The URL can be used to link to this page

09/04/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Linda Hamilton, Investigator Civilian Review Board; Gordon Hoskins, Controller; Steve Fawcett, Management Services Deputy Director; David Dobbins, Business Services Director; Sherrie Collins, Housing and Neighborhood Development Special Project Grants Monitoring Specialist; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Everett Joyce, Environmental Planning and Urban Design/Ordinances Planner; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Janice Jardine, Council Planning and Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; DJ Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Dave Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Janet Wolf, Mayor' s Director of Youth Programs; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:38 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Ms. Gust-Jenson said no report was needed. See File No. M 03-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW ELIGIO WHITE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Mr. White said he had lived in Councilmember Love' s district for approximately six years. He said he wanted to serve his community. #3. INTERVIEW REBECCA PHILLIPS GUERVARA PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD. Ms. Guervara said she was a Salt Lake City native. She said she had been in business with her husband for over 20 years running a marketing/advertising firm specializing in graphics. Councilmember Jergensen said he wanted the Board to consider how to make Salt Lake City a business friendly environment. Councilmember Saxton said it would be helpful if Ms. Guervara became familiar with the Small Business Loan Program so she could give the Council feedback. #4. INTERVIEW RICHARD LEE PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND ADVISORY BOARD. Mr. Lee was not able to attend the interview. 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 #5. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED MOUNTAIR ANNEXATION. View Attachment Everett Joyce, Janice Jardine and Cheri Coffey briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said the Council had a memo that outlined new percentages for the annexation. She said the percentages dropped the annexation below the level that the Council could consider and take action. She said the Attorney' s Office indicated State statute did not contain any time limit for Council to take action. She said public hearing notices had been mailed and the hearing advertised for Tuesday, September 9, 2003. Ms. Jardine said there were several options. She said the Council could take public comment, close the hearing and refer action to a future date. She said the Council could specify a certain length of time to allow the petitioners an opportunity to get additional signatures to bring the percentage back up. Councilmember Christensen asked if the remaining 30% could be annexed. Ms. Jardine said they would need to check with the Attorney's Office. Mr. Joyce said he thought the annexed area could be smaller, but he was not sure. Councilmember Lambert asked what could be done so a lengthy hearing was not held if Council would not be voting on the issue. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council could announce a continuance to a later date through the press. She said public comment would still need to be accepted that evening. Councilmember Christensen said if Council took comment and closed the public hearing, it would not preclude the Council from further action. Ms. Jardine said the Council could reopen the hearing if and when they wanted to consider action. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council could continue the hearing or leave the public input period open. Councilmember Lambert said if the neighborhood was ever annexed into the City, he wanted the nonconforming issues resolved first. Councilmember Christensen said he agreed. #6. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004. View Attachment Gary Mumford, D.J. Baxter, David Dobbins, LuAnn Clark and Rick Graham briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen asked what the CIP fund balance would be if the Council funded $2.7 million for quiet zones. Mr. Mumford said approximately 10.8% or $17.5 million. Councilmember Jergensen asked if the quiet zones were applicable to CIP funding. Ms. Gust-Jenson said they were. Mr. Baxter said he had received cost estimates from Union Pacific (UP) for related improvements on 900 South. He said only three of seven crossings needed improvements. He said total railroad improvements would come to approximately $333,000 instead of $2.7 million. Councilmember Christensen asked about construction of the intermodal hub. Mr. Baxter said construction of the Greyhound maintenance and passenger facilities would be started in the next two weeks. He said they had approximately $8 million from Federal reimbursements. He said the AMTRAX portion would be started later in the year or by early next year. Councilmember Christensen asked if figures had been appropriated in the current fiscal year budget. Mr. Baxter said from this point forward the City had some outlays that had represented the City's local match. He said those had been spent. He said the 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 rest of the facility would be paid for with Federal money. Council Members were in favor of funding $700,000 for railroad crossing improvements. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned improvements would not alleviate the actual horn blowing. She asked now that the number of streets needing improvements had been isolated if it would change the intervals by which the horns needed to be blown. Mr. Baxter said as a temporary interim measure they had negotiated shortening the distant for horn blowing. He said that should go into effect soon. He said the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) was working out some final details with UP. He said the quiet zone improvements would eventually eliminate horns completely. Councilmember Turner asked about the timeframe for quiet zone implementation. Mr. Baxter said the City's construction could be completed quickly. He said crossings where railroad equipment had to be purchased and ordered by UP could take two to three months to get the equipment in. He said UP could install the equipment in three to four weeks once it was received. Councilmember Turner asked about school crossings. Mr. Baxter said sidewalks needed to be aligned inside the gates so when the vehicle gate came down, it blocked the path of a pedestrian. Councilmember Lambert said he wanted the Sugarhouse Rails with Trails appropriation placed in impact fees. He said the trail would run from Sugarhouse Park to Fairmont Park and through Sugarhouse Commons to 500 East. He said since the County had not finished construction, it did not make sense to run a trail and dead end it at 500 East. He said he wanted to complete the trail from 1300 East to Fairmont Park. He said part of the money could be used for engineering and the rest for brick and mortar. Councilmember Christensen said No. 4 was Liberty Park Improvements. Councilmember Buhler asked if this funding would finish construction in the park. Mr. Graham said no. He said large ticket items such as a bandstand and enlarging the pond area had been held to the end. Council Members were in favor of funding $2 million for Liberty Park. Councilmember Christensen said No. 5 was the 1300 East street crossing. Councilmember Lambert said the winning design came in at $2.5 million. He said Engineering said it could cost in excess of $3 million. He said application material indicated that $120,000 would cover construction design costs. Councilmember Lambert said he told the Sugar House Community Council and residents that much of the money would have to come from other sources. He said he was reluctant to appropriate money unless a project could be completed. He asked the Council to fund engineering drawings and commit 20% if the rest of the money was raised. Councilmember Buhler said he supported Councilmember Lambert' s suggestion. He said there were indications that money would be received from Congress. He said by investing money in construction drawings they could get an idea of what the project would cost. Council Members were in favor of $200, 000 for construction bid quality design and estimates. Councilmember Christensen said No. 7 was Stratford Park ADA playground proposed at $100,000. Council Members were in favor of the proposal. Councilmember Christensen said No. 9 was Steenblik Mini Park ADA playground proposed at $150,000. Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Buhler referred to an ADA project called Curtis Park. He said the neighborhood was not familiar with the CIP process because their community council had just recently reorganized. He said the park was built where the old Curtis Elementary 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 School was approximately 20 years ago. He said the funding recommendation for this project was $100,000. He said if there was extra money he wanted to fund the project this year. Councilmember Love asked what $100, 000 would do for Curtis Park. Mr. Graham said it would get ADA improvements to the playground and picnicking areas. He said this item was ranked No. 2 on the priority list for next year. Councilmember Christensen said the Council would come back to this issue. He proposed Curtis Park be funded at $175,000. Councilmember Christensen said No. 11 was Jordan River trail security lighting. Council Members were in favor. He said No. 12 was the Rosewood Park master plan. Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Christensen said No. 13 was Constitution Park ADA playground and tennis upgrade. Mr. Graham said the neighborhood had approached the City for improvements to the recreation center. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to wait until after the master plan was complete to fund this project. Council Members were in favor of waiting. Councilmember Christensen said No. 14 was ADA ramps/corner repairs. Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Christensen said No. 15 was pedestrian bike path development. Council Members were in favor of taking this project off the list for now. Councilmember Christensen said No. 16 was local street rehabilitation. He suggested the Council fund this at $1 million and come back to it. He said No. 20 was sidewalk rehabilitation - concrete sawing. Mr. Graham said this was a less expensive alternative to removing the sidewalk. Council Members were in favor of $100, 000. Councilmember Christensen said No. 21 was traffic signal upgrade. Councilmember Buhler proposed that Council take whatever was needed out of CIP contingency to fund $500,000. He said he wanted $495,000 to go to traffic signals and $5,000 for a flashing light crossing at 2100 South and 2100 East. Councilmember Buhler said there had been controversy over closing east side schools approximately two years ago. He said now children at Dilworth Elementary were crossing that street to go to Roselyn Heights while the new school was being built. Council Members were in favor of $5,000 for the school crossing. #7. RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS. View Attachment Gary Mumford, Steve Fawcett, Dave Nimkin, Rocky Fluhart and Rick Graham briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen said No. 1, increase in the claims and damages budget, was dealt with last year. He said No. 2 was CIP for the Unity Center project. He said this was a new item and the Administration wanted the full funding of $4,500,329. Councilmember Jergensen said the Council had asked for a definition of what the project would be. He said he wanted to allocate $100, 000 for the planning process. Councilmember Christensen said $4.5 million was a contribution. He asked how much the building portion would cost. Mr. Graham said he did not know, but he expected to spend $4.5 million on the project. Councilmember Jergensen asked about operation and maintenance money. He said the City might have to set aside funds from the $4.5 million. Councilmember Buhler said he was comfortable funding $100,000. Mr. Fluhart said he felt the City needed to hire an architect early in the planning process. He 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 said the architect needed to hear from the community and help the City formulate ideas and concepts about what the center should be. Councilmember Christensen said a $300,000 appropriation would allow the Administration to secure an architect. Councilmember Lambert said he wanted an oral or written report on the process. Mr. Nimkin said their plan was to come back to the Council in early 2004 with a business plan and some conceptual designs of what the building would look like. Councilmember Turner said he understood the University of Utah would donate their help. Mr. Nimkin said the Dean had agreed to participate in meetings to help frame questions. He said the University had not committed to donating their time to help design the building. Councilmember Jergensen said in the next two months he wanted to see conceptual drawings of what the building would look like with a program for what the building would be used for and what preliminary costs might be. He said if the Council allocated $100,000 and came up with that result, they would have made significant progress toward what the final number would be. Councilmember Christensen asked that the Council have multiple motion options for Tuesday night' s meeting. Councilmember Christensen said No. 3, the 900 South quiet zone, was taken care of in a prior discussion. He said No. 4 was the light rail into Davis County feasibility study. Mr. Baxter said this was the first part of process planning for transit improvement. He said mayors in South Davis had been pushing for this for some time. He said Salt Lake City should be a substantial partner in the process. He said the total cost of the study was estimated at $100, 000. He said the breakdown had the City putting in $10,000, Utah Transit Authority $45, 000, Davis County Council of Governments $10,000 and the combined efforts of the cities in South Davis County $35, 000. Council Members had no concerns with No. 5, Clean Cities program grant, No. 6 Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse, No 7, Victim Advocate Program grant, No. 8, Lead Based Paint Program, No. 9, Housing Trust Fund, No. 10, Wild fire training grant, No. 11, Crime scene investigation grant, No. 12, Crime prevention project grant, No. 13, General fund encumbrance carryover, No. 14, Non-general fund revenue and expenditure carryovers, No. 15, prior year outstanding obligations - refuse, golf and fleet funds, No. 16, recapture of CDBG funds, and No. 17, capital expenditure. Councilmember Saxton proposed the Council allocate $20,000 to Strong Court and $20,000 for Fenway Street for design purposes. Ms. Clark said the concern was that the department had gone through the CDBG process. She said they thought the Council's decision was that residents would pay 50% and CDBG would pick up the other 50%. She said Housing and Urban Development (HUD) said the City could not do that. She said if 51% of the residents were willing to pay for the Special Improvement District (SID) then they would submit an application for CIP to pick up the other 50%. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE AUDIT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SALT LAKE CITY. View Attachment Gary Mumford and Alison Weyher briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Christensen asked about the audit process. Mr. Mumford said currently there was no internal audit group so the Council was hiring small limited scope audits. He said 12 audits were completed. He said the economic development audit compared what the City spent to West Valley City and Sandy City. He said Salt Lake City' s salary costs were less than either West Valley or Sandy. He said the City' s contributions to the Economic Development Corporation of Utah were higher than other 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 cities. Ms. Gust-Jenson said staff's observation of these audits was that significant modifications needed to be made. She said more detailed scopes, more cities to compare, and more allocated resources were needed. She said under City purchasing rules a Request for Proposal (RFP) could be advertised for three or more firms with diverse experience. She said when there was an audit topic the Council could choose among those firms for the most qualified. Ms. Weyher said people conducting the audit did not know what questions to ask. She said when her department reviewed the preliminary draft there were areas they had questions in. She said she wanted to see a more in depth audit or work on specific issues. Councilmember Christensen asked if it made sense to bring someone from outside with good working experience to take an honest look at the model. Ms. Weyher said the City was spending more money on outside people than they had in-house. She said in a flat economy most growth came from existing businesses. She said if the City looked at organizations that worked Citywide with existing businesses and business retention, she felt the City could do a better job. She said the City was constantly in contact with downtown businesses. Councilmember Love said the City needed a way to track tenants and when their leases were up. Councilmember Lambert said he had learned from the audit that Community and Economic Development was under funded. He said when the City spent less on economic development than smaller cities in the valley it raised concerns. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE AUDIT OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS. View Attachment Gary Mumford, Rick Graham and David Dobbins briefed the Council from the attached handout. Mr. Graham said audits showed from an outside perspective what some issues and questions were. He said the audit had highlighted issues the department knew existed. Councilmember Christensen asked how the consolidation of offices was working out. Mr. Graham said it was working well. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE AUDIT OF THE YOUTH CITY PROGRAM. View Attachment Janet Wolf briefed the Council from the attached handouts. She said she felt audits were good but she would be interested in a broader scope next time. Councilmember Turner asked about the recommendation of coordinating more between the Salt Lake City School District and the City. He asked if there had been any success in that area. He said the number of youth that were served was high. Ms. Wolf said they were doing well. She said this fall the school district published their community education brochure and included the City's programs. Ms. Wolf said they offered classes that kids asked for and built social and academic skills to help kids. #11. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER LOVE'S LEGISLATIVE ACTION REGARDING ALLOWING BREW PUBS TO PRODUCE AND WHOLESALE BEER. View Attachment Russell Weeks briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Councilmember Love said the Council wanted to create a positive environment in the City for small businesses. She said the City had an ordinance that tied the hands of many brew pubs and restaurants. She said Salt Lake City would not let brew pubs wholesale beer. She said impact would be minimal because it would be one additional shipment every six months versus nine months. Councilmember Love said several years ago brew pubs petitioned the City to wholesale 10,000 barrels of beer a year. She said the Council decided that would be too large 03 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4 , 2003 an impact in the downtown and commercial areas. She said now the pubs wanted to wholesale 500 barrels a year. She said that would allow them to supply some local restaurants. She said this would help the pubs be successful. Councilmember Saxton said she was concerned about downtown streets being able to handle additional deliveries. Councilmember Buhler said he was supportive of the action because it was positive for tourists. Councilmember Jergensen said he also supported the legislative intent and wanted to move it forward. Councilmember Turner said he was in favor of local breweries competing with major ones. He said his main concern was housing values. He said if there was a brewery with a house next door, there would be complaints because of the smell of brewing beer. He said a brewery could produce a lot of odor. Councilmember Lambert said they were talking about a 500 barrel limit. He asked how much was being produced without doing wholesale. Robert Jensen, Red Rock Brewery, said his brewery presently operated at 500 or 60% of where it had at one time operated at full capacity. He said that was approximately 2000 barrels. He said if they were able to distribute off site and restaurants chose their product, they could wholesale approximately 1000 barrels a year. Councilmember Christensen said there was sufficient interest to move this item forward to the Tuesday, September 9th, 2003 agenda. #12. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED 78-24-8. An Executive Session was held. See File M 03-2 for sworn statement. The meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. bj 03 - 7 SALT LAKE CITY: COUNCIL STAFF REPORT - BUDGET ANALYSIS-.FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 • DATE: August 29, 2003 BUDGET FOR: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND ALLOCATION OF HOLDING ACCOUNT STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears cc: Rocky Fluhart, David Nimkin, Steve Fawcett, Gordon Hoskins, Randy Hillier, Rick Graham, Kevin Bergstrom, Max Peterson, Rick Johnston, Alison Weyher, David Dobbins, Kevin Young, Parviz Rokhva, Dell Cook, John Vuyk,Jerry Burton, Laurie Dillon, DJ Baxter In June 2003, the City Council adopted a tentative Capital Improvement Program budget of $27,535,769. The City Council appropriated funding for those projects that were legal obligations of the City or were time sensitive in nature. Other funding was placed in a holding account pending updated revenue projections and Engineering workloads. The Council indicated that it would consider allocation' of the holding account in August. The Council may wish to allocate a portion or all of the $5,538,255 in the holding account and $344,000 of prior year impact fees. • CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET Sources of funds Transfer from the General Fund $24190 606:: Class C Road funds 1 400 000 :11;96%000 Other sources :2;199;003 Impact Fees 7 ;16Q:. Total funds available $27;535;7.69: Uses of funds Transfer to debt service 14 137,003 Capital projects appropriation Capital projects holding account : 5,538,255.- Impact fees fromprioryears-holdingaccount p ': 344;000.: Total uses of funds The Capital Improvement Program as tentatively adopted on June 24, 2003 and as finalized on August 12, 2003 is as follows: • 1 Fiscal Year 03-04 CIP Expenditure Detail FY 2003-2004 • FY 2003-2004 Estimated Cumulative Total Title of Project Request Cost Council Amount Adj Council Cost 1 Impact Fee Projects $425,000 $425,000 Construct various Police,Fire,Park and Street capital improvement projects identified in the Impact Impact Fee Revenue Fee Analysis,Capital Facilities Plan. 2 MBA Debt Service for Pioneer Precinct Bond $434,160 $434,160 Debt service for the MBA bond used to complete the Pioneer Precinct. Impact fees may be used to Impact Fee Expenditure pay for 19%of the cost of the facility. 3 MBA&MFET(Class C)CIP Bond Debt Service $4,221,474 $3,787,314 $3,787,314 Debt service for several MBA and MFET bonds used to complete various capital improvements throughout the city. 4 City&County Building Debt Service $2,401,987 $2,401,967 $6,189,281 Debt service payment on the bond used to rehabilitate and refurbish the City&County Building. This bond will mature in 2011. 5 Police/Fire Radio'800 Trunked Radio System $540,794 $540,794 $6,730,075 To pay the lease purchase on radio equipment for Police and Fire. this is the final payment 6 Police/Fire Radio'800 Tower Repeater System $61,717 $61,717 $6,791,792 To pay the lease purchase for the tower repeaters associated with the 800 trunked radio system. Final payment will be in FY 2005. 7 Percent for Art $60,000 $60,000 $6,851,792 Provide enhancements such as decorative pavement,railings,scuitures,fountains,and other works of art. 8 Rose Park Lighting Project $300,000 $975,000 $7,151,792 To remove ail existing over head street lighting and install new decorative poles with underground $675,000 from CIP wiring throughout the Rose Park Community Council District. An additional$561,000 is being Contingency provided through a special improvement district(SID)bond. 9 Quayle Avenue from 9th W to 10th W $120,000 $120,000 $7,271,792 To design and construct curb,gutter,sidewalk and a roadway on Quayle Ave near 900 West and 1700 South. $75,000 will be contributed through an area special improvement district(SID)bond. 10 Irrigation System-Sugar House Park!Phase III $80,000 $80,000 $7,351,792 To partially fund phase ill of the Sugar House Park Irrigation refurbishment to bring the entire park irrigation system up to date with a more efficient irrigation equipment. The portion of the irrigation system that has not been refurbished is currently 11 Pedestrian Safety Devices $150,000 $150,000 $7,501,792 To provide for the installation of pedestrian safety devices throughout the city.These include pedestrian signals with countdown timers,in-pavement or overhead crosswalk lighting,or improved III pavement markings. These devices are installed throughout t 12 Sidewalk Replacement SID $600,000 $400,000 $7,901,792 To replace defective sidewalk and remove tripping hazards in the designated special improvement district(SID)area. This project will also install ADA pedestrian ramps,provide some tree replacement where trees have damaged sidewalk,and Improve drainag 13 New and Replacement Streetlights $60,000 $60,000 $7,961,792 To replace existing streetlights that are no longer servicable or install new streetlights on and as needed basis. To be coordinated with other city projects. 14 Sugar House Lighting Project $675,000 $0 $7,961,792 To remove all existing over head street lighting and install new decorative poles with underground Funded by RDA wiling. Street lights would be replaced on 2100 South from 700 East to 1300 East,and Highland Drive from Ramona to 1-80 and Mimington. 15 Jordan Park Peace Garden-Irrigations System Phase II $190,000 $190,000 $8,151,792 To provide for the second phase of Peace Gardens irrigation construction.The irrigation system is being replaced to maximize water efficiency and to attach it to the Central Control System. Jordan Park Peace Garden is located 1000 West 1000 South. 16 Traffic Signal Installation at 800 East and 100 South $375,000 $125,000 $8,276,792 To install new traffic signals at intersections where they are warranted. 17 CIP"Holding"Account $5,538,255 35,538,255 $13,815,047 To provide an account to hold the remaining CIP allocation until further discussion can be held in August. 18 CIP Contingency ($675,000) ($675,000) ($675,000) To provide funding for the Rose Park Lighting Project.$675,000 from prior year CIP Contingency. 19 Impact Fee Revenue from prior year revenue $344,000 $344,000 $344,000 To provide funding from prior year impact Fee collected revenue for Impact Fee proposed projects.If the City Council does not fund additional projects from prior year impact Fee revenue,this amount would be transferred back to the impact Fee Revenue account and would be appropriated at a future time.The$344,000 is the Mayors Recommended amount which is in addition to the$434,160 which was appropriated for payment of the MBA Debt Service for the Pioneer Precinct Bond. III } The Capital Improvement program is a multiyear planning program that uses three main planning documents: a 20-Year Inventory of Capital Needs, a 6 Year Capital Improvement Plan, and each fiscal year's capital budget. Attached is a schedule of the • proposed capital budgets for fiscal year 2003-04 (minus those that have received funding and are included in the table above) and the 6 Year Capital Improvement Plan. The attached spreadsheet of the remaining proposed fiscal year 2003-2004 projects identifies all of the projects that were submitted for funding with the Mayor's recommendations and the priority rankings of the Citizens Advisory Board and Administrative staff. POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Some of the major policies or issues relating to the CIP Fund include: • $33,936,465 over 4 years for the Intermodal Hub - Although the Intermodal Hub is operated as an enterprise fund, the Council may wish to consider the development activities of the Intermodal Hub as part of the CIP. The capital planning of the Intermodal Hub is contained in the 6 Year Capital Improvement Program Plan. The Administration recommended that the Council adopt a Capital budget for the Intermodal Hub which includes expenditures of $33,936,465 between fiscal year 2003-2004 and fiscal year 2006-2007. This amount is in addition the money that has been spent on viaduct shortening, property acquisition and track reconfiguring. The Council may wish to consider the timing of any proposed general commercial developments in the vicinity immediately adjacent to the Intermodal Hub and whether or not these developments are proposed as compliments to the Downtown retail areas and • Gateway retail area. The Council may wish to receive an update on the construction plans of the Intermodal Hub and determine when the proposed expenditures need to be made. The Council may also wish to consider whether or not any development activity at the Intermodal Hub will result in additional sales or property tax to the City or Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake and if there are any restrictions on commercial development at the Intermodal Hub. • Potential Expenditure for restoring City Creek to a surface flow waterway - Although there is not a formal request for Capital Improvement Funding for the City Creek project, the city may have to pay a portion of the estimated $4 million in expenses to restore City Creek to a surface flow waterway. It is anticipated that the federal government will contribute 65% or $2.6 million. The City may have to fund $1.4 million. • $2,000,000 for the fourth phase of Liberty Park reconstruction - The Administration recommended that the Council adopt a Capital Operating budget which includes $2,000,000 for Liberty Park. This allocation will be the fourth allocation to the reconstruction of Liberty Park. Depending on what additional amenities are chosen for the park, an additional $3 to $6 million could be spent in the park. The Council may wish to receive an update on the park and hear what additional amenities are planned for the park. The multi-year reconstruction of the park is the largest component of CIP Pay-as-you-Go funding. • 2 • $420,000 for a street crossing at 1300 East and Sugarhouse Park - The Administration recommended that the Council adopt a Capital budget which includes $420,000 for a street crossing at 1300 East and Sugarhouse Park. It is anticipated that this allocation will be matched with NEA, UDOT, Federal and Private Grants, etc. The total cost of this project is anticipated to be $2,492,000. The cost estimate in the application is $1,720,000. The Council may wish to receive an update on the fundraising and grant status of this project and determine whether a pedestrian crossing is necessary this year to complete the Parley's Creek Corridor Trail project. Additional information relating to this project has been developed since the application for funding was submitted. New information from the applicant is attached. • $0 for Traffic Calming - The Administration recommended that the Council adopt a Capital budget which does not include money for Traffic calming in the City. On August 12, 2003 the Council discussed the traffic calming audit and traffic calming moratorium which was passed in June of 2003. • 9% of General Fund revenue to CIP Fund -The Council adopted a policy that at least 9% of on-going General Fund revenue is to be allocated to the CIP Fund. The 9% calculation excludes library bond property tax and one-time money. The Administration is proposing that a portion of the 9% allocation to the CIP Fund be from General Fund fund balance. This approach is not consistent with the Council's policy but it is consistent with the philosophy of this administration, to allocate 'an amount equal to 9 percent to CIP. The Council adopted a capital budget that includes a$2,627,405 General Fund balance allocation. • General Fund Transfer to CIP General Fund Calculation of 9% Minimum Transfer Amount 2003-2004 General Fund revenue $ 161,186,949 Less Library Bond (6,950,559) Less One-time revenue (0) General Fund revenue for 9% calculation $154,236,390 9% of General Fund revenue $ 13,881,275 General Fund revenue as adopted on June 24, 2003 $ 13,815,047 On-going allocation(81%) $ 11,187,642 General Fund balance allocation(19%) $ 2,627,405 The Council may wish to review the 9% policy and consider other funding priorities for the Capital Improvement Program. • 3 Additional Information . BACKGROUND The Administration accepts applications for capital projects from citizens and City departments each year for consideration for recommendation by the Mayor to the Council for funding. The CIP Citizens Board and a team of City staffers from each department who specialize in capital projects review all applications. The Administration has prepared a booklet for each Council Member and the booklet was distributed during the initial briefing in May of 2003. Additional copies are available if needed. The booklet contains all of the applications for fiscal year 2003- 2004 and fiscal year 2004-2005 capital projects. A new round of applications will be received during the summer of 2003 for consideration in the fiscal year 2004- 2005 CIP budget. Council staff has also attached the 6 Year Business Plan for the Capital Improvement Program. The Business Plan is prepared by the CIP Coordinator and is listed in the CIP Section. The Department of Public Services has CIP related goals in the Engineering section. It is standard among cities with defin&I CIP programs such as Salt Lake City's to have the capital budget administration be located in a division other than the division responsible for the construction of the capital . projects. Usually the oversight or administration is considered a budget or finance function. Council staff has also attached a spreadsheet that shows the funding recommendations from the CIP Board, City staff and the Mayor. This spreadsheet will be shown on an overhead during the presentation on the CIP budget. Also in the Council packet is additional information on the proposed street crossing at 1300 East and Sugarhouse Park. The winning design for the crossing was recently announced and the applicant for review has supplied updated construction figures. 4 ` -''°a n �,.. ..Fvf'o�' 's .0 .:pkr .�...`r M YatlSK m, ."5'?1*!H'f+� a ...:Ax' frvw•� 6 Jt.Y1+a' xY Rf 1 `%• Y i �*" �y hn".?•z 4, z> ,5n w Fx S,c e`'x..s C as '*"r t7u" nrr,tN.E,.�S''��.+?"h�.�:re .�,d+J«yv "`,w:,"- �`r�� L '1 *,�. �r''�r% �ff� :.rn.x 'r w�N'uSS:"r: I,v. 5 , vi "„f'• r ,*.^Ir .w`�,.,•w - $.f, L�r9�,.. Lu " `k=•+,Y m�r='� r.:-:; =% e v d " .. .;kr�" �'»f^�. .,,. .S ,. "k,. ,t��a1�"`"i� �:d.�3,+aezx�k.�E#��, »r�;�wS'�";*m�".a{ °,+�..rr..a�,uPY�. ^=kr`%"x'r ;. '' fr 'fa:. •w �a- s ,'wi ^'• x s:"' .• .,° 4a €', M ti4 K�X: '' :.a` �`` .7. i e,5»` ,,, Ai'" V 4 k `It ,,= yAN''t `',4',.4 Fi Ne Yem "•.,",,„ " ^�'m5=r, is., �ie.* ..�� "� �.: 'v�,f";"a.��'�..�i�.' �" .�ru�"S7�r;,,t�r�•Y,.:v�'k,!�wn w.M,;.,' 2 W. STREETS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total ,. 7 .. . .>,!, , :.: >' : $250,000 � $300,000 " $300, p�`, '=``� . >� ,a A4;� �'°'�', , �� „ ,N:"�', b General Fund ..., W V ~ 000 $300 000 $300,000 $300 000 $1,750,000 CDBG Fundin $200,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,700,000 „R.7111.;,` d ,E ..z..; «'m. ... ,.itT&;"i c:ni*^ saa.v.;;'..Ew , :„ ., •. .I.,. ..#% i r. ,' :' s ,',gyp,. ,rdii s 7F •a,C• '„ ,1 r '4.,t'C .?:. ?'a )A.aaea General Fund $400,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $800,000 $800,000 $3,500,000 CDBG Funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 S•ecial Im.rovement District(SID) $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,400,000 447 ; rss 5,,., ,fg,.7.zz,:i.,4` i Ft a ,,, , .. : ,K, ,, ;' ` ,I ,,,, „ .a,.;,S ut-r , °'°4a,+i z-.'.'. r 'c '",•„:,,,!;"(''.'„j" M=. .,, .. .,.. .:. ...,,h e .Fs..:.: >, .n: :F.�. .. C161(�'3��J •:..?S. ��'SrC�"„ ,.x... �.n;.� General Fund $1,019,483 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $7,919,483 CDBG Fundin. $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 0 $500,000 $2,500,000 .c„e . x r"�e�34da,i.., .,�1 .% �w.�wM+ - ,i ,Y a, �' r,s.�:` Class C Fundin $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $9,000,000 .��':> .a,.,, •' * '�`,«y;`,�.: %,�._ .. ,��.A.,r,�., ,axe,av .. •• ,•, r,... .,I�, General Fund $120,000 ,»„r��'"" ., x z a ,d ..r. A.: rH,,,,. ;. ,r _<� ,.x w»«. 0 Special Improvement District(SID) $75,000 $120,000 - 6r ,,,,13 Est, ,� ,.,,. �„ .'« , '} „''1, } '" '.,",r fin%�T�„xr�µ,`. ,.2•,:4r,;.,tx 4 ;,, s:. ,. ;1r«�w, $75,000 General Fund„ �:,�� :Mc�`�, a+�� a„...s„�R�,r,.,��` [��vuw»arw« *maF�uae,��x,�l �a>�3r �' w+'a��" .,.;;�� „r ..,u=>;• 0 0 0 000 $42 00 �" `- .,r _ _.,w. `.' `r '' „ »ate °�°� General Fund i a, .. ... a $150 000 , " „ �rro ��. 'tt"rm s`� �» $ •,M�', � ��,. w era '''' $150,000„„ _ m'G` .,, '� .f ` ., ., ,,, ,;fir. S U"' wxw.,lS "'d, -� Class C Funding $800,000 $800,000, 70Special Improvement District(SID) $300,000 $300,000 „ ., �»4.6*,17.,,,t,,,i4kii.A. .. rr.M.- %n� �t "j "�w r`� a ,....�,, �'�� rg.�c�;'�'w Class C Fundin. $200,000 $1,650,000 «.1i1,"'2f »`Vo. a ".eN,.,.F _ ^ 'y;: �c F" � tl ''- "ru`''` " !'.ram':';:` �r.: ;..,,. , $1,850,000 a�� b'A��.; wN a ;•� na, ��`"�c '�+, -` �a,. `�'„":�:t,`;, '�>a„.',?".s �r�"`'�c'a' �=•.�,^..i�,,:.�.." a`c�`�;'�„. .�„�-�,.,�` a �,xa «u,.,�,�r'`'" .� r.. Class C Funding $200,000 $200,000 Federal Fundin $6,100,000 ; �. $6,100,000 Class C Funding $200,000 pr °�" ° ^� , .r" ' M 00 Federal Fundin. $900,000 $900,000$200,0 Nf CDBG Fundin. $20,000 20,000 CDBG Fundin 8 5 00 14. t"t.Pii.'z7,,,1- :ata�i[,t .5:;. a:�. '.. °°�. "4,:',, r, +4'4 c,,,0 f`` ,,„, za*",,,•;:z"•'" " - t $485,0 00 CDBG Fundin $38,000 $38,0 0 CDBG Fundin $525,000 0" _" h $525,000 CDBG Funding $19,000 � ,000 $19,000� S • III . • • • 6 "+� i mow. nr, f�°Fa Vie"., : rfrk :.a .,, g ' r'"�'�i wa ;+�� 4` t -,•..a"`',r,,,:'#,' 'a-„ ^:, ^„m,^,, ,;:j•r; �. `, :- d� =,s ax�ta+b�Y c N..p_, „d� ,;as�, b'�:A .,�#,,•xu xs , � z .; . '•�.,,ar+, '� " `" -��' ✓, -r .. .«E"��"�.lxs,.,�, r-m`� cep+- .r.,.., � +"`f z - ayMx Je � �`X%€i^� .�•��.,, �:r » e '� •� ��.b� �'�yr General Fund •�_� C.. ", ;�U _ ^�:,,, .: as.x,r�'�� °F"°P�i $150,000 1,420 20,000 $670,000 $600,000 Class C Funding $1 750 000 Special Im.rovement District SID $250,000 000 $250,000 Class C Fundin ss u $250,000 $1 450 000 $19 50 000 $1,450,000 00 ,�:��:° ,.' �;d.. .� .si'',• �"?� ".uk��,g a �� s as a `� � c � ,�,„"� ,�, $5,100,000 .Impact Fees 1 700 000 Special Improvement District(SID) $1,700,000 $800,000 $1 800,000 '12O 2F d �. ! a ' grc... x • n PA 4amla trtl R 800,Ooo General Fund %%°°",• $400,000 $400,000 General Fund $40-„.0,000 •«,.+ ' t M x °"` $4 ,"000 •j" „ Impact Fees ar- ww, Class C Funding $900,000 $900,000 Special Improvement District SID) $600,000 $600,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 General Fund Federal Hi hway Funding $300,000 $300,000 4,M �3t3^ „. �'� , nr"�,w „r• $2,700,000 $2,700,000 Class C Funding $400,000 $400,000 Federal Highway Funding $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $3,200,000 Streets Total $14 521483 $7 700 000 $9 920 000 $9 050 000 $7 850 000 $14 050 000 $63 091 483 Streets,Summary of Revenue by Source General Fund $2,359,483 $2,250,000 $2,770,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $15,279,483 CDBG $1,487,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $6,487,000 Class C $2,900,000 $3,400,000 $3,250,000 $3,350,000 $3,450,000 $3,550,000 $19,900,000 Special Improvement District $775,000 $650,000 $1,200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,400,000 $4,825,000 Impact Fee $1,700,000 $900,000 $2,600,000 Federal Highway $7,000,000 $1,600,000 $4,300,000 $12,900,000 Total of All Funding by Source $14,521,483 $7 300 000 $9 920 000 $9,050 000 $7 450 000 $13 750 000 $61 991 483 • "-- •-:''' 1 '. ..ke,,,,..),,,;.„., PARKS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 4..,..,„,„, ,,,,,,; . ,-,7-1,,v;;,,,,,f,-. 7,. 7,0,-,;:-7,,,,i,„;','NyT,„-,:.--:-----I,',',-, -',„5,,„,,-;;,„,,„,,,-4,77 77,..7r•:-,„„-,,Irff,i,>;:i.7,17--- ' ,,- 7 t,-77.%,..' "..... -, rnr",,----,4we.;,,oe;':"'"-";;;--- .46w74;`rr.07,;re''''-.4-7r.V.;„!:.,•,, , General Fund $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $9,000,000 +'"It•trde-WITAW, rt `,PkrireleatiFist.' , '.. -' .-1M1 General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $100,000io00o $100,000i00000 CDBG $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000 • :3'-.11.r4T1115A-, , ;, ., ,g,4",,,,„,.. , ,-,7M,44S,:i;•"17 CDBG $500,000 $500,000 $150,000 5150,000 $150,000 s1o450,,000, General Fund $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $750,000 ',-5:"1",OtiatiRieRaPreiritgCtr,allek„=„. 6 , „,„,..„4.7'0-- •.,,i, ' .;;M:',',.4-0, ... "1:7>-„: General Fund $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 525,000 $25,000 $125,000 General Fund $165,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $565,000 General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 5100,000 $500,000,7.-7-2„,: ."•,'",:fXr,r;.,,411`,,06.L,-',,/.,,,„.4°' ,,,,,yr-,....6 - ,,,N„ 4r,I.,4,,,,,,,..4''',Fwvigr"4,4$1,-'••,,'''.4.4..k.%"1",''4.4''''''W•%.ii.0'4r''''4...':.'''Z"Sq,'''';''''''','''''''- <C.C.N/',11.'''j `,. '41,','''''',i4.1' '''''';.",''',,,,,:-., 1,''''A ''''S': '4404iiiiMPil General Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 (•-$',6-jj,.-:(7-6,,,,:,, ,- ,,,".','„.„,, .,.„ ,,•• „„' ...,,...,:":-*;,. '4'7'4'1"„‘„,,e- 'IT.,,,..' *V'','''-1,45faill,;,..;,,,;i:.= .,,"Ill`pirt;tt,.'14,, '.*„. .,i`4c,t„,Zt..r.* -^",,,,7--,;,,)g ..,'''''4 ,"i`erle'"„ -„,'':',,,,x,,i.t General Fund $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Cifelf.,4,I,s.f .t,r,-0,"f;-. tv''"-:•:.,'''''.,‘ ,..' "","-"''''',7. \-."-•-s• :1'^ '''. , 6, ., '6' `,' "' „:"..-•*14' ''':".-'''' •• 0 -",''' t •" w-,,,,t.,,,f,, ,r."' .'i „,,•• .6;6' -"•,,,, --°,.,,, -,, •„: ..,- .'070",", General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400 000 ','•.-.1,.„-.)';'' „ +,• ,, 7,- - ,, -- • , „ --" r, .