028 of 2011 - Budget Amendment No. 4 for FY 2010-2011 0 11-1
B 11-6
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. 28 of 2011
(Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document,
for Fiscal Year 2010-2011)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 67 of 2010 which
Adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1,
2010 and Ending June 30, 2011.
PREAMBLE
On August 10, 2010, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt
Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011, 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 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 necessary to effectuate the staffing
changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration
by the City Council and inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above,have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: .
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved,
ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No.67 of 2010.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing
changes specifically stated herein, 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 amendments to the employment staffing document described above,
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2011, in accordance with
the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated.
SECTION 3. 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 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first
publication.
2
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this 14th day of
June , 2011.
Q/0./2/
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
Y RECORD CC
D
Transmitted to the Mayor on June 21, 2011
Mayor's Action: 0. Approved Vetoed
14
• OR
ATTEST:
Y RECORD Seit Lake City Attarney's ffica
�* ' `",Nk Dato_— _/r
t,,.sy� "� 8y
(SEAL) r_
v(
28 & 4�c� „S) r
Bill No. of 2011. N+.•,.t?A 5� -
Published: July 1, 2011. . ��''� """y
HB_ATFY-#13907-v2-Budget_Amendment FY10-11.DOC
3
FY10-11 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Total General Fund 188,559,916 188,289,938 (269,978)
Selected Discussion Items
Total Property Taxes 63,304,511 63,222,792 (81,719)
Discussion:
A decline in property is due to two judgments that were settled earlier
this year.
Total Sales and Use Tax 43,493,122 44,027,775 534,653
Discussion:
Reviewing the sales tax trends have an average increase of 3%in FY
2011
Total Franchise Tax 27,953,800 27,753,800 (200,000)
Discussion:
The decrease is due to a decrease in revenue received from
telecommunication companies.
License and Permits: 15,790,598 15,782,914 (7,684)
Discussion:
The number of commercial and residential permits are up from last fiscal
year,but the values for residential is significantly lower.
Total Intergovernmental 5,441,103 5,393,991 (47,112)
Discussion:
Interest income 480,000 580,000 100,000
Discussion:
Total Fines 8 Forfeiture 10,808,566 10,572,656 (235,910)
Discussion:
The issuance of parking tickets are lower on average than in previous
years.
Parking Meters 1,599,000 1,470,788 (128,212)
Discussion:
Parking meter revenue will come in lower due to a the completion of City
Creek and not as many meter needing bagged.
Charges and Services 3,756,784 3,519,769 (237,015)
Discussion:
Charges and Services has a decline due to a decrease in Public Safety
Revenues
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,123,396 2,216,417 93,021
Discussion:
Other reimbursements have resulted in an increase in revenue.
Total lnterfund 9,647,265 9,587,265 (60,000)
Discussion:
Transfers 4,161,771 4,161,771 0
Discussion:
Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Amendment #4 April
General Fund Impact
Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance
Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact
Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative
Section A New Items
1. Sidewalk Rehab SAA FY $4,714.15
2008-09 Adjustment
2. CORIS System For $60,000.00 $-60,000.00 $-60,000.00
Justice Courts
3. IMS Employee $55,000.00
Retirement Costs
4. City Owned Building $111,500.00
Assessment
5. CIP PSB Tenant $205,000.00
Expenses
6. 900 South Corridor Trail $700,000.00
and Bike Lanes
7. Credit Card Fees $35,000.00 $-35,000.00 $-35,000.00
Increase
8. Unemployment Cost $203,000.00
Increase in Risk Fund
9. Wasatch Hollow House $50,000.00
Demolition
10. Plaza 349 Security Guard $16,000.00 $32,000.00 $-16,000.00 $-16,000.00
Services
52 General Fund Impact
Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance
Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact
Amount (If Different). Impact Positive Negative
11. 200 South Bicycle $620,000.00 (Not Approved
Corridor U of U to By Council
Downtown Addressed in
CIP Process)
12. Street Lighting Repairs $30,000.00 $-30,000.00 $-30,000.00
13. Dispatch Phone $40,000.00
Recording System
14. Community Food $110,000.00
Assessment
15. Cert Program Increase $7,000.00 $-7,000.00 $-7,000.00
16. Bomb Detection and $8,200.00 $8,200.00
Disposal Equipment
17. Police Dept Overtime $57,500.00 $57,500.00
Reimbursement
18. Solar Project Assessment $100,000.00
53 General Fund Impact
Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance
Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact
Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative
19. Combine Fire Dispatch $385,000.00
with Police Dispatch
20. Outside Council—Oil $200,000.00 $-200,000.00 $-200,000.00
Spill Litigation
Section B Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C Grants for New Staff Resources
1. Fire FEMA Safer Hiring $266,624.00 11
Grant
Section D Housekeeping
1. Recapture CIP Complete $116,083.68
and Closed Projects
2. Recapture HUD and $292,772.01
CDBG Completed
Projects
54 General Fund Impact
Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance
# Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact
Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative
3. HUD CDBG and $.00
HOPWA Budget
Adjustments
4. Interest Income on $207,589.00
Bonding
5. Special Revenue Housing $1,841,415.00
Develop Program Income
b. Landfill 2011 Mid-Year $.00
Budget Adjustment
7. MBA Transfer to $147,441.00
General Fund
8. Library Contingency $197,000.00
Move to Operations
Expense
Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1. St of Utah Dept of Public $369,000.00
Safety UASI Grant
Increase
2. Additional FY2008 $49,000.00
Homeland Security
Grant
3. Fisher Mansion Roof $150,000.00
Section F Donations
Section G Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards
55 General.Fund Impact
Fiscal Year Annual Impact Fund Balance Fund Balance
Initiative Name Impact Amount FTE General Fund Impact Impact
Amount (If Different) Impact Positive Negative
1. National Fish and $25,000.00
Wildlife Foundation—
Jordan River Grant
2. St of Utah Office of $18,963.82
Crime Victim Reparation
Grant
3. Federal National Drug $50,000.00
Control Drug Trafficking
Grant—HIDTA
4. St of Utah Dept of Public $317,419.00
Safety Medical Response
System MMRS Grant
Section I Council Added Items
1. Sugarhouse Fire Works $10,000.00 $-10,000.00 $-10,000.00
2. Council Expenses Not $91,000.00
Cover By CDBG
**MOTION SHEET
BUDGET AMENDMENT #4**
JuNE 14, 2011
MOTIONS:
This motion adopts the whole budget amendment except for various items to be
considered separately:
("I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2010-
2011 budget as proposed by the Administration, items A-1 through A-20, and
Council Item I-1, with the following exceptions:
• Deferring items A-6 (900 South Corridor Trail & Bike lane), and A-11
(200 South Bicycle Lane Pilot Project) to be discussed and considered
separately.
And/Or
• ["I move that the Council"] fund item A-6 (900 South Corridor Trail &
Bike lane).
• ["I move that the Council"] fund item A-11 (200 South Bicycle Lane Pilot
Project).
LEGISLATIVE INTENTS:
Based on the Council's work session discussion, following are some Legislative Intent
Statement for your consideration.
• It is the intent of the Council that the Administration return with
recommended policy guidelines for how to spend the remaining funds
from the one—time payment from the Landfill .
**MOTION SHEET
BUDGET AMENDMENT#4**
JUNE 7,2011
The Council is holding a public hearing on the proposed budget Amendment on June 7`"at
7pm. The Council may wish to consider adopting some budget amendment items and
leaving others open for discussion at the June 14`"work session and formal meeting.
MOTIONS:
This motion adopts the whole budget amendment except for various items to be
considered separately:
["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2010-
2011 budget as proposed by the Administration,items A-1 through A-20, and
Council Item I-1,with the following changes:
• Adding a $10,000 allocation from Fund Balance for fireworks at
Sugar House Park in July of 2011, to be combined with current
funding, for a total allocation for the July 2011 event of
$15,000.
• Deferring items A-6 (900 South Corridor Trail&Bike lane), and A-11
(200 South Bicycle Lane Pilot Project) to be discussed and considered
at a future meeting.
LEGISLATIVE INTENTS:
Based on the Council's work session discussion,following are some Legislative Intent
Statement for your consideration.
• It is the intent of the Council that the Administration return with
recommended policy guidelines for how to spend the remaining funds
from the one—time payment from the Landfill.
Initiative Name:
FY 2008/2009 Sidewalk Rehabilitation SAA Budget Adjustment
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#Al
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
During FY 2009/2010 CIP Process, funding was allocated for a Special Assessment Area (SAA)
Sidewalk Rehabilitation project from 1500 to 2100 East, 1300 to 1700 South. The SAA did not pass
and the budget that was created to accept the property owners portion of the SAA was recaptured as
well as the general fund monies allocated for the project. Subsequent to the recapture of funds the
City's bond council submitted an invoice for their services. The costs were for preparation of the SAA
"Notice of Intention"documents. These charges are normally paid by the property owners. Since the •
district was not created there is no budget authorization nor funds to pay the invoice. The invoice was
received after the SAA had been cancelled and the budget recaptured.
