justice Court for the State as well as maintaining separate accounting of the cases. If the City prosecutes and adjudicates the cases, all fines and forfeitures would be retained by the City. In 2000, there were about 2600 State Class B and C misdemeanors and infractions filed (1113 UHP cases other than traffic, 607 DA misdemeanor cases, 627 U of U cases, and 229 Community College cases). Although the Justice Court has only seen about half as many of these kinds of cases as would be expected (92 artual in Aunust iPrsus 217 monthly avarans fnr 2An(1 nasps oar vaar) it rni ilr1 ha that tharP is a Ian in the filinn Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment actual in August versus 217 monthly average for 2600 cases per year), it could be that there is a lag in the filing time and they will eventually reach that number. At this point in time, there is more credibility in criminal case numbers from previous years than in the short two month history for the Justice Court. The total increase in criminal cases requiring a City Prosecutor will likely be about 2900 (300 UHP traffic cases and 2600 criminal cases). Cause: The City did not anticipate taking on the prosecution of the criminal cases for the State of Utah. However, it is required that all misdemeanor cases in Salt Lake City be tried in the City's Justice Court. Since the majority of the cases are traffic cases, the bulk of the work is handled by the Justice Court, but the City retains only half of the revenue. Taking on the traffic cases includes taking on the other criminal cases, and this will require additional effort from the Prosecutor's Office. However, when the City prosecutes all the cases, the Justice Court will no longer be required to maintain separate calendaring, recordkeeping and accounting for the State cases. Effect: The prosecution of these cases is expected to result in net revenue of about$255,000 annually. The annual projections for revenue and expenses for this recommendation follow. For the current fiscal year, net revenue of$75,000 can be anticipated. This projection is based on state traffic cases yielding about $170,940, or about half of the annual amount. The state criminal cases have a longer lead time for revenue, however, and only about one quarter of the annual projection ($40,000) would be likely for the first half year. The total revenue for FY 02-03, presuming an implementation date of January 1, 2003, would be$209,940. The expenses would be half the annual projection, or$134,940. Annual Revenue 2,600 State criminal cases at$70/case =$182,000 12,240 State traffic cases at$28/case= $342,720 Total Revenue=$524,720 Annual Expense 2 Assoc. Prosecutors $64,950 ea. =$129,900 1 Clerk= $37,030 1 Hearing Officer=$47,850 Legal Defenders = $55,100 Total Expenses= $269,880 Recommendation: The Administration recommends that Salt Lake City provide prosecution for the State of Utah's infraction and Class B & C misdemeanor cases within the Salt Lake City jurisdiction. The City would retain all of the fines and forfeitures from the cases, rather than split the revenue because the State prosecuted the cases in the SLC Justice Court. To accomplish this, two prosecutors and a clerk should be added to the Prosecutor's Office, a hearing officer should be added to the Justice Court staffing, and additional funding support should be provided for the Legal Defenders. The prosecution of these cases is expected to result in net revenue of$255,000 annually. For the current fiscal year and an implementation date of January 1, 2003, net revenue of$75,000 can be anticipated. Annual Net Revenue= $254,840 Analyst's Comments: If reductions in the number of prosecutors in the Prosecutor's Office occur as a result of other budget issues (i.e. prosecutors for Community Prosecution Model), the additional clerical staff position indicated as being necessary may not actually be needed. The need for the clerical position was based on maintaining the current ratio of prosecutors to clerical staff support. If the net number of prosecutors remains the same, no additional clerical position would be required. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilities-Water FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Water: Carryover/Replacement Water Lines BA#11 19 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Phone Number House Keeping Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Water Utility Reserve Funds 3,421,877 Total $3,421,877 $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 Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Water Carryover Projects 2,956,761 New Water Projects 465,116 Total $3,421,877 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure-Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 3,421,877 6. Other(Specify) Total $3,421,877 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#19-water amendment 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. Issue Discussion: The Water Utility must amend the CIP program to complete projects started and budgeted last year in the amount of $2,956,761 . The water budget also needs to be adjusted $465,116 for the construction of replacement water lines on South Temple - State Street to Virginia Street and 6400 South from Highland to 1500 East. The required adjustment amounts to $ 3,421 ,877 from reserve funds, which are available. This adjustment will allow the department to meet its goals and continue to build the needed construction projects. The major portion of this adjustment relates to carryover projects budgeted last year and under construction currently. Without approval of the funding the projects