- ' - ., - •- --,‘• „. , • , 1-04, '- ;",c-,+-i'l`c CDBG $75,000 $75,000 CDBG $206,000 $206,000 vr General Fund $100 000 $100,000 General Fund $150 000 $150,000 :714.4' .,,,ty;,,r1e.,,,,e v-Ili,,,,,,;/;,)--:: 1 -. F.:.r1.k r „;-.1,?,,,-..r,-,- '-,-..:10:1-'4-' ., --',:. '''.- 4,- 1` ,w.' ''''7.' --- •, - '. - -,wys.4:,./'v,i,,,•4 ::' 1.-.4,. t. ' -, ,,,,A. -.,°,of v,,,,t,e,-.T.,,,-.., - _./..,:,.., -;,-,7,,,ft General Fund $200,000 $200,000 General Fund $190,000 $190,000 General Fund $50,000 $50,000 General Fund $80,000 $80,000 Im ct Fees $264,000 5264,000 -1, Im act Fees 530,000 $30,000 , b CDBG $100,000 $100,000 6•'-'22'',„ eilrITIWP: „ i.'r°o; ''''''' -t:,..?:,,:',iik'Z'k,.,r7k,',,,,,,c,,,•11;,' ..„-AL...--''.,1:„.1, ,?,,,,,,:,,',,,A,;.- "`"4'.'N''' j*-4'-'7 .",:;v,;:.';'''le,:., ,,, % '',';V-,,,.,..'..:.:.' , 0;'"-.1.1,:,-"' 1#000100 -'-' .-, .,7* '+N; J.4, .e,C, •; .1.-ZI:...,' '''''''e'''.:,.4,1 e--.•.',,,r.z,`',,,;- -',.*,...,.,,,,-,' ,;,..-, ,4, ., ',,,, •'''. ;fris,•,r ., '.,''-,,,,:'' - ' iiffiiii,.' ,24,r'4, ''''', '4,4*.mt4, General Fund $150,000 $150,000 • • • . • • • �" .' ,<, , r"�" .•. .�•�- -^' °� .v"� .a.;; :cq,,..�:..� k<,:"- .w.,z,"^TM��:,.,.:._ �;-^"*." ;-,>• tea^ ,,.r.r :� �'��, �....,.{.....,.: f .,k ,f,}eYFr". , , �FSs ,.,:.;;7sss�•tz,;�'rSr`,,cFr. -a`".'..,.:� n'"'� 5 ..n ,..,. ✓ p' ': .. .fl.. xc S.a , .. .,...,....... f.. '"w✓ut""W,:t4Bf; �'a� � vv� n`�'�� .'F"=.p, Si.ffis «�k...3L%«�+.<".. ..,,..;.e A4'M<,�.w,,,.M3 .r " ....« ..Ykd , ....w•..• ..r .,, ', �. iwf t r,. .1C�S"n3i.J<.,.."......,.„x,..�+h.."....,:.._::._.a.,.a.,..:........+un»'S+":•e.W H�..f.',.:°:t:,^.,^:JS.^.", �.0}�%'v;.::.r.:.;:<�.,._: -'eb$'" ��':«�mx�k^:,. � "� ro' r k,' a" -, : #>K+[e..m......."„� :.•mow . ,9. A{' ✓ w , , <: < s.,,n:. .�.�X?+Y. k.a ..,. sv .�"r. '. _ .•w'£d v ...-..,�.,� �,,,� ��, 3 !F .✓A. 6� .�;�qpptt � ,.p? ., » ; u»w HI�„• .."t ..fix"^s ' � rt"gyp. , <.,; . P „�,.-"' _ ; a . � �� '°„'e+», ._...xd�.«,....« ::x......a>.�..m.Aa?mkw �......, m..v~ ....... .........>n............... ...°9n..°. N..., «�,... `x",,��4 wre z: ' ,,"kt n General Fund < w �:;a . �: . , a, o 2 e ....>r - $75,000 x ,n ",-„4„- : "„,,r •":e „ s°e e, dam' fir, ,,,"", ^k. ,� ti. ».�,TV "," ;° W,,,, ,'',� sS" 00 General Fund _" .,... '� ' r ;•` :�'� ,";•- ,' " QA ms , . $75,000 .,r ,.. :. v ew'• g a h ,.,. ns $75,000 _ » " .,k ,.x � �,fc',. �General Fund $100,000 $100,000 General Fund $150,000w it'?,:' � € ^fir rw k. "z $150,000 General Fund s ' {�M, T...;"3 ,rt ^,� a;. r.>. .„, ;, ,,,.,„• , $400,000 $ 000 General Fund $100,000 $100,000` General Fund `w , � k H $60,000 $60,000 General Fund $60,0004alk000 $60,000 General Fund .. "_ [ �.,, mls, a.,... ........., ..",<... . n..: ..... ..... .->�. - '...i J;'.'..'�" .. .. .. �'2^✓l1>lxi S �7)fi a .°»w-wS,�c t. :"h '",^,5�. r. - 0 General Fund . . ,....A..,� {`{',. General - $100,000 $700,000 .,.dn..,.°`�' .,..x',. ..�.-. ..,.. ... ..'... .. ".., < :p Yi46o 4'i� ?'.*J''�..0 .... ,. ��,,(. $200,0 r. . $ General Fund .... ,_ .. .. . . .o u<, . .,. $100 000 ,ezc,x e.{o a; _ .kr:=.a:c,. t'.0.<rva, . •General Fund . Zkirff,C= $300,000 General Fund . .. 'sxtds�{{�{, �G tall •:::.:. a :;e7 , »:r: $100,000 $100,000 ,. ," i,,; . .:' ..: M. " ....�: 'Y^' r< " ..nM' ".hGrM` .�: bv. «.'fin, .N .',�`='z•.n:' '^`2a�"":'" E{9 y uM va ..°w,e „ � u< '.m ,''` .. .a-�. ,. . .x .,".. •Hw. ," ;� x""a�:" ?xf:+a:",' w.',.M.y".:✓ si�� t:ap 'ea .. ..... xStwW.'1+ .t M .�ks.x°od'`:... .:'`.�`rx. S n xr�.:"' CDBG �. ' ... `- ' 'w .' :�,�,.�:,.J A�°m;��'�;� ',� ., . $100,000 $100,000 S200 000 "CD G ., .. .,z >... $150,000 $150000� ...""w..c k.4.,m'Az''',',:h''`?'.«Via^ 8:."�+,., �S�,M 5R .��y, ';'F', >+r�T <; 1£(+Y,'t ''.a",:e ti`»i,,:' - z ," „F3 0,000 `y„I " •iy.,. w Y.'.,"-:"J"°TM µ•;< �, � General Fund $350 000 $350,000 .... CDBG ' .,,,, ... dx, :�a� »�.�ra"k' n��+•.;.•.�Y -�,° ,� ,, $173,000 $173,000 General Fund $500,000 General Fund $50,000 " -. $50 000 General Fund ' $60,000 $60,000 ' ';CDBG $150000 ' C $150,000 CDBG f^,,,-. <,'off;;.' General Fund $200,000 $200,000 'iMplir:,:,;--Z.-7;14,-,;"07;-;, --',:. . ..'',"''''',.., -' -,'. -tp 'i,.101tulA,erae.14*Ahlrir;;l'''1'.t)?;;;;;;.,,; g y .::7;,01%,:g;i r,P, ,,,' k:g g°g.1.,,,,; ,,,,, .0,..g,:y ',„;:,i,', ,,,' gg-,,,,,, ,g , ,r':,,,,!gg ,,.: '„;%:.*g. .4"414.14.4‘'-44"-.‘",1,,,4"V..10,,g,'"'•„'%,,,,g,g'--,g,,,',',7,.„„gZ,';',..,4,,,,Y,k4s,,Argg,-•,".74,,,,,,.::rfie g, '' ' ."*Aditg*L9...,' ,5i,g'.1.".±:,;CI, -...1'1:14,Zier ..4.-=.2. ...2&%,'AV.,..'':..i--4',,' ..1":4‘1,:-.Z:Zie-1,,w..0"4136.....114,4 ,,,:,,-,;:!- ,',",:ifiil'" , ..,--,1.1.4, '14e6 ",''''t..Z.",'-';,?,-;t0•' ,i.--P!'41tV, "'& ----.,,,,,,,:- .! /4".''' '''''.''`'' ' ' -472"''' '7444itt-";.'• ;am' ',,: ,:..,-',,,-;241:41'"f*,,1104,11,14,,otiolsx-'1,1%,:rrsiki,,,,: 'z,..q,,,,--,,-*Istr#4,,s-,.,-".',').,",,z-v-,-,---.?--,-,4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,,:,,y,,,, ,-, ,, , , General Fund .,2, ,M1.2..., -47.1Z-,-;„ o,*4.,' ;,..•.1.; $500,000 $500,000 rIttlfo' General Fund $100,000 $100,000 General Fund $100,000 $100,000 --K'''';`,.„ „„ ' --g ."".'+'--'`' ''4,, ',.,4k,,,.. ..,: *. .nz:r-et.'-'-.:....'4,...".11.g;;'"':1".•rfS.-„-... 4..,:„-;., ", '„,...47-,7,-..... ,77.124,13F,-‘,4„-;,,,,,,,,;:e,40,06 '-:-I ' ''' ,, - ',4k,'.1... , ,,,-;,... ... ..t A, X.;',Aii...*Ar, ,''','' ' ''' ''"..' .4",05:.. ,-,,,:4,°"•4 . .,'.• . ,, "44t, . , , t . General Fund $25,000 $25,000 „.", U.i:.''''47- .;;.,,,,,g0$00400.400 General Fund $500,000 , , , $<spo,000 astgagge General Fund $100,000 ..,„$100,000 General Fund $100,000 $100,000 ro,Nt.,,,,;; ;',,,i.„ ,.: -.. -.„ 1.....,..:- '; .,,,,,,,;, , , - -. .., ", .i'' -- - - . --.". ..:1;',.;`,',..,. '', '`.- `..:,..- '..-,v0 -,;'.t.'•(.,"',.„,' General Fund $250,000 $250,000 CDBG $100,000 $100,000 CDBG $250,000 $250,000 1-:ai'4..&";44-y--..././..4.Q.I.:. 4i,,:,`. ir' ''; ,11',.'ir'- - ,. '''''', ' - ,', - "' '''' '''''''1 ' ' . ,....' f„,' ..,.;.2- ,',.s.‘.r.: ' • - ''',- '-''''''''''''''''''- '1' "" '''''' '-'?4'-'4.Z. General Fund $115,000 $115,000 i,„;„7":'.1,:nt-,...0.,;,:;.,-- .1:Ly.„";',",,--,;,s-, ,,.--,.-„1„..,',;;,,i,;,.), .:":',Phs-'''' '- ' ..",,,% , ''', 4" ''''',"+,%'" . ..'"' " " .' .,,,,, ' '1. ,',..-' 4 vr;..i• . ''''''*.Z? '1.<1','; General Fund $150,000 $150,900 '''') '''':'.:.::°'I''Ifi,rr,..q4;..;:,;:s."4'..',Q-;I .'...1',.','S'') ^.''''''' '' ,,,Y•7 , - ',1 ,: '• i',--*.,41 ''t, .''.•,, * . '`,'', ',' '', ''^'", ''''' : '-'4.' . ''''' ''' '." r.;•. ''''< '1'4. ,°',*,',,V1'., ,,,04r s4.. 7j:,,f'‘1,,a General Fund $150,000 $150,000 General Fund $150,000 $150,000 CDBG .i;',Ziejikkia';•,kC ,. , ,E.,g. , i44,ft!.4.6'k,.,.'iv'''''''"k- $250,000 $250,000 '01"1481"81e07:415W7„1417:601Waiiiitiirtriltif,RaiS2SaiSa: In:`477 :::, -.4;0.1 ,0„42Zu‘wo .-.0' ''''7' General Fund $100,000 $100,000 General Fund $100,000 $100,000 General Fund $175,000 $175,000 Parks Total $3.710,000 $3,605,000 $3.935.000 $3,968,000 $4,180,000 $4.225.000 $23,623,000 Parks,Summary of Revenue by Source General Fund $2,935,000 $3,005,000 $3,23-,000 $3,295,000 $3,510,000 $3,725,000 $19,705,000 CDBG $481,000 $600,000 $700,000 $673,000 $670,000 $750,000 $3,874,000 Impact Fees $294,000 $294,000 Total of All Funding by Source $3 710 000 $3 605 000 $3,936 000 $3 968 000 $4 180 000 $4 475 000 $23 873 000 0 • ill , . • • • • . a s P`> x��,r.,"'�'k`3"r„� �.P .4,� A-q�•;t,.* � �.�°.°a ,„erg+c ��"� � A�.�'-�-�`�„c�f'.""" .' ,�:e,. .:4. ..r- a ,y;<. p""a"s^, ,� �""d�� z•�:'d�@.--.«' ! '� Sfic.aS y'6 +° g �y��far „�� .,:,ay�`r�..yj+ea y '�" � ,.: r'"�'•" f "'.�`a: ' ;aj�J .�'fr�,::�.,� r�"re�- 744 • .�,�";: - ,.. g*s .r, x., ./"3-:x:v�'."': .`4`. "'�rrc'. r rt-* 're 't ''' s#+, '��•` a ''" d > R: ff M1• , ."x".fry ,, - aak", xr:." ",1 y "+J. -r r.t ;g ,� .� .,w r. • MISCELLANEOUS CIP IMPROVEMENTS, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total Im act Fees $50,000 j - $50,000 ....�.�T,,,�„":, ...« „ . J k��c :x l/"tr r-^+• 76 i2,f 0 .. 9 N4.'q,�g( � f txpl Y ",`�, P9 it fYµ General Fund -_-. $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2 500 000 General Fund $120,000 - , ;, �" = .e?m asz K i�f • SJ 120.000 General Fund $200 0 $400 000 General Fund 00 $40,000 940,000 •• .:w , ' • ai• La -�a l� n.. ' -•e « +.,s' � •�z. � • a�" . wry ' • .,` � �� '�� s"s• General Fund $400,000 $400,000 $800,000 Total 950 000 $620 000 $890 000 $850 000 $1 000 000 $700 000 $3 910 000 CIP Miscellaneous,Summary of Revenue by Source General Fund $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,860,000 Impact Fees $50,000 $50,000 Total of All Funding by Source $0 $620 000 $940 000 $900 000 $700 000 $700 000 $3 910 000 ,V'-Z `.,�� '® I9 x , 9• �'r,fir,Y% ��'� °- � -� ,� -�, =�5�ax e"'• °:=M „r�.>."e A,m, a r" &; Yi. ,!.t �„,? x R a d,`c� � „a'- a 7 . ,. 'r, hhw'' .,'-' i a}`• ': , r, a; TRANSPORTATION, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total aa x .,� A _ � ��d:,<a �<� t�.,.da.k<R. ? , -;, 'd .,s.._:., .. � ��p�,�ids," W`-� �'�' .T': c� fir" T°' -^s.,'"'s r cpf RF GeneralFund ,Cb "�v,':" ;, ' ,rt } Px- , 5' .�r $300,000 r,,zae,„ ` 2 . - r $300,000;;).o- General Fund $500,000 $500,000 '4, $500,000 $500 000 $2 000 000 � a,� �.'nr€ : E1��a �e. *.°�`' � �.;� �` tt m° a'aYa� r'�;' °,�� ,';; �,. ": General Fund $150 000 -� � � s fu�a x ^� "' � '� � ,. �,� ��?'?��ls';,° $150 000 ., ..," $150,000 $450,000 .4:,•��, G.r.� ,s ��r";vd£.��'i..� :�',)y '",wL.,..L*,-" ' .s: Q -...C;f0i.�Ye".�°' ' --. 'Yi"74,(5 e�'' 1,,:•r• �Y. `� "Yak;a Z3 �'�.- ": ::� r y� ,� �s ;�";• n9i.,..a.•t'(as �'--'" &. 1aT�areA. General Fund $50,000 $50,000 0, ,. , f, , a '',: Y5 r .4 <, `d $50,000 $300 000 $50 000 $50 000 $50 000 _'.,,. ...�:a ..�7L�,.�„�.,��h �.eaa,sx'�t.,.,�w: -��,.z,' �k'.`'��.�'» :-r".x.��+�� ri •�� s��s3 - snz°` ��,r �r,, .ry: �-`a:��'� ,�� % .c��, '�«` ;'d; General Fund $60 000 $50,000 $50 000 ft w $50 000 $210 000 General Fund $675 000 General Fund � �c",',-„=�,.r,� n.,;. ��°,�. �;a, °�� ^,. F .a� ��"'�.; �° � � t� $250,000 $125,000 $125,000 $500,000 ''''''$v'3„ -. c •�.^'�:!J�".°,. .,..',e`- ;'•2', -i', 4'r• :., y 1 ".+yYo,.,x°,.+"E"�^e4'.1y" 'M Y; .M"..;,.,".,•:' 'v". ', 1 ,_y ; ,„,4", r ..1", , ;, .r 3: '»rv•.e in'. ,.n, Mxq,,� . ' "" , .ro m. .��'" w^ W'> „y „ General Fund $300,000 fi ��'� l $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,400,000 General Fund $60,000 r"General Fund . _,._ _ ,, ,, � ": .<„ -" E,,,,,e a Y" `s a t i;. Ea' $600,000 $400,000 $600,000 $400,000 $2 000,000 , "',;i,E,a . <,<., ',•' . ,.,} ry "' Rom„`"", General Fund $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100 000 $400,000 Trans•ortation Total $1 735,000 $1,210 000 $1 325 000 $1 350 000 $1 325 000 $1 350 000 $8,295 000 Transportation,Summary of Revenue by Source General Fund $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000 Total of All Funding by Source $1,735,000 $1 210 000 $1 325 000 $1 350 000 $1,325 000 $1 350 000 $8 295 000 • • • • • 110 < p. � •. .j,.�" ie, i,< ��""'' f s ,4.ea`�"*r at�` t - :,..--it;': µ ��. .t , mra"+/ n x x - ,,., ;0;? '' ,,. e,,,0x�• � . - wregAs'"q�Pw �,iA� i��+ram * M`s,,t: aA'a ;;1,11�v r a k t .', ;�$" ` ,, ' „� ,'.i. ( 11':'i .i z „„4:. ;'G:. 7 T.:7"--- :,:r.F_ -a z- ,, ,, "",.,' mow ^„", POLICE DEPARTMENT, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total General Fund $540,794 $ 000$750, $7,290,794 General Fund w.. $61,717 $62,000 + General Fund $400,000 :'+.,a $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,000,000� '.,:—J1 L, G', 'VT+; ,acre•, •ir'+-..e ,, ,. .."a``."Y. .,�,:7wu �1•.. 44v,,+,`,ou.•, '' Rl.`�" a•R�S" :at, ��•r,. .'"s� • •R,.,"M r�';'wa.d•..;;,:t.",,;' ,ib,' - .„ ... General Fund $200,000 $200,000 Police De rtment Total $602 511 $662 000 $400 000 $400 000 $400 000 $1 150 000 $3 614,511 Police Department Summary of Revenue by Source General Fund $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,614,511 Total of All Funding by Source S602,511 $662 000 $400 000 $400 000 $400 000 $1 150 000 $3 614,511 FIRE DEPARTMENT, 6 YEAR CIP BALANCED PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total .,- "I' a s �} `a w^:577.7ulb d*�, .i i, .�e'''-: ' , ';-w.r"" ' -,1;,e. General Fund $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000 Fire Department Total $0 $275 000 $275 000 $275 000 $275 000 $275 000 $825 000 Fire Department Summary of Revenue by Source General Fund $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 S825,000 Total $0 $275 000 $275 000 $275 000 $275 000 $275 000 $825 000 sfi.45 ..�.._r�..... .,._....6:. ..._..,...,.....�.. ..,.',,a.+.. ,'r` 4.R.. .._., s .r` ` 1' k , f � h � �t �Y � s+ -. -4, a3 3' a .n� .._.. „6 / a�iTMBitbFk �a %f�q3 4g Y y ° ,- 5 v'r � ° . �- . : ,`i „ � y a k se m.,.. i.-�:. a L"ry Jr? rc� ,✓ '%F a� q.. "°qf ,F ,s `m�Y7 w r A (rays BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSED YEARLY GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT CIP EXPENDITURES Total Yearly Expenditures by Dept(All Funds) 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total Streets Department(Including Class C and Federal Funds) 14,521,483 7,300,000 9,920,000 9,050,000 7,450,000 13,750,000 81,991,483 Parks Department $3,710,000 $3,605,000 $3,935,000 $3,968,000 $4,180,000 $4,475,000 $23,873,000 Miscellaneous Improvements $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 $3,910,000 Transportation Department $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000 Police Department $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,814,511 Fire Department $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000 Total $20 568 994 $13 672,000 $16,795,000 $15,943 000 $14 330,000 $21700 000 $102 508,994 Total Yearly Expenditures by Dept(General Fund) 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total Streets Department $2,359,483 $2,250,000 $2,770,000 $2,700,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $15,279,483 Parks Department $2,935,000 $3,005,000 $3,235,000 $3,295,000 $3,510,000 $3,725,000 $19,705,000 Miscellaneous Improvements $0 $620,000 $940,000 $900,000 $700,000 $700,000 53,860,000 Transportation Department $1,735,000 $1,210,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $1,325,000 $1,350,000 $8,295,000 Police Department $602,511 $662,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,150,000 $3,814,511 Fire Department $0 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $825,000 Total $7 631 994 $8 022 000 $8,945,000 $8,920,000 $8 810 000 $9 800 000 $51 578 994 Total Yearly Expenditures by Dept(CDBG) 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total Streets Department $1,487,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $8,487,000 Parks Department $481,000 $600,000 $700,000 $673,000 $670,000 $750,000 $3,874,000 Miscellaneous Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transportation Department $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Police Department $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fire Department $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total $1968 000 $1 600 000 $1,700,000 $1,673 000 $1670 000 $1,750 000 $10 361 000 • • . ` • • . • , ,.t ,Fri ., :96 dgjA wYG L�'fi- x�" ^a„<.r'kc �°1?"% �f/ e :; ,, . r> �v� ro tr� r�s d � '.� ��o r2 � �� r �:� fi &, .f ' ��, < tid ' ' B 4,4;A, + `fd H k "� � ci f�f ° s i a�_ p,,. -., "...�: •�., �.._. ....,....,,....�.�, �� a ' ��`"S ?r� a AIRPORT ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2.005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 1 Economic Development Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 2 Capital Improvement Program Committee Reserve 1,500,000 1,500,000 3 R/W 16L-34R Storm Drain Improvements (pfc4) 835,600 835 4 East Apron Rehabilitation Phase II (aip) 1,400,000 00,000 1,4400,000 5 SIDA Perimeter Road-Phase I 1,400,000 1,400,000 6 Taxiway P Extension 2,300,000 2,300,000 7 Triturator- Grinder replacement 130,000 130,000 8 Terminal Roadway Security Improvements Phasell 3,687,000 3,687,000 9 Car Rental Lobby Expansion Phase II 100,000 100,000 10 Security Equipment Detection Modifications 725,400 725,400 11 Security Gate Modifications 200,000 200,000 12 TVAAWOS&Taxilane 326,900 326,900 13 Airport II Runway 16/34 Overlay 1,000,000 1,000,000 14 Concourse A Apron Reconstruction Phase I 600,000 600,000 15 T/W H Rehabilitation (H10-12) 2,419,000 2,419,000 16 Crossbar Relocation and Rental Car Acces-a Road 6,065,500 6,065,500 17 Airport Property Security Fencing-Phase I 2,049,000 2,049,000 18 Airport Wide Fire Alarm System Integration 348,000 348,000 19 ALP/Environmental Update-Phase I 400,000 400,000 20 Bag Claim Modifications 6,601,000 6,601,000 21 Concourse A Apron Reconstruction-Phase II 1,505,000 1,505,000 22 East Apron Rehabilitation-Phase III 3,558,000 3,558,000 23 East Side Oil/Water Separator 411,000 411,000 24 Land Acquisit-Ph.II(Noise/Approach Protection) 2,668,000 2,668,000 25 Lighting Upgrade 436,000 436,000 26 Metal Wall Panel Replacement 1,608,000 1,608,000 27 North Support Tunnel Road Rehabilitation 497,000 497,000 28 Runway 16U34R Overlay 6,898,000 6,898,000 29 SIDA Perimeter Patrol Road-Phase II 1,222,000 1,222,000 30 Taxiway H Pavement Reconstruction(H7-H10) 2,567,000 2,567,000 31 Terminal Modifications for In-line EDS 35,000,000 35,000,000 32 Tooele Valley Airport Land Acquisition 2,176,000 2,176,000 33 TU2 Roof Replacements 714,000 714,000 34 Landside Road Reconfiguration-West 28,811,000 28,811,000 35 Airport Property Security Fencing-Phase II 715,000 715,000 36 ALP/Environmental Update-Phase II 400,000 400,000 37 Apron D Rehabilitation-East 5,379,000 5,379,000 38 Electronic Visual Information Display Systems(EVIDS) 2,405,000 2,405,000 Upgrade 39 Land Acquisition 518,000 518,000 40 North Support Roof Replacement 113,000 113,000 41 Parking Structure Roof Replacement 1,378,000 1,378,000 42 Power and Communication Infrastructure-Phase I 2,404,000 2,404,000 43 System Wide Communication Wring Upgrade 630,000 630,000 , "� .z` '�" 'S a"zc z4`r t 7 r �, r Z7, e. „ .. sir:- t` ass -S s � �<x`r ,f. b ✓�� ,r„• v s-�vh•, s J" « �'�' agar' z � k°'«ne«s?�.: "s7�r' a fi � �a.,.� s•F� �'�: s ..de ;>r. '.f� , ,spot ,,f:/10 r/ e>.S;;;',`b ,.::,G r 4o-, f:/" •a 'k"''' ,, ';a , S r,. �` . ,'''''°1'- �. _........,.A..�,.. .n.`w...rweues...._,. � �:.__-: �Ss,.:. uxah....,. _<....�.,._ �, ....>:� rs .._d `'f. a#;.... ,.. E „yn?,C.,:.'�,.."* w,.,+h -. s� �. ,+ , Fk ,a >a+u 'gyred ,.s w.Ga rtv., ," .,. , ="-,.v� * .a. ,^'n�� ...,.w`° `c"'' +t' d..y��w .�; �., :�#;"fi'•4-�r'C Kt"� "+w'„, a •�a.ua ,0." ;5;,, ,, ,•, µ �4 `� �' . „„„..,}iv ,, w�y, '+� 44 Taxiway H Pavement Reconstruction(H2-H4) 3,196,000 3,196,000 45 Taxiway M Reconstruction 1,765,000 1,765,000 46 Landside Road Reconfiguration-East 26,971,000 26,971,000 47 Apron B Reconstruction*(PCI rating 38,52) 4,500,000 4,500,000 48 South(R/W 14/32)Midfield Drainage Improvements 1,750,000 1,750,000 49 West Taxiway Extension 4,000,000 4,000,000 50 Concrete Replacement for Taxiway Centerline Lights 1,000,000 1,000,000 51 Land Acquisition(general) 518,000 518,000 53 Water Main Loop Extension 375,700 375,700 54 Central Plant Upgrade 9,000,000 9,000,000 55 Airport 2 Miscellaneous Project(Non-primary entitlement) 495,000 495,000 56 TVA Miscellaneous Project(Non-primary entitlement) 495,000 495,000 57 Regional Jet Facility/North Concourse 254,892,000 254,892,000 58 Concourse D Apron Rehabilitation-Phase II 3,500,000 3,500,000 59 Reconstruct E and F Taxiway(East Halt) 4,100,000 4,100,000 60 Reconstruct Apron between A and B 4,100,000 4,100,000 61 North(TIW S)Midfield Drainage Improvements 2,400,000 2,400,000 62 Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000 64 Runways 14/32 and 17/35 Pavement Overlay 14,000,000 14,000,000 65 Cargo Apron Reconstruction 3,000,000 3,000,000 66 Taxiway S Reconstruction-Phase II 790,000 790,000 67 Taxiway Q Centerline Lighting 780,000 780,000 68 Environmental Update-Phase II 1,655,000 1,655,000 69 Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000 70 Environmental Mitigation 1,130,000 1,130,000 71 Wetland Mitigation 1,130,000 1,130,000 72 Modify 2200 North Street for Runway 16L extension 3,272,500 3,272,500 73 Relocation of North Point Canal 1,663,800 1,663,800 74 Relocation of Utah Power Lines 2,603,500 2,603,500 75 RAN 16L-34R&Associated TIW Extension/BCA 26,000,000 26,000,000 76 Land Acquisition 500,000 500,000 Aimort CIP Projects Subtotal 122.158,400 45,874,000 277,025,700 14,600,000 30,524,800 26 500 000 516 682 900 III • • ' • i • . g G, ": '�'.., k ':err y i , „ +� ;4ryF ' ' ti,' ` m,,p m:.� ..- w', "'a� ""s'^�w'' '„ ' - 'ena.;,:r;�,,g --;r': ;n;,.,�.•••� >.,.rt, ....r,,;•„x. tWif`lF (qy n� .e, .TM, w �?,,..'.W��'k` �'�.� ,�xaq,r �-� uA��x'"."kk� � ��ec�� "F„ .. , �y4+ ',',c, 1.,.`,a' 0,,„.A ', : • "?," .�M"•"", �:' •�.itetf*ice;..,`r +�W n'F'rv" f .� �`rp�..:�.�. 'ea:w9z� r,+"� w. ... ,•.•uw6�.�,",., • �:.;; ..at.,�r,.. .� � "�,» �.,'"� �y�,�y„,n ..,J-„�'„ ; GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 1 Capital 300,000 504,000 581,800 566,600 400,000 1,529,300 $1,952,400 2 Debt Service For Capital 1,211,182 1,209,661 1,211,246 1,210,781 1,213,292 232,300 $4,842,870 3 Contingency 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 $400,000 Total Golf Enter.rise Fund 1,611 182 1,813,661 1,893 046 1,877,381 1,713 292 1,861,600 $7,195,270 WATER UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 1 Treatment Plants $13,345,000 $14,000 $500,000 $11,000,000 $6,040,000 $30,899,000 2 Distribution Mains and Hydrants $5,106,831 $5,621,461 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 $4,390,000 $9,540,000 $29,458,292 3 Water Service Connections $3,100,000 $3,100,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $1,850,000 $2,450,000 $14,200,000 4 Land Purchases $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 5 Water Rights and Supply $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000 6 Culverts,Flumes,and Bridges $36,000 $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 $396,000 7 Distribution Reservoirs $14,000 $50,000 $13,750,000 $13,814,000 8 Deep Pump Wells $35,000 $26,000 $2,600,000 $7,400,000 $10,061,000 9 Maintenance and Repair Shops $55,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $225,750 $122,875 $523,625 10 Storage Reservoirs $75,000 $50,000 $125,000 11 Pumping Plants $61,000 $145,000 $100,000 $1,100,000 $158,000 $600,000 $2,164,000 12 Landscaping $60,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $310,000 Total Water Utility Enterprise Fund $22 007 831 $9 410 461 $5 556 000 $6 020 000 $20 903 750 $40 732 875 $104 630 917 ; .,. � ,� vQR„ o .' � ' 4 }pa �" `' ..'i q a. 1 •.,, .._ ; d. "t � �+c. ��JW ..g r am:: ^�. ..... .f; ', ^`;,^w�Rs& '." 4. gI' N7,�s d� vrr,,,�v, a c , � _. � , i,9 P,xki.g r"w j"" ..,.. < . NEwe,:,,,'4:," £ a ti 'r8�: �a4S x°" �s i �.A:k .Cgi-fi �. 6d. ,;, =7 �d ,'�''?-gF aMt e.�J✓A+ 3.�L�:M ^w moR`,: vim x,e{"a.''.0.'„L v xzs4k rvr. �;y^ sM4" �w,3,,,,n vu,,,",„,., ""''' ¢� 41,414,44 r u � r„4gs + ` Sy � " '. . �) f u a v' �•yn �y 9� , `"v'w vd ,,,rr '. 3k ti ddMh'" 44; V' '� a,� a k ..,,. fa ,. , x SEWER UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 1 Shops,Storehouses,and other Buildings $37,000 $140,000 $15,000 $15,000 $207,000 2 Lift Stations $450,000 $115,000 $350,000 $80,000 $150,000 $50,000 $1,195,000 3 Treatment Plant Improvements $29,180,000 $85,000 $3,185,000 $585,000 $2,985,000 $2,935,000 $38,955,000 4 Collection Lines $4,101,500 $3,550,000 $11,300,000 $6,300,000 $2,336,000 $2,300,000 $29,887,500 5 Landscaping $25,000 $15,000 $125,000 $65,000 $25,000 $15,000 $270,000 Total Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund $33,793,500 $3,765,000 $14,960,000 $7,170,000 $5,511,000 $5 315 000 70 514 500 STORM WATER UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 1 Stormwater Lift Stations $220,000 $250,000 $720,000 $220,000 $150,000 $100,000 $1,660,000 2 Storm Drain Lines $11,355,000 $8,320,000 $2,320,000 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 $1,570,000 $26,705,000 Total Stormwater Utility Enterprise Fund $11,575,000 $8,570,000 $3,040,000 $1,790,000 $1,720,000 $1,670,000 $28,365,000 INTERMODAL HUB ENTERPRISE FUND, 6 YEAR CIP PLAN Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected FY FY FY FY FY FY Project 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 Total 1 Intermodal Hub Design,Engineering and Construction Costs $12,000,000 $3,205,726 $16,930,739 $1,800,000 $33,936,465 Total Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund $12,000,000 $3,205,726 $16,930,739 $1,800,000 $0 $0 $33,936 465 S s • • • . • , V✓•ribea 1`� ��.. ..— .. �„'a s€"'.�nu. rsra' nr s �'n,,`*�R ••,,^ w�`�e ""t ;'.," < 6tfe �� l §7 �w:.o�,` �a it g "`�-�"'"r "�' .roy�` v+ «�g' uw�K,, BREAKDOWN OF PROPOSE•":.a... D YEARLY EXPENDITURES Total Yearly Expenditures by Enterprise Fund Airport Enterprise Fund $122,158,400 $45,874,000 $277,025,700 $14,600,000 $30,524,800 $26,500,000 $516,682,900 Golf Enterprise Fund $1,611,182 $1,813,661 $1,893,046 $1,877,381 $1,713,292 $1,861,600 $7,195,270 Water Utilites Enterprise Fund $22,007,831 $9,410,461 $5,556,000 $6,020,000 $20,903,750 $40,732,875 $104,630,917 Sewer Utilities Enterprise Fund $33,793,500 $3,765,000 $14,960,000 $7,170,000 $5,511,000 $5,315,000 $70,514,500 Stormwater Utilities Enterprise Fund $11,575,000 $8,570,000 $3,040,000 $1,790,000 $1,720,000 $1,670,000 $28,365,000 Intermodal Hub Enterprise Fund $12 000 000 $3,205,726 $16 930 739 $1 800 000 $33,936,465 ' 4.. - ..::.G�'" x,.,��". :Yr1�"`i" `•'�[�`•��r�s(.,?;,.,"1't' s ''`> r'%1 :` ✓aa j `t. e +.y •k -i` rw z�{.fs2 x k; �x •ro-na€� Sad.. �.., � '�.w..r..�. ldlws.rw� ,a�4 ,,.......,......�.M„M: a✓�w L. `SF t' +a .. w � W'So Y"2.. • Fiscal Year 03-04 CIP Project Application Rankings re v i v CIP Board Mayor FY 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 �'c FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Proposed Recommended Cumulative Total Cumulative Total Operating Budget v'i 88 z Title of Project Request Estimated Cost Amount Amount Amount Adj Cost Council Amount Adj Cost Impact MBA&MFET(Class C)CIP Bond Debt Service $4,221,474 $3,787,314 $3,767,314 $3,787,314 $3,787,3/4 $3,787,314 $3,787,314 Negligible Debt service for several MBA and MFET bonds used to Portion is Impact Fee Eligible complete various capital improvements throughout the city. m City&County Building Debt Service $2,401,967 $2,401,967 $2,401,967 $2,401,967 $6,189,281 $2,401,967 $6,189,281 Negligible 4 Debt service payment on the bond used to rehabilitate o, and refurbish the City&County Building.This bond will a mature in 2011. 0- Police/Fire Radio'800 Trunked Radio System $540,794 $540,794 $540,794 $540,794 $6,730,075 $540,794 $6,730,075 Negligible w To pay the lease purchase on radio equipment for O Police and Fire.This is the final payment Police/Fire Radio'800 Tower Repeater System $61,717 $61,717 $61,717 $61,717 $6,791,792 $61,717 $6,791,792 Negligible To pay the lease purchase for the tower repeaters associated with the 800 tasked radio system.Final payment will be in FY 2005. Percent for Art $60,000 $60,000 $6,851,792 $60,000 $6,851,792 Negligible Provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings,scultures,fountains,and other works of art. 24 7 1 Rose Park Lighting Project $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $7,151,792 $975,000 $7,151,792 Negligible To remove all existing over head street lighting and $675,000 from install new decorative poles with underground wiring CIP Contingency throughout the Rose Park Community Council District. An additional$561,000 is being provided through a • special improvement district(SID)bond. 10 10 2 Quayle Avenue from 9th W to 1Oth W $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 $7,271,792 $120,000 $7,271,792 Negligible To design and construct curb,gutter,sidewalk and a roadway on Quayle Ave near 900 West and 1700 South.$75,000 will be contributed through an area special improvement distract(SID)bond. 14 2 3 Sugar House Rails wl Trails $264,000 Impact Fee Eligible None To develop a paved bike/pedestrian trail in shared right- To be maintained by of-way with commuter light rail development on the the County UTA Sugar House spur,500 East to Highland Drive. Various other improvements will be made as well. 3 4 4 Liberty Park Improvements $2,990,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $9,271,792 $7,271,792 Negligible To provide for the fourth phase of master planned improvements for the park.Some of the items included are:the Merry-Go-Round roof;the Horseshoe Area& Duck Pond;Rice Terrace Pavilioin up-grade;Chase home fountain rebuild;park-wide culinary water. 23 1 5 13th E Street Crossing $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $9,691,792 $7,271,792 Negligible To create a passage across 1300 East Street,south of Estimated that O&M the 2100 South intersection,connecting Sugar House Costs will be$1,000 in Park with Hidden Hollow Natural Area and the Sugar FY 04-05 House Business District$120,000 of this funding will I cover 100%of the construction design cost 1 3 6 Irrigation System-Sugar House Park/Phase III $80,000 $80,000 $60,000 $80,000 $9,771,792 $80,000 $7,351,792 None To partially fund phase III of the Sugar House Park Park is maintained by irrigation refurbishment to bong the entire park irrigation the County system up to date with a more efficient irrigation equipment.The portion of the irrigation system that has not been refurbished is currently • • C I tY N C m E T c FY 2003-2004 Staff CIP Board Mayor FY 2003-2004 FY 2003.2004 Proposed Proposed Recommended Cumulative Total Cumulative Total Operating Budget c9, tillg K Title of Project Request Estimated Cost Amount Amount Amount Adj Cost Council Amount Adj Cost Impact 13 5 7 Stratford Park ADA Playground $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $9,871,792 $7,351,792 Negligible To replace the existing playground equipment in the park,located at 20th East and 2600 South,which is not ADA accessible.Also,to redo the existing landscape to be in harmony with the new playground equipment and layout. 21 6 8 North Brickyard Neighborhood Park Design $30,000 Impact Fee Eligible Negligible To design a park on a half-acre site owned by Salt Lake Once consWcted, City located on the Jordan Canal corridor between Parks 08M costs will Crandall and Zenith Ave,at 1140 East 2905 South. increase$2,000 to $3,000 25 12 9 Steenblik Mini Park ADA Playground $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $10,021,792 $7,351,792 Negligible To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment in the park,located at 1069 West and 800 North,as well as up-grades to the irrigation system. 18 16 10 Pedestrian Safety Devices $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $10,171,792 $150,000 $7,501,792 Negligible To provide for the installation of pedestrian safety devices throughout the city.These include pedestrian signals with countdown timers,in-pavement or overhead crosswalk lighting,or improved pavement markings.These devices are installed throughout 17 19 11 Jordan River Trail Security Lighting $165,000 $155,000 $165,000 $165,000 $10,336,792 $7,501,792 Negligible To add security lighting to the 1300 South to 1700 South portion of the Jordan River Trailway System. This is a continuation of the lighting system. 0 22 20 12 Rosewood Park Master Plan $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $10,386,792 $7,501,792 Negligible To create a master plan for Rosewood Park including a plan for use of the 40 acre parcel to the north of the park.Rosewood Park is located at 1400 North and 1200 West. 28 24 13 Constitution Park ADA Playground 8 Tennis $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $10,586,792 $7,501,792 Negligible Upgrade To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment,upgrade the tennis courts and modify the irrigation system.Constitution Park is located at 1300 West 300 North. 4 8 14 ADA Ramps/Comer Repairs $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $250,000 $10,836,792 $7,501,792 Negligible To construct various ADA pedestrian ramps and related repairs to comers,including sidewalk,curb and clutter. 16 9 15 Pedestrian Bike Path Development $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $50,000 $10,886,792 $7,501,792 Negligible To develop,design and construct pedestrian and bike paths,routes,and facilities throughout the city as opportunities arise. 15 14 16 Local Street Rehabilitation $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,019,483 $11,906,275 $7,501,792 Negligible To reconstruct or rehabilitate deteriorated local streets to include replacement of street pavement. replacement of defective sidewalk,curb and gutter and improvement to drainage.Streets rehabilitation is done and an as needed basis according to the pa 6 15 17 Sidewalk Replacement SID $600,000 $600,000 $400,000 $400,000 $12,306,275 $400,000 $7,901,792 Negligible To replace defective sidewalk and remove tripping hazards in the designated special improvement district (SID)area.This project will also install ADA pedestrian ramps,provide some tree replacement where trees have damaged sidewalk,and improve drainag 19 13 18 New and Replacement Streetlights $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $12,366,275 $60,000 $7,961,792 Negligible • 2 • a T x CIP Board Mayor FY 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 c FY 2003.2004 Staff Proposed Proposed Recommended Cumulative Total Cumulative Total Operating Budget v�i mo Title of Project Request Estimated Cast Amount Amount Amount Adj Cost Council Amount Adj Cost Impact To replace existing streetlights that are no longer servicable or install new streetlights on and as needed basis.To be coordinated with other city projects. 27 11 19 Sugar House Lighting Project $675,000 $675,000 $675,000 $675,000 $13,041,275 $0 $7,961,792 Negligible To remove all existing over head street lighting and Funded by RDA install new decorative poles with underground wiring. Street lights would be replaced on 2100 South from 700 East to 1300 East,and Highland Drive from Ramona to 1-80 and Wilmington. 11 18 20 Sidewalk Rehabilitation-Concrete Sawing $200,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 $13,191,275 $7,961,792 Negligible To provide sidewalk rehabilitation and a reduction of tripping hazards through a relatively new concrete sawing technique.This process eliminates existing sidewalk displacements of up to one inch through use of a specialized saw which slices off the dis 2 17 21 Traffic Signal Upgrade $625,000 $625,000 $500,000 $500,000 $13,691,275 $7,961,792 Negligible To remove existing traffic signal equipment and upgrade with mast arm poles,new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved loop detection and left tom phasing. Planned upgrades will take place at 300 West and 1700 South, 400 20 21 22 Jordan Park Peace Garden-Irrigations System $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 $13,881,275 $190,000 $8,151,792 Negligible Phase It To provide for the second phase of Peace Gardens irrigation construction.The irrigation system is being • replaced to maximize water efficiency and to attach it to the Central Control System.Jordan Park Peace Garden is located 1000 West 1000 South. 26 23 23 200 S Reconstruction $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To reconstruct deteriorated and substandard street on 200 South,from 400 West to 900 West,to include pavement reconstruction,installation of new curb, gutter and sidewalk,storm drainage,street lighting, street landscaping and traffic control features 12 22 24 Traffic Calming $250,000 $250,000 $200,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To install traffic calming devices such as bulb-outs, speed humps,raised crosswalks,traffic circles, medians,etc.,on streets where these types of devices are deemed appropriate in eligible areas of the City. 31 25 Herm Franks Park-Parking and Storage $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To plan and construct new landscape along the 700 East frontage.Also,to make changes to the inigation system and to add security lighting. Herm Franks Park is located at 1350 South 700 East. 32 26 BOG/Training Center $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Unknown To provide for the completion of a building through a joint venture with the area Red Cross to build an Emergency Operations Center(EOC)/Training Center. • 3 • C a - CIP Board Mayor FY 2003.2004 FY 2003-2004 r FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Proposed Recommended Cumulative Total Cumulative Total Operating Budget m co m C Title of Project Request Estimated Cost Amount Amount Amount Adj Cost Council Amount Adj Cost Impact 30 27 700 E Street Lighting Upgrade $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To remove all existing over head street lighting on 700 East from South Temple to 27DD South,and install new decorative poles with underground wiring. 8 28 ADA Transition Plan Improvements-City Wide $100,000 $100,000 8100,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To design and constuct in parks,city-wide,that have been identified as accessibility issues as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 5 29 SMCC Chlorine Tank $70,000 870,000 $70,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To prolong the normal service life of the boiler at the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center,the chlorine tank needs to be moved from the room where the boiler is located, due to the corrosive nature of chlorine fumes.The Sorenson Center is located at 855 We 33 30 Popperton Park ADA Playground&Master Plan $120,000 $120,000 8120,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment as well as up-grades to the irrigation system. 29 31 Sugar House Ramp and Paver Replacement $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To replace substandard ADA pedestrian ramps and sidewalk pavers in the Sugar House business district. 35 32 CIP Grants Matching Funds $100,000 $100,000 8100,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible To provide funds to be available for use as CIP grants matching money. 36 33 Lindsey Garden Park-Master Plan $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Negligible . To create a master plan for Lindsey Garden Park to determine the best future use of the park. 38 34 Main Police Station $44,174,300 $44,174,300 $44,174,300 $13,881,275 $8,151,792 Unknown To provide for the purchase of approximately 1/3 of an acre contiguous to the existing Public Safety Building, to demolish the existing apartment building,the Public Safety Building,the parking structure and the annex, and to construct a new main police 7 35 Traffic Signal Installation $375,000 $375,00D $375,000 $13,881,275 $125,000 $8,276,792 $270 To install new traffic signals at intersections where they 800 East and 100 are warranted. South 37 36 Westminster ADA Playground&Parking Turn- $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $13,881,275 $8,276,792 Negligible Around To replace the existing non-ADA accessible playground equipment,to up-grade the irrigation system,and to modify the existing parking turn-around to allow easier access and exit.Westminster Park is located at 990 East 1700 South. 9 37 Fire Station Repairs and Improvements $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $13,881,275 $8,276,792 Negligible To provide for necessary repairs to all City fire stations. 34 38 1200 E Street/Median Rehabilitation $805,000 $805,000 $805,000 $13,881,275 $8,276,792 Negligible To provide street and median island rehabilitation to 1200 East,from 300 South to 500 South,to include replacement of deteriorated street pavement,curb and gutter,median curb,median irrigation and landscaping. CIP Holding Account $13,881,275 $5,538,255 $13,815,047 Negligible To provide an account to hold the remaining CIP allocation until further discussion can be held in August or September. • 4 • K '2i CIP Board Mayor FY 2003-2004 FY 2003-2004 A 1". FY 2003-2004 Staff Proposed Proposed Recommended Cumulative Total Cumulative Total Operating Budget in m° K Title of Project Request Estimated Cost Amount Amount Amount Adj Cost Council Amount Adj Cost Impact Withdrawn Jordan River Trail Railroad Crossing Design $65,000 Withdrawn To design the railroad crossing and to study the costs associated with building a bridge over,or a tunnel under the tracks at this section of the Jordan River Trailway Project.(Request is being withdrawn since Tian•ortetion determined that available fun " 150 W Quince Street $135,000 Miltary Drive and Yalecrest Ave Withdrawn $0 S0 Curb Realignment for Intersection of Military Dr.and Withdrawn SO SO 1700 East Railroad Overpass Withdrawn $0 $0 Class C S0 $0 Class C SO $0 Class C S0 $0 Class C SO $0 Class C SO SO To upgrade pavement,and sidewalk,curb and gutter on this section of street (Recommended that this street be included in the 2004/2005 CIP Local Streets Reconstruction project,pending funding approval for the•ro'ect. • Rossalyn Heights-1900 East Street Improvements $364,000 To reconstruct 1900 East between 2100 South and Parley's Way,also improving sidewalk,curb and gutter, traffic calmin• and street li•htin•. • *CIP Board Members determined that these issues would require going through the Special Improvement District(SID)process Fiscal Year 03-04 Impact Fee Eligible Project Applications Impact Fee Projects $425,000 $425,000 $425,000 Construct various Police,Fire,Park and Street capital improvement projects identified in the Impact Fee Analysis,Capital Facilities Plan. MBA Debt Service for Pioneer Precinct Bond $434,160 $434,160 $434,160 Debt service for the MBA bond used to complete the Pioneer Precinct Impact fees may be used to pay for 19%of the cost of the facility. _ 14 2 Sugar House Rails wl Trails $264,000 $264,000 To develop a paved bike/pedestrian trail in shared right- of-way with commuter light rail development on the UTA Sugar House spur,500 East to Highland Drive. Various other improvements will be made as well. 21 6 North Brickyard Neighborhood Park $30,000 $30,000 To design a park on a half-acre site owned by Salt Lake City located on the Jordan Canal corridor between Crandall and Zenith Ave,or 1140 East 2905 South. Plaza 349 EOC Construction $50,000 $50,000 To complete the construction of an Emergency Operations Center in Plaza 349 $1,203,160 $859,160 • 5 SAIEA. LOUIS ZUNGUZE 1 E� 'LSJ�V � II ROSS C. ANDERSDN • PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR ORENT 0. WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Meeker, City Recorder FROM: Everett L. Joyce, Planning Division SUBJECT: Petition 400-01-07,Mountair Annexa ion Certification of properties withdrawn from the annexation petition. DATE: September 2, 2003 On August 27, 2003, J. Cash Delahunty submitted to the Recorder's office a letter and packet with 132 parcels of land within the Mountair Annexation boundaries for withdrawal from the petition for annexation into the Salt Lake City corporate limits. I have reviewed the withdrawal packet and have identified that 130 of the parcels are valid withdrawals from the current annexation petition. As such, the annexation petition at this time does not meet the minimum standards set forth in State statute. Below is a comparison that summarizes the change in petition status. The minimum standard required for annexation is a majority of the property area and over one third of the property valuation. Prior to August 27, 2003 After August 27,2003 Private land represented 59.87 acres(50.53%) 35.41 acres (29.88%) Valuation represented $49,241,260(52.35%) $30,091,700 (31.20%) Attachment: Revised ownership record with acreage and valuation totals. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-5335-7757 FAX: 801-535-6174 C7c7 aEc.c Lco P..PF,. A 09/03/2003 00:36 8015810193 VMH CBTU PAGE 01/01 ADA4 &tx Y deoitioR er Remnew Ritamsici f% ft4N*Ir op L4Xa . -N1 Ammer A ,rp 1i eh , t: 3z zesos E7R L..ovAec .. Mownme , YootApp 7Exzs - 7 91-r- Yaw A Aa ritr P oAosAts "P and t k---• 7Z) you,youk lioatspAy 4,1aEgta4. ii' r 7 fE' aolir fit* A 17. 1.1G ff 1. M/4, tiR • 'I" Daffy 4 fcEspevkisx- 1144YAR l 0001 5,044E- oM, i it - elfetiLp imm - ,, i ED - PRc PO. -L 7i3EPTIE5 Pt- 4) W T • Comm/ 77-Amr AEI A,c w .. 4 Re'S pp rs a-' OA<711- LAST Nr,49547: • • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2,2003 SUBJECT: Economic Development-Audit Observations and Recommendations AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford KEY ELEMENTS: The City Council contracted with the Deloitte & Touche CPA firm for several small audits. The audits were not extensive or all-encompassing but were very limited-scope studies with rather small budgets. One of the audits was an analysis of Economic Development in Salt Lake City. The audit report contains an executive summary, background, observations/recommendations, and management's response. The audit concluded that there appeared to be some duplication between the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance as well as some duplication between the Economic Development Corporation of Utah and the Utah Department of Community & Economic Development, although • the duplication does not appear to be significant. The auditors reported that Salt Lake City's economic development staffing and resources are less than West Valley City or Sandy City. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. In addition to economic development services provided by the City's Department of Community & Economic Development, Salt Lake City relies on the Redevelopment Agency, the Downtown Alliance and the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU) to provide economic development services. 2. The budget for Salt Lake City's economic development is $300,000 including contributions to EDCU($133,000)and the Salt Lake Chamber($30,000). This economic development budget is lower than West Valley City and, depending on what costs are included, is less than the budget for Sandy City. 3. The City's Economic Development unit does not provide demographic, labor market, real estate data, educational data, or employment recruitment assistance but refers these inquiries to the EDCU since it provides this type of information and services. 4. Special events are not a significant part of economic development efforts in the comparable cities(West Valley, Sandy). The audit team did not perform analysis on the economic impact of these events with regards to economic development. • OPTIONS: • a. The Council may wish to discuss some of the above observations and recommendations with representatives of the Administration at the Council work session. b. The Council may wish to request a written report from the Administration within about six months on any actions taken in response to observations noted in the audit report. c. The Council may wish to encourage the Administration to analyze funding of economic development when developing the budget for fiscal year 2004-05. d. The Council may wish to contract for a follow-up study. The expanded study could include comparisons with more cities to determine best practices. S • U ■ ■o Deloitt e z, -S Co ON-':„,,, SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH ,' .t,„,_...,. '2..A.,..1„ -;. ■ & Touche ■ ,ii fi,T,ir ''t j y ■ // -- ■ ■ ■ ■ PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF ■ ■ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SALT LAKE CITY ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Aprii 3, 2003 ■ ■ . Deloitte Touche OTohmatsu S ■ ■ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. I. Executive Summary 1 ■ Scope and Objectives 1 ■ Overall Conclusion 1 Methodology 1 II. Background and Understanding 2 ■ Economic Development 2 Background 2 ■ III. Observations and Recommendations 3 Objective 1 3 Objective 2 4 ■ IV. Appendices 6 ■ Appendix A-Summary of Economic Development Activities 6 Appendix B -Summary of Services Offered 7 ■ Appendix C-Business Incentives/Economic Development Tools 8 ■ Appendix D—Summary of Economic Development Budgets 9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ E■ . 111 Review of Solt Lake City Corporation, 111 Economic Development Page 1 U I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We have completed the Performance Audit of the Economic Development activities in Salt Lake City for Salt Lake City Corporation. The Performance Audit was conducted consistent with the in assignment received from the City Council. The Audit was performed in accordance with the ■ Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards as issued by the General Accounting Office. SCOPE AND T E ni Our Performance Audit included a review of the Economic Development activities of Salt Lake City as compared to other organizations in the Salt Lake Area with similar objectives as of February 28t , 2003. Examples of similar organizations include: the Downtown Alliance,the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Corporation of Utah(EDCU), Utah Department of Community & Economic Development(DCED), and Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The Council identified ■ three objectives to be completed in conjunction with this audit. The objectives are: ■ 1. Compare the City's Economic Development department and its staffing level, tools, and resources with other economic development organizations, such as EDCU, the Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, DCED, and RDA, with those of other cities of comparable size (such as West Valley City and Sandy City). 2. Identify the extent to which special events can/do contribute to economic development. ■ OVERALL CONCLUSION Based on the research performed, we noted that there is some duplication between the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance as well as some duplication between the EDCU and the DCED, however, the duplication does not appear to be significant. Each economic development organization has a slightly different purpose. However, we noted that Salt Lake City's economic ■ development departments staffing and resources were significantly lower than those of other organizations and comparable cities. Additional comparative information can be found in the • appendices. Special events do not play a significant role in the economic development efforts of the organizations and cities that were evaluated, except for the Downtown Alliance and West Valley City. Analysis that reflects the economic impact of these events on the respective city's economy . has not been performed. As such, we were unable to determine the extent to which special events contribute to economic development. METHODOLOGY To accomplish project objectives,we reviewed program documentation of the City's Economic Development department as well those of its economic development partners including the EDCU, Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce, DCED, and the RDA. We also interviewed key • economic development individuals at the City and its partners as well as reviewed and compared current practices and strategies. We compared the services provided of the City's Economic Development Department and compared those services to the services provided by its partners to identify redundancies or possible efficiencies. We also compared the economic develop practices and strategy of the City to West Valley and Sandy. U • Review af',WI Luke City Corporation, 111 Economic Development Page 1 U S in IL BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT U Economic Development is a strategy to encourage business location/relocation,revitalize neighborhood areas and business centers as well as promote the growth of employment ■ opportunities within Salt Lake City's (SLC) geographical boundaries and elsewhere. Economic Development groups will work with companies to help them expand, remain in the SLC area, or ■ bring new companies into SLC. ni BACKGROUND Various entities within the Salt Lake City area focus on the economic development of Salt Lake • City and Downtown. Many of these organizations appear to have similar objectives. The City Council recently identified a number of areas and issues it would like to study and evaluate in the coming year. One of the projects is a report on the overall economic development activities within Salt Lake City. The scope of this project is very limited and will primarily involve comparing the entities focused on the economic development of Salt Lake City. The City Council believes that this brief independent analysis may shed some light about duplicate efforts regarding the economic development of Salt Lake City and will provide perspective when evaluating economic development in Salt Lake City in the future. 1111 111 U R a U 11 U ■ 11 ■ Review of Sant Lance City Corporation ■ Economic Development Page 2 ■ ■ ■ III. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ■ OBJECTIVE ■ Compare the City's Economic Development department and its staffing level, tools, and ■ resources with other economic development organizations, such as the EDCU, Downtown Alliance, Chamber of Commerce,DCED, and the RDA,with those of other cities of comparable ■ size (such as West Valley City and Sandy City). ■ METHODOLOGY ■ To achieve this particular objective,we obtained a general understanding of Salt Lake City's ■ Economic Development department the services it provides, its staffing level, organizational structure, tools, and resources used and compared Salt Lake City to various other economic ■ development organizations and cities of comparable size, determining any best practices. ■ CONCLUSION ■ Based on the research performed,we noted that there is some duplication between the Chamber ■ of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance as well as some duplication between the EDCU and the DCED, the duplication does not appear to be significant. Following is a short synopsis of 510 the focus of each entity based on our understanding: ■ • Salt Lake City's Community and Economic Development Department focuses on the expansion and retention of businesses within the SLC area. • The Economic Development Corporation of Utah focuses on the recruitment of business ■ to the entire state of Utah with an increased focus on Salt Lake City. • The Downtown Alliance specializes in sustaining businesses in the downtown area(not the entire City) and bringing people into the Salt Lake City downtown area by holding special events. The Downtown Alliance does not significantly participate in the • recruitment of companies to SLC. ■ • The Salt Lake Chamber specializes in sustaining its member businesses in the Salt Lake City area and does not participate in the recruitment of companies to SLC, but rather performs services like providing training opportunities for the members of its organization. • The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) exists to improve the blighted areas ■ of Salt Lake City and encourages the development of housing for low and moderate income households. Based on our understanding, the RDA is the only organization that specifically works to redevelop the Salt Lake City area. • The DCED focuses on growing quality jobs, to ensure economic prosperity and to enhance the quality of life, statewide. The DCED does not focus its attentions on any particular area of the state,but rather works to improve the job base and income level of ■ all of the state. If any duplicate efforts were to take place, they would occur with the DCED efforts to improve the economic development of the State. 41111 Review of Salt Lake City Ct 1por tion, Eeonoirde Development Page 3 Following is a short synopsis, based on our understanding, of the economic development activities of West Valley City and Sandy City: • West Valley City views and uses economic development to encourage business location/relocation, retain/sustain existing businesses, and redevelop areas in need in its community with the goal of making West Valley City an attractive place for business . development, but does not actively recruit businesses to the City. • Sandy City views and uses economic development as a strategy to recruit new businesses for their City and retain existing businesses, which in turn encourages growth. Supplemental and comparative information has been included in the appendices attached to this report. A description of the appendices is as follows: Appendix A— Summary of Economic Development Activities Appendix B— Summary of Services Offered in Appendix C—Business Incentives/Economic Development Tools Comparison Appendix D—Summary of Economic Development Budgets • ■ In some respect,the economic development activities of Salt Lake City could be considered outsourced to the EDCU, the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance. • Consequently, to gain an understanding the City's economic development efforts of the City, one should also consider the efforts of these other three organizations. However, based on Appendix D—Summary of Economic Development Budgets, it appears that the City has committed limited resources, in comparison to other organizations, to economic development activities. However, as each of the different organization within the City address a slightly different aspect of ■ economic development, we recommend that the City maintain its current level of commitment, however, that it become more involved with the other organizations reflected in our report. OBJECTIVE 2 Identify the extent to which special events can/do contribute to economic development. METHODOLOGY We obtained an understanding of the special events, if any,produced by the various organization including the Downtown Alliance, the EDCU, DECD, West Valley City and others. We then attempted to obtain any work performed by these organizations to quantify economic impact of ni these events. We additionally determined the extent to which other cities are promoting their city as the place to have a special event. CONCLUSION . Only the Downtown Alliance and West Valley City sponsor special events in their respective cities. The Downtown Alliance sponsors the following special events throughout the year: First Night, Downtown Farmers Market, Lights On Event, and Live it Up Downtown. West Valley City sponsors special events including West Fest Days and Hoop it Up. Neither organization has • Review of Sall Lake City C othavation Economic Development Page 4 N ■ ■ performed any analysis to evaluate the economic impact these events. However,the Downtown Alliance indicated that due to their events, approximately $500K worth of cash and value in-kind were spent on marketing and advertising in the downtown area in 2002. ■ The State also sponsors special events however does not perform any analysis of any positive ■ economic impact these events may on Utah. The only exception being the 2002 Olympics which ■ was completed in November 2000. Some highlights of that report include: ✓ Output- $4.5 billion in economic output or sales ✓ Employment- 35,000 job years of employment ■ ✓ Earnings - $1.5 billion in earnings to Utah workers ✓ Net Revenue to State Government- $55.5 million ■ ✓ Net Revenue to Local Government - $20.4 million ■ Based upon our review of economic development organizations and special events produced, ■ special events appear to have a positive economic benefit, however, quantitative data is not available or produced by these organizations, with the exception of the 2002 Olympics. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Review of Salt Lake C€tv Corporation poration 111 Economic Development Page 5 S r ■ IV. APPENDICES ■ APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ■ ■ Inforinalion gathered by D&T and is based on data provided ■ Downtown Salt Lake West Focus SLC EDCU Alliance Chamber DCED RDA Valley Sandy ■ Advertising/ X X X X X Recruitment ■ Retention/Sustain X X X X X X X X ■ Expansion X X X X X ■ Redevelopment X X X ■ ■ ■ .■ NIP ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Rekie►v of Salt Lake City Corporation ■ Economic Development Page 6 MI U N AP APPENDIX SUMMARY OF SERVICES OFFERED Information gathered by D&T and is based on data provided Ill Downtown Salt Lake West ■ Services Offered SLC EDCU Alliance Chamber DCED RDA Valley Sandy . Business site tours X X X X X X X Assistance with City processes X X X X X X IIII Work with businesses to renew leases X X X X • Assist small business owners to get established X X X X X X X • Schedule meetings/arrange introductions X X X X X X X Coordinate with other economic development X X X X X X X X III Writes publications X X X X X X X III Offer Small Business Revolving Loans X X ■ Demographic, labor market, and real estate data X X X X X X Educational Data X X X X X IIII Operating cost comparison analysis X X IIII Community briefings X X X X X X ■ Financial assistance contacts X X X X X X X 411,b training assistance X X X X II Employment recruitment assistance X X II Special Events X X X ■ Brochure guides &directories X X X X X X Help companies grow X X X X X IIII Financial incentives to locate downtown X X X III Lobbyist X X X ■ Workers compensation insurance X Relocation assistance— Financial X X X 111 Perform Marketing X X X X X • Vendor Sources X X • Economic Impact Studies X X X Travel&Tourism (advertising) X X X III Health Insurance X III 111 Mil 11 • Review of Salt Lake C itp C otporation IIEconomic Development Page 7 a ■ APPENDIX C - BUSINESS INCENTIVES/ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS 111 Information gathered by D&T and is based on data provided A um Downtown Salt Lake West Services Offered SLC EDCU Alliance Chamber DCED RDA Valley Sandy • Revolving Loan Fund (IAF) X X 11Website X X X X X X X X Economic information X X X X 11 Demographic information X X X X 11 Statistical information X X Business Contacts X X X X IN Property Tax Inducements X 111 Research and Development Tax X Credits • Sales Tax Exemption for Purchase of New and Replacement• Manufacturing Equipment X III Trainings and seminars X X 11 Industrial Developmental Bonds X X X . Relocation Assistance X X • Eminent domain X X III Redevelopment Loans/Grants X X 11 Brochures X X X X 11Business Magazines X Tax Increment Financing X X X • Sales Tax Increments X IN 11 11 11 111 111 II 111 I • Review ofSalt take City Corporation, . Economic Development Page 8 U II APPENDIX SUMMARY OF OONO IG DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS ■ Information gathered by D&T and is based on data provided JP DCED Economic Downtown Salt Lake (National West ii Development Budget SLC EDCU Alliance Chamber Recruitment) RDA Valley Sandy Salaries & Benefits 137,000 703,000 110,000 930,000 387,000 630,000 440,000 204,000 II Contribution to EDCU 133,000 47,000 41,000 II Contribution to SL 30,000 Chamber II Contribution to Sandy Chamber 45,000 II Main Street Initiatives 40,000 II Public 19,000 Investment/Planning II Travel/Transportation & 51,000 10,000 67,000 28,000 Parking II Recruit. & Retention 40,000 II Professional Services 117,000 558,000 II Local Promotion 93,000 ■ National Promotion 54,000 Materials &Supplies 48,000 67,000 32,000 217,000 39,000 urrent ExpensesPi 85,000 Marketing 508,000 II Internal Services 59,000 ■ External Services 142,000 Capital Outlay 2,100,000 ■ Debt services/other 537,000 2,400,000 111 Advocacy 61,000 III Lifestyle 391,000 mi Administration costs 276,000 200,000 247,000 ■ Reserve/Miscellaneous 10,000 10,000 Grants/Sponsorships 35,000 6,000 El Other Div. of DCED 8,600,000 ■ Legal fees 125,000 • Rent 185,000 45,000 ■ Interest expense 11,000 4,526,000 Redevelopment 27,213,000 1.11 other overhead 180,000 IN Total 300,000 1,387,000 881,000 1,440,000 9,614,000 33,376,000 1,241,000 5,030,000 • Review€4'Salt Lake City Corporation ■ Economic Development Page 9 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2,2003 SUBJECT:: Special Events-Audit Observations and Recommendations AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford KEY ELEMENTS: The City Council contracted with the Deloitte&Touche CPA firm for several small audits. The audits were not extensive or all-encompassing but were very limited-scope studies with rather small budgets. One of the audits was an analysis of the Special Event program in Salt Lake City. The audit report includes an executive summary, background, observations/recommendations, and management's response. The audit concluded that the City appears to be inconsistent in its cost recovery practices for special events held within the City. Compliance with the special events ordinances appear to be inconsistently enforced. The audit noted that the Special Events staff is working with the City • Attorney's Office to revise the Special Events ordinance. Effective July I, 2003,the Special Event function was moved from the Department of Community &Economic Development to the Department of Public Services. Since this function is new to the Department of Public Service, its managers may need some time to respond to and implement the recommendations suggested by the audit. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. In section 3.50.020 Salt Lake City Code,the terms"basic city services," "city costs," and"city services"were vaguely defined and open to interpretations. As a result,full cost recovery was rarely achieved. The City should clearly define the terms"basic city services," "city costs" and "city services." 2. The Events Review Committee, as defined in the ordinance, did not exist. 3. The City should develop policies and procedures for the special events process. 4.- The wording in subsection 3.50.050.B. of the City Code regarding filmmaking activities is contradictory and unclear. The Administration is drafting a separate ordinance to meet specific filming needs. • 5. The Council asked the auditors to determine whether escorts for some parades or events could be provided by crossing guards or private security companies rather than police officers at overtime rates. The City uses crossing guards for some traffic control during special events. The auditors pointed out that legal and liability issues surround the use of crossing guards and private security guards. The auditors recommend that the City Attorney research legal restrictions and liability concerns surrounding the use of crossing guards and private security guards. 6. The auditors provided examples from other cities(Denver; Portland; and Vancouver, Canada) including depositing a cost recovery estimate prior to the event, charging a fee based on the size of the event, charging a fee for parades or runs based on the number of blocks, requiring the event sponsors hire off-duty police officers, etc. OPTIONS: a. The Council may wish to discuss some of the above observations and recommendations with representatives of the Administration at the Council work session. In particular,the Council may wish to inquire about the timing of proposed revisions to the Special Events ordinance. b. The Council may wish to encourage the Administration to consider the revised ordin.nce when preparing the budget for fiscal year 2004-05. Rather than basing the budget on estimates of what may be reimbursed under a revised ordinance,the Council may wish to encourage the Administration to develop the ordinance within the next few months so that some actual revenue reimbursement experience is available for budget projections. •, c. The Council may wish to request a written report from the Administration within about six months after the revised Special Events ordinance is adopted to help determine whether the weaknesses reported by the auditors have been resolved. d. The Council may wish to contract for a follow-up study. The Special Event function was recently moved from the Department of Community&Economic Development to the Department of Public Services. The expanded study could include comparisons with additional cities to determine best practices. a • ■ ID Delo SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH ■ & To2e ■ •• „f, • • • • ■ \// ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF ■ SPECIAL EVENTS ■ ■ March 28, 2003 ■ Deloitte Touche . Tohmatsu I 1111 ID Table of Contents 111 III I. Executive Summary 1 Scope and Objectives 1 w Overall Conclusion 1 ■ Methodology 2 II. Background and Understanding 3 • III. Observations and Recommendations 4 ■ Objective 1 • Determine the extent to which fees are charged to special events to reimburse for City services. 4 U Objective 2 Determine whether there are deviations from the application of the City's current special events ordinance. 5 • Objective 3 • Explore the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees to additional groups for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being P charged to participants and in other circumstances as appropriate. 7 Objective 4 Review the approach taken with City-sponsored events with regard to licensing and ii ordinance compliance 8 Objective 5■ Determine whether escorts for some parades or events could be provided by crossing . guards or private security companies rather than police officers at overtime rates. 8 Objective 6 • Evaluate staffing and organizational structure. 9 II Objective 7 Review approach the City is taking relating to concessionaires for special events and ii in City parks. 10 ii Objective 8 Provide policy options from other cities or best practices 11 III IV. Appendices 13 ii Appendix A ■ Salt Lake City Special Events Fee Summary 13 III le I. Executive Summary We have completed a Performance Audit of Special Events for Salt Lake City Corporation. Consistent with the direction of the Salt Lake City Council, our efforts focused on cost recovery, ordinance compliance and licensing approaches to Special Events held within the City. This Performance Audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES n i Our Performance Audit included a review of the City's Special Events ordinances y' p , practices and processes in place as of December 1, 2002. Specific processes within the following departments and divisions were included as part of our review: Business License, Compliance, Contracts, Engineering, Fire, Office of the City Attorney, Parks,Police, Property Management, Public ■ Services, Special Events and Transportation. Operations at Sugarhouse Park and the Gallivan Center were not reviewed. Specific processes included permit issuance, cost recovery, ordinance n i compliance and vendor licensing. Administrative and event staffing practices were evaluated to identify opportunities to increase efficiency and effectiveness. The City Council provided eight objectives for this audit: 1. Determine the extent to which fees are charged to special events to reimburse for City services. 2. Determine whether there are deviations from the application of the City's current special events ordinance. 10 3. Explore the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees to additional groups for the use of police officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being charged to 10 participants and in other circumstances as appropriate. 10 4. Review the approach taken with City-sponsored events with regard to licensing and ordinance compliance. 5. Determine whether escorts for some parades or events could be provided by crossing guards 10 or private security companies rather than police officers at overtime rates. . 6. Evaluate staffing and organizational structure. 7. Review approach the City is taking relating to concessionaires for special events and in City parks. 8. Provide policy options from other cities or best practices. OVERALL CONCLUSION Based on the analysis and test work performed, cost recovery practices appeared inconsistent for . special events held within the City. In addition, compliance with special events ordinances also appeared to be inconsistently enforced. Specific observations included the following: • • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation . Special Events 4. Additional care is needed to ensure the consistent application of City ordinance 3.50, "Commercially Related Special Events and Free Expression Activities". In section 3.50.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, the terms"basic city services", "city costs" and"city services" were vaguely defined and subject to interpretation. Consequently, "basic city services" and "city costs", for cost recovery purposes, were inconsistently applied to special events organizers. A fee summary has been included in Appendix A. 4. Two significant deviations from the "Commercially Related Special Events and Free Expression Activities" ordinance occurred. A centralized administration for cost recovery of Special Events or Advanced Planned Free Expression Activities did not exist. As well,the Events Review Committee, as defined in the ordinance, did not exist. Other minor deviations ■ are described in Objective 2. 4, On occasion, crossing guards or private security guards were utilized for special events activities. Based on our understanding,this may present the City with additional risk and liability. We recommend that the Office of the City Attorney review this practice. Detail for each of these conclusions and other observations, can be found in the Observations and Recommendations section of this report. Our audit was not designed or intended to be a detailed study of every related system,procedure and transaction. Accordingly, opportunities for improvement presented in this report may not be Pall-inclusive of areas where other issues may be present. METHODOLOGY 111 To accomplish project objectives, we interviewed special events personnel in the Community ni and Economic Development department, as well as other special events personnel in other ■ departments across the City. Operations at Sugarhouse Park and the Gallivan Center were not reviewed. We examined documentation, reviewed ordinances, obtained an understanding of the current process, conducted analyses, identified opportunities for improvement and developed appropriate recommendations. We also contacted personnel in the cities of Denver, Portland and Vancouver to gain an understanding of their special events policies and processes. The special events team held work sessions with Deloitte & Touche to review and validate ■ findings and conclusions, and to jointly develop recommendations that would be appropriate to assist Salt Lake City Corporation in improving its operations and achieving its goals. 1110 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 111 Special Events 2 a ■ 11 II. Background and Understanding II City personnel involved in special events activities are located throughout City departments and divisions. A full-time Special Events Administrator and a part-time Special Events • Administrative Assistant are located in the Community and Economic Development department. These individuals are the first point of contact for special events organizers. This office in processes permit applications for special events, such as runs and parades, film production a requests and free speech events. Staff evaluates the application and forwards it to the Division of Transportation, Engineering Division, Fire Department and Police Department for review and a approval. Event organizers are referred to other City departments or divisions as needed. Event requirements are communicated through the permit letter sent to the organizer. It is the a responsibility of the event organizer to comply with the requirements of the permit letter. in Special Events staff and other City personnel communicate on a constant basis to keep abreast of III Division special events activities. The Special Events section holds bi-monthly meetings with the Division of Transportation, Engineering Division, Fire Department, Police Department and a Public Services to discuss upcoming events and appeals. Staff located in these and other City departments or divisions are involved in the Special Events process only to the extent that their in respective department or division is involved. in Salt Lake City ordinance 3.50, entitled"Commercially Related Special Events and Free Speech III Activities", is the main ordinance governing special events activities. Other ordinances also peripherally touch special events activities. ■ ■ a ■ ■ a ■ in in in ■ RD in aReview of Salt Lake City Corporation rSpecial Events 3 iii r ak IOW III. Observations and Recommendations ■ OBJECTIVE 1 • Determine the extent to which fees are charged to special events to reimburse for City services. • METHODOLOGY il We reviewed Salt Lake City ordinance 3.50, "Commercially Related Events and Free Speech • Activities", as of December 1, 2002. We also reviewed Salt Lake City ordinance 4.3.52, "Large- Scale Special Events of National or International Significance", ordinance amendment No. 42 of 2002,"Parking Meters Special Use Conditions, Fees and Removal", ordinance amendment No. • 43 of 2002, "Loading Zones and Restricted Parking", ordinance amendment No. 70 of 1999, "Construction, excavation and obstructions in the public way", and ordinance 2.60, "SLACC and • Neighborhood-Based Organization Recognition". Special events staff were identified and interviewed in the following departments and divisions: Business License, Compliance, • Engineering, Fire, Office of the City Attorney, Parks, Police, Property Management, Public • Services, Special Events and Transportation. Information received from Salt Lake City personnel and/or ordinances was used to create a fee summary. See Appendix A for this • summary. 1111 CONCLUSION Practices for cost recovery were inconsistent. Full or partial cost recovery was performed • through direct billing of incurred costs or flat fees. Full cost recovery was rarely achieved. See Appendix A for a fee summary. a 1.1 OBSERVATION a . In section 3.50.020 Salt Lake City Code,the terms "basic city services", "city costs" and "city services"were vaguely defined and open to interpretation. As a result, the terms • "basic city services", "city costs" and"city services"appeared to be inconsistently applied to special events organizers for cost recovery purposes. a alRECOMMENDATION III Clearly define the terms "basic city services", "city costs" and "city services". r We recommend that the City clearly define the terms "basic city services", "city costs" and "city services". A narrow definition of these terms will facilitate cost recovery • efforts. III MANAGEMENT RESPONSE le Revisions to City Code 3.50 are being prepared for the City Council's consideration. • ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 1111 Special Events 4 416111 OBJECTIVE 2 Determine whether there are deviations from the application of the City's current special events ordinance. ■ METHODOLOGY We reviewed Salt Lake City ordinance 3.50, "Commercially Related Events and Free Speech Activities", as of December 1, 2002. We interviewed special events personnel across the City to . determine whether there were any deviations from this ordinance. Staff in the following departments and divisions was interviewed: Business License, Engineering, Fire, Office of the City Attorney, Parks, Police, Special Events and Transportation. CONCLUSION Our review concluded that there were several deviations from the "Commercially Related . Special Events and Free Expression Activities" ordinance 3.50. The following two significant deviations occurred: Centralized administration for cost recovery of Special Events or Advanced Planned Free Expression Activities, as stated in the ordinance, did not exist. The Events Review Committee, as defined in the ordinance, did not exist. An ad hoc review committee was formed to review Special Events and Free Speech permit applications. Due to challenges in the ordinance, the Special Events staff is working with the Office of the City Attorney to revise the Special Events ordinance. Other minor deviations from the ordinance were also identified: Application fees for City sponsored or co-sponsored events were waived. r The Police Department billed for its cost recovery after the event. ■ 4 Commercially Related Special Events permits were accepted under the thirty day in advance deadline. ■ 2.1 OBSERVATION IR inThe City was not in compliance with the Salt Lake City ordinance 3.50. ■ RECOMMENDATION ✓ Either bring the City into compliance or amend the ordinance. 411 Deviations from the ordinance can be partially attributed to the lack of Special Events ■ policies and procedures, as well as the vague and contradictory language in the • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation . Special Events 5 U U ordinance. We recommend that the City either bring the City's processes and procedures 51, into compliance or amend the ordinance. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Revisions to City Code 3.50 are being prepared for the City Council's consideration that will address these issues. 2.2 OBSERVATION There were no policies or procedures, in addition to the ordinance, that provided ■ guidance to City personnel involved in special events activities. RECOMMENDATION Develop policies and procedures for the special events process. We recommend that comprehensive policies and procedures be developed. The absence of policies and procedures leads to the possibility that not all departments and divisions will treat special events in the same manner. Policies and procedures should be present to standardize processes, establish policy guidelines, assign accountability, enhance communication and create management controls. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE The City departments and divisions that review special event applications have been asked to prepare policies and procedures. 2.3 OBSERVATION r According to subsection 3.50.050.B of the ordinance, filmmaking activities were not required to have a permit, "if a permit for such activities (was) issued by the city". U RECOMMENDATION U ■ Revise subsection 3.50.050.B. The wording in this subsection was contradictory and unclear. Ultimately, filmmakers were charged for a permit application; however, filmmakers were only charged for one permit, regardless of the number of filming locations throughout the City. We ■ recommend that the City Council revise this subsection of the ordinance to provide greater clarity on this issue. U w. ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation ■ Special Events 6 III II • MANAGEMENT RESPONSE O W inthatseparate ordinance be developed The Administration is recommending a to meet in specific filming needs. A draft ordinance is currently being prepared. n i OBJECTIVE 3 in Explore the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees to additional groups for the use of police in officers or other City services at special events where a fee is being charged to participants and in other circumstances as appropriate. iii ■ METHODOLOGY II To accomplish this objective, Deloitte& Touche personnel reviewed the current state of reimbursement charges as identified in Objective 1. Special events and City documentation was ni reviewed to gain an understanding of the feasibility of charging reimbursement fees. Finally, special events personnel in the following departments were interviewed: Business License, • Compliance, Engineering, Fire, Office of the City Attorney, Parks, Police, Public Services, inSpecial Events and Transportation. III CONCLUSION 111 Special events that charge a fee to participants can be identified in the application stage. The Special Events Application required event organizers to indicate whether a fee will be charged. Other pertinent event information was requested at this time. in As identified in Objective 1, inconsistent practices for cost recovery existed. Full or partial cost in recovery was achieved through direct billing or flat fees. Some departments or divisions had direct billing capabilities,while others were only capable of charging flat fees. The feasibility of in cost recovery is dependent upon the type of billing method desired. We noted the following inobservations relative to the feasibility of pursuing either a direct or flat fee cost recovery method: No processes existed within the Special Events section to charge for direct cost recovery. Flat fees were charged for event permits. in 4- The Police Department was capable of tracking and billing direct costs. It has already in billed three event organizers for cost recovery under this method. in -4- The Police Department's Secondary Employment office requires modifications to billing in and timekeeping processes. Secondary Employment invoices were not tied to the Police Department accounting system and invoice payment was not tracked. Coding errors in occurred as timekeepers occasionally coded secondary employment time as special ■ events time, resulting in different pay rates. Secondary Employment and the Police Finance Department were actively working to resolve these issues. V. • • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation inSpecial Events 7 The Department of Public Services' Compliance Division is capable of tracking direct costs associated with crossing guard activities. 4. Special events related activities were often intermingled with other job functions in some City departments. This made direct costs difficult to track. • ■ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE The various city departments and divisions that would be required to track direct costs and invoice for payments will need to get together and determine if a centralized system is preferred to a decentralized system. OBJECTIVE 4 ■ Review the approach taken with City-sponsored events with regard to licensing and ordinance compliance. METHODOLOGY To achieve this objective, we reviewed Salt Lake City ordinance 3.50, "Commercially Related Events and Free Speech Activities", as of December 1, 2002. We also reviewed Salt Lake City ordinance 5.65, Article 5, "Temporary Merchants", as of December 1, 2002. To determine the approach to licensing, we interviewed the Special Events Administrator and Business License Administrator. An overall review of ordinance compliance, including City-sponsored events compliance, was conducted. The results of Objective 2 were examined and special events personnel from the following departments and divisions were interviewed: Business License, Engineering, Fire, Office of the City Attorney, Parks, Police and Transportation. • CONCLUSION ■ During our review of the licensing approach to City-sponsored events, we learned that the Business License division required the City to complete a Temporary Merchant Sponsor application;however, no licensing fees were collected. For City-sponsored events that had participants,the City was required to provide a list of all participants to the Business License division. Participants were then charged an upfront license fee of$20 each. There was a mixed approach taken to ordinance compliance. Some City departments fully and • consistently reviewed special events organizers for ordinance compliance, whereas other departments checked compliance on a more subjective basis. Enforcement of ordinance requirements was generally limited to threats of permit revocation. Citations were rarely issued. OBJECTIVE 5 Determine whether escorts for some parades or events could be provided by crossing guards or private security companies rather than police officers at overtime rates. Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Special Events 8 U ■ai 11141. METHODOLOGY We reviewed the ordinances governing special events and conducted research on the legal w environment relative to traffic control by non-police personnel. We interviewed special events personnel in the following departments and divisions to gain an understanding of the appropriateness of using crossing guards or private security guards for special events: Compliance, Fire, Office of the City Attorney, Police, Public Services and Special Events. ■ CONCLUSION Based on our test work, it appears that there may be some legal and liability issues associated ■ with the utilization of crossing guards and private security guards for some special events activities. • 5.1 OBSERVATION Legal and liability issues surround the use of crossing guards and private security guards. Our analysis revealed that crossing guards were used for traffic control during special r events. We also found that private security guards were utilized by special events organizers. Liability may be incurred as a result of allowing special events organizers to use crossing guards and private security guards. 511 RECOMMENDATION Request the Office of the City Attorney to review the practice of using crossing guards 1111 and private security guards for special events. • State and city laws outline the authority of police officers and crossing guards. We recommend that the Office of the City Attorney research legal restrictions and liability concerns surrounding the use of crossing guards and private security guards. ni MANAGEMENT RESPONSE U Management did not respond to this item. U OBJECTIVE 6 Evaluate staffing and organizational structure. 1111 METHODOLOGY To achieve this objective, we reviewed the organizational structure for the Special Events section of the Community and Economic Development department. We interviewed Special Events staff to gain an understanding of their duties, responsibilities and staffing concerns. Finally, we contacted special events staff in Denver, Portland and Vancouver, Canada for comparative purposes. • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation ■ Special Events 9 Ill illah CONCLUSION IMF The Special Events section was housed in the Community and Economic Development r department. The Special Events Administrator and the Special Events Administrative Assistant were responsible for administering provisions of the special events ordinance and processing ii permits for filmmaking, special events and free speech activities. The Administrative Assistant III also provided some support to the Director's Office in the Community and Economic Development department. iii Staffing appeared to be adequate to maintain the current level of service. However, additional II staff may be necessary to administer full compliance with the ordinance. Some constraints were ii demand by part-time staffing of the Special Events Administrative Assistant position. Seasonal demand fluctuations resulted in increased workload during the winter, spring and summer II months, whereas demand slowed in the fall months. ii Our evaluation of the organizational structure did not reveal any concerns. From Table 2, we can see that in comparable cities, there did not appear to be one dominant City department for special a events. II Table 1: City Special Events Departments r City Department or Division Salt Lake City Community and Economic Development • Denver Office of Art,Culture&Film r Portland Bureau of Licenses II Vancouver Engineering Services a r OBJECTIVE 7 11 Review approach the City is taking relating to concessionaires for special events and in City parks. II IllMETHODOLOGY Ill To accomplish this objective, we reviewed Salt Lake City ordinance 3.24 "Procurement", ordinance 4.15.08.055 "Beer and Alcoholic Beverages Large Scale Special Events", ordinance ii 5.64.290 "Temporary Merchants", ordinance 14.38.140 "Location Restrictions" and ordinance 15.08.050 "Beer and Alcoholic Beverages". Other concessionaire material was reviewed. Salt II Lake City staff involved with the concessionaire process were identified and interviewed. ii ii ii Review of Salt Lake City Cofporation IIISpecial Events 10 ION r CONCLUSION In our review of the City's approach to concessionaires, we observed that concessionaires were contracted on a short-term and long-term basis. A review of existing City ordinances by the Office of the City Attorney revealed that there were no restrictions governing the length of a beverage concessionaire's contract. As a result, a short-term beverage concession contract was • developed and implemented in May 2002. Since that time, the City had executed three beverage concession contracts. The standard beverage concession contract required a percentage of the gross sales less taxes to be returned to the City. For other short-term contracts, the City contracted with a general special events organizers, who then sub-contracted to participants. These concessionaires competed through a solicitation process or had the solicitation requirement waived. Long-term concessionaires generally provided services to the Parks Division. These concessionaires obtained their designation through one of four ways. The first method required a Mi solicitation process. A long-term contract was awarded and concessionaire activities were restricted to specific locations. In the second method, management invited other concessionaires to provide services. In the third method, Little League and parent community sports ■ organizations operated concessionaire stands in the park. These stands were not sent out to bid or charged a fee. Finally, concessionaire type activities were pursued by vending carts and MN artists. Vending carts were required to obtain a permit and were assigned to a Park location. Artists were not required to obtain a permit under certain circumstances. It is our understanding that artist location restrictions were not commonly observed. Concessionaire contracts were processed in the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division, Office of the City Attorney and individual City departments and divisions. • OBJECTIVE 8 Provide policy options from other cities or best practices. ■ METHODOLOGY r We contacted special events staff from Denver, Portland and Vancouver, Canada to gain an understanding of their special events policies. Event guidelines and ordinances were reviewed. ■ To provide policy options from best practices, we reviewed Article 13-6, "National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO) Model Parade and Public Assembly Ordinance". Editor's comments from the American Legal Publishing Corporation on this model ordinance were also reviewed. CONCLUSION a . The following policy options were noted during our review of other cities and best practices: Denver and Vancouver had separate special events and film policies. ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Special Events II a al - Event organizers arranged for police services by hiring off-duty police officers,paying a MO license fee or depositing a cost recovery estimate prior to the event. Denver required a police permit for events that included a run, walk or parade on city streets. For those events with a length of 15 blocks or less, a$50 fee was charged. Events 16 blocks or more were charged a$150 fee. Most public events required off-duty police officers. Portland charged different permit fees to special events organizers. The size of the event . determined the fee amount, which included costs for administrative,police and maintenance support. Vancouver provided a cost estimate for police expenses and required event organizers to provide a deposit in the estimate amount five days before the event. il 4- Denver had a Mayor's Interagency Events Task Force, which provided cash and/or ii service support to events that met pre-established minimum requirements. Event ■ organizers submitted applications for City support. Iii a ■ • 910 • • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation inSpecial Events 12 61 U II IV. Appendices deAPPENDIX ■ Salt Lake City Special Events Fee Summary N r Effective December 1, 2002 III Division Fees Full/Partial/No Reimbursement Other Comments IIITemporary Merchant Sponsors: $70 base fee and$120 per day rate. ■ Business City sponsored events exempt. Participants:one-time$20 fee,regardless of event sponsor. Full reimbursement for Salt License Artists: No participant fee under certain circumstances. Strictly Palace. All other events vary. rfor-profit events: $70 base fee,$150 per day rate and$10 per employee rate. IIII FY2002 actual expenses: 1111 Community $103,401 FY2002 and Economic Commercially Related Special Events: $100.00 processing fee revenue: $15,200 Development Free Expression Activities: $5.00 processing fee Partial reimbursement when fees FY2003 Q1 actual ■ (Special No charges for City sponsored events. charged. expenses: $26,180 Events) FY2003 Q1 revenue: ■ $3,170 Compliance Expensed out of the Police 111111 Division Crossing Guards: hourly rate with a 4 hour minimum. Department Special Events (Crossing Supervisors: hourly rate at time and a half, budget. Guards) . Full reimbursement for parking meters and loading zone costs. Parking Meter Permit: $50.00 per day per parking meter No fees charged for Traffic Division of Some special events did not i Transportation Restricted Parking Location: $50.00 per day per restricted require parking meters or loading Control Permit,which 1 parking location. zones,but consumed enables barricading of a Generally,no charges for City sponsored events. Transportation time. There was street. no reimbursement in these cases. III Engineering For Events that Affect the Infrastructure of the City: at least a Full reimbursement where ■ Division $15,000 bond with a 3 year warranty for the work. possible from the bond. IIIFireworks: $65 flat fee for the application,plan approval and Fire site inspection. ■ Department Temporary Structures: $100 for the initial structure and$25 per 70%reimbursement when fees Fire Marshall additional structure. were charged. For a few events,such as animal adoption,fees waived. IIIIAll City sponsored events charged. III Fire Paramedic/Emergency Medical Technician(EMT): $25.00 per Department hour per bike. Minimum of 1 team consisting of 2 bikes Partial reimbursement when fees . Medical deployed. charged. Division City sponsored events not charged. IIII I. . I Reflects the current process. An amended ordinance with a reduced rate structure is before City Council. III Review of Salt Lake City Corporation Special Events 13 Division Fees Full/PartiaUNo Reimbursement Other Comments Parks Event Staging Area: $30.00 all day flat fee Partial reimbursement when fees Except for races in Liberty Park,no reimbursement fees Department charged. ■ generally charged. 1. Contract between a Police Officer and the organizer for In both methods,the full hourly variable pay rates. Organizers pay the officer directly. rate goes to the Officer. There is 2. Contract between the Police Department and the organizer for no reimbursement for Police a fixed hourly rate. Police Department pays the officer and bills administrative expenses. The Department the organizer. philosophy of the Secondary Secondary 3. City department hires off-duty Police Officers through the Employment office is that Employment Secondary Employment office. Officer paid overtime rates. administrative costs are indirectly 4. Organizer hires off-duty Police Officers through Secondary recouped as the presence of an Employment office. Officers paid overtime rates and service off-duty officer at the scene will costs absorbed by the Special Events budget. reduce the likelihood of on-duty officers being called to attend. FY2001 Total Special Events Costs:$290,757- Police Cost:$288,452, Billed:$2,305 Police On-duty and overtime rates In general,no reimbursement. FY2002 Total Special Department No reimbursement fees were generally charged. For the 3 charged special events, Events Costs:$271,538- Special Events 3 special events were charged in last 3 years. full and partial reimbursement Police Cost:$269,108, costs were billed Billed:$2,430 FY2003-Dec 2002 Total Special Events Costs: $98,182-Police Cost: $96,154,Billed:$2,028 City and County Building or Washington Square Any activity with food: $650 rental fee,$400 deposit Filming: Fewer than 8 persons$250 per 4 hours,$500 deposit;8 -15 persons$500 per 4 hours,$750 deposit;and more than 15 persons$1,000 per 4 hours,$1,500 deposit. Property Filming for religious or charitable organization:Deposit only Partial recovery for wear and tear Management Religious,eleemosynary or charitable organizations: Deposit on the building. only for non-business hour usage Government Entities and Neighborhood Civic Organizations for public functions: No fees or deposits City sponsored for private function: $650 rental fee,$400 deposit All information received from Salt Lake City personnel and/or City ordinances. 1111 a S Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 111 Special Events 14 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: September 2,2003 SUBJECT: YouthCity-Audit Observations and Recommendations AFFEC11iD COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT By: Gary Mumford KEY ELEMENTS: The City Council contracted with the Deloitte & Touche CPA firm for several small audits. The audits were not extensive or all-encompassing but were very limited-scope studies with rather small budgets. One of the audits was an analysis of the YouthCity program. This study made comparisons with other local agencies or providers of youth services but did not compare with other cities. The audit report contains an executive summary, background, observations/recommendations, and management's response. The YouthCity program includes after-school and summer programs for youth in grades 5 through 8. Global Artways and YouthCity Government are part of the YouthCity program. The Refugee Youth and Family Consortium was created to address integration challenges within the refugee population. YouthCity Employment was created to assist youth in obtaining work experience and in developing job searching skills. Two additional programs were being developed at the jm,\of the audit: College Bound and YouthCity Drug and Violence Prevention. The audit concluded that opportunities exist for YouthCity to enhance its coordination of services with the Salt Lake City School District, increase its number of partnerships with established service providers, and augment its utilization of existing infrastructure to deliver program content. The auditors were unable to determine the effectiveness of YouthCity programs as the amount of test work required to truly evaluate program effectiveness was beyond the time and resource constraints of the audit. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. After-school and summer programs served 295 individuals in 2002. Several thousand youth participated in Global Artways,the Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration, YouthCity Government activities, and job fairs. 2. The Salt Lake City School District and YouthCity appeared to coordinate services for the Global Artways program;however,the extent of coordination with other YouthCity programs appeared to be limited. The auditors recommended increasing the level of service coordination between YouthCity and the Salt Lake City School District. There were 11 course categories (4) with similar programs delivered by both YouthCity and the School District. 3. Additional opportunities exist to partner with established organizations and utilize their infrastructure to deliver programs. The auditors recommended augmenting the use of other service providers' infrastructure in an effort to reduce costs. 4. Performance criteria for all but one program had not been determined by YouthCity and consequently, there were no performance criteria available for the auditors to evaluate against. The auditors noted that they received the evaluation date for the YouthCity After-School and Summer program after their fieldwork was completed and could not validate the reasonableness of the criteria. [Note: Janet Wolf informed Council Staff that independent evaluations are performed two times per year for After-School and Summer programs; independent evaluations are performed annually for Refugee Youth&Family Consortium; in-house evaluations are performed for Global Artways and Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration; and an evaluation tool was recently designed for the Employment program.] OPTIONS: a. The Council may wish to discuss some of the YouthCity programs and the audit observations and recommendations with representatives of the Administration at the Council work session. b. The Council may wish to request a written report from the Administration within about six months on actions taken in response to observations noted in the audit report. c. Since the YouthCity Progr w, recently combined with the City's other youth and family '"%s` programs within the Depaant of Public Services, the Council may wish to contract for a follow-up study. A follow-t.,, study should be more beneficial once evaluation criteria and data are available to measure program effectiveness. The expanded study could also include comparisons with other cities. ✓ r • SALT LAKE CITY Deloitte CORPORATION ✓ SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH • & Touche ✓ ✓ I ✓ Performance Audit of • YouthCity Programs ■ ■ ✓ July 11 , 2003 ■ ✓ A Deloitte r Touche Tohmatsu Er . ■ ■ ■ ■ r Table of Contents ■ I. Executive Summary 1 ■ Scope and Objectives 1 Overall Conclusion 1 • Methodology 2 II. Background and Understanding 3 III. Observations and Recommendations 4 Objective 1 Evaluate the effectiveness of the City youth programs.. 4 Objective 2 Determine the number of individuals served by YouthCity. 5 ■ Objective 3 Determine the extent of any duplication of services. 6 Objective 4 ■ Analyze services provided by the school district and the extent of coordination with the district 6 Objective 5 �■ Analyze opportunities to maximize services through enabling outside groups vs. creating internal structure. 7 IV. Appendices 9 ■ Appendix A ✓ Youth Programs within Salt Lake City 9 ■ U ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Executive Summary We have completed the Performance Audit of YouthCity programs for Salt Lake City Corporation(the "City). The purpose of this audit was to provide a review of YouthCity programs. The Performance Audit was performed in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. e i SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The scope of our Performance Audit included a review of the six programs offered by w YouthCity, which is part of the Mayor's Office. All programs were in effect January 1, 2003. These programs were the After-School and Summer program, College Bound, Global Artways, Refugee Youth and Family Consortium, YouthCity Employment and YouthCity Government. For comparative purposes, we reviewed programs and services offered by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department and the Salt Lake City School District (the"School District"). Also included in the program comparison was a review of programs offered by outside organizations as of January 1, 2003. The Council identified five objectives to be completed in conjunction with this audit. These objectives were: 11. 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the YouthCity programs. We were unable to effectively complete this procedure due to the absence of program performance criteria. 2. Determine the number of individuals served by YouthCity. 3. Determine the extent of any duplication of services. 4. Analyze services provided by the School District and the extent of coordination with the district. in 5. Analyze opportunities to maximize services through enabling outside groups vs. creating internal structure. OVERALL CONCLUSION U YouthCity reached the largest number of individuals through its Global Artways' Imagination ■ Celebration event. Approximately 11,900 individuals were served by this program. Global Artways' classes served the second largest population with 2,286 students attending classes in 2002. YouthCity Government drew the third largest number of individuals as approximately 1,000 people participated in events hosted by YouthCity Government. Based on our analysis and the test work performed, it appeared that opportunities exist for YouthCity to enhance its coordination of services with the Salt Lake City School District; ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation r YouthCity 1 •• increase its number of partnerships with established service providers; and augment its utilization of existing infrastructure to deliver program content. There appeared to be some similarities between the courses offered by YouthCity and those offered by the Salt Lake City School District and the Salt Lake City Public Services Department; however, further fieldwork would be necessary to address the extent of program and service duplication. Detail for each of our conclusions and other observations, can be found in the Observations and Recommendations section of this report. I in program. audit was not designed or intended to be a detailed study of every related service and program. Accordingly, opportunities for improvement presented in this report may not be all- inclusive of areas where other issues may be present. METHODOLOGY To accomplish the project objectives, we obtained an understanding of the youth programs offered by YouthCity. Other programs offered by the Salt Lake City Public Services Department, Salt Lake City School District and outside community agencies were identified and reviewed for comparative purposes only. Personnel in YouthCity, the Public Services Department, the School District and other outside agencies were interviewed to gain an I understanding of the current state of youth programs within Salt Lake City. We examined documentation, reviewed current practices and conducted analysis. Where appropriate, we identified opportunities for improvement and developed recommendations. The YouthCity team held work sessions with Deloitte& Touche to review and validate findings and conclusions, and to jointly develop recommendations that would be appropriate to assist Salt ■ Lake City Corporation in improving its operations and achieving its goals. I I I I I I I I I Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 111 YouthCity 2 • II. Background and Understanding r In October of 1998, the Salt Lake City Council passed a"Focus on Children Resolution" that identified children as a top priority for Salt Lake City. The Council resolved to create a child- friendly, safe community for the children of Salt Lake City. In January of 2000, the Mayor created YouthCity under the umbrella of the Mayor's Office. The goal of the program was "to ensure that every child in Salt Lake City(had) access to a safe, supervised environment after school or when school (was)not in session."1 During the implementation stage, YouthCity personnel reviewed existing youth oriented ■ programs throughout Salt Lake City. As a result, the middle school age group was identified as lacking after-school and summer program opportunities. As the program developed, YouthCity assumed responsibility for the Global Artways program and further expanded its operations. After-school and summer programs were created for grades 5 through 8, ages 10-14. The YouthCity Government program was modified to create a flat organization, thereby widening the range of governmental positions available to each high school representative and member. Other opportunities to add value to the youth of Salt Lake City were identified. The Refugee Youth and Family Consortium was created to address integration challenges within the refugee population. YouthCity Employment was created to assist youths in developing critical job searching skills, expanding their skills sets through training programs, obtaining part-time and summer employment, gaining work experience and partnering with mentors within the community. At the time of the Performance Audit, two programs were in the development stage. College Bound was a partnership program with the University of Utah. Program coordinators identified at-risk children in the lower grades and worked with them to inspire post-secondary education goals. At the end of high school, and the successful completion of the program, these children will receive a scholarship to attend university. A pilot program had just started. The second proposed program was YouthCity Drug and Violence Prevention. Program development was in its infancy and the program was slated for implementation in the fall of 2003. As YouthCity grew and expanded, it developed partnerships with a variety of government, non- profit and for-profit organizations. Funding came from grants, private donations and the City's IN general fund. m i 1 Memorandum from Janet Wolf to Dave Buhler,Carlton Christensen,Keith Christensen,Tom Rogan,Nancy Saxton,Roger Thompson and Van Turner,Re: Youth Programs in Salt Lake City,dated May 11,2000. 111 U • Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 111 YouthCity 3 11 11 w III. Observations and Recommendations OBJECTIVE 1 Evaluate the effectiveness of the YouthCity programs. r METHODOLOGY MI We reviewed the programs offered by YouthCity as of January 1, 2003. Program information and statistics were gathered from interviews with YouthCity personnel and reviews of YouthCity documentation. The period under review was January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002 for all programs except the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium. The targeted outcomes and results for the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium were compiled by Visions for Learning and data ■ received was for the period October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002. All program data, except for the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium, were provided by YouthCity personnel. CONCLUSION • ■ We were unable to properly determine the effectiveness of YouthCity's programs. Performance criteria for all but one program had not been determined by YouthCity and consequently, there was no performance criteria available to for us to evaluate against. Creating the performance criteria for YouthCity and then populating the criteria and comparing those criteria against other similar agencies were beyond the resource constraints of this project. We received the evaluation data for the YouthCity After-School and Summer program after our fieldwork was completed. As a result, we could not validate the reasonableness of the criteria. 1.1 OBSERVATION Evaluation criteria and data to determine overall program effectiveness for five of the six programs were not established. RECOMMENDATION • Establish evaluation criteria and implement data collection methods suitable for evaluating overall program effectiveness. Research showed that other municipalities were using a variety of data collection methods, such as interviews, observations, focus groups, tests, etc., to record program progress and demonstrate results. We recommend that YouthCity establish evaluation criteria and expand data collection methods to assure the reliability and availability of overall program effectiveness results. 111110 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 4 YouthCity ■ MANAGEMENT RESPONSE • We are currently collecting evaluation data on all after-school and Summer programs, and all Global Artways classes, including Kennedy Center Imagination Celebration . programs. Longitudinal outcome data is being developed and will be implemented for evaluation purposes by summer 2003. I OBJECTIVE 2 I ■ Determine the number of individuals served by YouthCity. METHODOLOGY To perform our analysis, we requested the number of individuals served for each YouthCity program from YouthCity personnel. The period under review was the calendar year 2002. The data for the number of persons served for the Refugee Youth and Family Consortium was provided by Visions for Learning. All other program data was provided by YouthCity personnel. Neither the YouthCity data, nor the Visions for Learning data were independently verified. I CONCLUSION N YouthCity reached the largest number of individuals through its Global Artways' Imagination 11111 Celebration event. Approximately 11,900 individuals were served by this program. Global Artways' classes served the second largest population with 2,286 students attending classes in 2002. YouthCity Government drew the third largest number of individuals as approximately 1,000 people participated in events hosted by YouthCity Government. A summary of number of individuals served is presented in Table 1 below. Table 1. Number of Individuals Served in 2002 r Organization::::: :::....:: Number of Individuals Served YouthCity After-School and 295 Summer • College Bound Pilot Project—6 children . Total—2,286 Global Artways Winter 2002—678,Fall 2002—599,Summer 2002—585,Spring 2002—424 ■ Imagination Celebration—11,900 Asian Association of Utah—children—68,parents—53,trainers—23 Catholic Community Services consultations—adjustment of status—967, ■ naturalization—654,reunification—531,outreach—1,069 Refugee Youth and Family Consortium Human Rights Resource Center—students—1,132,staff—164 International Rescue Committee—individuals—1,446,families—320 Mayor's Office—individuals—185,newsletters—6,100 S 111 Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 5 . YouthCity ■ ■ ■ �lndi.i ... Organizatioi► :. Number of v.. uals Seirveil:: Job Fairs—575 youths,32 youth agencies and employers 111 YouthCity Employment Individual counseling—174 Mentoring program—8 ■ YCG high school representatives—3I ■ YouthCity Government YCG members—9I YCG activity participants—1,000 ■ Program statistics received from YouthCity and Visions for Learning. Duplication in reporting may occur. r OBJECTIVE 3 I Determine the extent of any duplication of services. METHODOLOGY We reviewed child and youth courses offered by YouthCity, the Salt Lake City Public Services Department and the Salt Lake City School District as of January 31, 2003. Course documentation for each agency was examined and staff was interviewed in an attempt to identify NI any duplication of services. The Salt Lake City School District Community Education Directory of Services was reviewed for duplicate programming. CONCLUSION There appeared to be some similarities between the courses offered by YouthCity and those offered by the Salt Lake City School District and the Salt Lake City Public Services Department. r According to the Community Education Directory of Services as of January 31, 2003, there were 11 course categories with similar programs delivered by both YouthCity and the School District. IN For example, YouthCity and the School District both offered Hip Hop courses in local schools. While the curriculum taught in these courses was determined by the service provider, it may r have been customized to meet the needs of the individual school and/or the skill level of a ■ particular age group. A review of YouthCity and Public Services programs revealed that both agencies appeared to offer courses in after-school sports recreation and as mentioned earlier, course content may vary across age groups and locations. Further fieldwork would be necessary to address the degree of program and service duplication. ■ INOBJECTIVE 4 Analyze services provided by the School District and the extent of coordination with the District. METHODOLOGY IN Salt Lake City School District services were identified through a review of the Community Education Directory of Services and interviews with the School District staff. The extent of S ■ Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 6 Youthcity S r coordination with YouthCity was determined by interviewing YouthCity and School District staff. 111 CONCLUSION The Salt Lake City School District and YouthCity appeared to coordinate services for the Global Artways program; however, the extent of coordination with other YouthCity programs appeared to be limited. Global Artways offered a total of 11 courses in seven City schools. Of the 25 IN elementary schools with a fully implemented program, only four schools offered a total of six IN Global Artways programs. Two of the five middle schools and one of the four high schools offered three and two Global Artways programs, respectively. YouthCity provided four courses to Glendale Middle School. Imagination Celebration events were offered in five day schools. YouthCity Government operated in all four City high schools. The level of coordination between these two organizations appears to be increasing as YouthCity and the School District work together to pursue grants and other funding opportunities. During the course of our review, we noted that coordination appeared to exist between YouthCity and individual schools in the School District. As the schools within the District are site-base managed, further resources would be required to address the extent of coordination with each individual school. ✓ 4.1 OBSERVATION 11111 There was limited coordination of services between YouthCity and the Salt Lake City School District. r RECOMMENDATION S . Consider increasing the level of service coordination between YouthCity and the Salt Lake City School District. The number and range of programs available to City youth may be enhanced with increased collaboration and resource sharing between YouthCity and the School District. YouthCity has already experienced capacity constraints, which have resulted in waiting lists for Central City and Glendale Middle School. 111 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE ■ No management response was received. OBJECTIVE 5 Analyze opportunities to maximize services through enabling outside groups vs. creating internal structure. y MI in . Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 7 YouthCity U METHODOLOGY We reviewed the programs offered by YouthCity and other outside agencies effective January 1, 2003. Our research included the following YouthCity categories: After-School and Summer, art • and enrichment, college scholarship, employment, refugee assistance and youth government. Research was conducted via Internet and personal interviews to create a list of comparable • programs available to the youth of Salt Lake City. Any program that restricted access based on religious or ethnic reasons was not included in the sample pool. When possible, three outside • programs were chosen for review in each program category. A summary table of programs reviewed and information received is attached as Appendix A. CONCLUSION • Based on our research, additional opportunities appeared to exist for YouthCity to utilize the infrastructure of other service providers to deliver program content. Further, although YouthCity ✓ has partnered with a wide range of entities to offer programs, our analysis indicated that additional partnership opportunities appeared to exist. It is worth noting that the suitability and • viability of potential partners, along with their capacity to manage increased demand, varied across organizations. in 5.1 OBSERVATION 1111 Additional opportunities exist to partner with established organizations and utilize their infrastructure to deliver programs. RECOMMENDATION Consider augmenting the use of other service providers' infrastructure in an effort to reduce costs. • We recommend that YouthCity consider increasing its use of other organizations' • program structure and buildings in an effort to reduce implementation and delivery costs. • MANAGEMENT RESPONSE 111 The Director of Youth Programs organized a coalition of youth program providers in the fall of 2002. The group includes Salt Lake County, Boys and Girls Club of Greater Salt Lake, Salt Lake City School District, a member of the Salt Lake City Council, and Utah Children. The initial goals of the coalition are, to collaborate program offerings and development, share and communicate information between organizations and to the • community, and ultimately to share in the creation of a sustainability plan for the future • of all youth programs. Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 8 YouthCity a 1111141111111111111111111111111111111111111 • 1111111 • 111 • • • Elba NE IV. Appendices APPENDIX A Youth Programs Provided by Different Agencies within Salt Lake City Information gathered by D&T and based on the data provided by the agencies. Effective January 1,2003 • ...... : ..... .••:. •..:. ..... . •. ••...,..:•-•........ . .,:., ':..:7: • ••.••.•••i::•:.:: i •' .. . Ci . i ra •..•• ,'• ••.....•.•..-..:.•:iiiiiim• ii•i• Type Number 4imber.Of .....:.....•:.:.:.•i.••....—. , Waiting 1ai,.1ti•:4:.: t.-.,3 irfirAM Ji*diton Iiiikipatni Ake Number pfograu rropm Program Stiff:- c400rt Average..". ..,.. ii riiiii "•:•••.• .:'::: i ..:••'"ge 4... ...... .....Agencies".:••••••••••.......•••.•••••giived:'•''liciaritifi--'':.::: -"r......ei ••• ...-.'.Pees .••. ''''U.eilaidltina::•: • • •••• ::..]:]•Iertiiii:•.:•::6iiiiiiiiia: ',Wait Time •:.:.. • -.. . ii:Volunteers.: .::" :.:•• :.:::. •• ::- ...• :• ....:• •••• • ..........•.•.•..... . ..... ... . ....... ...... .. . . . .........•• • • "......" ." • """ ... .. . ._. After School and Summer Central City—after Salt Lake school until County,Spy Hop 6 pm Productions, Artspace Institute Northwest of Art& Neighborhood based Multi- Imagination, YouthCity programs in Purpose— University of For some After School technology,visual Salt Lake City Grade 3 prams Sliding set feesand 295 with all. None FTEs Unavailable Unavailable 3 locations programs Utah Department 5—8 and Summer arts,performing arts start at 3:30 of Exercise and and recreation sports. pm and end Sports Science, at 4:30 or Tree Utah, 5:00 pm Global Artways, Salt Lake City School District Glendale Middle School Boys and After school drop-in Salt Lake& 6-17 Girls Clubs N/A center for children Tooele United Way year 9 Various $10 None 8000 Various No No of Greater Salt Lake and teens. County olds Salt Lake Extended Day, -Boys&Girls School Almost After- Set fees Salt Lake City 10,000- At certain Varies by aged City School Learning Plus and Salt Lake City Club,YMCA, school range from Various Yes School 13,000 schools to school. every District Discovery Plus CAP,Kwanis childre school in until 6 p.m. $8-$25 District Felt,Boy Scouts and sliding Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 9 Youth City • • •4is • • • • • • • • • • 111 • • • • • • • 111 • 211Flois • Type ô1 • .•• Wasting Average ''. FaFtidOtiritt";••; • :1:: Program:: ; ";Staff ... ; List ; ge!iey .. ; 0.;,;40;rt; ;; ;; ;;; Agendes........ 'Serval ";1.16eitiont •:.; times Fees" ; 1esfrktions Ms:0v Constraint :•rxr4i. Waif Time Volimteejs ... • • of America,Girl n the District. weekends Scale fee children Scouts,Parks& based on Recreation, income. America Reads, Title 1 Americorp, School University of Programs Utah Sports free. Science,Liberty Seniors,LDS Church,Global Artways,Big Brothers,Big Sisters and Ford Foundation School District, Salt Lake County, University of Utah,South Salt Lake,Murray, Davis County, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Snowbird Ski& Summer Resort, A summer program REI,Utah WOW(Utah targeting under Society for 8-12 Federation privileged youth to State of Utah Environmental year Various Summer $5 None 600-700 Various Yes No N/A for Youth, create environmental Education,Great olds Inc.) and community Salt Lake involvement Audubon,Utah Department of Agriculture and Food,Salt Lake County Fish and Game Foundation,Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Hawkwatch International and Americorp Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 10 Youthay 111111114111111 • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • II I II If toll • • ''''''"'''' -,":, . • • • . """ . . '' . . . •• '''' " : ' ' .. • • ... s.. • : . • . • ::••:•• . . ... . . ...... . . : : . :. ....•:: • /sTianteitot : •.:: :: .: ; : "Waning:: :" •-• Program Jnsdieton ::PartentiatMg• •:Ago Number .. Program : ;Program :Program- - •Cripari..iy : : A Average gienzy . . . ••• . .Agencies. .. Scrve*t•• •• .Locations Times .Fees Restrictions .... Constraint Walt watt 1111r: ..• • :.....:•:••:.••..... •::• :: • :: 7 7 Art and Enrichment Global Artways— Sorenson Center, Central City Community Center, Northwest Community Center, Neighborhood House,Chapman Library,Sweet Library,Salt Lake Children's Book Festival and Salt Lake Young District schools childre Arts education Daytime n to program. Includes Imagination adults for young dance,ceramics, Young Celebration- children Global YouthCity keyboarding,guitar, children to 2002 Partners, and their Artways— Global visual arts,music, adults 2002 Olympic Imagin parents. 2286 Artways and sculpting and film Arts Festival, a-tion Sliding scale,set FTEs and Imagination making. Ballet West, Celebr Numerous None No No Imagination Weekends fees and Unavailable Volunteers Celebration Childr ' a-tion- Celebration- ens and free. Imagination Imagination children, Museum of Utah, Childre evenings Celebration Gall C Celebration-Year- teens,adults ivan enter, for Global Artways, Teens, -11,900 round arts education and teachers children, Adults Opus Chamber youths and program and annual festival. Orchestra, and adults. Repertory Dance Teache Theatre,Ririe rs Woodbury Dance Company,Salt Lake City Arts Council,Salt Lake City School District,Salt Lake Community College,Salt Lake County Center for the Arts,Salt Lake Public Libraries, SpyHop,The Road Home, Review of Salt Lake City Corporation I I YouthCity ■ ■ ■411 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1,w Agency Program Jurisdiction Participating:. Age Humber of Program Program Program NuTIlathy Stag Lbpacity 1W,1List Average Uesrtiplion Served Agencies Served: I4catiom Times Pees Restriction, dmdlll FfEsar Constraint , Wait Time Volmiteera Tracy Aviary, University of Utah-Modern Dance Dept., Theatre Dept., Art&Art History Dept.Kingsbury Hall,Youth Theatre,Virginia Tanner Dance Program,Book Arts Program Utah Arts Council,Utah Museum of Fine Arts,Utah Opera, YouthCity 1-11 Hands-on children's year museum focusing on olds Adults Youth State Office of Future accompanied Children's education of the Arts $4 per visit volunteer Education and plans by a child. 