This request is to create budget and allocate cash in the amount of the invoice,$4,714.15,and will
decrease the FY-09 CIP cost over run account.
Initiative#A-1
•
I I.. I I
Recapture Remaining General Fund
CIP Completed and Closed Projects
Initiative Name r
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative'#Al • 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year L
CED-HAND New Item
Department I � Type of Initiative .�
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie CoILns' 535-6136/"535.6150
Prepared By I Telephone Contact _
(Negative) _ Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
•
Im.act
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0
Total _ $0
Total $0
Total $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative A-1-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
General Fund CIP
83-09099 CF CIP Cost over run 2700 $ (4,714.15),
83-10040 Sidewalk Rehabilitation SAA 2700 $ 4,714.15
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
I
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the_position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _
eliminated? I NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? __ NA
Initiative SA-1-6
Initiative Name:
CORIS System for Justice Courts
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-2
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
At the beginning of the year we were faced with a critical timeline imposed on:ustythe State
Administrative Office of the Court to move the Justice Courts over to the State's CORIS
system;'In order to accomplish this in the timeline and to,meet the deliverables=needed'to
continue to service thepublic at a minimal level, a significant amount of work needed to be
accomplished. As we looked at the situation, the requirements, and the due date, it was
decided that the only way we:could pull this off was to engage'a contract programmer to work'
with the AOC IT staff to develop the web services needed:-IMS did not'havethe expertise in
the tool set,-IBM WebSphere, used by AOC and there was not'sufficient'.timeto develop the
skill internally. A contract employee with a very specific skill set was engaged at a cost of:
about$60K to IMS. As is our policy for software development,this would be a billable item to
the department, in this case the Justice Court. 'However, in my conversations with Mary-::
Johnston, it was apparent that they had no funding for this but it absolutely'needed;to
happen. I have not spoken with Curtis:Preece on this topic. We were waiting to get to the'6
month mark to see if it was possible for the Couts to absorb.this cost'internally. They are not
projecting to have surplus to cover these costs. 'We are requesting the fund from the general
fund fund balance.
Initiative#A-2
I
CORIS System for Justice Courts
Initiative Name I_ f
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-2 1 2010-11
Initiative Number I J Fiscal Year
Information Management Services New Item_
I Department I Type of Initiative
Kvm Edman 801-535-6343
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (60,DD0.00)_,
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $01
Internal Service Fund
0
Total SO, $0
Enterprise Fund _
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
0 0
Total $0 $0
i I
Staffino Im act:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: no staffing changes
Initiative lSA-2-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
16503200
1954-09 $ 60,000.00
Expenditure: -
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
09-00700 2321 $ 60,000.00
65-03200 2328 $ 60,000.00
—Additional Accounting Details:
_Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE
Grant funds employee positions?
Is there a potential for grant to continue?
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated?
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector?
Initiative#A-2-b
Initiative Name:
IMS Employee Retirement Costs
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-3
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Several long term employees have announced their decision to retire this fiscal year instead
of waiting until next year. Our Office Facilitator, Mary Furness and our Document
Management Team Lead Steve Minnick.They have both been with the city 30 plus years and
the retirement payout will cause an additional strain on IMS's bottom line. We would like to
request to use IMS fund balance to meet this obligation.
Initiative#A-3
1MS'Employee Retirement Costs
initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-3 .201041
Initiative Number I _ _ Fiscal Year _
Information Management Services New Item
Department I Type of Initiative _
Kvm'Edman, • .801=535.6343
Prepared By I (Negative) Telephone Contact
Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
RevenuQjmpact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
• Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund •
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
0 I 0
Total $0 $0
Staffii• Im•act:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: no staffing changes
•
Initiative#A-3-a
UAccounting Detail Grant and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
i
il
MI IIM
-Expenditure: -
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
65-03600 2111-01 I $ 20,000.00
65-03700 2111-01 $ 35,000.00
_Additional Accounting Details:
I
Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE
■Grant funds employee positions? 111
IIIIs there a potential for grant to continue? U
_ U
MI If grant is funding a position is it lexpected the position will
Ibe eliminated at the end of the grant?
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? I II
II Will grant impact the community nce the grant funds are .11.111111M.
eliminated?
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector?
Initiative#A-3-b
Initiative Name:
Building Assessments on City-Owned Assets - CIP
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A4
New Rem
Initiative Discussion:
The Administration is requesting funding to perform structural and building environmental studies for
the New.Hope Center located at 1102 West and 400 South, the Wasatch'Springs Plunge located at
840 North and 300 West and other city-owned buildings as necessary. The reports will be used by the
Administration in preparing the buildings for disposition or renovation.
The Structural Condition Assessment is -a preliminary overview on the structure of the buildings
including seismic issues, foundation settlement, and any structural elements .showing failure. A
second structural assessment may be performed after review of the first study that will _give-greater
detail 'and the .condition of the building. The environmental assessment will determine the levels of
asbestos, lead,and mold in the buildings.
Since both buildings are on the city's historic register and the Wasatch Springs Plunge is on the
national registry,a historic structures report would also need to be performed. -
Both buildings have been vacant for years and are in'need of cleaning and trash removal.
The cost to have the Structural Condition Assessments, further structural reports, environmental
studies, historic structures report, and cleaning will be.$111,500. These funds will come from the CIP
Surplus Land Account. -
Initiative#A-4
I
Building Assessments on City-Owned
Assets-CIP
Initiative Name [_
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A4 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
CED-H.A.N.D. New Item
Department I I I Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow 535-6136 1535-7966
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 _ $0
Internal Service Fund
Total) $0I I $01
Enterprise Fund
Total $0': $pi
Other Fund
Total $ - $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#A-4-a
NA
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-81100 1840 $ (111,500.00)
83 New Cost Center 1840 $ 111,500.00
Cost Center Number _ Object Code Number Amount
83-81100 2590 $ (111,500.00)
83 New Cost Center 2590 $ 111,500.00
Additional Accounting;atalls.
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential fou grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant fundi time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? I I NA
I I
Initiative#A-4-b
Initiative Name:
ClP PSB Tenant Expenses Budget
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A5
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Salt Lake City purchased several properties in preparation for the construction of the new Public
Safety Building. The City owned and was responsible for the management of these properties which
included the payment of utilities to companies such as Questar and Rocky Mountain Power;
maintenance such as groundskeeping, snow removal, etc.; and other associated costs. The City's
bond counsel has determined that the expenses associated with the management of these properties
cannot be charged to the Public Safety Bond used to acquire the properties. The City also collected
rents from the tenants who occupied the buildings totaling approximately$205,000.
The Administration is requesting that the rental income from these properties be placed in a new cost
center and used to cover property management expenses including the refund of deposits.
Initiative#A-5
CIP PSB Tenant Expenses'Budget
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative.#A5 2010-11
Initiative Number I _ Fiscal Year
CED H.A:N:D:: : _ New Item _
Department Type of initiative
LuAnn Clark 1'Mike Akerlow 535-61361:535-7966.
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) _ Positive
General Fund -Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
83-10082 $ 205,000.00
F r
Total $ 205,000.00 $0____,
Requested 'Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#A-5-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA4#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-10082 1807 $ 205,000.00
Expendii ure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-10082 2700 $ 205,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
I Non-profit sector? f NA
I I I
Initiative#A-5-b
Initiative Name:
900 South Corridor Trail and Bike Lanes
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-6
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
In November of 2007, the 900 South rail line in Salt Lake City was deactivated. Just recently, the rail
corridor property ownership was transferred from Union Pacific Railroad to the City. The rail corridor
is generally 70 feet wide but varies in width from 50 to about 170 feet. The corridor extends from
Redwood Road to 700 West, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles.
The 1992 Salt Lake City Open Space Plan and the 1995 West Salt Lake Community Master Plan
identify the corridor as a pedestrian-bicycle corridor/trail. A trail connection utilizing the 900 South rail
corridor connects the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods to the Jordan River Trail and other
open space amenities along the Jordan River Trail. It also provides convenient non-motorized access
to downtown. The 900 South rail corridor is identified in the Open Space plan as a key element of the
Transvalley Corridor which is a bicycle/pedestrian route connecting several existing open space
amenities on the City's east side.
The project includes improved bicycle access to the 900 South UTA TRAX Light Rail station by adding
bicycle lanes on 900 South between 700 and 200 West.
Construction of the 900 South rail corridor trail between Redwood Road and 700 West and the
extension of bicycle lanes on 900 South between 700 West and 200 West are in accordance with the
desires of the City Council and Administration to improve the safety and convenience of bicycling and
walking within the city. Construction of an asphalt trail and the addition of bicycle lanes are estimated
to cost$700,000. To fund this project, $300,000 is proposed to be re-allocated from the Jordan River
Trail, north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County, $200,000 from the Intermodal
Hub Warehouse, $183,629.26 from old and completed Jordan River Trail projects and the remainder
of $16,370.74 from the general fund CIP cost over-run account. The Jordan River Trail, north of
Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County project came in under the engineering
estimate due to the favorable bidding climate. The City also received a grant to help pay for the
project.