would be stopped in the middle of construction. New projects would be delayed until next summer. With the many construction projects planned years in advance, some projects carryover to the next fiscal year and require an amendment to the budget. We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilities-Sewer FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Sewer: Carryover/New Projects BA#11 20 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Phone Number House Keeping Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Sewer Utility Reserve Funds 3,418,457 Total $3,418,457 $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 Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Water Carryover Projects 2,828,784 New Water Projects 589,673 Total $3,418,457 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 3,418,457 6. Other(Specify) Total $3,418,457 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#20-sewer amendment 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. Issue Discussion: The Sewer Utility must amend the CIP program to complete projects started and budgeted last year in the amount of $ 2,828,784. The water budget also needs to be adjusted $589,673 for the construction of replacement sewer lines on 2100 South from 1480 to 1700 East, 2100 South from 2300 to 2600 East, and additional projects associated with South Temple construction project on M Street, L Street, and Virginia. The required adjustment amounts to $ 3,418,457 from reserve funds, which are available. This adjustment will allow the department to meet its goals and continue to build the needed construction projects. The major portion of this adjustment relates to carryover projects budgeted last year and under construction currently. The new projects relate to projects related to South Temple reconstruction. During construction of South Temple the Department found side streets needing replacement on Virginia Street, M , and L Street. Without approval of the funding the projects would be stopped in the middle of construction. New projects would be delayed until next summer. With many construction projects planned years in advance, some projects carryover to the next fiscal year and require an amendment to the budjet each year. We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Utilities-Stromwater FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Stormwater: Carryover/Replacement Storm Water Lines BA#11 21 Initiative Name Initiative Number Jim Lewis 483-6773 Prepared By Phone Number House Keeping Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Storm water Utility Reserve Funds 1,300,111 Total $1,300,111 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund ,t Total $0 $0 $01 4 2. Internal Service Fund } ' !' Total wl I $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Storm water Carryover Projects 1,238,219 New Stormwater Projects 61,892 Total $1,300,111 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 1,300,111 6. Other(Specify) Total $1,300,111 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#21-stormwater amendment 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. Issue Discussion: The Stormwater Utility must amend the CIP program to complete projects started and budgeted last year in the amount of $ 1 ,300,111. The Stormwater budget also needs to be adjusted $61,892 for the construction of replacement stormwater lines on East Liberty park Phase II related to Public Works Project and line replacement on 1700 South and 500 West to Jordan River. The required adjustment amounts to $1,300,111 from reserve funds, which are available. This adjustment will allow the department to meet its goals and continue to build the needed construction projects. The major portion of this adjustment relates to carryover projects budgeted last year and under construction currently. The new projects relate to projects on East Liberty Park Phase II and 1700 South 500 West to Jordan River. Without approval of the funding the projects would be stopped in the middle of construction. New projects would be delayed until next summer. With the many construction projects planned years in advance, some projects carryover to the next fiscal year and require an amendment to the budget. We recommend approval of the budget amendment to allow completion of the capital improvement projects. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Department of Airports FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Airport Budget Amendment BA#11 22 Initiative Name Initiative Number Joseph Moratalla/Jay Bingham 575-2918 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. (Airport) Enterprise Fund Airport Improvement Fund-Reserves (1,421,800) Airport Improvement Fund-PFC 11,126,500 Airport Improvement Fund-State Grant 5,400 Airport Improvement Fund-aip FAA Grant (39,100) Total $9,671,000 $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 Total $0 $0 $0 3. (Airport) Enterprise Fund Airport Operating&Maintenace 618,900 Airport Capital Equipment 309,000 Airport Capital improvement Program 8,743,100 Total $9,671,000 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 189,300 2. Employee Benefits 72,300 jy; l 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 280,800 I;' 4. Charges and Services 76,500 5. Capital Outlay 8,743,100 6. Other(Specify) Capital Equipment 309,000 Total $9,671,000 $0 $0 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#22-airport • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount New Police Officers 11 122 $ 311,400 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#22-airport Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In of Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: This budget amendment is composed of multiple items,the first of which deals with changes in federal security regulations. In the aftermath of September 11th, and the federalization of airport security, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has undergone structural changes. During the first part of this year, the security component of the FAA was transferred to a newly created federal agency, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Under the new regulations, TSA requires that a Law Enforcement Officer be stationed at the terminal screening areas. The National Guard provided this service until May of this year. Since that time, the TSA has been working with local agencies to determine which agency could best provide this security for the TSA. As such, the TSA has contracted with the Airport to provide this service on an ongoing, and reimbursement, basis. The Airport needs 11 additional Police Officers in order to have sufficient resources to fulfill its contractual obligations with the TSA. The budget impact for the additional 11 police officers for the remainder of FY 2002/2003 will be$311,400. The fiscal impact for FY2003/2004 will be$523,200. If the City Council approves this budget amendment, the total FTE's for the Airport will be 575.8. Currently, the Airport has been providing this service to the TSA using its existing officers, working overtime. Although this has provided a short-term solution, long-term this would result in extensive overtime costs and diminished employee morale. Should the City Council not approve this budget amendment,the Airport would fulfill its contractual obligations with TSA by continuing to use its existing personnel and overtime, but may not provide this service for the TSA after the current contract ends due to insufficient personnel resources. This budget amendment also addresses several airfield maintenance projects that were not initially included in the FY2003 budget. Some of these projects are associated with the recent changes for airport security, and others are a result of on-going review and prioritization of the airport's maintenance projects. These additional projects cost$307,500, and include: painting modifications, hangar demolitions, parking lot modifications, runway friction improvement, and the paving of the RTR site. In addition, new recycle bins will be purchased for the concourses as part of the Airport's environmental program. Changes in project schedules and demands, require the airport to update its capital budget. A snow blower budgeted for$309,000 in FY02 is included in this request since it was not delivered on time during FY02 due to a long lead-time in the procurement process. This budget request also includes $8,743,100 to address carryovers and new projects for the on-going capital improvement program (CIP). If the budget request is not approved the Airport will not be able to complete some of its on-going projects or take advantage of favorable bidding practice in the spring of 2003. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year E911 Carpet and Furniture BA#11 23 Initiative Name Initiative Number Chris Dunn 799-3541 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 E911 Fund for Carpet and Chairs 13,000 Total $13,000 $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 E911 Fund-Carpet and Chairs in E911 Area 13,000 Total $13,000 $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 6. Other (Carpet and Furniture) 13,000 Total $13,000 $0 $0 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. Issue Discussion: The Police Department is requesting approval to use a portion of the E911 fund balance to replace chairs and carpet in the E911 work area. E911 funds are to be used to support upgrades and improvements to the level of E911 service provided to the community. The chairs in the center are used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Each chair is adjusted frequently to be used by 43 different people. It is important to provide safe and comfortable work stations for the call takers. Also, due to extensive wiring under the sub floor, carpet squares are used instead of running rolls of carpet, so that the squares can be removed to access the phones and computer lines. With constant use, the carpet becomes separated from the rubber backing causing a safety concern. The request also includes the cost to have the furniture moved when the installation takes place. These changes will provide a safe and ergonomically correct work area and may decrease workers compensation claims. It is recommended that the City Council allow the use of a portion of the E911 fund balance to purchase new chairs for the 911 call takers and replace the carpet to make the work area safer. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year E911 Hiring process BA#11 24 Initiative Name Initiative Number Chris Dunn 799-3541 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 E911 Fund for the Hiring Process 10,000 Total $10,000 $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 E911 Fund:Hiring Process 10,000 Total $10,000 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 10,000 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other E911 Hiring process Total $10,000 $0 $0 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. Issue Discussion: E911 funds are to be used to support upgrades and improvements to the level of E911 service provided to the community. The Police Department is asking for approval to use a portion of the E911 fund balance to purchase a hiring program to streamline the call taker hiring process. Approval would allow the Department to put out an RFP. Some of the products available use an interative video that tests listening, writing and memory and judgment. The current hiring test process takes approximately 2 days and requires several of the dispatch supervisors, dispatchers and officers to be on overtime to run the various tests. The new program could be carried out in about 2 hours with the help of 1 or 2 supervisors to monitor the process. It could be given to all candidates at the same time. Only those who pass the test will be interviewed, rather than all applicants, as is now the practice. It will also give applicants a clearer picture of the requirements of the job. This will provide a more professional and efficient use of Police Department resources and attract more qualified candidates for employment. It is recommended that the City Council allow the use of a portion of the E911 fund balance to purchase a new hiring program for the E911 Center. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year E911 Logging Recorder BA#11 25 Initiative Name Initiative Number Chris Dunn 799-3541 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 E911 Fund 130,000 Total $130,000 $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 E911 Fund 130,000 Total $130,000 $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 130,000 6. Other(Specify) Total $130,000 $0 $0 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. Issue Discussion: E911 funds are to be used to support upgrades and improvements to the level of E911 service provided to the community. The Police Department is requesting approval to use a portion of the E911 fund balance to replace the outdated phone call logging recorder. The current recorder is over 10 years old, maintenance is becoming costly, and failures are occurring with more frequency. All available channels are full. During the peak of calls on the Elizabeth Smart case, it was necessary to decide what lines to unplug to record the FBI 1-800-number and use additional phones to handle the overload on the 799-3000 lines so that day to day business would not be disrupted. These recordings are used in the prosecution of court cases, especially in Domestic Violence evidence cases, and also protect Salt Lake City from litigation. It is recommended that the City Council allow the use of a portion of the E911 fund balance to purchase a new logging recorder for the Communications Center. This approval will allow the Police Department to put out an RFP for purchase of equipment and maintenance. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Police Department FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year E911 Center Backup Power System BA#11 26 Initiative Name Initiative Number Chris Dunn 799-3541 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 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 E911 Fund for E911 Center Backup Power 400,000 Total $400,000 $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 E911 Fund:E911 Center Backup Power System 400,000 Total $400,000 $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 6. Other E911 Center Backup power system 400,000 Total $400,000 $0 $0 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. Issue Discussion: The Police Department proposes using a portion of the E911 fund balance to purchase a new backup power system for the 911 Communications Center. These funds are to be used to support upgrades and improvements to the level of E911 service provided to the community. The new system would support the entire Public Satefy Building, including the Emergency Operations Center. The portion of the cost not appropriate to be covered by E911 funds will come from deferred maintenance funds in the Public Services Budget (approximately $100,000). The current outdated system is not large enough to support all of the emergency equipment in the Communications Center in the event of a major power outage. Some critical services could be lost. There is no bypass for uninterrupted service and the current system has to be completely shut down for yearly service. Old regulators have trouble delivering a smooth switch over without sending serges of power causing major damage to phone, computer and data lines. If a major failure occurred, we could loose the ability to provide emergency services to the citizens of Salt Lake City. In addition, evacuation of the building is difficult for those employees with ADA needs. The proposed system will provide uninterrupted emergency service to the community and ensure that the City meets ADA requirements for employees. It is recommended that the City Council allow the use of a portion of the E911 fund balance to purchase a new emergency power system to support the equipment in the E911 Communications Center to provide uninterrupted emergency service to the citizens of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY0203 Department For Fiscal Year Impound Lot- Retain Management BA#11 27 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535x6397 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Initiative Type Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of 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 1. General Fund Impound Lot Fees& Vehicle Sales to GF 413,170 722,227 732,276 Total $413,170 $722,227 $732,276 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 Impound Lot Staffing& Operation 455,696 582,007 591,432 Total $455,696 $582,007 $591,432 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 223,109 247,682 253,874 2. Employee Benefits 74,370 82,561 84,625 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 