100,000 per Museum of and Sciences.Youth State of Utah various for 1 Day or$50 Children yearprogram No No N/A Utah volunteer program annual fee and paid foundations. teens supervised by also available for an adult. employeesand . youth 10 to 17. familie YO11dr`rt Youth workshops for Workshops, Contractor, 12 a wide range of All Wide range of Art State of Utah Local artists 1 Saturdays None 60 paid artists individuals Yes 4 weeks Access/VSA school aged children ages children and per session Arts of Utah far Visual Arts. volunteers. College Scholarship Pilot program to partner with higher _ learning institutions. After YouthCity school Pilot At-risk children in University of Grade , At-risk 6 in pilot College lower grades targeted Salt Lake City Utah 4 6 1 summer None children program FTEs program NSA N/A Bound and for intervention.The weekends only program works with these children through middle and Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 12 Youth City 11 III 1141 • III • II III • II II III III II IWO I Ill II IN II II IN NI • im ai • • is mi ••-- • •• -- • .. ... •''' '''"-----'":',. ' '''•' .**: '''''' ''' —i:::..•-.:::'.::::::•H:.:•i: •. ..... :.''::i•:'; .' :..::':'H ............::::..:..:•::: :::L..::::•. .,:::' •••.•....::•- • . . .....:.. • . ....:-..::-'•-:.,:.:.•..:......:.i.......................................•..•:.•.:.....•...;:.:...f:...::....-::..-:'.:..:.::•.:•.:':''".:.....-...:-._1•....:•..:-:...•.. . '.•.. .•:.•.:.:.......•::.•..:..::......k............•:'.•::•::•—........•:.:.•...::•...•..•.••.:.•.•i. :::•:..-:•'':.'' :. • . ...... ::::•:...:::„:..•g......:..:..:':...:..:,: :—.:::...:.:.:•...,...•..• ..:.-, .....:...:.:..i...,:.:.-:.:•:•.-••:::•::,:::•::.-I.::t:i:d:zievrovhiti ls. .•i•...:.:::::•Type .i..•.-.of Number Numbirot .•.•.:•i::,i.:,.. i.:.•:••....:....:::W.:..?:va,.-itu,.:,.g Agec zIi4giii jikbatiki Parliciptthg Age Number of Prorul , :.:....•:'..::•..:.-.•-.i,:Average . . ption Served Agencies Served Locations 110t1 Fees l4ittitfUi „ ttEx:pr Constraint W:.:a.•.i•:::t:.:T:.•:::•:i••i•.,:••e . . ....r .. :w & ..: :..•:::•:•..: .• : • . • ..::.........-:::.• .-:— -•••::.:.:.:.:..• .•. • • • ••• •••:-.... ... . .. , . . .. high school to inspire drive. At the end of the program,these children receive scholarships. Utah State Office Promotes math, Junior of Education, science,technology, four higher High Target FTEs, and engineering education throug population is MESA/STEP fields to under-served State of Utah h High Various During and teachers Various females and 3,000 None N/A N/A institutions, populations through after school school districts School ethnic and extra-curricular clubs and local student minorities, advisors. in schools. s. businesses. Mentoring program for at-risk youths and their families. Provides academic development,higher Juvenile courts, Youth and education Salt Lake County 3 to 6 Families with encouragement and a Salt Lake Division of 10-17 About 30 Yes-some months in Promise scholarship program Youth Services years 4 Various No None 90 Volunteers some (YFP)USU through 4-H. Also County and Salt Lake old per location locations locations Extension provides workshops City School on anger District management and conflict resolution promoting drug and violence prevention. Employment Job Fairs- 575 youths, 32 youth Provide young agencies people with 14-20 Out of and YouthCity predominantly part- Salt Lake City Horizonte and years I school None None employers FTEs Unavailable No N/A Employment time jobs,skills, - Utah Power old hours and summer mentoring and Individual experience. Counseling -174 youths Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 13 YouthCity III ii 111141 • • • III • • • • • • • %• • • • • • • • • • • • ‘• • • .'''''''''''.."'"'„„:'„, :.::,.. ::::::::''''''''''.::::: : •• • • • . ........ •••.. . :: .. ....:..........:: : : , ........„::::::„ ..,.. ......... ••:,, ..:::::::,.,.....,,„ . ......... •... .:: : ::.:.... ,•::::,,,,:: : ,,Number of i i .:• 1.. .. .. . ... :: ; Waiting :Proaiani. Jurisdiction : •:Particiliatiiit: ':•:.::AO.:.1 :::Nunitivrof' Program.. ::::.:Program • •Program..•• Staff:=....i :t1Ujiacity.:• •.:..............::. ..A?m•age •: :::.... : •— i•Indivianala:': ....- .......::, ::: ...Constraint:: ''.::-'-'":." : 1,3iiiit Mine :....:4,1i8enq':.. ..... • •......Deser..nm.— - ••.•8 d. . --.Agencies..• •• ::giievitf:: Locations ::"• •Thiiei i'::, - Fees .:TIOStkletRi!# '.,::8. 4:..•• :::F.T.E*Or:: .. •: : nr. : —:.... . . :::Volunteeis:. : .. •-• :'••• ;:;::: • •: .:::::.::ii::::: • ... • : . . ,. Mentoring Program-8 youths Clearfield GED studies and/or Management& 16-24 Variable. High school Vary by vocational training in Training Funded by 1350 Job C Corporation. year State of Utah year i Residential diploma or 1320 FTEs Y 25 trades. Career Program the federal s vocation.tudents Up to 3 Center lds GED placement offered. Local Employers o government month wait. Department of Workforce Services/ Job training, 16-22 Youth education,workshops Salt Lake Salt Lake County year 5 Mornings None None Unknown FTEs None No N/A Employment and job placement for County Youth Services Services of all area youth. olds Salt Lake County Job Ready - Job Placement and Boys and workshop to prepare Salt Lake& 15-18 $10 Girls Clubs club members to Tooele United Way year 9 Various membership None 8000 Various None No N/A of Greater enter into the County olds Salt Lake workforce Refugee Assistance Asian Association of Utah,Catholic Refugee Services,newsletters Community Individuals Youth and and scholarships Services,Human All Numerous Out of None None 185 1 N/A No N/A Family provided to the Salt Lake City Rights Resource ages school time Consortium refugee population Center and Newsletters International 6,100 Rescue Committee New Hope Services for refugees, All No N/A Refugee& including English Salt Lake None 1 Evenings None Refugees 60 Volunteer Yes Multicultural County ages language,computer Center and citizenship Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 14 - Youth City II M 111411 II II II II II II II II M II II VI • II II • Ill • II • • II II bill M M • •.-- -. . i . • .•••........ ...„.................. •• ••-... -...::::::•:,.:;.;":";:........i." ...•:..•..;:..... •;............. , • - ........•--- : ••••• i.-..::.......... • ,... . .. - ' •••'.'1)*•?p.f. ".•- •• ••:.. ::•...........•.•.•••••...•......- iiie . , • •. .::•: „,•.....•....•......: Waiting :.. ......•• :.. ....••••.1,,,:•.6....,,,,:.•;;• '''•:•"::•....:44'.4.iiiiiii....;...'...'''•::•..JuAilialott;'''•''?"'"PitrticipatIng':•••••• Age'•....: Number or:: !!! 2701.1.i,!.m::. '.. Program •.;:Progami::'.::1i- :.'. :-:-Wff;- :-.CcallF.ii5f::':: ..• List...... Average';.:. .•.•... 6 ::.:.::: >i:::.*:::.'43 . .............:.........• . Served - A •: .. • •:•S tlx'''tneatin • :•TIntei:::::-....... •Peiis••-••..... ;:"Itiitirefinits.•;:• •••: •; :•'let p..,s:40::.•. Constraint ::.•.,_,.....,• :Walt Time ..::::::i"....-......:.......:::..::::,... •': . "triPtiolt • • :•- •• • . • ";..'''' gen-Oes-••,:: •••'ii:.•Mi :•::;:::'..........-1114:1' ''"''•• .- ;'.:..:..•...•.•........•••::. • '''•:•••..'..• • . .••: .....-Servetl:.:•••••:'''•••-,.:.'.'•••::••••••• • ... ..::.:...ct TIN/ •:: -- : ••••• •• . • ' -""•':':Volunteers:• •• •••......•;••• • ' ....::•• • ..... .. "• • • .... .... .. . ... . .... ••: •...::.:::.:::..:...:.:..: ..,.. •••: ... .... . .. • •••• •• • • - . classes Utah Refu ee Youth employment g services,tutoring and Department of Employment All After Paid social services State of Utah Workforce 1 None None 100-150 No No N/A & focused on ages School employees the Services Community Center refugee population. Youth Government • YCG high Most school YWCA,UPNET activities representa- SL Weed and after . tives-31 Leadership training Seed,Colors of school, YCG 1 FTE YouthCity program and civics High Salt Lake City Success,Utah 6 some None None members-: Numerous None No N/A Government class on City school Federation for weekend 91 volunteers government. Youth,Peer and school YCG Court,GLCC day activity activities. participants -1,000 Week long summer American camp used to teach High Legion Boy's High School Juniors Participants 650 State of Utah None School 2 Summer $275 650 Volunteers individuals N/A N/A State/Girl's about practical must apply Juniors State operations of government. Information represents our best understanding as communicated by program staff and/or program documentation. Review of Salt Lake City Corporation 15 YouthCity • MEMORANDUM DATE: September 2,2003 TO: City Council Members FROM: City Council Members Jill Love and Nancy Saxton RE: Legislative Action Item:Proposal to Allow Brewpubs to Wholesale Beer CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Gary Mumford,Janice Jardine We would appreciate the City Council's support for a Legislative Action directing the City Attorney's Office to amend Salt Lake City ordinances to allow Salt Lake City brew pubs to produce and wholesale no more than 500 barrels of beer a year. The proposal would require amending City Code Chapter 6.08,titled Beer Licenses,and Chapter 21A.62.040 of the Zoning Ordinance.Amending both chapters would involve revising the definition of"brew pubs."The definition of"brew pubs"is identical in both chapters.The proposed amendments would allow brew pubs to wholesale no more than 500 barrels of beer a year.The amendments also would allow brew pubs to package beer in 5-gallon and 3-gallon kegs . as well as 15.5 gallon kegs for purposes such as brew fests,special events or events sponsored by charitable organizations. The current definition in both chapters of the City Code reads: "Brew pub"means a restaurant type establishment that also has a beer brewery, producing beer in batch sizes not less than seven(7)U.S.barrels(31 gallons),on the same property which produces,except as provided in subsection 6.08.081B2 of this Code,only enough beer for sale and consumption on site or for retail carryout sale in containers holding less than two liters(2 1).At least fifty percent(50%)of the beer sold shall be brewed on the premises.Revenue from food sales shall constitute at least fifty percent(50%)of the total business revenues,excluding retail carryout sales of beer and the sales allowed pursuant to subsection 6.08.081B2 of this code.Brew pubs may sell beer in keg(15.5 gallons)containers for the following purposes and in the following amounts: A. An unlimited number of kegs for"brew fests"which for the purpose of this definition,means events,the primary purpose of which is the exposition of beers brewed by brew pubs and microbreweries,which include the participation of at least three(3)such brewers; B. No more than one hundred(100)kegs per year to events sponsored by charitable organizations exempt from federal income tax pursuant to 26 USC,section 501(c)(3)or its successor;and C. No more than one hundred(100)kegs per year to events operating under a single event license from the state and the city where the purpose of the event is not for commercial profit and where the beer is not wholesaled to the event sponsor but is,instead,dispensed by employees of the brew pub. • The proposed amendments to the chapters would insert the following language: 1 'o The sentence"Brew pubs may sell beer in keg(15.5 gallons)containers for the following • purposes and in the following amounts:"would be amended to read:"Brew pubs may sell beer in keg(15.5,or 5 or 3 gallons)containers for the following purposes and in the following amounts:" The proposed amendments also would add a fourth paragraph to the amount of beer brew pubs are allowed to manufacture. The proposed amendment reads:"D.No more than five hundred(500)U.S.barrels per year wholesale." It should be noted that amending the definition of"brew pubs"in Chapter 21A.62.040 is a text change and will require public hearings and action by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission as well as the City Council. It also should be noted that if the 500-barrel limit were adopted,the total number of kegs allowed to be brewed under the ordinance would be at least 700 kegs—if one includes the allowance to brew 100 kegs"to events sponsored by charitable organizations exempt from federal income"and 100 kegs to"events operating under a single event license from the state and the city where the purpose of the event is not for commercial profit and where the beer is not wholesaled to the event sponsor but is,instead,dispensed by employees of the brew pub." We are proposing the amendments at the request of two Salt Lake City brew pub owners, the Pub Group and the Redrock Brewing Company. The two companies contend that amending the City Code would have two beneficial effects for brew pubs.First,it would allow the brew pubs to wholesale market a certain amount of beer manufactured at the two brew pubs statewide. • The companies contend that brew pubs in other Utah cities are allowed to wholesale their products. Second, it would allow a brew pub such as the Pub Group's Desert Edge Brewery to wholesale its beer to its two other Salt Lake City restaurants,Martine and Red Butte Cafe.Under the current ordinances,the Pub Group is not allowed to wholesale beer to the restaurants it owns. Some Council Members may recall that in 2001 when Tom Rogan served on the City Council he sponsored a Legislative Action to amend the City Code to allow brew pubs to produce and wholesale no more than 10,000 barrels a year.However,the City Council declined to support the Legislative Action.After the Council declined to support Council Member Rogan's proposal, the owners of the two Salt Lake City breweries met with an advisor and scaled back the proposal. The new proposal has been discussed by the brew pub owners and some Council Members since about the first part of the current calendar year. Council Members may recall that former Council Member Rogan's Legislative Action did not receive support because of outstanding questions involving increased truck traffic from beer distributors,suppliers of products used in brewing beer,and the removal of waste by- products.It also was noted that brewing up to 10,000 barrels a year was the equivalent of producing 137,000 cases of beer per year(roughly 3.3 million bottles). The new proposed Legislative Action would allow brew pubs to produce and wholesale no more than 500 barrels of beer per year.The figure is 5 percent of the previous limit proposed in Council Member Rogan's Legislative Action and is the equivalent of producing 6,850 cases of beer per year(164,400 bottles).In addition,the new proposal would allow brew pubs to package beer in 5-gallon and 3-gallon kegs as well as 15.5 gallon kegs for purposes such as brew fests, special events or events sponsored by charitable organizations. • 2 • The brew pub owners contend that brew pubs outside Salt Lake City are allowed to • wholesale beer,which places brew pubs in Salt Lake City at a competitive disadvantage.In addition,the owners contend that previous arguments about the potential effect on traffic and other businesses if the brew pubs are allowed to brew 500 more barrels a year are without merit. According to the attached document provided by the brew pub owners,the effect on traffic and surrounding businesses from producing 500 more barrels per year would be minor. According to the attachment,one brew pub currently receives a single 20,000 pound delivery of bulk grain every nine months.Amending the City Code would increase the delivery of that shipment to once every six months.In addition,one brew pub also receives shipments of specialty grains by truck once every three months.Amending the City Code would increase the truck deliveries to once every two months.Grain deliveries at the other brew pub would not be increased,according to the attachment provided by the two businesses. Some other deliveries would increase slightly for both brew pubs,but most would be handled by the current amount of delivery trucks. In addition,the transport of waste by-products from the two brew pubs would not increase"due to the existing additional capacity of the trailers and pick-ups already in use," according to the attachment provided by the two businesses. Council staff contacted Mr.Will Hamill,owner of Uinta Brewing Company,in connection with this memorandum.Mr.Hamill opposed the original proposal to allow brew pubs to wholesale 10,000 barrels of beer.Mr.Hamill also raised concerns last March when it appeared that the City Council would discuss the current proposal to allow brew pubs to wholesale 500 barrels of beer. . Mr.Hamill raised two concerns in March pertaining to the proposal.His first concern involved the effects allowing brew pubs to wholesale 500 barrels a year would have in the zoning districts where they are located. Mr.Hamill noted that brew pubs usually are located in"premier zoning districts."City Code chapter 6.08.082 allows brew pubs in commercial C-3 and C-4 zoning districts and all industrial M series zones. Microbreweries are allowed only in industrial M series zones.The cited chapter no longer comports with the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance allows brew pubs as permitted or conditional uses in districts zoned as Central Business District,Downtown Support District,Downtown Warehouse/Residential, Secondary Central Business District,Commercial Corridor,Community Shopping,Commercial General and Sugar House Business District. The Zoning Ordinance allows microbreweries as a permitted use in General Commercial districts and as a conditional use in areas zoned as Downtown Support District.Brew pubs and microbreweries also are permitted in areas zoned as Light Manufacturing districts. The second concern Mr.Hamill raised on Tuesday and in March is how the 500-barrel limit would be enforced. Mr. Hamill said the limit seemed"open-ended,"and repeated his concern about enforcement of a limit. That also was a concern raised by Mr.Jeff Polychronis,the owner of Squatter's brew pub.Mr.Polychronis said he opposed allowing the wholesaling of 500 barrels a year because,historically,the function of brew pubs has been to produce beer sold on premises.He also cited the potential effect on traffic and surrounding businesses by allowing brew pubs to wholesale beer.Mr.Polychronis said he supported allowing brew pubs to wholesale beer to other restaurants owned by a brew pub owner.If that were allowed,he said, Squatters could wholesale its beer to the Squatter's satellite business at the Salt Lake City International • Airport. Mr.Hamill said he also supported allowing a brew pub to wholesale beer to restraurants also owned by the brew pub. 3 Earlier this year City Council staff reviewed Senate Bill 153 that the Legislature passed to revise Utah's alcoholic beverage act for potential new requirements involving brew pubs. According to Council staff,Senate Bill 153 did not revise the Utah State Code chapter involving brew pubs.(Chapter 32A-8-401,titled Brewery Licenses.) • • 4 Impact of Proposed Ordinance Change on Traffic • 08-20-03 I. Introduction Before the City Council is an ordinance change that would permit Salt Lake City's three brewpubs to wholesale a very limited amount (500 barrels) of their award-winning beers. This report provides concrete data on the existing delivery methods and frequencies of the manufacturing operations of two of Salt Lake City's brewpubs and the brewers' estimates of the changes to those delivery methods and frequencies under the proposed ordinance change. IL Summary The number and frequency of deliveries of supplies (grain, hops, and yeast) necessary to brew the maximum amount of wholesale product under the proposed ordinance is near zero. The impact of deliveries of finished product will remain extremely small as deliveries will occur in existing vans and pickups or by distributor pickup during existing dropoffs of other products. The number of pickup truck deliveries for spent grains may not increase much, if at all. III. Manufacture The summary "Comparison of Current Operations vs. Proposed Operations: Manufacture", attached as Exhibit "A" to this report compares the existing delivery methods and frequencies with the delivery methods and frequencies under the proposed ordinance change. A. Grain - Desert Edge Next to water, grain (mostly barley malt) is the largest single component of beer. Different beers use different grains. Some beers use the same grains and differentiate on the types of yeast and hops used. Desert Edge Brewery receives its grains through two primary methods: A single large 20,000 pound delivery of bulk grain that is stored in attractive silos on the Desert Edge Brewery premises. Desert Edge receives one of these deliveries approximately every 9 months, and the delivery is completed by 8:30 a.m. Under the proposed ordinance change, Desert Edge would receive one of these deliveries every 6 months, instead of every 9 months. The second method is 50 lb. bags of grain on pallets, delivered by box truck. These specialty grains are delivered once every three months. These deliveries are usually completed before 8:30 a.m. Under the proposed ordinance change, Desert edge would receive a shipment once every two months. B. Grain - Redrock • Redrock receives its grain in 50 pound bags on pallets. Currently Redrock 1 receives 3 to 5 pallets every three months via semi tractor trailer. Under the proposed ordinance change, assuming it distributed the maximum allowed • under the proposed ordinance, it would receive 5-7 pallets on the same delivery schedule. Because each semi trailer can hold up to 12 pallets, there would be no increase in frequency of deliveries of grain to Redrock under the proposed ordinance. C. Hops and Yeast Both hops and yeast are delivered by UPS or FedEx. Industry standard packaging for hops is in 44 pound boxes. Industry standard packaging for yeast is 1 litre packages. The present number of deliveries for each brewery is between 7 and 18 deliveries per year for both Hops and Yeast via FedEx or UPS. The proposed ordinance may have only a slight increase in FedEx or UPS truck deliveries. In comparison to all UPS and FedEx deliveries in the area, the increase would be imperceptible. D. Waste - Spent Grains Both Desert Edge and Redrock Brewing recycle the spent grains produced in the brewing process. The spent grains have a very small amount of hops. Spent grains that have been boiled are placed in 32 gallon cans and are recycled as hog feed. A farmer uses pickups with trailers to pick up 5 or so 32 gallon cans of spent grains once a week. The farmers return the empty cans on a separate • trip. This yields approximately 104 trips per year (2 per week) per brewery. There is no anticipated increase in the number of trips or the type of vehicle due to the existing additional capacity of the trailers and pickups already in use. IV. Delivery of Finished Product Delivery of finished product from the breweries will be accomplished by one of two methods: Existing food delivery vans and pickups or by distributor truck pickup. See the report and letters attached to this as Exhibit "B". V. About the Breweries Desert Edge Brewery, located at the Pub in Trolley Square, currently brews about 65 batches of beer per year. Recent Awards: 2003 - 3 Bronze Medals NABA. Red Rock Brewery, located on 200 West currently brews about 100 batches of beer per year. Recent Awards: 2003 - Gold Medal NABA, 2003 - 2 Bronze Medals NABA. 2 • e_,a-air -v._ -{.}"- ._4'fi ] COMPARISON OF CURRENT OPERATIONS VS. PROPOSED OPERATIONS __; _-:= ' ; ' The followingis a summaryof deliveries of brewingingredients '`vfs`'' `` - _ = '" r : ��- CURRENTOPERATIONS Desert Edge , h.4 �"° fig' ri �a �Z .?a — t: = '� ��r mo 'q Grain 1 20,000 pounds 1.3 per annum semi trailer ,C " `- Grain 2 2 pallets 4 per annum box truck Hops 2 x 44 lb. package 4 per annum UPS Yeast 1 litre package 3 per annum FedEx Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal cans 104 per annum Pickup Truck PROPOSED OPERATIONS - Desert Edge -., ,»?_ :,-„ „,.,_ ... -.�%ids✓t'.�`".-lt :. r ig a "lf _ .., ._ 14- PROPOSEb OP ATIONS , Item Airiounts Deliveries \1`ehi le fi = , . Grain 1 20,000 pounds 2 per annum semi trailer 0.7 per annum Grain 2 3 pallets 6 per annum box truck 2 per annum • Hops 2 x 44 lb. package 6 per annum UPS 2 per annum Yeast 1 litre package 3 per annum FedEx 0 Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal cans 104 per annum Pickup Truck 0 CURRENT OPERATIONS - Red Rock • „ PENT"OFE1 tie_ S . = „.- ..:: -__;__-. n- . ..; Item -Hants i77 1iv ". ili ko T = - Grain 3-5 pallets 4 per annum semi trailer Hop-, 44 lb. package 6 per annum UPS Ye ,st 1 litre package 8 per annum FedEx Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal cans 100 per annum Pickup Truck PROPOSED OPERATIONS Red Rock P1 lFb tfi .1 a'`�,y' s'Y,s y „Y,a``5..?^Sax'�_" ' � ,Y>;.(�I ' 7. - _i . item 4iti€uftt DelfVe►te'S - Grain 5-7 pallets 4 per annum semi trailer 0 Hops 44 lb. package 8 per annum UPS 2 per annum Yeast 1 litre package 11 per annum FedEx 3 per annum Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal drums 100 - 130 per annum Pickup Truck 0 to 30 per annum • COMPARISON OF CURRENT OPERATIONS VS. PROPOSED OPERATIONS The following is a summary of deliveries of brewing ingredients _ CURRENT OPERATIONS - Desert Edge • Grain 1 20,000 pounds 1.3 per annum semi trailer Grain 2 2 pallets 4 per annum box truck Hops 2 x 44 lb. package 4 per annum UPS Yeast 1 litre package 3 per annum FedEx Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal cans 104 per annum Pickup Truck • PROPOSED -OPERATIONS Desert Edge lit � _ - _ _: ... r -ter "tea A op �s el er s � �� 1- � _ � .�.. ';'-- Grain Grain 1 20,000 pounds 2 per annum semi trailer 0.7 per annum Grain 2 3 pallets 6 per annum box truck 2 per annum Hops 2 x 44 lb. package 6 per annum UPS 2 per annum Yeast 1 litre package 3 per annum FedEx 0 Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal cans 104 per annum Pickup Truck 0 CURRENT OPERATIONS Red Rock g3� .- ,max:-c�,;.�-r��sa�-sh''� �,.�=� uo-'�'�°- nf=Fs,"-a`-£. _ • C 1T t �11 �3 , ftem -o tt •DeIT Xits• V4ViW =,i : Grain 3-5 pallets 4 per annum semi trailer Hops 44 lb. package 6 per annum UPS Yeast 1 litre package 8 per annum FedEx Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal cans 100 per annum Pickup Truck PROPOSED OPERATIONS - Red Rock fr �I)L �,CS-�fi f9yr f - ��;ry� zcy.�.� .td ;Yf 0y..x., terTl M1 ' ' ;Ai ii Mitt - Doliyeries V :i i ,T Tr. Grain 5-7 pallets 4 per annum semi trailer 0 Hops 44 lb. package 8 per annum UPS 2 per annum Yeast 1 litre package 11 per annum FedEx 3 per annum Spent Grains 5 x 32 gal drums 100 - 130 per annum Pickup Truck 0 to 30 per annum • _ _.- _-=,,t?,--v,-.; _=•-t-,,,p▪_,,_-.,:;=--:- ; 1 -- - ' - —, - —•. . „ , , , , l . '' '. 1 , •'-''-'-;,,---;'_-,.:''ik '7.5'T,▪'-f,';', :-1 Salt Lake City Council . ,G it o '..i T ! 4.51 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84111 May 29„2003 S.,,it Lake City,Li-1 24 I 0? Phone:801.5?1 s" 7 RE: Proposed Brewpub Ordinance Amendment Fax:ROI 521 RI-09 Dear City Council, I am the Head Brewer At Desert Edge Brewery located at 273 Trolley Square in Salt Lake City. We enthusiastically support the brewpub initiative that would permit brewpubs like ours to wholesale small amounts of our product. We would like to provide the council with more information on the impact of the proposed ordinance. -5----,, As far as material coming into the brewery for production only grain orders would , ' require a substantial increase in deliveries. If we produced all of the additional 500 barrels, which would be less than 50%of our current output, we would need 1 additional :.114.1 bulk grain shipment a year and 3 instead of two pallets delivered every other month. iv ,: F Which means there is already a box truck coming here to deliver grain pallets. In the end we would have only one more shipment of malt a year. Although that delivery is by , a semi-trailer,it is completed by 8 a.m. The transporting of the additional output would be through existing deliveries. We would transport beer to our other two restaurants, Martine, 22east 100 south and Red Butte Café) 1412 S. Foothill dr.,with our delivery van that already goes between c7-7,-7 restaurant to deliver food. The additional wholesale though a distributor would be /7/-,774,7,- ?,'2.--.:-:" .._,..-,-L.- a , .,i' .i.i_...- picked up during our regularly scheduled delivery of other beers. We do not anticipate any significant increase in truck traffic at all, due to wholesale distributing. We urge you to support the proposed brewpub ordinance and permit Salt Lake's downtown brewpubs to compete on an more even playing field with the large breweries. These are the same breweries who oppose the amendment to limit competition. Our ,.„,. hope is that he council will see that the proposed ordinance amendment is fair and just, at C.)P ,, UT. .IT _ 1 - Sincerely, i' i I ./ I '--Chrts Haas Head Brewer • 5--I t].-2CI3 I a:20AM FRUM F2 J) )<L,.II;K. tsrttw A Ivt, OW i�,e i44c REO ROCK BREWING COMPANY.LC a : 54LITh1 200 WEST • SALT LAKE CITY.LTr 0419 TEL.e01.521.9440 • FAX 001.'521.99ft • Salt Lake City Council 45.1 South State Street WWW.REDROCKDREWINGGQMPANY.COM ' . Salt Lake City, UT. $411.1 . '• _ Re: Proposed Brewpub Ordinance Amendment • • • ,Dear,Russell Weeks • • • I am the Brawmaster and a paitner at RedRock Brewing Company located at 254 S. 20Q W. in Salt Lake City. • We would dike to show our support of the initiative, which would permit brewpubs lake '` ours to wholesale a small amount of our product, We would like the opportunity to provide the council'with more information on the impact of the proposed ordinance, We would hope that the information would make it easier for the council to make a decision that will help business in Salt Lake City. . . • The traffic impact of the proposed ordinance would be negligible.- Since we are a . brewpub and are receiving deliveries from More than five different purveyors per day, One additional truck per week would'go tumeticed: This number of deliveries does not hnclude.othcr irregular deliveries Le.(UPS,Fedex,Malt shipments): • Salt Lake City has allowed an additional restaurant to be opened on The wane block as RedRock Brewing. This restaurant has 30%more seating than RedRock;therefore there • will be more than twice the truck traffic'than is present by addition-of this business. If truck traffic were a legitimate concern this restaurant would have never been allowed to open. RedRock would use a cargo van or truck to move its product. There would be no need - for semi trailers or the like-to move the amount of product proposed. We urge you to support the proposed brewpub ordinance aa •allow Salt Lake's brewpubs •• to compete equally with the other breweries in and around,the state. You'will notice that • the opponents to this ordinance are mostly the microbnrewers in this state. They are doing whatever they can to minimize the competition in the market. When you bear the" . opposition please'seriously consider the Pacts put forth against the proposal.' tux hopes . are that the council will make a decision that is best tbr the.economy of downtown Salt Lake City. • Sincerely, • • - • Eric Dunlap cc.'Nancy Saxton,Jill Remington Loyc. • • Salt Lake City Brewpub Wholesale Transportation August 20, 2003 To deliver 500 barrels of beer per year takes only 20 truckloads*. (20 trucks x 25 barrels/truck = 500 barrels) oNnti /VA,tars yam. tr it • 25 barrels or 50 kegs Under the proposed ordinance a brewpub would be allowed to sell wholesale 500 barrels per year. Private clubs and taverns near the brewpubs receive as many as 10 deliveries per establishment per week**. Assuming maximum production under the proposed ordinance, the three Salt Lake City brewpubs combined would add a maximum of 60 deliveries per year or slightly more than one delivery per week. Both Redrock and Desert Edge anticipate using their existing delivery vans and pickup trucks that already make deliveries to and from their respective brewpubs. * The same service class vehicles used by Salt Lake City distributors such as Carlson Distributing Co., Inc., and General Distributing, Inc. (this service class can hold 50 kegs easily and may hold more than 100 kegs). ** Port-O-Call (200 West 400 South) receives 9-10 truck deliveries per week. Green Street (Trolley Square) receives 4-5 deliveries per week. Conversions Sources 1 barrel=2 kegs Lawrence Buhler, D.W. Patten and conversations with Salt Lake City 1 keg = 15.5 gallons taverns, brewpubs, private clubs, and distributors. Call 801-699-2126 for 1 barrel=31 gallons more information. • • • II • • TRAFFIC IMPACT The increase in traffic will be minimal in the commercial zones in which Salt Lake's brewpubs are located. MAP OF BREWPUB LOCATIONS -- '''-1 •'"• -, '• • `,.,•-•.;.41;w.,.1-•.' .4.c•:: '--- -v. -, . , .. ,. ,,,,, ,, ArI ' '''',-, • .rr'''i-j,, f411T!'„F ,:,,;:-: :4 *.iip-siiiyikatri.1.-., s. _il,:t*.,..„ ..41: 0-44tti::',-,-,,,- it, irls.'-' .iri t! .... . ,- .P Li::irk,r-i.i ',:ir„.:tiil n4„1,- 5,',"-i's.'-‘ ,,-:',..-.V. ., , :-15i:, '',.:',:,,.ftl-'14?'„;•,,,,..:“.. '-'--•4:1: ,i'ill'i;i:14Citfi- l'.;' • '.„.e; ,._ :..,-- '4A.--72',,iiii -i..,7-Aiii.-:j.:,::-ri,-;'1,-,uz--,Srciflic -:_.; 4ria4'"'Z.4.1.r .i,..F,i H -,,,,,:•,:, Au „ ,,,i-,;;„-,7,,, ,,,t,..T1,4#4,;.Itteg,-.4:,a,S;*71M 5--', 1,nirr) -lir' ,-41.-*7:11 1 ''1 '''' Ill ',,iltiliii6'7,t,4 Ei Ailtiorr,, it"-T.'4. '}';-:^Vt';,,,,,,:i-;;,,-,,-•': 'Z:.' '''..L,- ,..'1!-.' .„,,...,`, --: --, - ''';',' :i:C11-,`400,;;' 2:- -`14 i4,4';X' .Lk.i."&,..1'' ....'HAIII4'7,1-,,,,,. „41;bit.. ,0.C't,,,, - •,,,,..„, ., ,,±2,, IV-I- V,%I „.A k ' 1 ;1g,4f9',.4,, e7 1)Desert Edge Trolley Square 2)Red Rock 3)Marmot Mesa (CLOSED) 4)Squatters Existing brewpubs already receive deliveries of food and material for beer-making on a regular basis. Only a slight increase in the number of deliveries is possible. Uinta Brewing Company opposes changing the zoning for Brewpubs in . Salt Lake City so that they can distribute 500 Barrels of Beer. We invite you to tour Uinta Brewing and see what is entailed with beer distribution. Why are we opposed? 1) There would be many large impacts to Salt Lake City's premier retail areas. 500 barrels of beer is the equivalent of 15,500 gallons, 3,000 1/6 kegs, 1,000 V2 kegs, or 6,900 cases. 2) If there were to be a limited amount of distribution, who would enforce? What would be the penalty for not complying? These breweries already sell 100 kegs off-premise. 3) Zoning fairness to other breweries that have complied and compromised their business. 4) What about the implications to the surrounding neighbors and their customers? The Zoning rules for Salt Lake's Brewpubs are not wrong. The city planners realized that there are significant impacts if brewpubs in these zones were allowed to distribute beer. A brewpub is primarily a restaurant that has its own beer. A production brewery distributing beer is a completely different business with large exterior implications. The city planners knew the implications of distributing beer and wanted to protect the premier retail areas of Salt Lake. Semi-trucks block the sidewalks, alleys and streets. Forklifts 1111 loading 165-pound kegs on pallets weighing 2,000 pounds are in the streets because they have no loading docks or a place to unload or load a semi-truck. Unfortunately, most of this loading, dumping, delivering of pallets would happen in the peak hours of pedestrian and automobile traffic. The impacts of beer distribution have not changed. What has changed is that the brewpubs beers sales have slowed and they are looking for new way to increase revenue and justify their breweries in slow economic times. Proper zoning protects not only the Brewpubs interests, but also their neighbors from these implications. Why not follow the existing zoning that allows breweries to distribute beer in the proper zones? Distributing breweries need to be in the proper locations that can better handle the reality of distributing beer in a safer environment. There have been many breweries that have located in the proper zone to specifically distribute beer and have had to compromise their brewpub retail appeal. This is the reality of trying to tie two totally different businesses into the same location. Why compromise the great retail areas of Salt Lake? Please have these companies locate to the proper zone if they want to distribute beer. These brewpubs requesting a zoning change knew they were in the wrong zone when they built their business. This is not about anti-competition; this is about what is best for Salt Lake City. Will Hamill • President/Uinta Brewing Company PH#467-0909 Cell# 949-2186 '�Fr� � :� • .- .- s4.ea' err s. : F • a* •. 4 .� _- - .•.` of, _ ' Y f KF.'7�!t Th L DRAW AT 5C1GAK r-1OC15 OLinking hiciclen Hollow and Sugar House Lark • •� -. •ram • ," • •�. ifs o a.�. v . .. .f • •� PR. _ . " � •'P i . EiQ4r0 r .,• - ai 9•• e. is ,ii• -V� •em? i' p�Z` B•� ii.. .F t•4I a• _ ♦ � ' :4 • • t .. ?fir t.,'aw t _ \ tU; � 4t\ . • •c =:_ • ..i8'+ i x i may` s• r • n * • .S • Y _ - �.•_ -. _ � 2 to '• c + r -..".�v. i .. • as .- unfoIcsin-�g of colors, forms; a,-�~d patterns in dime � - and _space. • . _ . .. I • Review of the site and building with the contractor confirmed that the Mecham building was constructed to allow unsupported walls,making possible the open passage. • Geotechnical reports show that the soils along the entire north side of the Mecham building and well into the Woodbury property are rubble and unconsolidated fill,which will affect construction costs. • Construction documents provided by the owners of the Mecham Iuildin ave the locations of the utilities that will be affected by the `-Sugar House crossing. A 60"and a 24"storm sewer parallel the north side of the Mecham building,and a i 2"ductile iron waterline runs along the west side of i 5th Last. Overhead power lines and telephone lines are attached to the building from the north and west. Afiber optic line and other utilities may also be affected. • Stormwater currently being collected from adjacent buildings and piped into the storm sewer could be harvested and reused for trees and landscape. • • Sugarhouse Park should be reserved as an unstructured recreation space with minimal roads and few formal trails. • The written summary of the KOP_Kids questions to UDOT and a followup call confirmed that trees will be allowed in a center island and within 3'of the edge of Thirteenth Last as long as care and maintenance are provided by others_ • rrom the hidden hollow Committee and current work in the area,we are aware that bicycle commuters who do not wish to walk their bikes through hidden hollow and the`Su ar house business District have two direct links to the bike lane on Wilmington Avenue through the ballet West site. • The Sugar house community desires public art that celebrates the natural and cultural history of the area and supports the educational mission of hidden hollow. • > Anticipated P r o f e c t C o s t s 0 Ike design was developed as a safe,well-lit pedestrian passage through an open draw between Su arhouse Park and L idden hollow. Vehicles travel over the draw on two highway bridges with an open center median providing daylight to the passage below. Our investigation of existing site conditions between the Mecham building and the Woodbury building validated the -feasibility of this concept- The building contractor confirmed that the building was constructed with support walls that make possible an open passage. Geotechnical reports indicated the soils along the entire north side of the property are nubble and unconsolidated fill that will influence construction techni9ues and costs. Construction documents and interviews with the construction manager provided the locations of all known utilities . affected 63 the Sugar house crossing. retailed unit price cost estimates were developed and reviewed by highway and structural engineers. - .. i. SugarhouseParkSiteImprovements, $2)0,000 Sego Lila Plaza,Earth berm and Plantings 2. 1 3th East Parkway/Walks and Plantings $i 70,000 3. 13t1-1 East bridges $i,320,000 4- Tke"Draw"Walls and Plantings $575,000 5. hidden hollow Site improvements and Plantings $i 50,000 6. Public Art $200,000 7. Contingency(i 5%) $36,675 III Total$2,492,000 r i A ._bridge Section 1 /\ \ SLOT PAYIK MN rrriorq I— -1 r.--t r— 1 bridge Section 2 • ! R2i4 rglt/-k - I.--*- ,---• '5e .-.L-a4-i--t,-i-j----•3,-- J, 1I tr,r _. /......_.. - _ fr . - . _. -,. .,....,_ ......'- ' ,', , - '''',W,: .." 4";„:"...•-7,-NX 4..-'' , / ..-- , 114 r.•,,, :-. 1 .as-- i . . -..y. .....-,-,,z,......, , ,I ,,... i f1 .--- iv ,- • - _..---- .._,.. '--...•-: .ti•-,-,-----------: ---1 e:t--;:---r-,j111: 1111 ..-.. '•_t4-''''-'- .-:.'-_ ii/j.) . .f / 1 V ' Y I --7.:-,-V* ---'4: 3V1P- .a..1"/II lid \_, ittpapi- -- ,.-.1.:1'.: - 1 f -, '-' //7/1;vili ng 0. - /,..-----.-----.7-' ---"'" 1:i.,v" •-i---„,.,,,,- -i lifi • -1..'rz,., fiiiii)Iii• i(P: -- 11'1111 It t • No, \„.\\1101k1 \•\kt.,0% i 5ruoi"-.1--10.vse 4 , 1 rctP.isiti _ ;a 2 1r I o.4,1', \N ' • -- ,•' \\.`\A ‘1 i'l• ,,,, r,,..,,,7,,, :1' \t":44" la z.,. :;:4' -.--..k..E-._' &-- ,. . '‘,..:'. '/ / i '11111111i iiilY , 11!11,11111 . P1.1/ ,./ 7 As :' . / , :1,iii,iiiii. F.4e2,.„- 7 -,:- 'A7- ky-- bill'IP! &ION V tn*'"--- - ' 11,.'4r,g' \ • At \c,,,\-‘!, - _ Y /11/ Op', irli''' - -,:,',-§'F' -all VI• •00 -";-. Will I///y)) ,.470--;, , -E-:-,i-W- -- - it.' i 14 - L•iiiiii,'• Hi / 1 31.,-, — * .----4 i-g; ',:'„ -,-it '---, 1.111\4 ;fill'it,-:Initi • I \ ilk J 1 I / ze r,,,3,4...,. -11WP'-- t it. -''''•rSi ---;':::- '---. 1°, ‘ 1\•---- -L. i:•lit,i Plitri, r 7 /77 -A -------t- \-..?-11'.., ii.11,V, .:_.,: /•IpititIcii(,(111; \i ' kf)-, ,_1,,ty \11 1 1,,o,il, ..;,../ 1 il;i,pr,0111111 --.'.- ,,••* I • 4-- • .f .i(lhill *V 1 k k•,‘•1,1 :: 1,1 I i oliii ,.,_ ..,i2.,f- .t.v.. ,,. -„ ._ io:•• z.-, II.i ,.1 1., .f._, \ li; di. itoliv, 1 ,, \ , k F-- ---.., ,1 1 I IINI i,i)111.4- ,A\ P/A. \ \ '''f: 1 I 111 )11j1.'V '' ' ' \\\\ '--- i 1 0E1!1:11/,P C•t\ ,-1.-• i ttitVt,_ 4\;-1 \ \ \ t 5ugar house -- I et`, t t.,--7. \V, --1-2 11,,tlk, \ t ‘ roncl 0 \ 'c42' ;-,,, ,....: t-i----iiT ' \A: - ",- }nol\p,,,, ' \ \ 1 / ' t' '\ \ / .-.1 \•,•.....\ ,, • ... % /:4::---Ea ; . -_, ' 1 t ..,;- • ''' -_,.... ,‘ \ ,_ ,, \ I e tit% 4 , „.,r . --7.!..., .. \r\:„,,,,i „\„ , c 16, -----,,A t), \A*, ) ii-- ;;\.F.a•• .\\ • \ ?„, e , 111111P WI - ....6111\ V.-\ \ ) li 1 is i 1\ ; \ 1---11 k i\ \ f•-, • Ilit il 1 i\ i i 1 0 / li- , Iii H i Al% Al (111 It • —s; - i j 4e,f- I) I !I i I I / '--_,L1-1 , .,,.\ f;,-,:- /.7% p-iii ill i I i r 146 -,,u II ) , ,,Lr. k; 1 , i e / , ., nr\ _ , ,,:, ,ijiti / f / " 4 ' / ,' 1// i' // .. .1 ILE101 VIA11([1 '--. /- t -1- / '. I ' //j// mmEjMaliiIIIII j ',r4 ..t.L. ., - i )i- :.,:•--- ,... ' ,/ „i. ,,, , ..„ , , , .... , _ e ,,E-4--- i ; / ..' 0"•# ' 4 .,. , -z1 ,,, ,,,,co ,/ , ,.....4-,41-- i ..y/7,1 ----- ///40.0,tsvirdlk Nt.. i s/,/,-,-, ",- Pero, tr - .4 # 4 .,.... 1 -.,. ,,, 400.44,riy, _ ,t4',1 ia,-,, P.---'',.,_w,- -rA. ,Wes• # 't:N--It (.;•-j-7- .7,1; /_. ---.. 7104 4,.:1'i ii-: . 47=--zi: ---__ it,• ,,,41re.t.,__„. t -,-4- .- ., 1•4, 1.11 Lc------ "' nh Co n• •n to north \ '' ADonnevi e 51-loreline , Trail • a u NI 0 F F c.r orn bu.ldirl s r NJ 0-1 ktaa..3s l'- c re-o•-t-e5 N•J r ,,..11s) 2S- -.C...a.cVS rlah+s 4_ animedS +- rccharleS \.• -p, Cf f.,^"1 rr eA2 f L- V.- stR.DS,'Su• We-4- 4.- %\-- ', •':„.