Initiative#A-6
!
900 South Corridor Trail and Bike
, Lanes
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-6 2010-11
initiative Number Fiscal Year
CED-H.A.N.D. New Item
DepartmentL .J Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Mike Akerlow L 535-6136/535-7966
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) I Positive
General Fund -Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
'Other Fund
Total Em $ $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
=MM
=6.11E
Initiative#A-6-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
General Fund CIP
8310025 Jordan River Trail 2700 $ (300,000.00)
83-09042 Intermodel Hub Warehouse 2700 $ (200,000.00)
83-05017 Jordan River Trailhead 2700 $ (178,629.26)
83-08013 Jordan River Trail Lighting 2700 $ (5,000.00)
83-10099 CIP Cost Over-run I $ (16,370.74)
83-New Cost Center 2700 $ 700,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
—I
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided b private or
Non-profit sector? ( [ NA
Initiative#A-6-b
Initiative Name:
Increase in Credit Card Fees
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A7
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
To cover the increase in credit card charges. The Treasurer's Office is projecting to be
approximately$35,000 over budget at the end of FY 2011 in this cost center/object code. In
addition to credit card fees,this cost center/object code combination also includes charges for
bank fees,armored car services and mandatory credit card compliance testing. We have
achieved cost reductions as a result of new cash management processes we've implemented
this fiscal year by eliminating lockbox processing for parking tickets,business licenses and
special assessments and instead processing these payments in-house. We have also
switched to imaging all checks received and uploading a file to the bank rather than sending
paper checks to the bank for deposit via our armored car company. This imaging process
had also resulted in a slight reduction in bank processing fees as well as savings on our
armored car contract by reducing the number of pickups from 5 days per week to 2 days per
week. However,these cost reduction measurers do not come close to covering the increase
in credit card fees,which are also applied to this cost center/object code.
We had two very significant impact fee transactions that were paid with credit cards. One
transaction totaled$552,212.79;the other transaction totaled$1,110,922.07. Combined,
these transactions totaled$1,663,134.86 and the associated credit card fees total
approximately$33,200
We are requesting funding of$35,000 from the fund balance to cover these additional costs.
Initiative#A-7
Increase in Credit Card Fees
I Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A7 2010-11
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year E
Finance New Item
Department I Type of Initiative
Daniel Mule' _ 535-6411 •
Prepared By I (Negative) Telephone Contact
Positive
General Fund -Fund Balance- $ (35,000.00)
Impact •
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund .
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $ - $0
Staffinq Impact:
Requested Number of •
0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#A-7-a
I I I
_ Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
01-00021 2329 $ 35,000.03
•
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? I NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
_Non-profit sector? - NA
Initiative#A-7-b
Initiative Name:
Increase in Unemployment Costs
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-8
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Unemployment charges for CEO and the Airport have exceeded the amounts budgeted in the
Risk Fund.
The following shows the current budget,current expense and projected expenses through the
end of Fiscal Year 2010-11:
CEO-Curr.Bud.$8,040 Curr.Exp.$64,401 -Projected Exp.$1'12,000
Airport-Curr.Bud.$26,004-Curr.Exp.$46,689-Projected Exp.$125,000
The expenditures have exceeded budgets due to higher than expected layoffs. It should be
noted that approximately 40%of the layoffs in CED resulted from shifting Ground
Transportation to the Airport. The majority of the Airport layoffs were the result of a
restructuring in the Fall of 2010 that was not anticipated when the budget was set for the
Fiscal Year.
This budget amendment requests additional expense budget for the Risk Fund to cover the
projected unemployment charges and also requests budget adjustments to Risk Fund
revenue for the increased billings to the departments.
Initiative#A-8
increase in Unemployment Costs
I I Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-8 2010-11
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Finance _ New Item
Department I 1 Type of Initiative
Kimball Ball 535-6420
Prepared By I (Negative) Telephone Contact
Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ -
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 I $0
Internal Service Fund
87- Risk Fund $ 203,000.00
Total $ 203,000.00 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0 j $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-8-a
•
CAccounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
— Cost Center Number IIM Object Code Number = Amount
87-40060I
1860-60 $ 104,000.00
87-40540 1860-60 $ 99,000.00
Total $ 203,000.00
MI IIIII IMI El
Ilona U ■
IMMII
■ a a a
—Expenditure: -
ICost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
87-40060 2196 $ 104,000.00
87-40540 2196 $ 99,000.00
I
Total IIII .$ 203,000.00
i ■...
—Additional Accounting Details: MI
MillillIMI
I
—Grant Information: a
ll
Grant funds employee positions? NA
IIII I
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once Ithe grant funds are
eliminated? • I I NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#A-8-b
Initiative Name:
Open Space-Wasatch Hollow house demolition
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-9
Initiative Type:
New item
Initiative Discussion:
The Department of Public Services requests budget for the demolition of the residence in
Wasatch Hollow open space.The final plan for this property recommends the demo of the
house and the septic infrastructure.The cost is estimated to be$50,000.
•
This request is to take the funds from the surplus land account.
Initiative#A-9
►..... J . .► . .►
Open Space-'Wasatch Hollow house
demolition
► Initiative Name ►
BA#4 FY2011 initiative#A 9 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
Public'Services New item
Department I f Type of Initiative —
'Greg Davis 801-535-6123-
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
0
Total $0' $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
0 0
• Total $0 SO
Staffi n• Im•act:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: - no staffing changes
•
Initiative#A-9-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable-.
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number _ Amount
83-81100 1840 ($50,000.00)
83 New Cost Center 1840 $50,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-81100 2590 $ (50,000.00)
83 New Cost Center 2590 $50,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE
Grant funds employee positions?
Is there a potential for grant to continue?
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?—
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated?
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? I _
Initiative#A-9-b
Initiative Name:
Plaza 349 Security Guard Services
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-10
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
This budget amendment is needed to adjust Facilities' budget due to the need to add back full
time security guard service at.Plaza:349. This service-was requested by theMayor's Office as
a result of incidents that have:empoyees concerned for their safety and to keep'homeless.
and vagrants from finding.a place to sleep in the building.John Naser, City Engineer,
indicated in an email to the Mayor's Office that"It seems like daily we have transients or
drunks coming into the first floor looking for restrooms,'maybe.a place to'getwarm or to:ask
for food or money. Again yesterday 12/21 afternoon•we had a.drunken man enter the first
floor and bounce off the walls until the Engineering permits people could get him--out of the
building. On the way out he fell and hit his head requiring us to call for an:ambulance and the
Fire Department. 'The man became quite belligerent so the Police came and arrested him."
This request is seek for funding relief for half year of costs at$16,000 from the General Fund
fund balance. Full year cost will be requested in next year budget submission.
Initiative#A-10
I I I
Plaza 349 Security Guard Services
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-10 2010-11
Initiative Number _ i Fiscal Year
Public Services Dept. New Item
Department I I Type of Initiative
(Employee Name) 801-535-6123
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (16,000.00)1
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund _
Total $0 $0'_
Other Fund
Total _ $0 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-1 0-a
I I
_ Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number
IM
IM
Expenditure: _
- - = Object Code Number Amount
07-00923 2383 1..$ 16,000.00
.....==.
.A......L.
..-.........
............
.........,
..:. .
- ..... .
.....
Additional Accounting Details:
Full-ear services is estimated at$32,000 MIIMI
ME
ialmimmliMIMIMIIMEMI
Grant Information:
Grant funds emplo ea•ositions?
Is there a•otential for grant to continue?
If grant is funding a position is it ex•ected the position will
(Yes or No)
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?
-
ME
Will grant im•act the community once the grant funds are -
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO
Initiative#A-10-b
Initiative Name:
200 South--Bicycle Corridor-University of Utah to Downtown
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-11
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The Salt Lake City Transportation Division is requesting the City Council approve$620,000 for the
Phase I Pilot program of the bicycle-priority(Beyond Bike Lanes)corridor on 200 South between the
University of Utah and Downtown. The project will create a centerline bikeway that functions similarly
to the centerline TRAX,with"green wave"signal timing for bicyclists. Motorists will be restricted from
turning left at the same time bicyclists are proceeding straight.
Currently, Downtown and the University of Utah are connected by the 200 South bike lanes. Bike
lanes generally improve the bicycling experience for those who are already fairly comfortable on the
road. A "beyond bike lanes" approach such as a separated path or buffered bike lane has been
shown to increase the number of people who feel safe riding bicycles in an urban environment. The
University is the state's primary bicycle commuting destination, with many students and faculty
traveling by bicycle.The 200 South bike lanes facility,although widely used, has several challenges.
200 South is a primary bus route,with frequent service provided by UTA's"2 to the U"and other local
and express buses. As Salt Lake City considers 200 South for the possible addition of a downtown
streetcar, the streetcar tracks in the curb lane will present a further challenge to bicyclists. In the
eastern part of the 200 South corridor,the existing bike lanes are not wide enough to meet current
safety design standards.