12,921 17,827 18,272 4. Charges and Services 145,296 228,937 234,661 5. Capital Outlay - 5,000 - 6. Other(Specify) Total $455,696 $582,007 $5t31'4 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#27-Impound Lot_Retain Management Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Seasonal 2.97 Seasonal $ 68,175 Impound Lot Supervisor 1.00 307 $ 49,214 Impound Lot Attendant 4.00 115 $ 164,739 Overtime $ 15,352 Total $ 297,479 BA#11 FY03 Initiative#27-Impound Lot_Retain Management 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: During the biennial budget process, outsourcing the impound lot management was projected to create a saving of $386,000 in expense and a reduction of $260,00 in revenue. These efficiencies would occur based upon a significant change in the program. Rather than the City collecting the fees as traditionally done and then paying the contractor, the contractor would collect the towing, impound administration, storage and all booting fees in exchange for towing and operation of the impound lot. Under this scenario, the City would only collect revenue from the sale of abandoned vehicles and a modest $10.00 per vehicle impound fee to cover the city's cost. The Public Services Department, Contracts Division and Administrative Enforcement Division of Management Services, along with elements of the Police Department developed an RFP. The RFP contained two separate elements, a new outsourcing initiative for management of the impound lot, and a new vehicle towing contract to replace the expiring five-year contract. Venders were given the options of bidding on either lot management or towing, or both. Early in the RFP development process it became evident that to conduct proper oversight of the process and to avoid conflict with State Law, the collection of fees ought to remain with the City. The RFP was advertised widely and nine companies responded to the advertisement. Three venders attended the pre-bid conference, and two responded to the RFP. One company responded to both elements (management and towing)the other responded only to the towing element. The selection committee, with members from Management Services, Police Department and Department of Public Services, scrutinized the firms and recommended further analysis of the vender who responded to both elements. This analysis, a due diligence process, included meetings with the management of the firm, the firm's CPA and the firm's insurance agent to explore the firms financial stability and ability to provide an acceptable level of service. The committee then recommended contracting with the firm for outsourcing the entire operation. Public Services compared the cost of outsourcing versus retaining the management of the lot and determined that the vendor's cost structure for managing the lot was very similar to that of the city. Therefore, outsourcing would cost slightly less and would result in a diminished level of service. Additionally the RFP exercise revealed that the cost of towing has increased materially from the cost set by contract five years ago. The proposed new fee for towing reflected a 37% increase based on the doubling of insurance rates, increase in dieseel fuel and increase in labor costs. The outsourcing exercise proved valuable in terms of educating all concerned about outsourcing of a vital government function and upgrading the five year old analysis of the impound operation. The extensive analysis also led to recommendations on restructuring the fee schedules associated with impounding and towing. A full cost analysis of the impounding program lead to a recommendation to double the administrative fee from $75.00 to $150.00 and increase the daily storage fee from $10.00 to $15.00. A similar analysis five years ago resulted in a five-fold increase in the administrative fee from $15.00 to $75.00. The storage fee at that time remained at $10.00 per day, but was collected seven days a week rather than five. Recommendation: From both a level of service and financial standpoint, it is best to continue outsourcing only the towing element of our impounding operation and increasing the fees to allow recovery of the full cost of the program from those who use the program. If the City chosses to outsource the entire operation, the fiscal impacts will be the same, but the service level will diminish. We are recommending that Salt Lake City increase the FY0203 expense budget for the Impound Lot by$455,696 and the FY0203 revenue budget by$413,170. The FY0203 difference between revenue and expense of $42,526 would be absorbed within Public Services' existing budget by prioritizing department capital. For the years FY0304 - FY0607, the fee increases proposed for January 2003 and July 2005 will cover the costs at an approximate breakeven level not only for those expenses directly incurred in the Impound Lot cost center, but for the costs in support of the Impound Lot which are recorded in other cost centers as well. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services FY 02-03 Department For Fiscal Year Recycling -Multi Family'n Single Family BA#11 28 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Phone Number New Item Type of Initiative Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change 2nd year of biennium Biennial Period A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2002-03 FY FY 2004-05 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Fee to Multi Family 23,400 93,990 94,380 Use of Refuse Fund Balance 185,679 103,608 124,279 Total $209,079 $197,598 $218,659 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 1, ' J • Recycling Program 209,079 197,598 218,659 .. 