-•--; ' 1-, Po-fla.S5 Gr.,-V- f*P`i•'- '._2.,‘L• ..,.. -----,, !ftwoolsommea , •..._ '1''''& • ' -1-1. - '.. •„P-:-. LA,.,,,' rat-t- FAL-Ls. ,.Le&P.f•-, ., .e.'`', I _,.. ___, AIL_ ...,„„.1. ____ ,,s ,-•-• LseiLLE..,Ay) 0'10)7' .-_-- — ':"17• -k'"1 `` \a • -- 44h. f 0:::o•' '.-.,--- .. ,...,‘,{,--„,,,,..., 4-pi..-- 1 ‘,uft°,..j..5°'" ort010 E.I31RD ..,, - -f-,--', -"---),,,. -. _ k... ........-----•-- PL • , --'C.O5-,I LLE.-'-‘44.k,1":\:-. f7-' .3-,, _ S. A Y -C-L .-ILI -- fr` -S-1-6 C-i L 1 `-lhz, '1 A G '',c I -,9-1*-1 I-4'50'---- "e f" CA-3 - rill.II f-. id C.-- PE AistFGRE, s'9 ifirgre. _fef, . - . .. . x)-(-6 t''‘) AL,`"7,-,v'-'4',-,,, ik , •. --‘ ...-- ' -46 . ,° 'V E EA', I/ '''',e"---'t----=''":-7.:-..--,•-•=5 .",,y, k • LY v. Pt_p,i ' :I? I , ,-..., 6P-f- .•.1,-;(-- POE, 4 , k I .1491" ii-----_,J: si' P,'_,-1:11,—,:','.1-6."-• —'• • - 1 / . ---t ,,--_-•‘`? 5,'''''',",¢r(3 P11-r; , ( ---Q ,"1::- : :.,' :,•-- } . cLcog, --1 ,...„_,/ ‘, -' ',-'-,;-4-4,''''741---rxi;4'.. , _ : „--- 1 . ,,•1 f z-,p v',,:-,',-, r• ,,,,, p.uri!ispL," ti I ' 1 • :-_-i,4---:.--:^,-,,,'-',_ ,—;i2-_. - --•-- --,` r.-- ,l'i '''-'-- - 1:P.'r.lTE..:., ., -- 1-c Ly `.. • , ' -- ' 'is, --s' ki '-7-- cRAt.ILED Toe.ouoi.4 ":1-H‘•-' ' e cf ' u ,, -, 1-u v •- t.11 ' ,v.e.,f...eo 5 t<IPP6,---T-k .,, e- •,':.- RDplomstlero cy "lie. tZP-1- _.,.ge),;(fe alfr , .. CO- z--- THAN Kt-13 • I L.AIL -1 , \ IA,--' '1,-• , s. • , , - — , - "‘1 •' ,.] '-' c 411 i / I 1144, / 9Pn4 t,1 1;1q;;.- I %� (: J I r i�a.y,.ir7.,.,.,;.'T.^..,i.t'-.;,.'",. .,..-`,,.ilri.fr,vv;ri7w1...„.l, \ 4. I1 gr I �,, Y �`�ii +, 0t ,w — 2; �`,,; _.�yf, + c � I It IT 1 ,; _ ,•i 14 t +►i ' fir v __ _� tr. .� +c.r .4r.. • a ....t.iiitc ,116),A-, .-,,,i__,,,,tp,,,Ita-g-r.) NI,10,10er b i VI 1111111 R "i t I I';�h R. 1;�il iJ1 !1 � 4,, . I �, •0 S The Draw and the Living hill- Shallow pools near the wet meadow attract butter-Hies and hummingbirds,and are connected to the "Living hill" by colorful paving patterns_ The sounds of birds and waterfalls are generated by reclaimed stormwater and food and habitat plantings,which frame the entrance to the Draw • r-- I m =o AWANlik, s J, ; , I <_:= -_ _ .. . .�� >�;.'..a fim_ --- --- ifl Lf►e Draw jection- lNwe , ' WoodenTrougr with Overhead ead 4111; i t6 Last rid I u �91.,/r.p1 3 E 6 se + The passage through the Lighting J�;,,,,,..,•_•, - __. _ Draw is open to the sky • for most of its length,with PauveJrgatorSyStem Q '1 - landsca e and art treatments at both ends. I 12 N 5tormwater from the �tt�dWa&s 11)..) 0 °adjacent buildings is {{�� I ° �7, carried across the Draw U l F in a wooden trough for Rdorater$xrOpticLines �' passive irrigation of the R to 11 Vo6gcr Lma O /Dr Rdor-at 21"Storm Drain plants and water for the wildlife of hidden Rclowtc60"StortnDcain �/ Hollow. / 6fect ,le 14fcet / / 20 foot(,Jniity Easement / 4111 . _ ____. _ , .. i. III r lant List for the Draw and the Living L-ill W1.-- le,e, .--- •--A'r• - riO;At- ..17::::4;t.q.;-:-. , . ''4-7'5.-,-T-- •••,..r...._i :„., 4‘__,. ,-. ..,. ,-,...,„,„ ....._,,,_-_,„.„:„.. -.:„. __.... -,....,. E- •-3s�� -�;i , T _sue _� _,c M1�- , `gam +o*-- .:.� - ii E flak....,A.U, tor.rb..,.h R.fm,.rya.A:.gb:.d g..,d..H tiwm.:.gb:.d ti.,..v..1 g„t.,41 y r: �-:y-cs ,. _- .` - •tip$a .' - 's.- .„, _ + 1_as - _- _ $ .. ..„„.,,, ,.... -_^ -e „,�., 1 -x J. �" ems'. - -_ R.bb.,Ram:.6....b C...--IN. Pw.<aiy 5I-.,3 f.p..., /_:40-''f-, 'Pit *L,....:-.pq ''-',--'Af---t , 1.e.„" ''.- ..... .71 W mod•.R..< gl..�-<h.....<d ti.,a...•gb,.d R<dAd+:al j}..n<.{ty M.Ib.n.T.n....1,.11 g„u.•ny S<icnt;f;<Namc Common Nam< 5a<nt;F;c Nam< Common N.m< A«r stanch d<ntan,m bgtooth Mapk A<hJlca m.lkfoi.Um We,t<my ",U.w Aur 4abrom Rocky Moonta.n Mapk Aquclega Caen,I<a Colorado C.IUmb;n< Cdt,sr<t,Colata Ncticaf hackbcrry Ago;ks;aFormosa Westcr,Colum6;n< ,,.„p<.,,s s<opolo,,,m jZ«kk,,��Mo.,nt., Aa<J�p�aa sp«.oba 56o,.•y M�Ikw•«d J Q<rcusgamb<h; Ga..Sc10ak ncper Asd<pia scrypto«ras Mik.w<ed Asti.<ngclman;: 1=nsdmonn•s Ast<r Shrubs Cast,n ja chromosa Early Indian ra;nt6n.sh Casnll Ja ncn=,folio 5pl;td<af 1od:an ra;nt6n,sh Amclanchicr aln;folca 5<rucc6<ry Ckomc s<rr Iota Rocky Mountain b«plant Arctostaphylon.,..a-u,s: 1 c rb<rrj K;nn.k:nni. D<Iph;n;nm n.nralhannm Nut-tall Ladk,p.,r Artcm;scatr:dentata b1g5agebn,sh Delphiniumoccidentale Western Larkspur Ccrcocarpus J<d;foth s Curkaf Mountain Mahogany -pclob;um ang.,st,fohum J .cmccd Ccrcocarput.moninus b:r<hlcaf Mountain Mahcsany E".5'.'"p<r.csnr..,o Wan d<ring Flcabane Daisy Ch.ysothamnus nauseosos Robber Kabbala sh ' 1`^s non sp«om.m 31,0,•9 rl<abanc Daisy Juncperus comm„nM Mountain Common Joncper >`r;ogonum umb<natom Sulf<r go<k'heat Jun;pcn,s ost<osp<rma Utah Jun;p<r J ysb ,m pen m West< Wailffo.er ra st ma my�;n;tes Mountain Lo cr Geranium Mscos;ss;m„m So<ky G<ran:am ph,lad<lphu5 m;crophyilus L;tticicaf Mo<korang< G;lca aggr<gata Scadct Gi.a phy,<,r irpos Mal,.ac<US Mal o N;n<bark ({�Hant6<tla un Ro a Qn<6<ad Sunflow<r rot<nt,llafr t;<osa Shrubby C;nyucfo;l tieUche a n b�cens Wid Coralbelis rn nus g:n;ana Chok«l cherry p non t <hara pa II da rat� n Pg rnm,ns< r1.11-56;a ma ana CI fF os< renstcmon thus Wasatch rcnstcmon Fursh;a tr;dentata g.tterbU.h <yanan Rhos glab a Smooth Sumac renstcmoneatonii r;recra<kcrrcrmt<mon R.b�aon om Golden Currant rco,temon patm<„ ralmcr rcnstcmon renstemon stncWs Rocky Mountain rcnstcmon Rosa woods:. Woods Rose 5ambo<.,s cacm.ylca bloc J jde. .cr.y rcnstcmon,wh;ppkaous Wh.pple•s renstcmon 5ymphoncmrpos orcophiva Snowbcr,y 5ol:dago canad<ns s Mcado r Gotdcn od -Fhaltct,,,m fcndkr; Mcado,,.Roc Vcncs V;su;cra h:rta mottiflora 5ho.wy Goldcn<yc Zaoschncr;asarrtw: t-iUmm/0g61,d)=lo~w<r Ckmat s I:gost,c:Fot;a Wester,Virsin bower Gasses Clematis h;rsotias;ma Sugar b A<hnathe,,,m hymcnodcs lnd;an R;<csrass Elymus c;ncrcus Grcat p a9,n W.Idr c {-l.tariajames;: Galicia Grass 5porabolka a;rode. Alkali 5acaton • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT • BUDGET AMENDMENT#1-FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 DATE: August 29,2003 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget Amendment#1 STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Steve Fawcett,DJ Baxter,Rick Graham,Ed Rutan,Steven Allred,Chief Dinse,Chief Querry,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Luann Clark,Greg Davis,Jerry Burton,John Vuyk,Gordon Hoskins,Elwin Hellmann,Wes Galloway, Sean Martin,Beverly Miller,Krista Dunn,Shannon Ashby,Sherrie Collins,Laurie Dillon,Susi Kontgis,and Kay Christensen The briefing and discussion of the first budget amendment of the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget is scheduled for September 2, 2003. The proposed amendment includes several state and federal grants relating to public safety, emergency management and police and fire functions. There are requests to use General Fund balance for lawsuit payment, and rail noise mitigation. All other proposed amendments relate to Enterprise or Miscellaneous • Grants Funds. At a future Council Meeting the Council may wish to set a date for a public hearing. The Council may wish to ask representatives from the Administration what the fund balance is as of June 30, 2003 and what it will be if the budget amendment is adopted as proposed. In an effort to make the review of the budget openings more expedient, Council staff has attempted to categorize budget opening items as follows where possible: • "New" - those items that are new issues that the Council may have discussed but now need budget appropriation to be carried out. • "Housekeeping" -- those items that are strictly accounting actions and do not have policy implications. These include transfers internal to the City. • "Donation"--those items that are donations that require Council appropriation to be used, are consistent with previous Council discussions, or do not have policy implications. • "Grant providing additional staff resources" - those grants that provide additional staff positions and require a City match. These generally have policy implications; because they may add a new service or create an expectation that the City will fund the position after the grant has expired. • "Grant requiring existing staff focus" -- those grants that will require the City's existing staff to complete a specific project. (Some of these could have policy implications,since employees involved with these projects have less time to focus on • other projects within the scope of their work.) Pagel MATTERS AT ISSUE _ Issue #1: Increase in the Claims and Damages Budget ($104,586 - General Fund/ Governmental Immunity Fund) ("New Item") • The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of fund balance in the General Fund to the Governmental Immunity Fund to fund a payment claim on the original Main Street Plaza lawsuit. The City maintains a self-insurance program for third party liability claims. If claims have merit, they are paid from the Governmental Immunity Fund. The City was ordered to pay one-half of legal fees to the ACLU for the Main Street Plaza lawsuit. The City made payment to the ACLU by July 31, 2003. The requested amount will reimburse the Governmental Immunity Fund. As part of the discussion of this proposed appropriation, the Council may wish to review the adequacy of the City's contributions to the Governmental Immunity Fund. Issue #2: CIP- Unity Center Project ($4,500,329 - CIP Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate donations received for the construction of a Unity Center to a cost center in the Capital Improvement Fund for the design and construction of the project. The City has received $4,500,329 for the Unity Center and will be preparing a Request for Proposal and conducting a public process to determine the project development ideas and identify potential partners once the appropriation has been made. If the Council appropriates this money, the Administration will be able to determine which • firm will complete the architectural details of the project and continue with the community input gathering process. The Unity Center will be constructed in the Glendale neighborhood near the Sorenson Center. About 15% of the $4.5 million will be used for architectural fees. Some Council Members have expressed interest in being involved in the development of this project because there could be long-term budgetary and policy implications of the various options. Given this, the Council could: a. Appropriate only the portion of the funding needed for the planning and architectural efforts at this time b. Appropriate the full amount but request that the Council be briefed by the Administration at various intervals Issue #3: 900 South Quiet Zone project ($2,692,207 - General Fund / CIP Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is recommending that the City Council appropriate $2,692,207 from fund balance in the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Program Fund to establish a cost center for rail noise mitigation. This request has been discussed previously by the City Council. Initial estimates for the noise mitigation have ranged from a low of $500,000 to over $2.5 million. The requested funds would be used to fulfill an agreement between Salt Lake City and • Union Pacific Railroad to install "quiet zones" along the 900 South rail line and in the downtown area. There are two parts to the installation of the quiet zones, the first is the Page 2 • necessary street work and signage ($360,207), which would begin immediately, and the rail line gates and signals (approximately $2,332,000 million) which would begin as soon as • Union Pacific finalizes its cost estimates and City funds are available. The City would install the street work and signage and Union Pacific will install the gates and signals. The Council may wish to consider the timing of this project and determine if the project should be delayed until Union Pacific has a final cost estimate. The Council may also wish to confirm that the City intends to pay for gate and signal installation along rail lines that the City would not own nor operate. The City Council may also wish to confirm that there will be no ongoing operating and maintenance expenditures relating to the gates and signals and that the City Council cannot make funding contingent on reimbursement by Union Pacific for the funds necessary to purchase gates and signals for installation. Issue #4: Light Rail into Davis County Feasibility Study ($10,000 - General Fund) ("New Item") The Administration is requesting that the City Council appropriate $2,000 in contributions that are anticipated to be received and appropriate $8,000 of fund balance from the General Fund to the Mayor's Office to fund a feasibility study on light rail into Davis County. The study is expected to cost $100,000 and will be funded by contributions from the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Davis County Council of Governments, South Davis Municipalities and Salt Lake City. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and UTA will be the planning agency involved in the study. It is anticipated that the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance will each contribute $1,000 towards the • City's share of the study. The Council may wish to appropriate the $10,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund for payment to the WFRC rather than the Mayor's Office as previous feasibility studies have been appropriated to the Capital Improvement Fund. The Council may wish to inquire about the likelihood of constructing a light rail line to Davis County before the other proposed light rail extensions contained in the Long Range Transportation Plan from the Wasatch Front Regional Council. Issue #5: Clean Cities Program Grant($60,000-Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The City has received a continuation of the Clean Cities program grant. This award has been presented to the City for each of the previous seven years. Each year the Utah State Department of Natural Resources Energy Office awards this grant to help offset the Clean Cities Coordinator's salary and benefits, as well as other operation expenses associated with the Clean Cities program. The Clean Cities program is organized to promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative fuels. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the salaries • and wages for an existing FIE. Page 3 Issue #6: Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse - Intel Grant ($30,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center has been awarded a $30,000 cash grant from the Intel • Foundation, which is renewable for 3-5 years. The $30,000 will allow the Sorenson Center to hire one full time Computer Clubhouse Coordinator for one year. An additional $15,000 has been received for FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. An appropriation request will be made in future years for these funds. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the salaries and wages for an existing FTE. Issue #7: VOCA - Victim Advocate Program Grant ($55,184 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring existing staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department Victim Advocate Program has received a continuation of an annual grant from the State. The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grant is for the hiring of additional staff to provide services to victims of domestic violence. Services include resources, referrals, information support, community Education, court advocacy and crisis intervention. This grant will allow the payment of salary and benefits for 3 part-time victim advocate positions that are currently VOCA grant funded. These are grant-funded positions in the • Police Department that follow the direction given by the Council that grant-funded positions are temporary positions that expire when grant funding ceases. The grant requires a 20% match that is met with 692 hours of the Victim Advocate Program Coordinators salary. The City Council has previously adopted a resolution that allows the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any related contracts and awards. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget amendment and facilitate this grant. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant; grant funding is paying for the salaries and wages for three existing FTE's. Issue #8: Lead Based Paint Program - HUD Grant ($503,300 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The City's Community and Economic Development/Housing and Neighborhood Development received grant funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a Lead Hazard Control Program. The program seeks to control lead based paint hazards. Funds will be used for lead based paint inspections, risk assessments and lead hazard control activities. The funds received will be sub granted by the City to eligible applicants to the program. • Page 4 There is not a resolution (as determined by the City Attorney's Office) for the Council to sign. The Administration is requesting that the Council adopt this budget appropriation request and facilitate this grant. Issue #9: Housing Trust Fund - RDA Grant ($1,102,268 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The City's Community and Economic Development/Housing and Neighborhood Development staff submitted a request for funds to the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA). The request was for funds that could be used for Housing Trust Fund purposes. The most recent RDA budget included a grant to the Housing Trust Fund in the amount of $1,102,268 for the purposes of land acquisition, installation, construction and/or rehabilitation of structures. The Administration recommends that the City Council adopt this budget to accept and facilitate this grant to the Housing Trust Fund. Issue #10: Wild Fire Training Grant ($5,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("grant requiring no staff resources") The State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State lands has awarded the City a continuation grant to purchase equipment such as helmets, gloves, manuals and other related equipment for use and distribution -Co' the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT). The Salt Lake City Fire Department will administer the grant funds. This grant required a 50% local match that is met by the Fire Department • 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. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. The Administration recommends that the Council accept this grant and approve the appropriation request. Issue #11: Crime Scene Investigation Grant ($5,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department has applied for and received a grant from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice for the purchase of equipment to be use for crime scene investigations. It is anticipated that the 5 digital cameras, 1 video microscope and 2 evidence collection kits will provide an enhancement to public safety operations. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Page 5 Issue #12: Crime Prevention Project Grant ($6,000 - Misc. Grant Fund) ("Grant requiring no staff resources") The Salt Lake City Police Department has applied for and received a grant from the State of • Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice for the purchase of educational brochures, training manuals, window stickers, windbreakers and/or vests for the Community Mobile Neighborhood Watch groups. It is anticipated that this will be a one- time grant. This grant does have a new resolution for the Council to sign. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to accept this grant and sign any additional contracts or awards related to the grant. The Council will need to adopt appropriate the requested budget and adopt the resolution. No additional FTE's are associated with this grant. Issue #13: General Fund Encumbrance Carryover ($1,093,738 - General Fund) ("Housekeeping") In order to limit spending to appropriation amounts, the City's accounting system charges purchase orders and contracts to the budget year in which the goods or services are ordered. If the goods or services are not received until the following fiscal year, the Council has routinely carried the appropriations over to the following year so that the same expenditures are not charged once to the prior year budget and once again to the new fiscal year budget. The Administration requests that encumbrances in the following funds be carried over and appropriated to fiscal year 2003-2004. General Fund • Attorney 6,440 Community and Economic Development 239,748 Council 262,211 Fire 114,688 Mayor 57,302 Management Services 23,877 Non-Departmental 60,920 Police 38,320 Public Services 290,232 Total $1,093,738 Issue #14: Non-General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Carryovers ($22,180,743 - Misc. Funds) ("Housekeeping") On June 30, 2003, unexpended budgeted funds dropped to fund balance in accordance with State law (with the exception of the Capital Improvement Projects Fund). The Administration is requesting that the Council bring forward, or "carryover" the balances for existing Housing Special Revenue Fund, Miscellaneous Grant Fund, Special Revenue Fund and CDBG Fund projects that were previously approved by the Council in the total amount of$22,180,743. A list of each of these projects with the amount to be carried over for each project is included in the Administration's Transmittal. I Page 6 Issue #15: Prior Year Outstanding Obligations - Refuse, Golf and Fleet Funds ($919,700 -Enterprise/Internal Service Funds) ("Housekeeping") The Administration is requesting that the Council approve the appropriation of $919,700 for purchase orders or contracts entered into fiscal year 2002-2003 but not paid by June 30, 2003 within the Refuse and Golf enterprise funds and within the Fleet Management internal service fund. Because the budget from fiscal year 2002-2003 lapsed, it is necessary to appropriate funds to cover the purchase commitments made in the prior fiscal year. There is adequate fund balance available in each fund to accomplish this request. For budgeting purposes, the City accounts for purchase orders and contracts in the fiscal year in which the purchase order is issued or the contract is signed. However, generally accepted accounting standards require that the City record expenses in the fiscal year in which the goods or services are received. To handle this on the City's accounting system, each year the Administration proposed a budget amendment to re-appropriate these amounts. The amount to be re-appropriated in the Refuse Fund is $21,007; the amount in the Golf Fund is $46,086; and the amount to be appropriated for the Fleet Management Fund is $ $852,607. Issue #16: Recapture of CDBG Funds ($125,557 - CDBG Operating Fund) ("Housekeeping") Each year the City Council "recaptures" budgets that have remaining balances and appropriates the budgets for the intended uses in the current fiscal yew. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund had $125,557 in remaining balances at the end of fiscal year 2002-2003. The remaining balances are from programs that have been completed or have not expended all the funds within the program time frame. The recaptured funds will be placed into contingency accounts to fund future CDBG programming or cost overruns. The Administration recommends that the Council adopt this amendment and allow for the recapture of remaining CDBG program balances. Issue #17: Capital Expenditure ($176,316 - Golf Fund) ("Housekeeping") The Salt Lake City Public Services Department is recommending that the City Council reestablish a budget appropriation for capital expenditures. The Department didn't submit a request for equipment with the annual budget because of uncertainty of earning from fiscal year 2002-2003. The department has now determined that earnings and reserves are available to proceed with requesting an appropriation for golf course maintenance equipment. The only Council action necessary for the facilitation of this request is the adoption of the budget appropriation. • Page 7 - AUG 2 6 2003 -firt ' C . T _ _ ROCKY J. FLUHART �'� ' - -- -_ ROSS C. ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Carlton Christensen, Chair Salt Lake City Council . )----- / , Ff `• ti / FROM: Rocky J. Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 25, 2003 SUBJECT: Budget Amendment No. 1 Recommendation: We recommend that on September 9, the City Council set a date to hold a public hearing on September 16, 2003, to discuss Budget Amendment No. 1. 411 Discussion and Background: The attached amendment packet is transmitted to the City Council Office for the briefing on September 2, 2003. Legislative Action: The attached ordinance to amend this budget has been approved by the City Attorney. • cc: Dan Mule, City Treasurer Shannon Ashby Ill -151 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM ZSS, SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 64111 TELEPHONE: SO1-S3S-6426 ='AX: LO1-S3S-6190 accc_eo P>Pr SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 58 of 2003 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2003-2004) AN ORDINANCE 'WENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 58 OF 2003 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2003 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2004. PREAMBLE On August 12, 2003, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the • fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on , 2003 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget, • including the employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. 111/Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on , 2003, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard - and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 58 of 2003. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003 and ending June 30, 2004, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated. -_ SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file • 2 a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. • CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed MAYOR 4 3 ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G:\Ordinance 03V\rneudmg budget 8-25doc S • 4 FY 2004 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #1 —September FY 2004 FY 2005 Initiative Gen. Fund Gen. Initiative Name Amount Impact FTE Fund FTE Impact New Items 1. ACLU Plaza Lawsuit $104,586 $104,586 -0- 2. Unity Center $4,500,328.77 -0- -0- 3. 900 S. Quiet Zone $2,692,207 $2,692,207 -0- 4. Light Rail Study $10,000 $10,000 -0- Grants Requiring Existing Staff Resources 5. Clean Cities $60,000 -0- 1.0 -0- 6. Intel CornI puter Clubhouse $30,000 -0- 1.0 -0- 7. VOCA (Police) $55,183.11 -0- 0.5 -0- Grants Requiring No Staff Resources 8. Lead Based Paint $503,300 -0- -0- 9. RDA-Housing Trust Fund $1,102,268 -0- -0- 10. Fire Department Assistance $5,000 -0- -0- 11. Crime Scene Investigations $5,000 -0- -0- 12. Crime Prevention $6,000 -0- -0- Housekeeping Items 13. GeneraI Fund $1,093,738 $1,093,738 -0- • Encumbrance 14. Special Revenue Fund $22,180,742.10 -0- -0- Encumbrances 15. Fleet, Golf and Refuse $852,607 -0- -0- Encumbrances $46,086 -0- -0- $21,007 -0- -0- 16. CDBG Recapture $-0- net -0- -0- 17. Golf Capital $176,316 -0- -0- • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Attorney's Office 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year Payment to ACLU for original Plaza lawsuit Amendment#1 Initiative#1 Initiative Name Steven Allred/Steve Fawcett 535-7788/535-6399 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person New Item N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Fund Balance 104,586 Total $104,586 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Governmental Immunity Fund transfer from General Fund 104,586 Total $104,58 $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 • Non Departmental Transfer to Governmental Immunity Fund 104,586 Total $104,5861 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Governmental Immunity Fund 104,586 Total $104,58 $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 104,586 5.Capital Outlay- Equipment 6.Other (Specify) Total $104,586 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#1 ACLU Lawsuit legal fees.xls8/25/20033:55 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact I - S BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#1 ACLU Lawsuit legal fees.xls8/25/200311:15 AM Jan Lake Lily Lorporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measureable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described ih 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 sim Ie 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 was court ordered to pay legal fees to the ACLU related to the Main Street Plaza issue. The ACLU was to receive payment by July 8th, fourteen days after the United States Supreme Court made a decision regarding the Plaza. The City received an extension from the ACLU to July 31 by paying interest on the amount due. It was necessary to pay this expense by that date. No further extensions were expected to be granted. • Payment was made from the Governmental Immunity Fund, which needs reimbursed for that payment. An appropriation is needed to expend funds, therefore it is necessary to amend the General Fund budget to cover this added amount. Fund Balance will have to be the source of funds for this. Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Public Services 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Unity Center Project Amendment#1 Initiative#2 Initiative Name Rick Graham/Rocky Fluhart 535-7922/535-6394 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person New Item N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A..Revenue.Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year • FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CIP Fund- Unity Center Project 4,500,328.77 Total 4,500,328.77 $0 $0 411 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 Fund-Unity Center Project(project contingency) 3,825,328.7 CIP Fund- Unity Center Project architectural fees 675,000.0 Total $4,500,328.7 $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- Equipment 6.Other(Specify) Capital Improvement 4,500,328.77 Total $4.500,328.77 $0 $0 S BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#2 Unity center.xls8/25/200312:28 PM halt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D'.Personnel Service Detail: FTE GradelStep Amount ilk No Impact • 411 BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#2 Unity center.xls8/25/200312:28 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area: Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal and Objective: Customer Service Goal--Strengthen Neighborhoods: improve neighborhoods by managing growth, investing in quality of life initiatives, and celebrating diversity. Measure: Survey results: 85% rating of how satisfied citizens are with the quality of life in Sale Lake City. 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. 0 Issue Discussion: The City has received donated funds for construction of the "Unity Center" in the Glendale neighborhood adjacent to the Sorensen Center. Project development ideas are being formulated and potential partners are being considered. A public process has been scheduled. It is important that an RFP soliciting an architect for the project to be completed and a selection made soon to allow the selected firm to be involved in the discussions and decision making meetings. This involvement will allow the design phase of the project to proceed smoothly and in a timely manner. Standard architectural fees vary but a general estimate of 15% of construction cost is industry accepted. Men® • To: Rocky Fluhart From: David Nimkin Date: August 22, 2003 Re: Sorenson/Unity Center Planning Process Public Scoping Process The Sorenson/Unity Center planning process has been quite active. A key group of city and community representatives have been developing a public process that will help to define the vision for this expansion and development. That process is scheduled to begin in September with three public meetings. On Thursday, September 18 and on Saturday mornings, September 20 and 27, facilitated planning essions will be held at the Pioneer Police Precinct, South City Campus of Salt Lake Cot munity College and the Main Library, respectively. We have retained the services of Diane Hamilton to assist with facilitation of this planning process. She has been working with the community planning group to design a process that will allow for considerable interaction among participants so that they have opportunities to prioritize the broad potential that exists for these expanded facilities. The public scoping phase of this process will help to inform both the ultimate uses and design priorities for this center Ms. Hamilton has organized dozens of volunteer facilitators who will assist with small group discussions within each of the larger group meetings. • We believe that the unique circumstances that have created this development opportunity warrant a more interactive public process. Announcements for the meetings will be mailed out during the week of August 25 to a substantial list of community residents, current customers of the Sorenson center, city- wide community council and community leadership and an expanding list of potential partners for the center and their suggested constituents. Additionally, public press releases will identify opportunities for the general public to participate in this process. We are requesting that participants pre-register for one of the three planned meetings at this time. This will enable a representative balance of participants for each meeting. Although we anticipate up to 65 registrants for each meeting, we can accommodate additional interested parties with another scheduled meeting as warranted by demand. Potential Partnerships Representatives from the Mayor's staff and the Department of Public Services have been meeting with several potential partners/tenants for the expanded facilities. We are outlining a potential vision—consistent with what has been expressed during the Main Street Plaza discussions —that offers substantial benefits to the Salt Lake City community and to potential partners. We intend to craft a general menu of potential uses from partners who have an expressed interest in co-location at the centers. This menu of potential options can serve as a basis for consideration, discussion and priority at our public meetings in September. • Potential partners with whom we have visited at this time have been asked to provide a "letter of interest"to the Mayor's office that includes: • Identification of need for their organization/constituents; • Description of how participation and partnership at the expanded centers can benefit their organizationiconstituents; • Outline of the scope of financial and human resources that can be contributed to the ongoing operation and maintenance of the centers; • Identification of potential participants who should be notified of the public meetings in September. Each of the potential partners recognizes that the center is in a preliminary planning stage. They are demonstrating a significant interest as a potential partner by defining how the center can benefit their organization and what they may be able to contribute to its success. Selection Criteria A broad based community group has been identified (although not all of its members have been formally invited) to serve as a stakeholder group who will review the outcome of the public scoping and the interests and commitments of potential partners. This advisory group will help the administration to formulate an appropriate balance between the priority uses identified in the community scoping process and the financial and functional realities of developing and operating the centers. To the extent possible, the • business plan and conceptual design that will be presented to the public and the City Council in early 2004 will reflect a commitment to priorities identified through the public process and consideration of partners who can make substantial commitments to the operation and management of programs and maintenance of the facilities. • Salt Lake City Corporation - Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayor's Office 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year 900 S.Quiet Zone protect Amendment#1 Initiative#3 Initiative Name DJ Baxter 535-7735 Prepared By Enter Phone ff of Contact Person New item N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 200445 FY.2005,06 1.General Fund Fund Balance 2,69220i Total $2,692.20, $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund CIP Transfer from General Fund 2,692,207 Total $2,692.207 $0 $0 B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: • 1.General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund 2,692,207 Total $2,692,207 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Quiet Zone project 2,692,207 Total $2,692.207 $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-Equipment 6.Other(Specify) Transfers and CIP 2,692.2071 Total $2.692,2071 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#3 900 S.Quiet Zone Project.xls8/25/200312.28 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTC Grade/Step _ Amount No Impact 111/ 411 BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#3 900 S. Quiet Zone Project.xls8/25/200312:28 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for • Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area:Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal and Objective:Customer Service Goal--Strengthen Neighborhoods: Improve neighborhoods by managing growth, investing in quality of life initiatives,and celebrating diversity. Measure: No specific measures that relate. 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 straightforAard cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it maybe 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 terns 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: • Pursuant to an agreement between Salt Lake City and Union Pacific Railroad.Salt Lake City has sought and received state and federal approval for"quiet zones"along the 900 South rail line and in the downtown area. Union Pacific is nearly finished with final engineering and cost estimates for the railroad signals and gates,and Salt Lake City has finalized engineering and cost estimates for the street work and signage that must be completed. Because much of the street work involves pouring concrete and therefore is difficult io conduct during the winter months,we wish to proceed immediately with bidding and completing the street work though a Salt Lake City Engineering contract.Even though we do not have final cost estimates from Union Pacific,we expect those shortly—well before the next budget opening—and will need to order and pay for the gates and signals as soon as those estimates are available. The budgets for the work and materials needed are as follows: Street work and signage: $360,207 (final estimate) RR gates and signals: $2.332.000 (preliminary estimate) Total: $2,692,207 The work will be completed in two phases.Phase I will include the City's street work and signage.We wish to begin this phase immediately.Phase II will constitute Union Pacific's ordering and installation of the gates and signals.This work will begin as soon as Union Pacific finalizes its cost estimates and the City funds are available. Therefore,we request that the City Council appropriate$2.692207 for the construction of the 900 South Quiet Zone. • • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Mayor's Office 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Light Rail into Davis County Feasibility Study Amendment#1 Initiative#4 Initiative Name DJ Baxter 535-7735 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person New Item NIA Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and:Source:\ 1stYear 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Fund Balance 8,000 Contributions 2,000 Total $10,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 faB. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Mayor's Office-Feasibility Study 10,000 Total $10,000 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 10,000 5. Capital Outlay- Equipment - 6. Other(Specify) Total $10,000 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#4 light rail feasibility study.xls8/25/20034:01 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.,Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount. • No Impact • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#4 light rail feasibility study.xls8/25/20033:32 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area:Transportation Goal and Objective:Customer Service Goal--Transportation:Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Measure: 1. Decrease the number of transportation-related accidents by 14%over the next five years. 2.Decrease traffic delays by 10%at the 50 highest volume intersections. 3. Establish baseline for use of all transportation modes. 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 mayors in southern Davis County have persuaded the Utah Transit Authority and the Wasatch Front Regional Council to begin planning for a high-capacity mass transit connection between downtown Salt Lake City and south Davis County.Salt Lake City has supported the effort to advance this project. Because this line would also serve the residents of Salt Lake City and would benefit our downtown businesses and employers,the WFRC has asked that Salt Lake City contribute$10,000 to tine$100,000 cost of the feasibility study. The total costs of the study will be allocated as follows: UTA $45,000 Davis Co.COG 10.000 S.Davis Cities $35.000 Salt Lake City S10,000 Total $100.000 • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • The Administration has approached the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Alliance to request their participation in Salt Lake City's share oldie cost.Although we have not yet received formal notification,we are hopeful that each entity will contribute$1000.Therefore,we request that the Council appropriate$8000 to cover the remainder of Salt Lake City's contribution to the feasibility study. The feasibility study is generally the initial stage of planning for a lar re-scale transit improvement such as light rail or bus rapid transit.In this case,the study would examine several potential transit corridors between downtown Salt Lake City and south Davis County,and evaluate those corridors for ridership potential,cost,and technical feasibility.The study would also consider various technologies,including light rail,independently-powered rail,bus rapid transit(buses in a dedicated right-of-way).and enhanced bus service(increases in frequency).The consultants hired to complete the study would solicit input from residents and community leaders in all of the affected cities along the route. One relevant document is attached for your information: • South Davis Transit Needs Assessment Work Scope(Draft) • • August 25, 2003 • SOUTH DAVIS TRANSIT NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORKSCOPE PROJECT OVERVIEW This nrcjeof has two disinit objectives: Recommendation Development: l'a first is to make medi_... a,.., long-range transit. 