Initiative#A-11
Initiative Name:
200 South--Bicycle Corridor- University of Utah to Downtown
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-1I
New Item
In the initial phase of this project,which would be funded by this budget request, the Transportation
Division proposes to implement a trial version of the 200 S bikeway, using traffic paint to',create a
buffered bikeway between ,200 East and '1300 East and traffic signal modifications to add .bicycle
signals.:The primary cost of the project is in adjusting the traffic:signals for.bicycles, including signal
timing (a}bicycle "green wave") to progress'bicycle traffic and.:controlling motor vehicle left turns with
turn signals. Following this initial phase,the project could be further and more formally developed as
a linear park with the centerline bikeway within raised medians that would be landscaped and
enlivened with park benches, community gardens, pocket parks, public art, etc. sand used for
programmed activities.This trial implementation allows the project to be implemented quickly, in 2011
such as was done with the 300 South median parking area downtown; and then a formal,design and
median/bikeway construction implemented in following year(s).as funding'is made-available.' The:trial
implementation, will also .provide insight,on desired :.design .details. The :project is ;envisioned as
reducing the number of travel lanes..on:200-South to one travel lane•in each direction with turn lanes
The travel-lanes would be'sized to 'host'the existing "2 to the U"":bus route:and the future streetcars
The recaptured space would be used to construct the bikeway and linear park. ;Project stakeholders
would 'likely 'include Salt Lake City, the ;Downtown Alliance, 'the -Convention ;and Visitor's Bureau;
Wasatch Community Gardens, area residents and businesses, and the affected community councils.
The second phase of this project is estimated at $5.9 Million (with a 15% contingency) and will be to
construct permanent vegetated median'islands creating 'the linear park from State St. to 1300 East.
The expenditures for the pilot phase for signal timing / road restriping would 'contribute to the final
project implementation and would not need to be redone. This request is to re-allocate $220,000 from
the Jordan River Trail, north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and'Davis County, $300,000 from
the Intermodal Hub Warehouse project, and the remaining $100,000 to be allocated from three
general fund CIP cost over-run accounts to provide the $620,000 for the pilot phase of this project.
The Jordan River Trail, north of Redwood Road between 1800 North and Davis County, project came
in under the engineering estimate due to the favorable bidding climate. The City also received a grant
to help pay for the project.
Initiative#A-11
•
I I I L
200 South—Bicycle Corridor-
University of Utah to Downtown
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-11 2010-11
Initiative Number I I J Fiscal Year
CED-Transportation New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Tim Harpst 535-6630
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 f $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0, $0
Requested•Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#A-11-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
•
=1114111111111--
Expenditure'
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-10025 Jordan River Trail 2700 $ (220,000.00)
83-09042 Intermodal HUB Warehouse 2700 $ (300,000.00)
83-07099 CIP Cost Over-run 2700 $ (6,185.75)
83-09099 CIP Cost Over-run 2700 $ (91,532.19)
83-10099 CIP Cost Over-run 2700 $ (2,282.06)
83-New Cost Center 2700 $ 620,000.00
Additional Aocountin Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Nonprofit sector? NA
Initiative#A-11-b
Initiative Name:
Street Lighting Repairs
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-12
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
For the fiscal year 2010-11,funding for street light operation and maintenance was reduced
by$400,000. In order to meet this budget shortfall,it was necessary to defer maintenance on
mid-block street lights. On March 1,2011,the City Council approved a legislative intent to
provide$30,000 to repair non-functioning mid-block lights which have been reported by
citizens to the city.Although the funding needed to repair all non-functioning mid-block lights
would exceed$30,000,it is estimated that$30,000 is sufficient to repair most if not all mid-
block lights through the remainder of the fiscal year given that the pace for requests does not
increase.
Initiative#A-12
I i I i
Street Lighting Repairs
Initiative Name
$A#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-12 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
CED-Transporation New Item
Department I I Type of Initiative
Brent Beck-Michael Barry 535-7107
Prepared By I Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (30,000.00) $
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0, $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of
FTE's:
Initiative#A-12-a
I I
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
I '
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
09-00800 235803 $ 30,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
I
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
I i
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _
Non-profit sector? f r _ NA
lnlialive#A-12-b
Initiative Name:
Dispatch Phone Recording System
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-13
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
All 911 call that come in have to be recorded. The recording system that is in place has been
obsolete and has had several patches. At this time the system cannot be repaired any longer
or upgraded. The total replacement cost is$77,000.00 of which we have$37,000 budgeted.
The total of this amendment is$40,000.00
This budget amendment requests additional expense budget from the E-911 to cover the new
recording system. E-911 reserve will be used to offset this expenditure.
Initiative#A-13
Dispatch Phone Recording System
I Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-13 2010-11
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Police New Item
l Department Type of Initiative
Krista Dunn 799-3625
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ -
Impact
___Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0_
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0, $01
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-13-a
I '
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable.
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Total $ -
Expenditure
Cost Center Number Ject Code Number Amount
60-00620 2750 $ 40,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
I
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _
Non-profit sector? I I - NA
InitiativeA-13-b
Initiative Name:
Community Food Assessment
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-14
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
I he Sustainability Division proposes to use t110,000 tor a Community Food Assessment.
The funding source would be the$5,500,000 portion of the one-time$7M distribution from the
Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility(SLVSWMF)which was received the first
part of Feb 2011.
Salt Lake City has had a Food Policy Task Force in place tor over one year now, which
comprises of a group of local volunteers from various food-related areas. The task force is
managed by the Sustainability Division. While some ideas and actions have come from this
group, it is time to complete a comprehensive analysis of our food systems to better guide
their future work.
Salt Lake City,with assistance trom members of our Food Policy Task Force,will hire a
consultant to compile data and conduct a full analysis of our current food system in order to
obtain a comprehensive assessment of the food system.This assessment will allow us to
identify key challenges,determine barriers and unmet needs,and help guide future policy and
program development.
ne areas that will be investigated include food production,processing and distribution,
consumption,nutrition and health,nutrition education and food waste.Methods of
investigation will range from interviews with stakeholders,data collection on the source and
type of food we purchase and eat,obtaining processing and distribution data,identifying
sources of food(groceries,restaurants,markets),obtaining nutritional information and
information on the charitable food system in the City.
The entire study will last approximately one year.Funding will be encumbered in FY 2011 and
periodic payments made to the consultant as project tasks are completed.
Initiative#A-14
Community Food Assessment
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-14 2010-11
Initiative Number I j Fiscal Year I—
Public Services New Item
Department I Type of Initiative L,
Greg Davis _ 801.535.6123
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund S
MI OM
Total a r
" 11
Total l
Enter.rise Fund
IME
Total 0 MiMillIME=Min
Other Fund
=_
Total +�_
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: Ini
_ —
INN
Initiative#A-14-a
I r
_ Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
57-11700 2329 $ 110,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE _
Grant funds employee positions?
Is there a potential for grant to continue?
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?
Will gran program be complete in grant funding time frame?
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated?
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector?
Initiative#A-14-b
Initiative Name:
CERT Program Increase
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-15
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
During Budget Amendment#3,the Council gave Emergency Management Services the ability
to spend$7,000 for the Emergency Management CERT Program from General Fund fund
balance. This initiative will appropriate funds from the General Fund Fund Balance The
following is the justification for this request.
Last year the program received approximately$14,000 in student fees and$28,000 from a
combination of EMPG and Citizen Corps grants. The office:supplies and staff support were
covered by the general fund and are not part of the$42000. Emergency Management
Services has been advised that the EMPG Program grant($12,500)will not continue in
Federal FY-11 and has no indication as to the amount,if any,of the other Federal FY-11
EMPG($15,000)or Citizen Corp($2,300)grants that the City typically receives. Current
grant funding ends March 31,2011.
The loss of the EMPG grants results in a revenue shortfall of approximately$7,000 to
continue the program through the end of FY-11. Emergency Management Services currently
has five new classes scheduled for the remainder of FY-11. The anticipated expense for the
five classes is$10,750. This request is for a fund balance appropriation of$7,000 to
complete the CERT program and will be used to cover the costs of the instructors,kits and
manuals for the remainder of FY-11.
Initiative#A-15
I I
CERT Program Increase _
I Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-15 2010-11
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Emergency Management Services New Item
Department j j Type of Initiative
Cory Lyman 1 Sherrie Collins 799-36011535-6136
Prepared By I Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- I$ (7,000.00)
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: - Fiscal Year - Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0) $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total '.0 '.0
Other Fund
Total' - ■ 0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0'
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#A-15-a
I I
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number MI Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number 11.1 Object Code Number Amount
02-00340 2590 $ 7,000.00
■ - -
■Additional ccounting petal s:
Grant Information
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#A-t 5-b
Initiative Name:
Bomb Detection and Disposal Equipment
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-16
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
•
The State of Utah received a federal grant to purchase bomb detection/disposal equipment.