1 Total $209,079 $197,598 $218,659 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C. Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 158,679 197,598 218,659 5. Capital Outlay 50,400 6. Other(Specify) Total $209,079 $197,598 $218,659 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. Issue Discussion: SLC wishes to implement an automated curbside multifamily recycling program. In addition, more single family residents are participating in automated curbside recycling than was originally anticipated when the program was introduced in FY 01-02. SLC currently provides no multifamily recycling. By the end of FY 02-03, it is anticipated that 1,200 multifamily residents will be participating in recycling if a SLC sponsored program is approved in December 2002. From a single family perspective, it was originally anticipated in FY 01-02 that approximately 28,000 single family households would participate. Based on current participation and net adds per month, close to 33,000 single family households will be involved with SLC's curbside recycling program by the end of FY 02-03. By the end of FY 04-05 we anticipated that 34,300 single family households will be participating in the automated curbside recycling program. Implementation of automated curbside multifamily recycling and the continued growth of participation by single family households will result in increased payments to the recycling contractor. SLC will also need to purchase recycling cans in order to commence the multifamily program. It is recommended that the Council approve the funding for an automated curbside multifamily recycling program and approve the funding to support the increasing participation of single family households in the existing automated curbside recycling program. Fees to multifamily users coupled with the existing four-year strategy of using and reducing fund balance, which is in excess of current needs, will cover these program costs. OCT282002 COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: October 28, 2002 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Steve Fawcett Deputy Director, Department of Management Services SUBJECT: Prosecution of State Infraction and Misdemeanor Cases by Salt Lake City STAFF CONTACTS: Laurie Dillon Sim Gill Steven Allred Sr. Administrative Analyst City Prosecutor Acting City Attorney 535-7766 535-7767 535-7788 DOCUMENT TYPE: Information. If approved, the recommendation can be implemented by appropriating funds for the personnel and other costs to be presented in Budget Amendment#11. RECOMMENDATION: Salt Lake City should take on the prosecution of infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors from the State of Utah. To accomplish this, two prosecutors and a clerk should be added to the Prosecutor's Office, a hearing officer should be added to the Justice Court staffing, and additional funding support should be provided for the Legal Defenders. BUDGET IMPACT: The prosecution of these cases is expected to result in annual net revenue of$255,000. New revenue from fines and forfeitures of$525,000 would be offset by new expenses of$270,000. If this proposal were implemented by January 1, 2003, net additional revenue of about $109,000 could be expected for the current fiscal year. Current year revenue is expected to be $244,000 ($171,400 from state traffic cases and $72,800 from state criminal cases) and expenses for a half year for the new positions are expected to be $135,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has the option to take on the prosecution of infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors for the District Attorney(DA). These cases, which include Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) traffic cases, are currently being filed in the SLC Justice Court, but are being prosecuted by the DA. Because of this joint handling, Salt Lake City and the State split the fines and forfeitures. The City Prosecutor's Office would likely see an increase in caseload of about 2900 cases per year and two additional prosecutors and one clerk would be needed to handle this projected caseload. Legal Defenders, budgeted through Non Departmental, would need additional support of about $55,000 for indigent defense. UHP traffic cases, originally anticipated to be about 7700, are expected to number 12,000 - 13,000 per year. Due to 1 s this higher caseload, one additional hearing officer is needed for the Justice Court to address the cases in a timely manner. PUBLIC PROCESS: Not applicable To: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer From: Laurie Dillon Sr. Administrative Analyst 535-7766 Subject: Prosecution of State Cases in Salt Lake City Justice Court Date: October 1, 2002 CC: Mayor Anderson, Steven Allred, Sim Gill, David Nimkin, L. Zane Gill, Mary Johnston, Larry Spendlove, Steve Fawcett, Kay Christensen, Richard Anderson The Administration recommends that Salt Lake City provide prosecution for the State of Utah's infraction and Class B & C misdemeanor cases within the Salt Lake City jurisdiction. The City would retain all of the fines and forfeitures from the cases, rather than split the revenue because the state prosecuted the cases in the SLC Justice Court. Salt Lake City has the option to take on the prosecution of infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors for the District Attorney(DA). These cases, which include Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) traffic cases, are currently being filed in the SLC Justice Court, but are being prosecuted by the DA. Because of this joint handling, Salt Lake City and the State