'e_or ers atiota that are tailored to the south Davis c_ayel market and are feasible give._ existing __vestment criteria and community objectives. Successful. achievement cr this objective will is ult in community and regional concurrence upon the selected transit recommendations to inclahe technologies, alignments, station locations, and operating plans. • Project Implementation: Ft:e second objective is to develop an imp liementation strateas, focused upon project phasing ard corraunity planTing, that increases the viability- of the selected transit recommendations. Successful completion this objective will lead to adoption of the project's transit recommendations in community planning documents; in better community awareness of transit enhancement tools and processes; and an implementation and phasing strategy for toe project's transportation stakeholders. Considerable public involvement and education will be required to meet these objectives. The results and recommendations or the project will. be in a format presentable to government and community leaders as well as to Regional., State, and Federal Transportation Agencies. The Contractor team .elected to perform this work must be capable of 411 completing all aspects of the project assigned to them as outlined below. BACKGROUND The South Davis Study Area comprises the cities of Eh rmington, Centerville, West Bountiful, Bountiful, Woods Cross, and North Salt Lake, as well as portions of unincorporated Davis County and northern Salt Lake City. The .truly Area is located between the Wasatch Mountains on the cast and the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake on the west and is constricted at ty;o points. These narrow points are in northern Centerville and at the Salt Lake County/Davis County line and effectively divide the Study Area into three north/south segments. These segments are Burke Lane to Parrish Lane; Parish Lane to Beck; Street; and Sec,. Street to Downtown Salt Lake City. East and west, the Stud,; Area consists ;;f tfm; areas; fiat_ area generally wasp of I-15 and a hillside are::. Cf. _-=-canto, to Study Area travel is the large 'pocket' of hillside do eloument in Pcuotifs_ that o._t_._.._ approdimately three miles east of I-15. _._e Study Area links the northern part of the State to the central and ' southern pprtions of the State. It is also a major link in .,a_ and continental travel and ec-mPron. 2nterstateand -s are the only continuous 'orch/_cuan _.:ads in the Study Area. inree Local transit mutes = , and _ transit routes c , some time Study Area. Dan___ 72 cssses tnierign anal • orivary local transit o gh dacis Coo __.0 - a lamand -a_ difficulty stavirtg on schedule but has gocd overall _ ,_-1 in the OTA surstem. Passenger Route Route Revenue Statistics Overall P Name Trips per I per I Per Weekday mile I trip I hour Ranking 55 Weber State-Davis County-Univ.of Utah I 35 0.7 32.3 16.4 54 60 Salt Lake-Woods Cross 6 1.3 118.5 24,8 53 61 Salt Lake-Bountiful I 6 0.9 I 17.5 118.8 , 80 _ 62 Salt Lake-North Salt Lake 6 I 1.5 120.8 24.5 I 50 63 Salt Lake-West Bountiful-Centerville 6 0.9 116.7 18.5 I 83 70 Salt.Lake-Ogden 81 1.0 42.9 20.5 I 18 Centerville-University of Utah-Research 71 Pk 8 1.1 27.9 24,6 47 73 I Salt Lake-Hwy 89 Express 11 0.7 32.9 18.8 58 October 2002,Ridership Report Source. Summary 'Ranking 1 to 132 in Total UTA bus system Several transportation studies in the past several years have encompassed the Study Area. However, many of these covered a very broad area and/or considered travel through the Study Area rather than the travel needs of the communities in the Study Area. Nonetheless, notable among these for their findings for the Study Area are the following studies: 1) The 1998 Long Range Plan--recommended a high-frequency bus corridor 111 from Salt Lake City on Redwood Road and east/west across BountLul; 2) The 2002 Inter-Regional Alternatives Analysis--nesessed US 89 light rail and I-15 Bus/HOV alternatives to Commuter Rail; 3) The 2001 Long Range Plan--recogni.:ed a need for increased transit investment in the Study Area but did not specify the appropriate Level of investment; and 4) The TRANSIT 2030 analysis--.indicated that the appropriate level of investment for the north-south corridor in the Study Area would be the equivalent of a BRT line. In 2000, Davis County voted to double their sales ..au _ate dedicated to transit to one-half of one-percent of all tr;fable gales. As of 200i, the cities in southern Davis County provided about 5.5j:a of UTP.'s total sales tax revenues. Currently Environmental Impact Statements are underway for the Legacy Highway and for Commuter Pail in the Study Area. Although these projects will labely reduce congestion on =-15 in the Study Area, it Ls felt by the community that these projects are too '_c wee= to adeauatel,% sefve trips from the Pounti'u- bench to the Downtown Sal-a Lake C_uv. _-__ bus system in Salt 1. -ng County a_a scuEnern _o assessed _ - oa- _s_cns -- the coming years. This effort, ho,naver, will LL1-Lybe noerntionally 411 focasea and revenne neat PROJECT APPROACH • WFRC will be the Local Lead 1Cenc�, j 1 1� v✓r - -- - - CT, a d cGCn CC:"�...:=i_tC' willprovide assistance. A consultant willbe- selected to c.SS1St in partS of the study. Project Management and Oversight Responsibilities WFRC will provide the Project Manager who will be responsible for the conduct of this study. He will have primary authority for contract management and enforcement and will review and approve the Contractor' s monthly progress reports and invoices. He will also review and approve any contract or schedule modifications after discussion with the Steering Committee. • UTA will designate a senior planner to assist the Project Manager in administrative functions and to provide a conduit to UTA staff management, and the UTA Board of Trustees. Additionally, PTA, \ 7DOT, and each local municipality will provide staff, material assistance, and direction to assist in task management and completion as outlined in the workscope. The Contractor will designate a manager who will be responsible for both prime and sub-contractor tasks and performance. This person will be responsible for the Contractor' s progress reports, invoices, and schedule of deliverables. The Contractor will provide to WFRC data, documentation, minutes, and correspondence instrumental to the project . Where possible these should be in both electronic and hard copy. • A Project Steering Committee will be established to provide technical guidance for the Study, assist with the public process, and communicate with each Project Sponsor's governing body. The Project Steering Committee will review and provide comments with respect to all documents and other deliverables. The Committee normally will meet monthly and key Contractor managers will be required to attend these meetings. A Policy Committee will also be established to focus on the overall results and conduct of the Study and will address any disputes among the Project Sponsors involving the Project. This Committee normally will meet quarterly and key Contractor managers will be required to attend these meetings. Both of these Committees will be representative of the Project Sponsors. The Project Sponsors for this Project include all public entities that have a material interest in and/or have provided funding for this Project. The Steering Committee will consist of Project Sponsors, UTA, UDOT, and City Staff, Community Stakeholders and technical experts. In addition, representatives of the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration may be- included on the committee. • TECHNICAL SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope o` services, outlined in the ta_,.., beicw, proposed technical work effort for the Study Area. This work _s intended __ meet the two primary objectives of the __ _ ct staved earlier. Schedule adherence and cost cont.ci are imp _tent elements of this Project. The Sponsors believe, that with caretbi scheduling, the recommendations can be developed and accompanying deliverable published by June 200,1 and the project implementation phase with its deliverables can be complete in October 2004. The Contractor should be prepared to meet the objectives for these two phases within the established period. . TASK LIST 1. Project Initiation Objectives: Ensure that all involved understand and accept the objectives and methodology to be used in the project. Outline the process in preparation to allocate resources to each aspect of the project. Create a team with clearly defined and highly manageable tasks, objectives, processes, and accomplishment measures. Eliminate unnecessary risk in the timing, cost, or quality of the products. Begin drafting the document Discussion: This is a critical yet often overlooked step in the project. Given the Limited resources available, this step causes those resources to be properly allocated and avoids second guessing' of the project after the fact. Deliverables: a. Refined workscope with accompanying notes. b. Project schedule with task assignments and key milestones identified. c. Public involvement plan. d. Craft Introduction and Analysis/Selection Methodology Chapters. Roles: Consul.taut/ttrRC: Lead UTA/UDOT: Consultation nd Review [Municipalities: Individual Public Sneolvenent Plans Committee: Review, Amendment, a.._ Pdoptiin • 2. Develop Purpose and Need Statement • Task 2.A Market Analysis Objectives: Utilize es_stina 2000 data - -ct_o.... to identify St-sdv _'rea travel demand __.:lulling transit market preference, temporal travel distribution, and spatial travel distributions Cl2 _ and 2030. Discussion: The primary task it":.1l be to synthesize Journey to Mork, _ravel Model, and Salt lake Valley P.ua Study, and potentially other data. Deliverables:. Draft .Markel: Anal is Chapter Ro.1r:s: 'I WFRC: Lead Consultant: Consultation add Review DTA: Data Source, Consultation, & Review Committee: Review, Amendment, I. Adoption Task 2.13 Coordinate with Local Communities Objectives: Communicate market findings and identify local desires for transit. Discussion: This will involve meeting with local official and the public to educate them regarding the market analysis, 110 get input on Lhe market. analysis, and to discover what they would like transit to do for their communities. Deliverables: a. Summaries of meetings with city councils, planning commissions, and other stakeholders. b. Appendices describing suggestions and desires made at the meetings. Roles: WFRC: Load Municipalities: Scheduling, Advertising, & facility provisioning Consultant: Consultation and Review DTI.: Data Source, Consultation, & Reviews Committee: Review, Amendment, and Adoption 3. Alternatives Development Task 3.A Alternatives Identification Objective's: Create a set of trans__ alternatives distinct from each other in terms of a � ._ a___ c._ _c_hnclogy, and ocrations sand that as: ively to meet tine _ icn'_ transit a .. ventice criteria. 110 willi Discussion: The c r be.. L , e._ ,e._ n. t_a_sgort:.._...- into distinct, transit t_a _-t alternatives. Deliverables: a. Alternatives _dent_i_,_atic_. _ech;__"_ 2stee?cran_a ciesuribine the screening methodology and findings. b. Appendices detai_in- r.c_tal and operatino assumptions «_ identified alternatives including all information necessary =_^_ cost and travel demand modeling as well as GIS applications. Roles: Consultant: Lead irttRC: Consultation, and Review UTA, Consulfa ldn, cod Review Committee: Review, Amendment, and Adoption Task 3.B Alternatives Analysis Objectives: Screen the alternatives identified down to a locally preferred and one alternate, if warranted, for continued study. Discussion: The primary task will be to apply the criteria agreed • upon in the project initiation phase, including costs, ridership, and other impacts. Deliverables: a. Draft Alternatives identification and Analysis Chapter. b. Document and presentation ready draft preliminary capital and operating plan for each of the 'forwarded' alternatives. Roles: Consultant/WLRC: Lead WFRC: Ridership For-casting UTA: Data Source, Consultation, 5 Review Committee: Review, Amendment, and Adoption 411 Task 4 Feasibility Assessment 1111 Ob,tectives: Confirm the lack of fatal flaws with the st..ke:1Cldcv'S and refine the preliminary design of thelocally preferred alternative. Discussion: If ER^ is chosen as the technology for the locally preferred alternative, assessment cf its impacts upo n On traffic will be required at selected locations such as intersections/interchanges. Deliverables: a. Document and presentation ready refinements to the capital and operating plan based upon larger community, public, and transportation agency comments . b. Confirmation of project feasibility by each project stakeholder. c. Preferred Alternative Chapter. Roles: Lead: Consultant WFRC: Consultation, and Review UTA: Data Source, Consultation, & Review UDOT: Data Source, Consultation, & Review Municipalities: Meeting Scheduling, Advertising, & facility provisioning Committee: Review, Amendment, and Adoption 4111 Task 5 Action/Implementation Plan Development Objective: Facilitate specific actions that communities, UDOT, UTA, and WFRC can take to increase the viability and competitiveness of the proposed project. Discussion: The key to this task will be to identify with the various stakeholders actions that the various entities are likely to take if given the time, resources, and encouragement. Deliverables : a. Draft a "Planning Tools and Strategies for South Davis" Chapter. b. Develop a plan for project phasing focusing upon transportation agency and community actions. c. Identify NEPA/New Starts timelines and processes desired to implement the project. Roles: Consultant : Lead WFRC: Consultation, and Review UTA: Data Source, Consultation, & 'Review UDOT: Data Source, Consultation, & Review Manic palities : Meeting Scheduling, Advertising, & facility provisioning Committee: Data Source, Rev.=ew, Amendment, & Adoption • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Mayor's Office 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 Clean Cities State of Utah.Department of Natural Resources Amendment#1 Initiative#5 Initiative Name Initiative Number Beverly Miller/Sherrie Collins 535-7736/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone ff of Contact Person Grant requiring existing staff resources 81-041 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 1 - FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 60.000 60,000 60,000 Total $60.000 860,000 $60,000 41111 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 60,000 60,000 60,000 Total $60.0001 $60.000 $60.000 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 51.000 51,000 51,000 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay 6.Other(Specify)Travel,Supplies 9,000 9,000 9,000 Total $60,000 , $60,000 $60.000 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#5 CleanCitiesGrant.xls8/25/200312:15 PM Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.Personnel Service Detail: FIE GradelStep Amount Clean Cities Coordinator 1 I 602 40.440.00 Benefits 10,560.00 Total 51,000.00 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#5 CleanCitiesGrantxls8/25/200312:15 PM nau i awe Lny Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization • FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area:Growth/Quality of Life Goal and Objective: Customer Service Goal--Protect and Enhance the Environment:Conserve resources and proactively manage environmental issues. Measure: Increase the amount of alternative fuel used by Fleet by 30%by FY2005-06. 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 companion without which analysis cannot be effective.The criteria vanes from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comp'brable 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 critera.It is best described in terns of a dollar impact or 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 Mayor's Office applies for and receives this grant annually from the State of Utah, Department of • Natural Resources Energy Office. These funds will be used for the salary, benefits, supplies and travel of the Clean Cities Coordinator. They are awarded for the purpose of continuing the coordination assistance in promoting the use of alternative fuel vehicles (AFV) and the ultimate development of a refueling and vehicle maintenance infrastructure,to educate the public of AFV's and collect and distribute information regarding AFV performance,costs and technology. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. The necessary resolution was previously adopted,authoring the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional contracts or awards related to the grant. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • G.Grant Criteria:A grant wit satisfy one of the following four criteria. 1- In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used to pay the operational expenses to continue the City's Clean Cities program. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Probable. Program has continued to be funded for several years. City will continue to apply as funding is available from State. 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. Program could be eliminated within the City. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. These funds are City specific. • bait Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 Sorenson/Intel Computer Clubhouse Intel Foundation Amendment#1 Initiative#6 Initiative Name Initiative Number Sean Martini Sherrie Collins 908-6234/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant requiring existing staff resources Not Applicable Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable • Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change . Estimated future$ A.Revenue impacted by Fund and Source: lstYear 2nd Year 3rd Year 1. General Fund -- FY 2003-04 . FY 2004-05 FY-2005-06 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 30,000 15,000 15,000 Total $30.000 $15,000 $15,000 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 30,000 15,000 15,000 Total $30,000 $15,000 $15.000 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 30,000 15,000 15,000 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Travel, Supplies Total $30,000 $15.000 $15.000 el BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#6 IntelGrant.xls8/25/200312:15 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • • D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount Coordinator-Continuation for 3 year period 1 305 30,000.00 Total 30,000.00 I - • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#6 IntelGrant.xls8/25/200312:15 PM Oilll Lil1iC <,1LV l.,orporatlon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: I Focus Area : Community Building/Diversity Goal and Objective: Customer Service Goal—Strengthen Neighborhoods: Improve neighborhoods by managing growth, investing in quality of life initiatives, and celebrating diversity. Measure: Increase the opportunities for youth to engage in effective, research based, after-school and summer programs—establish baseline and increase after-school and summer programs by 10% each year. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. --I 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: III The Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center received an additional $30,000 from the Intel Foundation for continued operation of the Computer Clubhouse. These funds will continue to pay the salary of the full time Coordinator position for an additional year. The Coordinator manages the Clubhouse youth programs, provides community outreach, recruits and trains volunteer mentors, and assists with other Sorenson Technology Center programs and activities. The Technology Center currently provides adults and youth with open computer access, adult Computer Fundamentals literacy courses, Word Processing, using the Internet, and After School, summer and evening youth computer activities. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the grant. The necessary resolution was previously adopted, authoring the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional contracts or awards related to 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. 1- In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? The Computer Clubhouse expects to provide services to approximately 125 youth ages 8-18 within the next year in addition to approximately 900 registered drop-in youth from the surrounding area. Program provides current services to approximately 35 youth on a daily bases and has a membership of approximately 200. Question 2 -What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? Grant is renewable for an additional 1 year period beyond this grant funding cycle. $15,000 will be available next year for continuation of program. It is the goal of the Administration to obtain other private • and federal funds to continue the programs at their current level. Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? Yes. Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. However, other funding sources will be applied for to maintain the current level of service and to continue program in the future. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. There are no other programs within Salt Lake County that duplicates the Intel Computer Clubhouse program. Other organizations do not offer any similar programming to youth within the Westside Community. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 VOCA Grant State of Utah.CCJJ Office of Crime Victim Reparations Amendment#1 Initiative#7 Initiative Name Initiative Number Wes Galloway/Sherrie Collins 799-3474/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone n or Contact Person Grant requiring existing staff resources 03-VOCA-34 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: lstYear 2nd Year 3rd Year - FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $01 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 55,183.11 . Total $55,183.11 $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 55,183.11 55,183.11 55,183.11 Total $55.183.11 $55.183.11 $55.183.11 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 51,261.61 51,261.6s 51,261.60 2.Employee Benefits 3,921.51 3,921.51 3,921.51 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply .. 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay-Equipment 6.Other(Specify) Total S55.183.11 S55.183.11 $55,183.11 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#7 PDVocaGrant.xls8/25/200312:16 PM • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.Personnel Service Detail FTE Grade/Step Amount No additional Impact -Current Positions Continued funding for three part time advocates. 3 PTE Salary-Victim Advocates-Current S18,394.37 each 0.5 51.261.60 3 PTE Benefits-Victim Advocates -Current S1,307.17 each 0.5 3,921.51 Total 55,183.11 • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#7 PDVocaGrant.xls8/25/200312:16 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization • FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area:Public Safety Goal and Objective:Customer Service Goal--Reduce Crimes Against Persons: Reduce person crimes(homicide,rape,robbery and aggravated assault)rates by 5%over the next five years. Measure: Show a 5%reduction in crimes against persons over the next five years. F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective.The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact.If an effect cannot be identified,there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding.It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes 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 applies for and receives these funds annually from the State of Utah, CCJJ, Crime Victims Reparations. These funds will continue to pay the salary and benefits of 3 part-time victim advocate positions who are currently paid from VOCA grant funds. This program provides victim advocate services to victims of domestic violence and non-domestic sexual assault and stalking. The Grant requires a 20% Match which is will met with 692 hours of the Victim Advocate Coordinator position. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the Grant. The necessary resolution was previously adopted,authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional contracts or awards related to 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. 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. I Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? Yes. Continued funding for 3 part-time victim advocate positions. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Last year, the Victim Advocate Program served 3,768 (66%) of the 5,671 domestic violence and aggravated assault cases referred to the program by SLCPD. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is very probable that the Police Department will receive these funds if State continues program. • 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. Police Department would need to absorb the costs associated with the program or cease providing these services. Program could possibly continue but at a lower service level. Question 6 - Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. These funds are jurisdiction specific. 0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Community and Economic Development 2003-04 • HAND Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 Lead Based Paint Program HUD Pass through funds from County Amendment#1 Initiative#8 Initiative Name Initiative Number LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant requiring no staff resources HUD Pass through funds from County Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue impacted by Fund and Source: 1stYear 2ndYear 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 503,300 Total $503,300 $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 503,300 Total $503,300 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1. Salaries and Wages 2. Employee Benefits 3. Operating and Maintenance Supply 4. Charges and Services 503,300 5. Capital Outlay 6. Other(Specify) Total $503,300 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#8 LeadbasedPaintGrant.xls8/25/200312:16 PM Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.Personnel.Service Detail: FTE GradelStep Amount No Impact. • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#8 LeadbasedPaintGrant.x1s8/25200312.16 PM Sau l.axe k,1ty k_,orporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization • No impact on 6-Year Balanced Scorecard Business Plan, however, this does align with the City Council policy focus on housing. 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 offen`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 County Division of Community Resources and Development received grant funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to conduct a Lead Hazard Control Program designed to help owners of single and multi family housing units, do interim control of lead based paint hazards. Funds will be used for lead based paint inspections, where rehab will be less than $5,000; risk assessments, and lead hazard control activities which includes replacement of windows or doors, and/or paint stabilization as specified by the risk assessment, clearance tests, relocation costs, and training. Funds will be sub granted by the City to eligible applicants. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the Grant. There is no resolution for this agreement as determined by the City Attorney's Office. • 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. /- In some cases, the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2- Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3- Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question I -1Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are tile performance measures of each program? These funds will be granted to eligible property owners for lead based paint interim controls. The grant requires that the funding be targeted for rental properties with five or more units and/or where children under six are residing. Question 2 -What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? None. 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? Possibly. Larger lead based paint grants for multi-family units will not be available to community for this 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. This grant was awarded in conjunction with the County Division of Community Resources and Development, Salt Lake Valley Health Department and City. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Community and Economic Development 2003-04 • HAND Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 RDA-Housing Trust Fund CED HUD Pass through funds from County Amendment#1 Initiative#9 Initiative Name Initiative Number LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By Enter phone#of contact person Grant requiring no staff resources RDA Funds Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future'$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year_ 2ndYear _ -- 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. Gene`al Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Housing Trust RDA Fund 72-60011 1,102,268 1,102,268 1,102,268 Total $1,102,26 $1,102,26 $1,102,268 • 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 Housing Trust RDA Fund 72-60011 1,102,268 1,102,268 1,102,268 Total $1,102.26 $1,102,26 $1,102,268 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) 72-60011 1,102,268 1.102,268 1,102,268 Total $1,102.268 $1,102,268 $1,102,268 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#9 CEDHousingTrust.xls8/25/200312:17 PM • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount No Impact. • it • i BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#9 CEDHousingTrust.xls8/25/200312:17 PM Jain i,UKe city corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization 1 • No impact on 6-Year Balanced Scorecard Business Plan, however, this does align with the City Council policy focus on housing. 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 deeperirito 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: CED Housing and Neighborhood Development applied for and received this annual grant from the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) to be used for Housing Trust Fund purposes. These funds will be used to pay all or part of land acquisition and the cost of installation, construction and/or io rehabilitation of any building, facility, structure or other housing improvements including infrastructure improvements related to "Affordable Housing" located in any project area within Salt Lake City, or; to pay part or all costs of land acquisition, or construction or rehabilitation of"Income Targeted Housing", or to replace housing lost as a result of redevelopment, economic development or education housing development whether or not located in any project area within Salt Lake City. The term "Affordable Housing" means housing owned and occupied by or rented to persons and families of low or moderate income whose households' earning do not exceed 120% of median income as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development as adjusted for household size in RDA targeted neighborhoods. The term "Income Targeted Housing" means housing to be owned or occupied by a family whose income is at or below 80% of median annual income for Salt Lake County. It is recommended that the City Council appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the funds. S 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? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Housing Trust Fund/Housing related infrastructure improvements. Question 2 -What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? NA. Question 3 -Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? NA. Question 4 -Is the program that the grant funds, a program that can accomplish its goals within the grant funding time frame? Yes. Question 5 - Will there be a significant service level impact on the community once the grant funds become unavailable? Yes. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector?Is there a better fit in an other jurisdiction or entity? No. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Fire Department 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year Fire Department Assistance Grant State of Utah.Dept of Natural Resources Division of Forestry,Fire and State Lands Amendment#1 Initiative#10 Initiative Name Initiative Number John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone if of Contact Person Grant requiring no staff resources Not applicable-State pass through funds Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year -2nd Year - 3rd Year FY 2003.04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1.General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2.Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3.Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 • B.Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Sources 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 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total $5.000 $5.000 $5.000 C.Expenditure Impact Detail 1.Salaries and Wages 2.Employee Benefits 3.Operating and Maintenance Supply 4.Charges and Services 5.Capital Outlay-Equipment 5,000 5,000 5,000 6.Other(Specify) Total $5.000 55.000 $5,000 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#10 Fire Dept State Grant xls8/251200312:17 PM Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D._Personnel Service Detail , FCE Grade/Step Amount No Impact • • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#10 Fire Dept State Grant.xls8/25/200312:17 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment •E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area: Public Safety Goal and Objective: Efficiency and Effectiveness Goal--Promote Professional Customer Interactions: Provide city employees with customer service training to raise customer satisfaction level. Measure: Complete 350 community training events with 19,000 participants annually. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: •The Fire Department applies for and receives these funds annually from the State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands. These funds will be used to purchase equipment such as helmets, gloves, manuals and other related equipment for use and distribution to the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), The Grant requires a 50% Match which can be in-kind or cash and is budgeted for within the Fire Departments General Fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council accept the grant and appropriate the necessary budget to facilitate the Grant. The necessary resolution was previously adopted, authorizing the Mayor to accept the grant and to sign all additional contracts or awards related to the grant. • Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment 0 G. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfyone of the followingfour criteria. 1 - In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2 - Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4 - None of the above. Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used to purchase and distribute equipment to the CERT participants. CERT is the Community Emergency Response Team program, which provides residents with emergency preparedness training. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? It is very probable that the Fire Department will receive these funds if State continues program. 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? Possibly. Fire Department would need to absorb the costs associated with the program or cease providing these services to residents. 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 2003-04 III Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 Crime Scene Investigation State of Utah, CCJJ, Byrne Crime Scene Investigation and Technology Grant Amendment#1 Initiative#11 Initiative Name Initiative Number Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant requiring no staff resources 16-579 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2ndYear _ 3rdYear 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 Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 5,000 Total $5,000 $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 5,000 Total $5,000 $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(Specify) Equipment 5,000 Total $5,000 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#11 PDByrneGrant.xls8/25/200312:17 PM Salt Lake City Corporation • - Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D..Personnel Service Detail: - FTE Grade/Ste p Amount.. No Impact. • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#11 PDByrneGrant.xls8/251200312:17 PM gait Lake city corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: The Police Department applied for and received this grant from the State of Utah, CCJJ, Byrne Crime Scene Investigation. These funds will be used to purchase, equipment that includes 5 Digital Cameras, 1 Digital Video Microscope and 2 Evidence Collection Kits. This equipment will be used by • the PD Crime Lab for crime scene investigations. It is expected that by using Digital Cameras, the PD will see a annual cost savings of approximately $25,000 to $50,000. The Grant requires a 44% match which will be met within the Police Departments general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution and appropriate budget to facilitate the Grant. • Salt Lake City Corporation • • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment IIG. Grant Criteria: A grant will satisfy one of the following f our 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 I - 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 to purchase digital cameras for the Crime Lab to be used in crime scene investigations. 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. SQuestion 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. These funds are to be used specifically for crime scene investigative purposes. 0 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet - for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Salt Lake City Police Department 2003-04 4111 Department For Fiscal Year 03-04 Crime Prevention Project State of Utah, CCJJ, Utah Substance Abuse and Anti-Violence Coordinating Council Amendment#1 Initiative#12 Initiative Name Initiative Number Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Grant requiring no staff resources 3G07 Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A..Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund • Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund Miscellaneous 72 Grant Fund 6,000 • Total $6,000 $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 6,000 Total $6,000 $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(Specify) Educational Supplies 6.000 Total $6,000 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#12 PDCrimePreventGrant.xls8/25/200312:18 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D..Personnel Service-Detail: - F'CE Grade/Step Amount No Impact. • • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#12 PDGrimePreventGrant.xls8/25/200312:18 PM Salt LaKe uity i orporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization • FY2004 Balanced Scorecard Business Plan: Focus Area: Public Safety Goal and Objective: Expand Community Policing and Increase Public Safety--Develop a strong citizen perception of safety in our community. Measure: Maintain a rating of 4 (on a scale of 1-6) relative to citizens feeling safe in neighborhoods, in homes, in downtown areas and in parks. 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 applied for and received this grant from the State of Utah, CCJJ, Utah Substance Abuse and Anti-Violence Coordinating Council. These funds will be used to purchase, for distribution to the Community Mobile Neighborhood Watch groups, educational brochures, training manuals, window stickers, windbreakers and/or vests. This grant is classified as a one-time appropriation. The Grant requires an 11% cash match which will be met within the Police Departments general fund budget. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary resolution and appropriate 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. =In some cases. the General Fund or an Enterprise Fund of the City will use grant funding for projects or programs that have been identified by the Council for future funding. The General Fund or Enterprise Fund will provide funding once grant funding 2—Grant funding will be used when the use of the grant money will result in long-term financial savings or operating efficiencies. 3 - Grant funding will allow the City to build internal capacity to continue the service in the future. 4- None of the above. Question I - Will this grant fund employee positions? No. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? These funds will be used to purchase educational materials and supplies for the Mobile Neighborhood Watch Program. Currently there are approximately 200 volunteers City wide. Question 2 - What is the potential for continued grant funding for the position? None. This grant is classified as a one-time appropriation only. Question 3 - Is it expected that the positions can be eliminated once the grant funds are unavailable? ONA. 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. Police Department would need to absorb the costs associated with the program, seek additional funds from other sources/grants, or cease providing these services. Question 6 -Does the grant duplicate services that are provided in the private or non-profit sector? Is there a better fit in another jurisdiction or entity? No. These funds are jurisdiction specific. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet - for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Management Services 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year General Fund Encumbrance Carryovers Amendment#1 Initiative#13 Initiative Name Initiative Number Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping-encumbrance carryover N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Fund Balance 1,093,738 Total $1,093,738 $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 Departments (detailed below) 1,093,738 Total $1,093,7381 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4.Other Fund Total $0 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail Attorney 6,440.00 Community& Economic Development 239,748.00 Council 262,211.00 Fire 114,688.00 Mayor 57,302.00 Management Services 23,877.00 Non Departmental 60,920.00 Police 38,320.00 Public Services 290,232.00 *"Note***detail at the cost center, object and document level is available in the Finance Rm 248 $1.093.738.0a $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#13 GenFundEncum.xls8/25/20034:47 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#14 GenFundEncum.xls8/25/200312:19 PM salt LaI e City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization I • This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the•condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impacf:!