The SLCPD responds to any of the calls in the SLC area, and has been designated as the
agency for bomb response for the State in the capitol city. As such, they have agreed to
reimburse for the expense of the equipment,and we have received the funds. This request is
to open the budget to accept the amount of$8,200.
Initiative#A-16
_ I _
Bomb Detection and Disposal ' •
Equipment
• i initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-16 2010-11
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
'Police 'New Item
Department Type of Initiative r—
•
Krtsta'Dunn • ;799-3625. •
•
Prepared By Telephone Contact
_(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ -
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund $ 8,200.00
Total $ 8,200.00 $0
Internal Service Fund
Fund 60
Total s0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0 $0
Staffin. Imiact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-1 6-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
02-00055 1380 $ 8,200.00
r I
Total $ 8,200.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
02-00055 2254-08 $ 8,200.00
Total $ 8,200.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _
_be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? .T— NA
II II
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? �- NA
Initiative#A-16-b
Initiative Name:
Police Department Overtime Reimbursements
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-17
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The Police Department has contracted with multiple agencies to provide law enforcement
functions within the community that address major public safety issues above and beyond
everyday policing. These services are performed on an overtime basis,and the city is
reimbursed for the officers' time. These are issues including gang, narcotics, underage
drinking, street racing, and other types of enforcment.This budget amendment request is to
increase the projected revenues:to reimburse the overtime expenses of these officers to
reflect the actual reimbursements that will be received by the end of the fiscal year,and cover
the overtime the City has already paid the officers.The total amount of these reimbursements
should be approximately$57,500.
Initiative#A-17
! I I I
Police Department Overtime
Reimbursements
I 1 Initiative Name I
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-17 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
Police New Item
Department I I Type of Initiative
Krista Dunn 799-3625
Prepared By Telephone Contact r-
(Negative) i Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ -
Impact
General Fund $ 57,500.00
Total $ 57,500.00 $0
Internal Service Fund
Fund 60
Total $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0, $0
Other Fund
Total $0 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-1 7-a
Accounting Detail ;rant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue
_ Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
02-00055 1446-08 $ 500.00
02-00013 1446-03 $ 4,300.00
02-00013 1446 $ 2,600.00
02-00013 1446-13 $ 3,200.00
0-200031 1446-10 $ 4,100.00
_ 02-00031 1446-07 $ 2,600.00
02-00031 1446-14 $ 2,900.00_
02-00045 1446-02 $ 2,700.00
02-00045 1446-05 $ 30,000.00
02-00047 1446-09 $ 4,600.00
Total $ 57,500.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
02-00055 2133 $ 500.00
02-00013 2133 $ 10,100.00
0-200031 _ 2133 $ 9,600.00
02-00045 2133 $ 32,700.00
02-00047 2133 $ 4,600.00
Total $ 57,500.00
Additional Accounting 7ctails: _
1 �
Grant funds employee positions? I NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue'? NA
I I
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
_1 Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
I _
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated'? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiates#A-17-b
Initiative Name:
Solar Project Assessment
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-18
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The Sustainability Division proposes to use $100,000 for a Solar Project Assessment. The
funding source would be from the$5,500,000 portion of the one-time $7 million distribution
from the Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility(SLVSWMF)which was received
in Feb2011.
The solar project assessment would help the Sustainability Division to determine the:
1. best financing options for a solar facility to support the Public Safety Building net-zero goal
(Power Purchase Agreements,leasing,purchase,or some combination thereof)
2. benefits of Federal tax issues,solar grants,Brownfield grants and any other discounts are
available to the City
3. resulting price of electricity we would produce for each option analyzed
4. best way to use the electricity and value it(Qualified Facility,Net-metered or direct)
5, most cost-effective site to place the solar panels, including analysis of the old City landfill
site
6. ways to assist in creating an RFP(s)to design and build the solar project
Initiative#A-18
•
`: Solar'Proiect•Assessment`
I. Initiative Name
BA#4.FY2011 Initiative#A-18 =2010-11
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
:Public"Services :New'Item..:::
Department Type of Initiative
Greg°Davis 1301-535-6123 ." "'
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund -Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Refuse Fund Note-funded by the 5.5M
already received from the
SLVSWMF
Total $0 $0
Other Fund .
Total $0 $0 •
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-18-a
•
I I 1
Accounting Detail Grant and CFDA#if Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number IAmount
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
57-11700 2329 $ 100,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE _
Grant funds employee positions?
Is there a potential for grant to continue?
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?
1
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated?
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector?
Initiative#A-1 8-b
This page intentionally left blank.
Initiative Name:
Fire Department Move to Versaterm Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)for combined
System with Police Department
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative #A-19
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
This request will amend the contract with Versaterm, which provided a CAD system for the
Salt Lake City Police Department. The purpose of this request is to include the Salt Lake City
Fire Department on the CAD system as the first step in combining the Police and Fire
Departments' into a single dispatch center.
This budget amendment requests additional expense budget from the E-911 fund balance to
cover the upgrade of the system to add Fire. E-911 fund balance will be used to offset this
expenditure. This current fund balance in the E-911 fund is approx $3.2 million.
Initiative A-19
I Fire Department Move to Versaterm
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)for
combined System with Police
Department
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#A-19 L--_ 2010-11
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Police_ ? New Item _
^—_ _--.Department _ Type of Initiative
___ Krista Dunn �� 799-3625
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund -Fund Balance- $ -
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $01
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-19-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
60-00620 2352-02 $ 385,000.00
i
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative A-1 9-b
Initiative Name:
Outside Counsel --Oil Spill Litigation
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative #A-20
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The Administration is requesting $200,000 for external counsel to engage in litigation related
to two oil spills that have occurred during the last year.
These funds are being requested from the General Fund Fund Balance.
Initiative#A-20
Outside Counsel --Oil Spill Litigation_
Initiative Name
[BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#A-20 _2010-11
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
[ (City Department) New Item� DepartmentType of Initiative —
(Employee Name) [ (Contact Number)
Ed Rutan Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund -Fund Balance- $ (200,000.00)
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 , $0
Other Fund
Total $0 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Initiative#A-20-a
'
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
15-01430 2390 $ 200,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No)
Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No)
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No)
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No)
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? (Yes or No)
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO)
Initiative#A-20-b
Initiative Name:
FEMA-US Department of Homeland Security,2010 Staffing for Adequate Fire and
Emergency Response(SAFER)Hiring Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#C1
Grants for New Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Fire Department applied for and received a $1,236,262 grant from the US Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,under the 2010 Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response(SAFER)Hiring program.
The purpose of the grant is to provide funding directly to fire departments and volunteer firefighter
interest organizations in order to help increase the number of trained,"front-line"firefighters available
in the community.
These funds will pay for the salary and benefits of eleven(11)new front-line personnel for a two year
period. The grant does not require that the positions be retained after the grant end date,however it
is anticipated that the positions may be retained depending on budgetary circumstances at the time
the grant ends.
This grant was originally brought in under budget opening#4 FY10. At that time the Fire Department
expected to receive$969,638. This request will increase the budget for this grant by the difference of
$266,624 received.
There is no required match.
A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and any
additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant.
Initiative#C-1
•
'FEMA-US Department of Homeland
Security,2010 Staffing for Adequate
• :fire and:Emergency Response
(SAFER)Hiring.Grant •
-� Initiative Name
BA#4'FY2011 Initiative#C1 _ 2010-11
Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year
Grants for'New_Staff
Fire Department: Resources .•:
' Department ( Type of Initiative I
John:Vuvk l Sherrie:Collins ,799-4210Y 535-6150;
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0
TotalF $j
Total $0
72-Grant Fund $ 266,624.00
Total $ 266,624.00 $0
Staffinq Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE`s:
Position Title:
Initiative C-1-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: MW-2010-FH-00741-97.044
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-71001 1360 $ 266,624.00
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
General Fund CIP
72-71001 2121-01 $ 266,624.00
Additional Accounting Details:
To create additional budget of$266,624
in cost center 7271001 _
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? Yes
Is there a potential for grant to continue? No
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _
be eliminated at the end of the grant? I Yes
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes
I
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? Yes
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? i No ---_
•
Initiative#C-1-b
Initiative Name:
Recapture Remaining General Fund CIP Completed and Closed Projects
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D1
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
This request decreases the remaining budgets of five (5)general fund CIP completed and closed
projects totaling$116,083.68, and increases the general fund CIP cost over run account to cover
future unanticipated cost over-runs on CIP projects.