split the fines and forfeitures. Salt Lake City could realize an increase of$255,000 annually after additional costs if the City prosecuted these cases. The City Prosecutor's Office would likely see an increase in caseload of about 2900 cases per year. Two additional prosecutors and one clerk would be needed in the City Prosecutor's Office to handle this projected caseload. Legal Defenders, budgeted through Non Departmental,would need additional support of about $55,000 for indigent defense. UHP traffic cases were originally anticipated to be about 7700,but the actual number will probably be 12,000 - 13,000 per year. Due to this higher caseload, one additional hearing officer is needed for the Justice Court to address the cases in a timely manner. Caseload UHP Traffic Cases: It was anticipated that the City Justice Court would handle the traffic citations that occur in Salt Lake City but are cited by the Utah Highway Patrol. These were estimated to be about 7700 per year. However, actual numbers of traffic cases to date are higher than what was expected. After two months, an average of 1020 traffic tickets per month were issued from the UHP. These traffic cases are handled primarily by the Justice Court staff, but some of the cases may require a prosecutor if they go before a judge. At this time the state is responsible for the prosecution of these cases, and the fines and forfeitures for these cases are split with the state. These cases differ from the City civil traffic cases in that the UHP citations are still criminal citations. No provision was made in the original estimates about City Prosecutor time for these criminal traffic citations but if they were transferred to the City, a prosecutor might need to get involved in as many as 300 cases per year. This estimate is based on having the same percentage of UHP cases going to trial as what is seen for City traffic cases, which was 2.3% in FY 2001-02. Regardless of whether the City takes on the prosecution of these cases, additional hearing officer staffing is required for this increased caseload. The original Administrative Enforcement Program decriminalized many traffic violations and was intended to make it easier for people to "have their say" about traffic citations. This apparently has been successful, as 45% of the cases go before a hearing officer. The 4500 additional UHP cases (12,240 actual v. 7700 projected) can be expected to result in about 2000 more hearings per year. In FY 2001-02, a staff of 8 hearing officers heard 16,481 cases, or an average of 2060 each. The additional UHP cases warrant an additional hearing officer. One further point is needed regarding the traffic caseload projections made in October of 2000. A total of 52,700 traffic cases were anticipated, 45,000 from Salt Lake City and 7700 from UHP. The UHP projection was based on average numbers of cases from prior years. Although the UHP numbers appear to be higher than projected, the Salt Lake City numbers may actually be somewhat lower. The average number of City traffic cases for the last two years was 43,600. A projection based on the last two years for City cases and the last two months for UHP cases would result in 55,800 cases, or about 3000 more than what was projected two years ago. What was not anticipated, though, was that 45% of the cases would require a hearing officer. This aspect of the program is suffering because of its success, and in order to maintain timely responses (less than 30 minutes waiting time) for people who call or come in personally, another hearing officer is needed. State Criminal Cases: The infraction and Class B and C misdemeanor cases from the District Attorney were not included for either prosecution or adjudication in the original estimates for the Justice Court. However, the City is required to adjudicate these cases in the Justice Court. If they are heard in the Justice Court but prosecuted by the state, the City splits the fines and forfeitures with the state. This requires the City to provide a separate calendar in the Justice Court for the state as well as separate accounting of the cases. If the City prosecutes and adjudicates the cases, all fines and forfeitures would be retained by the City. In 2000, there were about 2600 of these kinds of cases filed (1113 UHP cases other than traffic, 607 DA misdemeanor cases, 627 U of U cases, and 229 Community College cases). Although the Justice Court has only seen about half as many of these kinds of cases as would be expected (92 actual in August versus 217 monthly average for 2600 cases per year), it could be that there is a lag in the filing time and they will eventually reach that number. At this point in time, there is more credibility in criminal case numbers from previous years than in the short two month history for the Justice Court. The total increase in criminal cases requiring a City Prosecutor will likely be about 2900 (300 UHP traffic cases and 2600 criminal cases). Expenses for Additional Cases A new prosecutor position was added in FY 2002-03 to handle the existing caseload and the transition from the District Court to the Justice Court. No support staff was added at that time. In May 2002 the City Prosecutor pointed out that Salt Lake City prosecutors carried one of the highest caseloads in the areal. Even with the additional prosecutor position, the caseload per prosecutor remains higher than most other jurisdictions in the area. The average caseload for a Salt Lake City Prosecutor is currently about 1400 cases, so two additional prosecutors would be needed to handle the 2900 new cases. With these new cases, at least one clerical staff