002 of 2001 - budget amendment no. 5 for fiscal year 2000-2001 0 01-1
B 00-14
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. 2 of 200I
(Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 51 of 2000
which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document,
for Fiscal Year 2000-2001)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 51 OF
2000 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BUDGET OF SALT
LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT,
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2001.
PREAMBLE
On June 29, 2000, 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, 2000 and ending June 30, 2001, 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 January
9, 2001 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget, including the
employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by
law.
Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget,
including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to
consider the attached amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing
document, was held on January 9, 2001, 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. 51 of 2000.
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, 2000 and ending June 30, 2001, 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 ei 11-‘ day of
.J-J14,4.t;Ir,' 'i , 200i.
�° I j, ___w
CHPERSON ,2
ATTEST:
HIEF DEPUTY CI Y RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on January 10. 2001
Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed
, ''' '''',:---..---.. -'4"-- -------7.
2. r_ o MAYOR
sylr/tv.,,-\ ""X' ..n.... ..
ATTEST:
•
CHIEF DEPUTY CI R C D R
a i
(SEAL) ,
Bill No. 2 of 2001-. , s"'
Published: January 22, 2001 '�,r RAT• • ,„
1‘41,4'►iK.vywr^'T..
G\Oidwa00\Amending budget I-9 doc.
4
Initiatives in Budget Amendment - January
Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund
Amount Impact
1. Justice Court Purchase $1,400,000 $1,400,000
2. Justice Court Design $ 422,500 $ 422,500
2
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Department For Fiscal Year
Management Services 2000-2001
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Justice Court Implementation BA#5 Initiative#1
Prepared By Phone Number
Laurie Dillon 535-7766
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03
1.General Fund(detail below)
Fund Balance (1,400,000)
Total ($1,400,000) $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund(detail below)
CIP Fund-Justice Court Purchase Cost Center 1,400,000
Total $1,400,000 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
4.Other Fund(detail below)
Capital Improvement Fund/Real Estate Purchase 1,400,000
Total $1,400,000 $0 $0
C. Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4. Charges and Services 0 0 0
5. Capital Outlay 1,400,000
6. Other(Specify)
Total $1,400,000 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
D.Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount
No Impact
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions,structure and organization
Without a designated court facility plans to implement the Salt Lake City Justice Court cannot
proceed.
F. Issue Discussion
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis cant be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases, it can be an ordinance or
policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices. it is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. it is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so,it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
The City Council approved a resolution in June 2000 to establish a Salt Lake City Justice Court
effective July 1, 2002. The Justice Court must meet the standards established by the Judicial
Council for the court operations. These standards include minimum requirements for the physical
facility, clerical resources, security, and other resources that must be allocated for the court.
Salt Lake City qualifies as a Class I court with 501 or more cases filed per month. Salt Lake
City's monthly caseload is expected to include about 1325 criminal non-traffic cases, 4400 traffic
cases, and 1300 small claims cases. A minimum of four courtrooms will be needed for criminal
and small claims cases, with another courtroom required for traffic cases. A total of about 35
employees will be required to process the annual caseload of 84,000 criminal, small claims and
traffic cases.
The total area required for the Justice Court is expected to be about 20,000 square feet.
Currently the City does not have vacant office space large enough to accommodate the number
of courtrooms needed to meet the City's caseload. The Administration has identified real estate
that would meet the needs of the Justice Court, and recommends that it be purchased. Revenue
generated from the Justice Court is expected to be more than sufficient to meet the expenses of
the court, but the upfront costs are substantial. Funding is recommended to be provided from
fund balance initially, and then be reimbursed next spring with a bond issued for the total amount
of the project. A reimbursement resolution is also recommended to ensure that the funds can be
allocated back to fund balance.
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
Department For Fiscal Year
Community& Economic Development 2000-2001
Initiative Name Initiative Number
Justice Court Engineering, Programming BA#5 Initiative#2
and Architectural Fees -
Prepared By Phone Number
Laurie Dillon 535-7766
Fiscal Impact of Proposed Change
A.Revenue Impacted by Fund and Source: 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03
1.General Fund(detail below)
Fund Balance $422,500
Total $422,500 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund (detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
B. Expenditures Impacted by Fund and Source:
1.General Fund(detail below)
CED/Engineering $422,500
Total $422,500 $0 $0
2. Internal Service Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
3. Enterprise Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
4. Other Fund(detail below)
Total $0 $0 $0
C.Expenditure Impact Detail
1. Salaries and Wages
2. Employee Benefits
3. Operating and Maintenance Supply
4.Charges and Services $422,500 0 0
5.Capital Outlay
6.Other(Specify)
Total $422,500 $0 $0
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
D. Personnel Service Detail: FTE Grade/Step Amount
No Impact
Salt Lake City Corporation
Management and Fiscal Note Worksheet
for
Budget Development and Budget Amendment
E. Measured or measurable Impact on functions, structure and organization
The engineering, programming, and architectural costs requested to be funded are needed to design
and construct/remodel the facility for the Justice Court. The contracting to plan the facility cannot
proceed until funds are allocated.
F. Issue Discussion
Criteria is a definition of what is expected or what can be expected. It provides a basis for comparison without which
analysis can't be effective. The criteria varies from issue to issue. In straightforward cases,it can be an ordinance or
policy. In other cases, it may be an industry standard or comparable data from another city.
Condition is a description of current practices. It is the information to which the criteria is compared.
Effect is the difference, if any, between the condition and criteria. It is best described in terms of a dollar impact or a
service level impact. If an effect cannot be identified, there is no finding.
Cause is sometimes a difficult element to identify but is essential to a finding. It is simply identifying why the condition
varies from the criteria. Sometimes the answer is as simple as a change in policy or budget but often goes deeper into
management or personnel issues.
Recommendation is made in a way that addresses the cause. By doing so, it is most likely to result in improving the
condition to be in line with the criteria.
In June of 2000 Salt Lake City declared its intent to establish a Justice Court by July 1, 2002. This
Court is required to meet the requirements for certification adopted by the Utah Judicial Council.
These standards include minimum requirements for the physical facility, clerical resources, security,
and other resources that must be allocated for the court. To accommodate 85,000 cases per year, a
building of approximately 20,000 square feet will be needed. This space must be designed and
configured to meet the needs of various groups of people — the public, judges, prosecutors, legal
defenders, security staff, clerical staff, witnesses, juries, and defendants.
Salt Lake City Engineering oversees the construction/remodeling for City facilities. Each project must
be funded on its own, and fees are assessed by Engineering based on the size of the project. The
City is required to have funds budgeted before a contract can be approved.
Currently there are no resources allocated to design a court facility. Funding needed includes
$25,000 for an initial architectural estimate; $265,000 for a contract for the design, construction
drawings, and architectural administration and supervision of the project; and $132,500 for City
Engineering to manage the project, negotiate and issue the contract, provide plan review, supervise
the construction, and close out the project when completed.
The expertise and time required to design a court facility are not currently within the resources of the
Engineering division. The Court project's programming, architectural, and engineering fees require
$422,500. This amount would be reimbursed by a bond to be issued next spring. Debt service for
the bond would be covered by the revenue generated from the Justice Court.
Funding should be allocated for the programming, engineering, and architectural costs associated
with the design and construction / remodel for a court facility. These projects need to be funded now
in order to meet the timeframe needed to have the court operational by July 1, 2002. An architectural
firm that specializes in court design is needed to address the specific requirements for the court.