Initiative#D-1
I I
Recapture Remaining General Fund
CIP Completed and Closed Protects
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D1 2010-11
Initiative Number r Fiscal Year
CED-HAND Housekeeping
Department I Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark 1 Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
(General Fund
Total $0
Class C
Total $0
Impact Fees _
Total $0
Total $0
� I
_ Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of I I 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative D-1-a
•
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA _
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number ME Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
General Fund CIP
8306023-Safety Light Additions 2700 $ (2,199.83)
8307028-Traffic Signal Installations _ 2700 $ (1,361.72)
8309019-Arterial Lighting Redwood Rd 2700 $ (93,868.29) _
8309024-Arterial Lighting California Ave 2700 $ (18,327.08)�
8398048-Jordan River Trail Signals 2700 $ (326.76)
83-11099 GF cost over-run 2700 i$ 116,083.68
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant funds employee positions? NA _
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
_If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _
be eliminated at the end of the grant? _ NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _
eliminated? NA
_Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#D-1-b
Initiative Name:
Recapture Remaining Housing and Urban Development(HUD)Community
Development Block Grant(CDBG)and Housing Opportunity for Persons with Aids
(HOPWA) Budgets
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D2
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
This request decreases the remaining budgets of two (2)completed and/or closed HUD, CDBG R
projects in the amount of$136,175.12; six(6)CDBG projects in the amount of$150,578.93 totaling
$286,754.05; and two (2) HOPWA projects totaling $6,017.96, and increases the cost over run
accounts of the respective programs for future reprogramming as per HUD Federal Guidelines.
Initiative#D-2
•
I I I I
Recapture Remaining Housing and
Urban Development(HUD)Community
Development Block Grant(CDBG)and
Housing Opportunity for Persons with
Aids(HOPWA)Budgets
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY.2011 Initiative#D2 • 2010-2011
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
CED-'HAND`; Housekeeping
Department Type of Initiative
_ LuAnn Clark!Jennifer Schumann _ 535-6136/535-7276
Prepared B NM Telephone Contact
(Negative) IM Positive
None 1.1
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total 0 IMEMIIMMEMErl
!Internal Service Fund
M
Total=_ M
Other Fund
Total MilliiMMMEMIIM 0'
_ Staffing Impact:
- ■ 0
Position Title: ■ ■
Initiative D-2-a
i
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Community Development Block Grant
83-10071 Bell Ave(CDBG-R) I 2700 $ (50,724.10Y
83-10072 Burbank Ave(CDBG-R) 2700 $ (85,451.02)
83-10074 CDBG-R Cost Overrun 270D I $ 136,175.12
72-61011 Community Action Program HC 2590 $ (754.78)
72-61014 Utah AIDS Foundation HOPWi 2590 $ (5,263.18)
'72-61020 HOPWA Cost Overrun 2590 I$ 6,017.96
71-34039 Boys&Girls Club Cap West P 2590 $ (1,882.95)
71-34045 Utah Akio Found/House of Ho 2590 $ (34,695.00)
'71.34099 CDBG Cost Overrun 2590 $ 36,577.95
71-35048 Neighborhood House PSBI 2590 $ (353.32)
71-35051 Salvation Army Roof Rehab Pt 2590 $ (40,567.78)
71-35002 Finance Support 2590 $ _ (6,555.88)
71-35099 CDBG Cost Overrun 2590 $ 47,476.98
71-36054 Salvation Army Basement Hea 2590 $ (66,524.00)
71.36099 CDBG Cost Overrun 2590 $ 66,524.00
Total Recapture $ 292,772.01
Additional Accounting Details:
11
Grant Information:
'Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA _
li i
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are ,
eliminated? NA -�
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? _ NA
Initiative#0-2-b
Initiative Name:
HUD CDBG and HOPWA Budget Adjustments
Initiative Number:
BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#D3
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
This request is to establish budget in the amount of $82,179.67 in cost center 7135060. During
Budget Amendment#4,FY10,Community Development Corp(CDC)program income received,was
recaptured and moved from 7135060,to a cost over run account for reprogramming..This created a
budget deficit in cost center 7135060 where the cash was received but not budgeted for. This action
will create budget for the deficit and balance the account.
In addition,this request is to create budget in the amount of$9,429.98 and establish a new HOPWA
cost over run cost center for the year the HOPWA funds were allocated from HUD. This will enable
the funds to be reprogrammed for future use in accordance with the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development(HUD)Federal Guidelines
Initiative#D-3
I I
Recapture Community Development
Block Grant(CDBG)Completed and
Closed Projects
Initiative Name
BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#D3 2010-11
Initiative Number I 1 Fiscal Year
CED-HAND Housekeeping
Department I P Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark I Jennifer Schumann 535-61361535-7276
Prepared By - Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None -
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $ - $0
I I
Staffin•Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative D-3-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number ; Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
CDBG
71-35060 CDC Program Income 2590 $ 82,179.67
Budget Only
HOPWA
72-606XX HOPWA Cost Overrun_ 2590 $ 9,429.98
Budget Only
I
Additioral Accounting Details:
__
To create budget in 71-35060.Cash was previously moved creating a budget deficit.
L 1
To create budget in a new HOPWA Cost Overrun account Cash was identified in cost center 71-60612 from
left over program funds,however,there is no budget identified.
Grant lnfnrmation: _
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
I I
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
1
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or n1
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#D-3-b
Initiative Name:
Interest Income on Bonding
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 initiative#D-4
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2009A, were issued in February 2009 to tund Salt
Lake City's Public Services Maintenance Facility project,and the Office Building construction
project(Barnes Bank Building Project).At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were
deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the proceeds have been earning interest. This
amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the last quater of fiscal year 2010 and the
first two quaters of fiscal year 2011.
Totals of$21,732 for the Public Services Maintenance Facility project and$19,790 for the
Office Building construction project have accumulated in each respective fund since the
previous amendment which was calculated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2010.
General Obligation Bonds Series 2009B,were issued in June 2009 to fund Salt Lake
City's cost of renovating,improving and preserving the old main library building and providing
related facilities located approximately 5th South Street and 2nd East Street to establish a
science,culture and art education center known as The Leonardo.At the time the bonds were
issued the proceeds were deposited with the Paying Agent.Since then,the unspent proceeds
have been earning interest.This amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the last
quater of fiscal year 2010 and the first two quaters of fiscal year 2011.
A total of$37,330 for The Leonardo Project have accumulated since since the previous
amendment which was calculated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2010.
Initiative#D-4
Initiative Name:
Interest Income on Bonding
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-4
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
General Obligation Bonds Series 2010A,were issued in April 2010 for the purpose of
providing a public safety administration and operations building,an emergency operations
center,and related facilities.The total par amount of bonds issued was$25,000,000.The
bonds in the aggregate principal amount of$5,845,000 were designated as'Tax exempt -
Bonds."The bonds in the aggregate principal amount of$19,155,000 were designated as
"Federally Taxable-Direct Pay-Build America Bonds"At the time the bonds were issued the
proceeds were deposited with the Paying Agent.Since then,the unspent proceeds have
been earning interest.This amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the last quater
of fiscal year 2010 and the first two quaters of fiscal year 2011.
A total of$21,541 for the"tax-exempt bonds"has accumulated since the bonds were
issued.
A total of$49,573 for the"FederaflyTaxable-Direct Pay-Build America Bonds"has
accumulated since the bonds were issued.
General Obligation Bonds Series 20108,were issued in November2010 tor the
purpose of providing a public safety administration and operations building,an emergency
operations center,and related facilities.The total par amount of bonds issued was
$100,000,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the
Paying Agent.Since then,the unspent proceeds have been earning interest.This
amendment is to appropriate interest earned during the second quater of fiscal year 2011.
A total of$57,623 for the General Obligation Bonds Series 2010E has accumulated since
the bonds were issued.
Initiative#D-4
I I
Interest Income on Bonding
I Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-4 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
Finance Housekeeping
Department I Type of Initiative C
Dan Mule'/Marina Scott 535-6411/535-6565
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
83-CIP Fund 207,589
Total $207,5891 $0
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: Initiative#D-4a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-09064 1830 $ 21,732.00
83-09071 1830 $ 19,790.00
83-06081 1830 $ 37,330.00
•
83-10081 1830 $ 21,541.00
83-10083 1830 $ 49,573.00
83-11084 1830 $ 57 623.00
$ 207,589.00
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-09064 2700 $ 21,732.00
83-09071 2700 $ 19,790.00
83-06081 2700 $ 37,330.00
83-10081 2700 $ 21,541.00
83-10083 2700 $ 49,573.00
83-11084 2700 $ 57,623.00
$ 207,589.00
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? _ (Yes or No)
Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No)
I
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No)
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No)
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? I (Yes or No)
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO)
Initiative#D-4-b
Initiative Name:
Special Revenue Housing Development Program Income
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-5
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
The Housing Section of Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) has generated
program income from principle and interest payments received from borrowers. The Council
usually appropriates this program income in the House Section to fund additional loans. It is
requested that the Council once again appropriates this program income to fund additional
loans for use by the Housing Section in its Renter Rehabilitation,CDBG and Home Programs.
This will allow additional loans to the citizens of Salt Lake City.