position is needed to assist the prosecutors. The support staff deals with caseload management and scheduling, call screening, and other office duties. Currently the Prosecutor's Office has 12 prosecutors (including two funded by grants for CAT issues) and 6 clerical staff positions (excluding the City Prosecutor and the Office Manager positions), for a ratio of two prosecutors for each support position. (The ratio is 1.86 when the City Prosecutor and Office Manager positions are included). Adding one more support position along with the two new prosecutor positions would maintain the existing ration. Additional funds for indigent defense would also be required with additional cases. For FY 2002-03, $295,139 was budgeted in Non Departmental for Legal Defenders, or an average of$19 per Salt Lake City case. For 2900 new cases, an additional $55,100 would be needed. The three new positions in the Prosecutor's Office, a hearing officer for the Justice Court, and Legal Defender support would require about $270,000 annually. The costs are detailed below. Charges & Total per Total Position Salary Benefits Services, Position Number Expenses Supplies Associate Prosecutor $48,000 $13,950 $3,000 $64,950 2 $129,900 Clerk II $24,000 $10,030 $3,000 $37,030 1 $37,030 Hearing Officer $33,300 $11,550 $3,000 $47,850 1 $47,850 Legal Defenders na na $55,100 na $55,100 $269,880 Revenue from Fines and Forfeitures 'During calendar year 2001,the following were the averages for new cases filed per full-time prosecutor: Sandy City 1228,Murray 1833, South Salt Lake 1015,West Valley City 1000,and Salt Lake City 1500-1600(as of May 2002). Murray and West Jordan were requesting additional full-time prosecutors as of May 2002. 2 The current staffing level is actually lower than what was recommended by Coopers&Lybrand,L.L.P.in an August 1996 Management Audit of the Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office(pages 25-26). Their analysis indicated that an optimal ratio of prosecutors to support staff would be between 1.33 and 1.70,or a support staff of 8-10 people for a total of 14 prosecutors. The City retained an average of$56 from a traffic ticket in FY 2001-02. The additional UHP traffic tickets would likely result in about the same amount in terms of revenue. The fines and forfeitures collected, after various surcharges are paid to the state, are currently required to be split on a 50/50 basis between the prosecuting entity and the court. Handling the UHP traffic cases entirely would result in additional revenue of$342,720 (12,240 tickets at $28 each). The fines and forfeitures for the state criminal cases can also be expected to yield about the same revenue as similar city cases. This was estimated at an average of$70 per case based on information that was available in October 2000. Recent review of the fines and forfeitures the City received in 2001 supports this amount3. For 2600 new cases, $182,000 could be expected. Total new revenue from fines and forfeitures for all state cases, traffic and criminal, would be nearly$525,000 if the City prosecuted and adjudicated the cases. About $255,000 in new revenue would remain after new expenses. Other Options Salt Lake City has the option not to take on the prosecution of the state criminal cases. This is the situation that has been occurring since July. The Justice Court is required to adjudicate the cases and split the fines and forfeitures (after surcharges) with the state since the City is not prosecuting the cases. The revenue that would be retained for criminal cases in this scenario would be $91,000. The 50%revenue split from the UHP traffic cases was already built into the revenue projections for the Justice Court. An additional hearing officer would still be needed to handle the traffic cases at an annual cost of$47,850. Adjudicating the criminal cases and the state traffic cases would result in a net increase of about$43,000 from what was projected. The Justice Court would have to continue to calendar and track the state cases separately. Recommendation Salt Lake City should take on the prosecution of infractions and Class B and C misdemeanors from the State of Utah. To accomplish this, two prosecutors and a clerk should be added to the Prosecutor's Office, a hearing officer should be added to the Justice Court staffing, and additional funding support should be provided for the Legal Defenders. The prosecution of these cases is expected to result in net revenue of$255,000 annually. The following chart lists the revenue and expenses for this recommendation. 3 A total of$487,333 was received for forfeitures and collections in 2001 from the State of Utah. This amount was the 50/50 split for City criminal cases. At a filing rate of 15,000 to 16,000 cases a year,an average of about$31.50 per case was received. Since this represents 50%,the total amount per case would be$63. While this amount is 10%less than the$70 calculated previously,the fines and forfeitures collected is expected to increase when the City takes on the collection for the criminal cases because of more effective collection practices. When the City took over the handling of the traffic cases the amount collected and retained by the City was more than 50%of what had previously been received. Revenue Type of Case Number of Cases Annual Revenue Totals State criminal cases 2,600 at $70/case $182,000 State traffic cases 12,240 at $28/case $342,720 $524,720 Expense Positions/Services Budget Required Annual Expense 2 Assoc. Prosecutors $64,950 ea. $129,900 1 Clerk $37,030 $37,030 1 Hearing Officer $47,850 $47,850 Legal Defenders $55,100 $55,100 ($269,880) $254,840 Net Revenue