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 criteri. 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: General Fund departments comparison to budget includes encumbrances that are outstanding at fiscal year end. Historically, the Council has appropriated fund balance to provide a means to "hold harmless" the General Fund departments prior year encumbrances. Without Council action, the General Fund departments' Fiscal 2004 appropriation will be forced to fund IP encumbrances outstanding at fiscal year end. The encumbering of funds at contract inception or purchase order issuance causes a timing difference between the "earmarking" of funds for an expenditure and the actual expenditure It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding encumbrances in the General Fund. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • Management Services 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Special Revenue Fund Encumbrance Carryovers Amendment#1 Initiative#14 Initiative Name Initiative Number Elwin Heilmann 535-6424 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping-encumbrance carryover N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year .3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG Operating (71) 2,512,974.12 Grants Operating (72) 6,396,361.28 Other Special Revenue(73) 0.00 Housing (78) 760,928.31 Donations (77) 303,222.51 Total $9,973,486.2 $0 $0 B. Expenditures Impacted.by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG Operating (71) 2,512,974.12 Grants Operating (72) 14,566,287.55 Other Special Revenue(73) 880,001.96 Housing (78) 2,705,753.54 Donations (77) 1,515,724.93 Total $22,180,742.1 $0 $0 C.Expenditure Impact Detail detail located in attached sheet • 30.00 SO $0 BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#14 SpecRevFundEncum.xls8/25/20034:48 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step° Amount • • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#15 SpecRevFundEncum.xls8/25/200312:19 PM • I • , . . ,. Cost Expense Expense Revenue Revenue FC center Description Object Amount Object Amount i . 71 7120015 HERITAGE FOUNDATION REV 20TH 2590 539,981.70 1310 539,9817O 71 7121040 CAPITAL HILL MASTER PLAN CD21ST 2590 4,161.97 1310 4,161.97 71 7121042 NEIGH. SELF HELP GRANTS CD21ST 2590 2,910.48 1310 2,910.48 71 7122040 SUGARHOUSE MASTER PLAN CDBG-22 2590 1,255.04 1310 1,255.04 71 7122098 CIP CONTINGENCY CDBG 22ND YR 2590 13,268.90 1310 13,268.90 71 7123017 CPPD HOUSING MATCH 23RD 2590 13,936.59 1310 13,936.59 71 7123045 SUGARHOUSE MASTER PLAN 23RD 2590 8,430.50 1310 8,430.50 71 7124098 CONTINGENCY CDBG 24TH YEAR 2590 114,874.66 1310 114,874.66 71 7125017 SLC Housing Match Funding 2590 51,833.00 1310 51,833.00 71 7125019 Security Lock Program 2590 28.00 1310 28.00 71 7125055 Multi-Family Housing 2590 201,421.89 1310 201,421.89 71 7125098 Contingency-25th year 2590 56,653.88 1310 56,653.88 71 7126017 CPPD Housing Match 2590 100,000.00 1310 100,000.00 71 7126056 Central Community Master Plan 2590 9,278.50 1310 9,278.50 71 7126099 Contingency - 26th Year 2590 108,845.51 1310 108,845.51 71 7127012 NHS Revolving Loan Fund 2590 87,203.53 1310 87,203.53 71 7127013 Lead-based Paint Training 2590 15,000.00 1310 15,000.00 71 7127019 SL Housing Match Funding 2590 65,000.00 1310 65,000.00 71 7127041 Odyssey House 2590 4,624.10 1310 4,624.10 71 7127045 Marillac House 2590 12,000.00 1310 12,000.00 71 7127056 Westminster Master Plan 2590 3,955.00 1310 3,955.00 71 7127099 Contingency -27th Year 2590 173,735.45 1310 173,735.45 71 7128009 Project Delivery Costs 2590 111,469.00 1310 111,469.00 71 7128010 Hsg Rehab 291015 398,883.27 197478 398,883.27 71 7128011 Assist 2590 20,668.23 1310 20,668.23 71 7128012 NHS-Revolving Loan Fund 2590 36,449.56 1310 36,449.56 71 7128013 Prevent Child Abuse Utah 2590 3,911.68 1310 3,911.68 71 7128015 SL CDC 2590 202.00 1310 202.00 71 7128017 First Step House-Substance Abs 2590 1,386.00 1310 1,386.00 71 7128018 Multi-Ethnic Development Corp 2590 10,000.00 1310 10,000.00 71 71281)19 CPPD Housing Match 2590 90,000.00 1310 90,000.00 71 71281)25 People Helping People 2590 11,735.44 1310 11,735.44 71 71281)31 Weigand Homeless Day Center 2590 1,831.59 1310 1,831.59 71 71281)37 Mobile Neighborhood Watch 2590 7,064.92 1310 7,064.92 71 7128039 10th East Senior Center landsc 2590 45,140.12 1310 45,140.12 71 7128041 Utah Alcoholism Foundation 2590 10,000.00 1310 10,000.00 71 7128042 Utah Peace Institute-Young Ref 2590 7,500.00 1310 7,500.00 71 7128043 Utah Alcoholism Foundation 2590 8,000.00 1310 8,000.00 71 7128044 Nettie Gregory Center 2590 4,000.00 1310 4,000.00 71 7128045 Utah Issues-Care Coordinator 2590 2,463.48 1310 2,463.48 71 7128049 Housing Outreach Rental Progm 2590 1,404.34 1310 1,404.34 71 7128055 SugarHouse Sm Bs area plan 2590 13,069.40 1310 13,069.40 71 7128057 Emergency Funds 2590 5,250.00 1310 5,250.00 71 7128099 Contingency 2590 62,288.08 1310 62,288.08 71 7170631 CLEAN&SECURING VACANT PROP. 17 2590 70,265.11 1310 70,2a5J 1 71 7180901 OPERATING CONTINGENCY CDBG 18 2590 1,593.20 1310 1,593.20 CDBG Operating (71) Total 2,512,974.12 2,512,974.12 72 7200910 RENTER REHAB. 89/90 291015 433.22 0.00 72 7210202 FEMA Haz Mitigation Grant 2590 14,250.00 1360 14,250.00 72 7210302 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant 2590 20,000.00 1360 20,000.00 72 7210303 EOP - update 2590 27,042.00 1360 27,042.00 72 7210614 STATE EMS GRANT 2590 40,000.00 1370 40,000.00 ' 72 7215607 UDAG REVOLVING PAYBACK 2950 3,645,197.06 0.00 ' 72 7217004 HOUSING TRUST FUND UDAG 2950 3,055,755.32 0.00 72 7217006 BOARDED/TRANSITNAL HOUSING G.F 2590 38,392.23 0.00 72 7220006 FBI Weed and Seed 2590 10,705.14 1360 10,705.14. 72 7220105 Utah Police Corp 2590 14,924.00 1360 14,924.00 72 7220106 LLEBG 2000 2590 83.12 1360 83.12 72 7220111 Internet Crimes Against Kids 2590 9,503.00 1360 9,503.00 72 7220202 Victim Advocate Program - Coor 2590 1,562.80 1360 1,562.80 72 7220204 2001 LLEBG 2590 178,362.55 1360 178,362.55 72 7220206 Weapons of Mass Destruction 2590 28,713.76 1360 28,713.76 72 7220208 Victim Advocate Program Grant 2590 59,744.47 1360 59,744.47 72 7220210 Internet Crimes Against Kids 2590 5,249.00 1360 5,249.00 72 7220212 VAWA 2590 5,309.07 1360 5,309.07 72 7220213 HIDTA Grant 2590 53,594.00 1360 53,594.00 72 7220301 VOCA 2590 33,610.47 1360 33,610.47 72 7220302 Utah Highway Safety 2590 6,814.63 1360 6,814.63 72 7220305 LLEBG 2002 2590 218,506.49 1360 218,506.49 72 7220306 COPS Communications 2590 640,000.00 1360 640,000.00 72 7220307 COPS-Early Intervention 2590 122,871.44 1360 122,871.44 III S . , . , • • • 0 72 7220308 COPS-Supplemental Meth 2590 186,857.86 1360 186,857.86 72 7220309 VAWA 2590 16,897.41 1360 16,897.41 72 7220310 HIDTA 2003 2590 39,951.12 1360 39,951.12 72 7229804 COPS DEMONSTRATION CENTER 2590 51,640.54 1360 51,640.54 72 7229907 COPS School Based Partners 2590 48,835.49 1360 48,835.49 72 7230302 Intel Computer Clubhouse 2590 7,083.08 0.00 72 7230303 Hear our Voices 2590 13,195.05 1360 13,195.05 72 7260005 Family Support Center 2590 1,000.00 1360 1,000.00 72 7260009 Home Administration-25th Year 2590 45,179.75 1360 45,179.75 72 7260011 RDA Grant-Housing Trust Fund 2590 1,280,659.00 0.00 72 7260'101 NHS -26th Year 2590 127,126.25 1360 127,126.25 72 7260109 Home Administration - 26th Yr 2590 63,405.50 1360 63,405.50 72 7260112 Brownsfield Grant-Cleanup 2590 109,906.63 1360 109,906.63 72 7260113 Brownsfield Grant- IPA Positn 2590 4,446.91 1360 4,446.91 72 7260119 Clean Cities Program-DOE 2590 514.41 1360 514.41 72 7260201 NHS -27th Year 2590 98,688.78 1360 98,688.78 72 7260203 SL CDC 2590 35,447.80 1360 35,447.80 72 7260205 NHS -CHDO 2590 203,100.00 1360 203,100.00 72 7260207 ESG -27th Year 2590 1,814.32 1360 1,814.32 72 7260209 Home Administration -27th Yr 2590 135,400.00 1360 135,400.00 72 7260210 Utah Nonprofit Housing -27 Yr 2590 1,150.00 1360 1,150.00 72 7260215 Refugee Youth/Family Consortiu 2590 12,551.69 1360 12,551.69 72 7260217 Weed & Seed Grant 2590 6,666.98 1360 6,666.98 72 7260222 Pioneer Pk Use Plan 2590 60,000.00 1360 60,000.00 72 7260223 Historic Planning -survey 2590 16,683.69 1360 16,683.69 72 7260224 Historic Property - PR Campaig 2590 1,483.00 1360 1,483.00 72 7260301 NHS-CHDO 2590 150,000.00 1360 150,000.00 72 7260302 CDC-Horne Ownership Assist 2590 11,000.00 1360 11,000.00 72 7260303 CDC-Construction New Hsg 2590 135,000.00 1360 135,000.00 72 7260304 VAWA 2590 21,854.25 1360 21,854.25 f 72 7260305 NHS-CHDO 2590 163,600.00 1360 163,66070-G- 72 7260306 Pedestrian Crossing Design Corn 2590 71,449.13 1360 71,449.13 72 7260308 SLC Hand 2590 463,403.55 1360 463,403.55 72 7260309 Home Administration 2590 135,400.00 1360 135,400.00 72 7260310 Utah Nonprofit Housing 2590 104,102.00 1360 104,102.00 72 7260311 Historic Preservation-Sugarhse 2590 500.00 0.00 72 7260312 HOPWA 2590 85,218.44 1360 85,218.44 72 7260313 Traffic Control Operator Grant 2590 46,727.84 1360 46,727.84 72 7260314 Refugee Grant- Payroll Costs 2590 19,680.44 1360 19,680.44 72 7260315 Refugee Grant 2590 98,844.04 1360 98,844.04 72 7260317 Clean Cities - US Dept of Engy 2590 28,861.10 1360 28,861.10 72 7260318 Weed & Seed - Payroll Costs 2590 51,029.41 1360 51,029.41 72 7260319 Weed & Seed 2590 76,697.25 1360 76,697.25 72 7260321 VAWA 2590 8,963.75 1360 8,963.75 72 7260322 Citizen Corp Council 2590 14,636.00 1360 14,636.00 72 7260323 Safe Street Program 2590 50,000.00 1360 50,000.00 72 7263001 EDGAR Grant Fairmont Cottage 2590 92,720.00 1360 92,720.00 72 7263002 EDGAR Grant Ottinger Hall 2590 88,028.75 1360 88,028.75 72 7263003 EDGAR Grant Boxing Bldg 2590 88,994.81 1360 88,994.81 72 7263004 EDGAR Grant Sorenson Center 2590 38,232.00 1360 38,232.00 72 7263005 EDGAR Grant Central City 2590 31,920.00 1360 31,920.00 72 7263006 EDGAR Grant Global Artways 2590 90,940.42 1360 90,940.42 72 7263007 EDGAR Grant Admin-Salaries 2590 30,373.24 1360 30,373.24 72 7263008 EDGAR Grant Administration 2590 165,377.66 1360 165,377.66 72 7263009 EDGAR Grant Fairmont/Ottinger 2590 104,208.73 1360 104,208.73 72 7263010 EDGAR Grant Boxing Bldg Refurb 2590 161,741.11 1360 161,741.11 72 7263011 EDGAR Grant 2nd Yr Admin 2590 189,550.00 1360 189,550.00 72 7269905 HOME ADMINISTRATION 24TH 2590 2,215.00 1360 2,215.00 72 7270002 HHS - MMRS Grant 2590 41,200.62 1360 41,200.62 72 7270103 MMRS Grant . 2590 200,000.00 1360 200,000.00 72 7270105 Fire- EMS Grant 2590 67,522.77 1370 67,522.77 72 7270202 EMS State Grant 2590 92,304.30 1370 92,304.30 72 7270301 FEMA-Firefighter Safety Grant 2590 72,709.00 1360 72,709.00 72 7270302 EMS Grant 2590 98,250.00 1370 98,250.00 72 7270303 EMS - SLC Fire 2590 5,555.00 1370 5,555.00 72 7272000 Home Program Holding 2590 136,154.80 0.00 72 7272906 Riverpark Program Income 2590 5,751.56 0.00 72 7280101 Clean Cities Program-OES 2590 5,290.77 1360 5,290.77 72 7280102 Refugee Consor. Coordinator 2590 9,919.49 1360 9,919.49 72 7280103 Parley's Tunnel St Dept Resrce 2590 100,000.00 1360 100,000.00. 72 7280201 Clean Cities Program 2590 41,283.20 1360 41,283.20 72 7280301 Clean Cities 2590 1,658.09 1360 1 658:fl 72 7280302 Youth City Employment Program 2590 25,000.00 1360 25,000.00 72 7280303 Solar Roof Partnership 2590 40,110.00 1360 40,110.00 i i • .. III • • 72 7280304 International Rescue Committee 2590 2,000.00 1360 2,000.00 Grants Operating (72) Total 14,566,287.55 6,396,361.28 73 7300200 Neighborhood Matching Grant 2590 4,020.00 0.00 73 7300203 Neighborhood Matching Grant 02 2590 353,793.32 0.00 73 7300204 Neighborhoold Matching Grant 2590 116,362.09 0.00 73 7300500 Demolition Fund 2590 24,776.68 0.00 73 7300600 Awards and Recognitions 2590 50,000.00 0.00 / 73 7303035 Weed Abatement Fund 2590 176,901.56 %0.-00 73 7373001 Narcotics Evidence Trust Fund 2590 3,040.54 0.00 73 7373002 General Evidence Trust Fund 2590 90,995.05 , 0.00 73 7373003 Vice Evidence Sp. Rev. Fund 2590 2,150.16 0.00 73 7373008 Tenant Relocation 2590 34,462.56 0.00 73 7373009 Police Reward Fund 2590 23,500.00 0.00 Other Special Revenue (73) Total 880,001.96 0.00 , 78 7800201 Program Income Renter Rehab 2950 531,994.76 0.00 78 7827030 Home Loans 27th yr. 2950 254,413.27 1360 254,413.27 78 7828010 Housing 28th Year 291071 506,515.04 197403 506,515.04 78 7878006 City Housing Program 2590 700,000.00 0.00 78 7878325 HOME PROGRAM INCOME LOANS 2950 712,830.47 0.00 Housing Fund (78) Total 2,705,753.54 760,928.31 77 7700875 Youth City Programs 2950 78,365.90 0.00 77 7703040 EAST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD 2950 38,538.97 0.00 77 7709'100 Child Abduction Fund 2950 114.15 0.00 77 7710000 CYCLE SALT LAKE 2950 1,758.46 0.00 77 7777001 Master trust for budget puposes 2950 303,222.51 1895 303,222.51 77 7777103 Access Salt Lake City 2950 18,872.05 0.00 77 7777108 PARKS & REC. MAINT. TRUST 2950 48,555.03 0.00 77 7777112 Parks Division Flower Fund 2950 1.60 0.00 77 7777113 Development agree.Hughs Invst. 2950 53,954.00 0.00 77 7777114 Sorenson Ctr Afterschool/Summe 2950 4,479.62 0.00 77 7777115 Sorenson Ctr. Arts Prgrm trust 2950 9,889.17 0.00 77 7777116 Sorenson Ctr Sports Trust 2950 664.32 0.00 77 7777119 Sorenson Technology Center Trs 2950 20,837.78 0.00 77 7777121 Rainy Day Gallivan Trust 2950 333,214.04 0.00 77 7777'122 SLC Classic Donations 2950 22,257.48 0.00 77 7777123 Salt Lake City Fndation 501-C3 2950 110.82 0.00 77 7777'124 SLC Fire training center trust 2950 194,803.96 0.00 77 7777125 Eccles SLC Foundation Trust 2950 526.87 0.00 77 7777126 SLOC Tornado Pins 2950 12,621.83 0.00 77 7777130 Imagination Celebration 2950 376.69 0.00 77 7777131 Junior Golf donations 2950 4,557.14 0.00 77 7777132 SLC Tree Replacemnt Torna 1999 2950 107,667.80 0.00 77 7777134 Physical Fitness of Cities 2950 16,620.12 0.00 77 7777135 Greek Sculpture installation 2950 10,000.00 0.00 77 7777136 Police Equipment Endowment 2950 35,012.17 0.00 77 7777137 Fire Equipment Endowmnt Hansen 2950 102,273.13 0.00 77 7777139 Anna Palmer Award Fund 2950 5,046.81 0.00 77 7777140 Cannon Farms Indemnification 2950 1,803.50 , 0.00 77 7777760 STEINER ACQUATIC TRUST 2950 79,399.18 0.00 77 7777780 NEWSPAPERS FOR TREES 2950 10,179.83 0.00 Donations Fund (77) Total 1,515,724.93 303,222.51/ Grand Total 22,180,742.10 9,973,486.22 III • • • , Salt Lake City Corporation • Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment II E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dolla 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: City Council has in the past approved carryover budgets in these funds in order to complete the started projects. 40 After June 30, 2003, the spending authority of any remaining amounts held by these funds lapsed. Without Council action, the City cannot finish the started projects. Budgets in special revenue funds by state statute lapse at fiscal year end. It is recommended that the Council approve the carryover budgets for these special revenue funds It is recommended that the Council approve the budget for the outstanding encumbrances in the General Fund. • a1t Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet • for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003-04 • Department For Fiscal Year Encumbrance Roll-Fleet Fund Encumbrance Roll -Golf Fund Encumbrance Roll -Refuse Fund Amendment#1 Initiative#15 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeepinq-encumbrance carryover N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Fleet Fund Balance 852,607 Total $852,607 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Golf Fund Balance 46,086 Refuse Fund Balance 21,007 Total $67,093 $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 Fleet Fund 852,607 Total $852,607 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Golf Fund 46,086 Refuse Fund 21,007 Total $67,093 $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 85,506-- 4.Charges and Services 21,927 5.Capital Outlay 812,267 6. Other(Specify) $919.7001 $0 $0 I BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#15 GolfFundEncum.xls8/25/20034:50 PM • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.Encumbrance Roll Detail Object Code Amount Refuse Fund 2221 20 2275 20 2295 397 229501 100 O&M 537 2305 816 233606 357 233609 180 254970 1,262 C&S 2,615 276090 Capital 17,855 Total 21,007 Fleet Fund 2221 76 2233 1,807 2234 22,893 2299 445 223101 8,616 223104 28,037 223201 1,005 223401 49 • 224101 4,190 224104 4,971 224105 1,225 224106 186 224109 1,174 224111 929 229501 100 O&M 75,703 2395 833 233606 269 233609 166 2529 944 C&S 2,212 2710 23,713 2750 746,494 275010 4,485 Capital 774,692 Total 852,607 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#16 GolfFundEncum.xls8/25/200312:20 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Encumbrance Roll Detail Object Code Amount . Golf fund 5901010 2210 420 5901020 2210 420 5901025 2234 28 5901040 2221 5901050 1,1 2221 313 3 5901055 2234 5901060 2221 1,420 420 5901065 2292 3,100 5901065 224701 635 5901070 2221 420 5901075 2234 571 5901095 -I 224701 365 O&M Total 9,266 5901000 2375 4,495 5901000 ` 233606 54 5901005 233606 102 5901005 233609 123 5901015 233606 17 5901015 233609 29 5901025 233606 118 5901025 233609 5901030 1 17 233606 17 5901030 233609 22 5901035 2329 334 5901035 233606 33 5901035 233609 76 5901040 233606 52 • 5901040 233609 154 5901050 2356 24 5901050 233606 17 5901050 233609 33 5901055 2329 9,568 5901055 233606 17 5901055 233609 13 5901060 233606 22 5901060 233609 22 5901065 233606 50 5901065 233609 42 5901070 2356 24 5901075 254970 1,200 5901090 233601 120 5901095 2513 197 C&S Total 17,100 5901040 2750 3,465 5901050 2750 3,465 5901065 2750 12,790 Capital Total 19,720 T O T A L 46,086 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#16 GolfFundEncum.xls8/25/200312:20 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • E.Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F.Issue Discussion:A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria,condition,effect,cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected.It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective.The criteria varies from issue to issue.In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or policy.In other cases,it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices.It is the information to which the criteria is compared. ' Effect is the difference,if any,between the condition and criteria.It is best described in terms of a dollar impact orna 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 vanes from the criteria.Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause.By doing so.it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: State law requires that all budgets,except that of the Capital Project Fund,lapse at June 30th or fiscal year end. Historically, purchase orders encumbered near the end of the fiscal year are not paid by • June 30th and therefore the payment will occur in the next fiscal year. Because the budget from the prior fiscal year lapsed,it is necessary to again appropriate funds to cover the purchase commitments made in the prior year and paid in the current year. The funding source for this type of transaction is fund balance. Cash or revenue collected in the prior year and not spent lapses to fund balance or cash reserves and is therefore available to cover the commitments made. This amendment request will appropriate budget in the amount of$852,607 for Fleet,$46,086 for Golf and$21,007 for Refuse. There is adequate fund balance to accomplish this request. 11111 Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Community and Economic Development 2003-04 HAND Department For Fiscal Year CDBG Recaptures Amendment#1 Initiative#16 Initiative Name Initiative Number LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6129/535-6150 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping-Recapture project balances CDBG Recaptures Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG 83 Grant Funded Projects (125,556.25) CDBG 83 Grant Funded Contingency 125,556.25 Total $0.00 $0 $0 • B. Expenditures-Impacted by Fund and Source: 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0_ 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Total $0 $0 $0 4. Other Fund CDBG 83 Grant Funded Projects (125,556.25) CDBG 83 Grant Funded Contingency 125,556.25 Total $0.00 $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) Recapture of CDBG Project Balances 0.00 Total $0.00 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#16 CDBG Recaptures.xls8/25/20034:49 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • D.CDBG Recapture List Decrease Increase 23rd Year 83-98065 Pioneer Park Historic Plaza 8,060.00 83-98098 CIP Contingency 8,060.00 25th Year 2,000.00 83-00062 Jordan River Parkway Design 2,000.00 83-00098 CIP Contingency 26th Year 83-01052 Montrose Avenue Block Redesign 2,164.65 83-01060 Jordon River Security Lighting 1,145.00 83-01065 800 West Street Improvements 45,614.41 83-01098 CIP Contingency , 48,924.06 27th Year 83-02051 ADA Park Evaluations 49,357.24 83-02061 Poplar Grove Playground Replacement 17,053.63 83-02063 Skateboard Park-Jordan Park 161.32 83-02098 CIP Contingency 66,572.19 Total 125,556.25 125,556.25 BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#17 CDBG Recaptures.xls8/25/200312:20 PM salt l.ai e i itv Lorporatlon Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet _ for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization 11111 This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into management Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the condition to be in line with the criteria. Issue Discussion: This action recaptures the remaining balances of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) infrastructure projects, that have been completed or funds have not been spent within the allotted timeframe. Balance of funds are placed into same year contingency accounts for future CDBG reprogramming or project cost overruns. • It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary action to recapture remaining balances of completed CDBG projects/programs and place in Contingency accounts of the same year. . Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment • 1G. 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. I` Question 1 - Will this grant fund employee positions? NA. What programs are funded with this grant and what are the performance measures of each program? Various CDBG Projects and Programs could be funded with recaptured funds. Original infrastructure projects are 100% complete. 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? 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? NA. • Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment Public Services 2003-04 Department For Fiscal Year Reestablish budget for delayed capital -golf Amendment#1 Initiative#17 Initiative Name Initiative Number Greg Davis 535-6397 Prepared By Enter Phone#of Contact Person Housekeeping N/A Type of Initiative Enter Grant CFDA#As Applicable Fiscal Impact of Proposed.Change Estimated future$ A. Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 1. General Fund Total $0 $0 $0 2. Internal Service Fund Total $0 $0 $0 3. Enterprise Fund Golf Fund Balance 176,316 Total $176,31 $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 Golf Fund 176,316 Total $176,31 $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 176,316 6. Other(Specify) $176,316 $0 $0 • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#17 GolfFundCapital.xls8/25/20034:52 PM Salt Lake City Corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment D. Encumbrance Roll Detail Object Code Amount Tee signs 5901000 All courses $ 60,000 7-Reel gang mower 5901025 Glendale $ 14,000 Irrigation wiring modifications 5901035 Forest Dale $ 3,000 Fence 5901055 Nibley $ 10,000 7-Reel gang mower 5901055 Nibley $ 14,000 Car path improvements 5901055 Nibley $ 13,566 Pro Shop upgrades 5901090 Jordan River $ 12,750 Equipment 5901095 Jordan River $ 49,000 $176,316 • • BA#1 FY2004 Initiative#18 GolfFundCapital.xls8/25/200312:21 PM gait Lake city corporation Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet for Budget Development and Budget Amendment E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization This action has no impact on the FY2004 balanced scorecard business plan measurable goals and targets. F. Issue Discussion: A complete justification will contain a discussion of each of the elements mentioned below; criteria, condition, effect, cause and recommendation. Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. it provides a basis for comparison without which analysis cannot be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. in straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or policy. in other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city. Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared. Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. it is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding. Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy o,cbudget but often goes deeperinto 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 area has become a highly competitive golf market. Increases in the number and quality of competing courses reduce a golfer's tolerance for mediocre course conditions. Golf operations that consistently attract and hold the loyalty of their clientele follow a careful spending plan for regular maintenance and equipment replacement that promotes long-term course quality. Salt Lake City Golf has devised a course maintenance and equipment replacement strategy designed to provide a quality golf experience for its customers and to maintain a position of prominence in the Salt Lake golf market. To continue to offer a competitive golf experience, Salt Lake City golf must continually address maintenance projects and adhere to an equipment replacement schedule. Course quality is severely compromised by the use of outdated or overage equipment. Failure to maintain the highest standards of course quality will cause golfers to take their business elsewhere, resulting in decreased rounds and associated revenue. Due to the seasonal and weather-dependent nature of the golf business, some capital outlay decisions are made when the financial picture is more clear for the prior fiscal year. This delay can cause an increase in fund balance as budgeted capital remains unspent. Recommendation: Approve the use of fund balance for scheduled equipment replacement. Au G 2 6 2003 ALISON WEYHER � y►��,� ROBS C. ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 18, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Two (2)resolutions uthorizing the Mayor to accept two State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice grants. STAFF CONTACT: Sherrie Collins, 535-6150 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolutions BUDGET IMPACT: $ 11,000 in grant revenue DISCUSSION: • State of Utah, CCJJ, Crime Prevention Project $6,000.00 The SLCPD will use these funds to purchase, for distribution to the Community Mobile Neighborhood Watch groups, educational brochures, training manuals, window stickers, windbreakers and/or reflective vests. State of Utah, CCJJ,Byrne Crime Scene Investigation $5,000.00 The SLCPD will use these funds to purchase equipment that includes five (5) digital cameras, one(1) digital video microscope and two (2) evidence collection kits to be used in the Police Department's crime lab. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 11 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 �« aecrcEo AP[R Salt Lake City Corporation CAMP DOCUMENT ROUTING FORM CITY SIGNATURE AND ACTIVATION PROCESS August 12,2003 Contract Number: 06-5-04-0219 Project: Contractor: 09998 UTAH STATE CRIMINAL & JUVENILE JUSTICE Contract Title: CRIME SCENE INVEST/TECH GRANT-STATE&CCJJ Monitor: SHERRIE COLLINS Please complete your Step and forward to the next Step. 4 ,0 I certify that funds are available. OR Accounting Signature Date I certify that no encumbrance is required at this time and any future encumbrance will be checked against available budget by the accounting system. ,c‘j--) 111j ( -:1" . • \.) Accounting Signature ' Date N Funding Source: Dept Cost Center Object Code Attach additional paperwork if more funding sources are needed. Limit$ STEP 2 eltfArt90Eir'S OFFICE-Phi*ApprovalAk ; I Attorne Insurance Required: N Perf Bond Required: N Pmt Bond Required: N This document has been approved as to form. Attorney's Signature Date 11 ; CO ;4t-EPA, :n1 INSTRUCTIONS: Sign ALL documen Authorized Signer: ame Dept/Div Forward ALL Signed documents to the Recorder's Office STEP 4 RECORDER'S OFFICE-Activate INSTRUCTIONS: activated,keep 1 signed document,send other signed document(s)to: Name Department or Division Phone • RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF UTAH, UTAH COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, BYRNE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION AND TECHNOLOGY GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and ' WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $5, 000 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of : Purchasing equipment to include Digital Cameras, a Digital Video Microscope and two evidence Collection Kits . • 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake . City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date At,e3 By'ei4, �c • 0_l,OF Tg, State o-.H a -w$ h, -�-� O � ! i � /I p -..d` }.�a.,��.� •t.rti.-&.E.k-.ter ..-__',i`€.,t_:�,._ Michael O.Leavitt Governor Susan V.Burke Director Diane Ngatuvai 101 State Capitol Building•Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-0651 USAAV Assistant (801)538.1921•FAX (801)538-1024•www.usaay.utah.gov June 30, 2003 Krista Dunn Grants Manager Salt Lake City Police 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Ms. Dunn: It is my privilege to inform you that the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice has approved an award in support of the Salt Lake City Police Department's Crime Prevention Project, in the amount of$6,000 ($667 cash match required). Please use the assigned grant number, 3G07, in all correspondences regarding this project. The award period is from July 1,2003 —September 30, 2003. In order to process your award, please complete, sign and return the enclosed Grant Change Request • Form,to reflect the actual grant award amount per budget category. This form must be received by July 9,2003. This grant is classified as one-time in nature. Therefore, reporting requirements have been kept to a minimum. Once you have completed your grant purchases,please complete the following two forms to close out this grant. These forms must be received no later than October 30, 2003. • Progress Report detailing how the funds were expended and the benefit to the organization. • Financial Status Report to request reimbursement of grant funds. • Receipts to verify purchases. The forms for the Progress Report and the Financial Status Report are available on-line: www.justice.utah.gov. Within the Grant Section, click on"General CCJJ Grant Forms." Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this award.My phone number is 801-538-1921 or email, sburke(a,utah.gov. Sincerely, Susan Burke � `° Director U , ; e COORD •UNCIL 47 I) / State of (Rah For CCJJ use ONLY: ' 6-rf-q— Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 1.Implementing Agency Name d•C©• t�f 0 n V/7 1� 101 State Capitol Salt Lake City Police L� Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0651 315 East 200 South Ph: (801)538-1031 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 APR 7 2003 Fax: (801)538-1024 2.Type of Application(check one) 3.Agency Type(check one) A ii-4�y�.,, X Initial Cl Continuation Cl State X City 1( If continuation, previous grant#: Cl County 0 Not for Profit 4.Phone number: Fax number: 5.Beginning&Ending Dates of Program: (801)799-3265 (801)799-3640 July 1,2003 to June 30,2004 E-mail Address: Krista.dunn@ci.slc.ut.us 6.Type of Criminal Justice Agency: (Check one) 7.Will this award (check one) X Law Cl Pretrial 0 Victim Enforcement Services Assistance X Enhance an Existing Program Cl Corrections Cl Prosecution Cl Juvenile 0 Initiate a New Program Cl Adjudication 0 Public Cl Other Defense 8. What grant program are you requesting?(Check one) Crime 0 Byrne 0 Challenge 0 State Gang 0 JAIBG 0 Title II Reduction Planning IlkTitle V 0 RSAT X Crime Cl SIS Cl N-Chip 0 VOITIS Prevention 9.Congressional District(s)Served 10.Federal Tax Identification Number 11.Title which describes the 1 and 2 (876000279) program to be funded: SLCPD Crime Prevention Project 13.Budget Summary Total Project Costs Federal Grant Funds Cash M. .h In-Kind Match A. Personnel $73,000 $8,000 -0- $65,000 B. Contracted Fees 1.00 -0 /4-4.0_ -0- C. Equipment $27,900 ,900 -0- -0- D.Travel/Training- $4,600 600 $1,000 -0- E. Supplies/Operating $21,250 $10,500 $10,750 -0- F. Confidential Funds 0.00 -0- -0-' -0- Column Totals $126,750 $50,000 $11,750 $65,000 14.*Name of Official Authorized to Sign 15.**Name of Program Director Ross .Anderson,Mayor Krista Dunn, Grants Manager Signatures = e. �} l¢ ; , ' - . a at-Milt? �'� -%��'�c-''fit ssrit^ ,ems_�� . 3 ��Y,'�'>� - �•;"•��5��?'gK'�.€��;2.�'r�..TxY' � .� -�:r 'Svc-.��'+,� �� ate' --�<�:�'F`, "",E��.� � � `�.� �r<� Authorizing Official Program Dire =`" 'az: L r`* 3. ` APPROVED U;Ff 4 :t _ g >4 ; -5_- - - ; .rt, -�` 5Stt Lake iry Attorneys mice Date '� d13 -of u r-• .i-- _ ae d r- -0 3 '-^� ,,yorT� _ STATE OF UTAH 1. Grant# 3G07 111 a Commission on Criminal &Juvenile Justice t » ' 101 State Capitol Name: Crime Prevention Project Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 (801) 538-1031 Fax: (801) 538-1024 2. Grant Program Gang Mini-Grant 3. Grantee: Salt Lake City Police Department 4. Nature of Adjustment Address: 315 E 200 S SLC, UT 84111 Extension to: Phone# 799-3265 Fax# 799-3640 x Budget Adjustment to reflect award 5. Grant Change Request Number: 1 Other: 6. Budget Summary (to be completed only if requesting a Budget Adjustment) Item Total Costs Grant Funds Cash Match In-kind Match Request Current Request Current Request Current Request Current Personnel $ 73,000 $ 8,000 $ 0 $ 0 $65,000 Contracts $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Equipment $ 27,900 $ 27,900 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Travel $ 4,600 $ 3,600 $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0 Supplies , 6_67 $ 21,250 $ 10,500 667 $ 10,750 $ 0 $ 0 Other $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 . TOTAL $ 6,667 $ 126,750 $ 6,000 $ 50,000 $ 667 $ 2,123 $ 0 $65,000 COSTS: 7. Justification for the adjustments being made in request (Use as much space as necessary-form will expand) As 6, 667 has been approved for this project, SLCPD has opted to spend all approved funding on educational materials for Community education projects, and Mobile Neighborhood Watch and Neighborhood Watch training and supplied. The following is the break-out of funds : $3, 567 for 3, 000 educational brochures $ 600 for 150 Mobile Neighborhood Watch Training Manuals $1 , 000 for 10 ,000 Neighborhood Watch Window Stickers $1 , 500 for 100 Mobile Neighborhood Watch Windbreakers or Vests $6, 667 TOTAL Grant Program Director(nature) Date: Approved by CCJJ Official (Signature) Date: 7/ _ 6-24-03 APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office -late /1 el- 'c Salt Lake City Corporation CAMP DOCUMENT ROUTING FORM CITY SIGNATURE AND ACTIVATION PROCESS August 12,2003 Contract Number: 06-5-04-0218 Project: Contractor: 09998 UTAH STATE CRIMINAL & JUVENILE JUSTICE Contract Title: CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT GRANT/STATE&CCJJ Monitor: SHERRIE COLLINS Please complete your Step and forward to the next Step. $70 I :ACOUM:OG DIOSIONL Encumber Funds I certify that funds are available. OR Accounting Signature Date I certify that no encumbrance is required at this time and any future encumbrance will be checked against available budget by the accounting system. t It/ C Accounting Signature Date Funding Source: Dept Cost Center Object Code Attach additional paperwork if more funding sources are needed. Limit$ ,01, '"„ ciTirArToOttr$ 111' Attorn Insurance Required: N Perf Bond Required: N Pmt Bond Required: N This document has been approved as to form. Attorney's Signature Date ptp,3 11!:: , 34 411iiibitwOM-0;41sign INSTRUCTIONS: Sign ALL document Authorized Signer: Name Dept/Div Forward ALL Signed documents to the Recorder's Office STEP 4 „ CoRIWiS INSTRUCTIONS: eTras 'voted,keep 1 si d document, send other signed document(s)to: e Mk/3 60/S—t- Department or Division Phone RESOLUTION NO. OF 2003 AUTHORIZING SALT LAKE CITY TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF UTAH, UTAH COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, CRIME PREVENTION PROJECT GRANT WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13 Utah Code Ann. , as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached grant Award has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1 . It does hereby authorize and approve of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION accepting the $6, 000 . 00 of grant funding as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, to expend for the purposes of : Purchasing educational materials, supplies and vests to be used by Mobile Neighborhood Watch in their crime prevention efforts . 2 . Ross C. Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to receive said grant awards and contributions and execute any and all subsequent agreements between the City and other entities resulting from the said Award on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, so long as such subsequent agreements do not depart substantively from the grant award approved herein. Passed by the City council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day day of , 2003 . Salt Lake City Council By Chairperson ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake Ci /Attorneys Office Date / �1 k/V, • , +,0 Michael O.Leavitt Governor Edward S.McConkie 101 State Capitol•Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0651 Executive Director (801) 538-1031 •FAX: (801)538-1024•www.justice.utah.gov July 28, 2003 Krista Dunn Salt Lake City Police Dept. 315 East 200 South SLC, UT 84111 RE: 2003 Edward Byrne Memorial Law Enforcement Grant Award Dear Ms. Dunn: It is my privilege to inform you that the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) has approved an award in support of the SLC Police Crime Scene Investigations, in the amount of$5,000.00. Please use the assigned grant number, 3D38, in all correspondence regarding this project. The award period is from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. By accepting this award, you assume certain administrative and financial responsibilities including the S timely submission of all financial and programmatic reports, and resolution of all audit findings. Should your organization not adhere to the terms and conditions of this award, it is subject to termination for cause or other administrative action as appropriate. For these reasons, I encourage you to read the Certified Assurances and Grant Conditions, as they summarize important grant management issues. Concerns have been raised by the U.S. Department of Justice regarding Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) plans. Therefore, we are requesting from all grantees that meet the EEO threshold (50 or more employees and$25,000 in grant funds), that an updated copy of your governmental agency's EEO plan be forwarded to CCJJ for review if not done already. Please note that Narrative Progress Reports, Financial Status Reports, and Program Income Reports (where applicable) are due quarterly on January 30,April 30,July 30, and October 30. A final report summarizing each quarter's activities is due within 90 days of the end of the grant period. Reporting forms can be accessed at our web site at www.justice.utah.qov. Click onto"Grants"and then to"Report Forms." Each of the reports mentioned above are available along with a Grant Change Request form used to make changes in your budget or program. If you have difficulty accessing any of the forms, please call your program manager for assistance. Note that all project-related materials and accounting records must be maintained for a period of three years from the date of your last financial status report, unless an audit has been initiated or unresolved audit findings remain. All records must be maintained until the audit findings are resolved. If you have any questions regarding this award, please contact Richard Ziebarth with CCJJ, at(801) 538- 1812 or e-mail RZiebarthutah.gov. We look forward to working with you in the months ahead. Sincerely, Richiebaith Byrne Grant Program Manager CLIP'J Where ideas connect" cc: Mayor Ross Anderson state or utan ..,,,, .,...-.. fit' 7/ of Commissior, I Criminal and ( ; ;, a , i Juvenile Justice "' 101 State Capitol Salt Lake City Corporation Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0651 3 I Ph: (801)538-1031 451 South State Street F°" Fax: (801)538-1024 SLC, UT 84111 do Applicant Agency: Salt Lake City Police Dept. ' 315 East 200 South SLC, UT 84111 2.Type of Application (check one) 3. Level of Government(check one) Initial Continuation State E. City If continuation, previous grant#: County Other 4. Phone number: Fax number: 5. Beginning &Ending Dates of Program: (801)799-3265 (801)799-3640 July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003 E-mail Address: Krista.dunn@ci.slc.ut.us 6.Will this award(check one) 7.Type of Implementing Agency(check one) Enhance an Existing Program Criminal Justice Governmental Initiate a New Program Non-Criminal Justice Governmental 8. If the Implementing Agency is a Criminal Justice Agency,indicate which type: (check one) Law Enforcement Adjudication Prosecution Other(describe) Corrections Pretrial Services Public Defense 9.Congressional District(s)Served 1,2,3 10. Federal Tax Identification Number 876000279 111111 11.Title which Describes the program to be funded: 12. Program Purpose(see list in application kit) SLC Police Crime Scene Investigations Improving the Functioning of the Criminal Justice System 13. Budget Summary Total Project Costs Federal Grant Funds Local Match Obligation A.Personnel NOT ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE B.Contracted Fees NOT ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE C.Equipment $7,200 $5,000 2,200 i D.Travel/Training $0.00 E.Supplies/Operating $0.00 F.Confidential Funds NOT ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE NOT ALLOWABLE Column Totals $7,200 $5,000 $2,200 14.*Name of Official Authorized to Sign 15.**Name of Program Director Ross C.Anderson Krista Dunn / era f x "l ✓? �� , Authorizing Official Program Director ,,k _ €: ffi g,,,, -, , *(e.g. Mayor,County Commissioner,State Agency CEO) NOTE:Chiefs and Sheriffs are not authorized to approve contracts for their local