Initiative#D-5
J I I . L_
Special Revenue'Housing
Development •Income
Initiative Name I
BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-5 2010-11
I Initiative Number I 1 Fiscal Year
Finance _ Housekeeping -
•
l Department I 1 Typeoflnitiative
Elwin Neilmann 801 535-6424
Prepared By I Telephone Contact
_ (Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount _
General Fund
Total _ $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
78 Housing Loans Fund - 940,797__
Total $940,797 $0
Other Fund
71 CDBG Operating Fund 900,618
ILTotal $900,618 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
--- - r
r
Initiative#D-5-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
78.00201 Renter Rehab. 1305 $ 40,179.00
78-36010 CDBG Loans 1974-03 $ 900,618.00
Total Enterprise $ 940,797.00
71-36010 CDBG Housing Loans 1310 $ 900,618.00
Total Special Revenue $ 900 618.00.
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
78-00201 Renter Rehab. 2950 $ 40,179.00
78-00101 CDBG Clearing 2910-71 $ 900,618.00
78-00101 CDBG Clearing 2950 $ (900,618.00)
783601 D CDBG Loans 2950 $ 900,618.00
Total Enterprise $ 940,797.00
71-36010 CDBG Housing Loans 2910-15 $ 900,618.00
Total Special Revenue $ 900,618.00
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No)
I
Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No)
If grant is fund a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? (Yes or No)
—Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No)
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _
eliminated? (Yes or No)
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO)
Initiative#D-5-b
Initiative Name:
Land Fill(SLVSWMF)2011 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-6
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
The Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF) Board approved a
$2:00/ton fee increase to the household trash and construction debris tipping fees, to be
effective on 1 July 2011.Please see attached sheet which compares current prices with the
fee increase approved by the SLVSWMF.
The fee increase was approved by the SLVSWMF Board on 11 March 2011. The fee
increase is now being presented to both the Salt Lake City Council and the Salt Lake County
Council for their approval.
The rationale for the fee increase includes:
Maintaining a favorable bond rating.Parameters for the SLVSWMF'bond rating stipulate
that the unrestricted cash balance be five percent of expenditures.Based on the approved
2011 budget for the SLVSWMF,five percent of expenditures is$633,885.
Without a fee increase,unrestricted cash is projected to be$333,587 by year-end 2011;by
year-end 2012 it is projected to be($826,802).
With a$2.00/ton fee increase beginning on 1 July 2011,unrestricted cash is projected to be
$780,587 by year-end 2011.
The fee increase as approved by the SLVSWMF Board would not effect FY2010-2011 Salt
Lake City budgets.The impact of the$2.00/ton fee increase to the Refuse Fund FY2011-
2012 budget is currently estimated to be$102,052.
The number of tons in 2011 at the SLVSWMF is projected to be 447,000;no change from the
2011 budget presentation.
Initiative#D-6
Initiative Name:
Land Fill(SLVSWMF)2011 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-6
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
The SLVSWMF is adding a new revenue account.It will separately track greenwaste
tonnage.The additional revenue budget is$357,000.This revenue stream was known when
the 2011 budget was pulled together last fall.However,a revenue code did not exist at that
time.Therefore the SLVSWMF was advised to add this revenue stream in as a mid-year
adjustment.They are doing so now.
The CPI used for post closure expenses has increased.An adjustment is required.Therefore
$5,033 increase in post closure expense budget is proposed.
Currently there is potential that the SLVSWMF will be adding back an additional 1%to some
specific payroll expenses.If the economic conditions in the near future do not warrant these
additions the change will not be made.The impact of this change would be$23,122 based on
known factors.It is possible that this amount could change.
A$200,000 trommel screen,for greenwaste screening,was approved in 2010.Delays
occurred in the contracting process;it was not purchased in 2010.The need for the trommel
screen remains.Hence,$208,075 in budget for the trommel screen is now being requested in
2011.This is an expense increase of$8,075.
It is recommended that the mid-year revenue and expense adjustments for the SLVSWMF be
approved.
Approval of this item will not affect current year internal City budget and/or financials,but will
be implemented by SLVSWMF.
Initiative#D-6
I I I . .I
Land Fill(SLVSWMF1 2011 Mid-Year
Budget Adiustment
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-6 2011
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Public Services Housekeeping '
Department I I Type of Initiative_
Greg Davis 801=535.6123
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact BY Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
0 0
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Landfill Fees $ 447,000.00 $ 894,000.00
Greenwaste Fees $ 357,000.00 $ 357,000.00
Total $ 804,000.00 $ 1,251,000.00
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
Ell
Initiative#D-6-a
i I
Accounting Detail 3rant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
SLVSWMF Calendar Year 2011 impacts
Landfill Fees $ 447,000,00
Greenwaste Fees $ 357,000.00
$ 804,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
SLVSWMF Calendar Year 2011 impacts
Post Closure expense $ 5,033.00 _
• Payroll increases $ 23,121.79
Trommel screen:previously approved for 2010,with price increase $ 208,075.00~--
$ 236,229.79
Additional Accounting Details:
Refuse Fund FY2010-FY2011:impact
5711200 2396 $ -
5711400 2396 $ -
5711600 _ 23961 $ -
Refuse Fund FY2011-FY2012:estimated impact
57112001 2396 _ $ 86,400.00
5711400 2396 $ 2,252.00
57116001 2396 $ 13,400.00
This will be taken into account for the FY11-12 Refuse Fund budget. $ 102,052.00
NOT APPLICABLE
Grant funds employee positions?
� � I
Is there a potential for grant to continue?
I
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?
• Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _
eliminated?
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector?
Initiative#D-6-b
SLVSWMF
Fee Comparison
Changes highlighted
Pick-Up Truck Single Axle Trailers Double Axle Trailers Commercial Transfer Station
Flat Rate Flat Rate Flat Rate By Ton By Ton
2011 July 2011 2011 July 2011 2011 July2011 2011 July 2011 2011 July 2011
Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed Current Proposed
household trash $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 30.00 $ 30,00 $ 24.00 $ 26.00 $ 26.00 ,;$ 28.00
household trash,SLCity and SLCounty n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 24.00 $ _26,00 $ 24.00 $_26.00
clean green waste $ 5,00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 16.00 $ 16.00 n/a n/a
construction debris $ 10.00 $ 10.00 $ 10,00 $ 10.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 24.00 -.$ 26.00 n/a n/a
clean soil n clean sod $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 n/a n/a
dean asphalt n concrete $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5,00 $ 5.00 $ 15.00 $ 15.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 n/a n/a
leaves,debugged $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 3.00 $ 3.00 n/a n/a
deceased animals n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $100.75 $ 100.75 n/a n/a
special/medical waste n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $100.75 $ 100.75 n/a n/a
asbestos".friable n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $500.75 $500.75 n/a n/a
asbestos.non-friable n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $100.75 $ 100.75 n/a n/a
household hazardous waste-
determined by HD n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
compost sale-per scoop(green waste
ground to mulch-the product) $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 $ 30.00 n/a n/a
Initiative Name:
Transfer of Funds From the MBA Fund to the General Fund
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY 2011 Initiative#D-7
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
In the Fiscal Year 2011 budget a transfer of funds from the MBA Fund was appropriated in
the General Fund as a transfer in from the MBA Fund in the amount of$147,441. The off
setting amount in the MBA Fund was not budgeted. This initiative will develop a budget in the
MBA Fund for the transfer out to the General Fund in the amount of$147.441.
Initiative#D-7
I I � . L_
Transfer of Funds From the'MBA Fund.
to the General Fund _
Initiative Name
BA#4.FY 2011 Initiative#D-7 _ _ _ 2010-11
Initiative Number E I Fiscal Year
Finance 'Housekeeping
Department I L___ J. Type of Initiative
Teresa-Beckstrand .: 801-535-6416 .
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total) $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
_ l
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total $0 $0
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: I
Initiative#D-7-a
_ Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure.
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
66-00033 2910-05 $ 147,441.00
Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No)
Is there a potential for rant to continue? (Yes or No)
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?I (Yes or No)
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? (Yes or No)
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? 1--T (Yes or No)
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? _ (Yes or NO)
Initiative#D-7-b
Initiative Name:
Move Library's Contingency to Operational Expenses
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-8
Initiative Type:
House Keeping
Initiative Discussion:
2010-11 Approved Operating Revenue Budget of$13,414,649
2010-11 Approved Operating Expenditure Budget of"$13,414,649'including a$210,000
contingency.
Given prior year shortfalls in Library Property Tax revenue and the associated uncertainty of
2010-11 Property Tax revenue,the Library has managed Total Operating Expenditures at
$13,204,649 during the year.
With the final reconciliation of 2010 property tax complete and 3 months remaining on the
Library's other revenues,the Library is confident2010-11 Operating Revenues will be
approximately$13,401,629 allowing approximately$197,000 of the Contingency line item to
be used for additional Operating Expenditures. It is the Library's intent to 1)fund additional
Materials expenditures by$100,000 and 2)fund a one-time offset for prior year wage freeze
for Library personnel.
Approval of this item will not affect current year internal City budget and/or financials,but will
be implemented by the City Library
Initiative#D-8
f I I I
Move Library's Contingency to
Operational Expenses
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#D-8 2010-11
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Li rary _ House Keeping
Department Type of Initiative
'Beth Elder 801-524-8201
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
_ Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund r _
Total _ $0, _ _ _ $0
Enterprise Fund
-
Total $0 $0
Other Fund _
Total $0 $0
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title:
I--
Initiative#D-8-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
—1 --
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant funds employee positions? (Yes or No)
Is there a potential for grant to continue? (Yes or No)
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _
be eliminated at the end of the grant?I (Yes or No)
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? _ (Yes or No)
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? (Yes or No)
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? (Yes or NO)
Initiative VD-t-b
Initiative Name:
State of Utah,Department of Public Safety,Division of Homeland Security,FY 2008
Urban Area Security Initiative(UASI) Grant Allocation Increase
Initiative Number:
BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#E-1
Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Emergency Management Services Division applied for and received$1,476,000 of grant
funding from the State of Utah Division of Homeland Security under the 2008 UASI program.
This grant was brought in under budget amendment#2 FY 2009,Initiative#E-7.
Of these funds, $330,000 is being used to pay full time staff to coordinate and plan the
program, $40,000 to develop and implement homeland security support programs and adopt
ongoing DHS National Initiatives; $75,000 for materials required to conduct planning
activities;and$800,000 was used to purchase Stocked Mobile Interoperable Tactical Solution
Vehicle. $231,000 of these funds were to be a contractual component with the State of Utah.
The State of Utah has since decided to allow the City to use the$231,000 for equipment and
allocate an additional $369,000, also to be used for equipment, bringing the total grant
allocation to$1,845,000. The equipment is to be purchased under the UASI Fusion Center
Investment Program component under the grant.
This request is to allocate the additional$369,000 of budget to facilitate the grant increase.
Initiative#E-1
- I
State of litah,Department of Public
Safety,Division of Homeland Security,
FY 2008 Urban Area Securitvjnitiative
_ fUASI) Grant Allocation Increase
1 1 Initiative Name I
BA#1 FY2011 Initiative#E-1 2010-11
Initiative Number ' I Fiscal Year
Grants Requiring No
Emergency Management Services. New Staff'Resources
Department � I Type of Initiative
Alicia Johnson.!Sherrie Collins 799-3602/535-6136
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- I None
Im•act
Revenue Impact By Fund- Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
72-Grant Fund $ 369,000.00
Total $ 369,000.00 I $0
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
_ 1
Initiative#E-1-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA I If Applicable: DES-2006-UASI-001 97.067 __
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number MIAmount
72-10906 1370 $ 369,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-10906
2700 $ 369,000.00
_ I
Additional Accourting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions?� NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#E-1-b
Initiative Name:
FY 2008 Homeland Security Pass Thru
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#E-2
Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
Salt Lake City has an existing contract with Beck Disaster Recover(BDR) to provide Valley-wide
training,plan development,plan implementation training and exercise for evacuation of large venues.
The initial training,Phase I,was completed in December 2010. The funding for Phase!was provided
by the City's 2009 Homeland Security Grant and contributions from local law enforcement entities who
are members of the Salt Lake Police Alliance. The City administers the BDR contract and invoices the
other agencies.
The Salt Lake County Homeland Security Grants Council directs the distribution of the State
Homeland Security Grants to entities in the Salt Lake Valley. Based on projects that were under
budget,the Council identified$49,000 in unused grant funds from the 2008 Homeland Security Grant.
The Council voted to use those funds,which are administered by Unified Fire Authority,to complete
Plan Development(Phase II)and Plan Implementation Training,(Phase Ill)of the venue evacuation
training and exercise program,
Since the City administers the BDR contract and will implement the venue plan development,training
and exercise for Phases II and Ill of the program,the County agreed to pass the funding through to
the City for continuation of the exercises.
This request is to establish budget in the amount of$49,000 which will be used to pay the Consultant,
BDR for their services.
Initiative#E-2
FY 2008 Homeland Security Pass Thru
1 I Initiative Name I _
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#E-2 2010-11
J Initiative Number I 1 Fiscal Year
Grants Requiring No
CEO-H.A.N.D. New Staff Resources
i Department i Type of Initiative
Cory Lyman/Sherrie Collins 799-3602/535-6050
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
_ Revenue Impact By Fund: fiscal Year Annual _
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total_ $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund _ _ _
Total I $0t $0
Other Fund
72-61132 $ 49,000.00
Total' _$ 49,000.00 _ $0
Staffing Impact_
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
-- I
II
1 . )111
Initiative#E-2-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFCA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
172-61132 _ 1370 $ 49,000.00-
Expenditure.
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-61132 2590 $ 49,000.00
Additional Accounting Details.
Grant Inforniaticn.
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program he complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _
eliminated? NA
Does grant duplicate services provided bprivate or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#E-2.b
Initiative Name:
US Department of Interior- Fisher Mansion Carriage House Preservation
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative # E3
Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Mayor's Office along with the CED Engineering .Division applied for and received a $150,000
grant from the US Department of Interior, Historic Preservation fund under the Save America's
Treasures grant program.
These funds were awarded for preservation of the Fisher Mansion Carriage House. Preservation
improvements include replacement and repair of roof, bracing existing chimney to meet seismic
requirements and restore damaged chimney masonry, repair and replace gutter and roof drainage
system, reinforcement and repair of cracks in existing exterior masonry walls, upgrade existing floor
and roof diaphragms to meet current seismic criteria, paint doors and windows and upgrade and
install electrical and mechanical infrastructure.
The grant requires a $150,000 match which will be met with the $120,000 Fisher Mansion CIP
allocation and private and public donations.
Initiative#E-3
I
:US Department of Interior-Fisher
Mansion Carriage House Preservation
Initiative Name
BA#4=FY2011 Initiative'#.E3 • 2010=41
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year IT
Grants`Renuirinet No`.
CED EnoineeringlMavors Office New:Staff'Resources
Department I I .. Type of Initiative
Sean'Fvfe.l'Sherr eCollins` :535-6344/535-6150 _
Prepared By Telephone Contact L
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0
Total • $0
Total .$0
72-Grant Fund $ 150,000:00
Total $ 150,000.00 $0
•
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
•
Initiative E-3-a
Accounting Detail Grant-It and CFDAW If Applicable: 49-10-ML-2044
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72 New Cost Center 1360 $ 150,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number I Amount
General Fund CIP
72 New Cost Center 2700 $ 150,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions'? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? I NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? No
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? No
I
Initiative#E-3-b
This page intentionally left blank.
Initiative Name:
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-Pulling Together for the Jordan River Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-1
Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards
Initiative Discussion:
The Public Services Open Space Division applied for and received a$25,000 grant from the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation. These funds were awarded to create.a strategy for public and private
partnerships and develop a plan to control invasive plants and noxious weeds threatening the Jordan
River.
The 52 river mile riparian corridor of the Jordan River runs through 15 municipalities and provides an
ecological connection between Utah Lake and the Great Sat lake . The project team and steering
committee by local cooperators from the South Shore Cooperative Weed Management Area will
develop an Integrated Pest management Plan,native plant restoration guides,training programs and
educational materials to increase public awareness. Outcomes include an Integrated Pest
Management Plan that provides a framework, including weed maps and identification guides, for
public and private land owners to implement a sustained early detection and rapid response to
noxious and invasive weed; increased quality riparian habitat for land birds, shore bids and neo
tropical migratory song birds;and evaluation,mapping,and prioritizing of invasive and noxious weeds
along nine liner miles of Salt Lake City owned property on the Jordan River, and increase public
awareness about the adverse impacts of invasive and noxious plants through staff and volunteer
training programs and coordinated volunteer weed pulls.
This request will replenish the grant holding account.
The$25,000 grant funds will be used to secure the services of a environmental consultant to provide
project facilitation,steering committee coordination,weed mapping,IPMP development,training
manuals,guides and document development.
The grant requires a$25,145 match which will come from the City's Open Space fund. These funds
will be combined with the grant funds for the contractual services.
Initiative#G-1
J I I _
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-
Pullinq Together for the Jordan River
Grant,.
j I Initiative Name I
BA#4 FY2011'Initiative#G-1 2010.11
Initiative Number I I I Fiscal Year
Council Consent
CED - Agenda-Grant Awards
—1 Type of Initiative I
Sherrie Collins 535-6150+
Prepared By I Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0i $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
72-99999 $ 25,000.00
Total $ 25,000.00 $0
Staffing Impact_
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
lul
Initiative#G-1-a
I
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 1370 $ 25,000.00
H
■
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 2590 • $ 25.000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the want? NA
I Wi11 grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? _ N/A
Will grant impact the community once'the grant funds are
eliminated? N/A
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? I f N/A
Initiative#G-1-b
Initiative Name:
State Office of Crime Victim Reparations,2010 VAWA Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-2
Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards
Initiative Discussion:
The Police Department received.a$18,963.82 grant from the State of Utah,Office of Crime Victim
Reparations for the continuation of their VAWA funded Victim Advocate Program. Of these funds,
$18,763.83 will be used to pay the salary and benefits of(.50)FTE victim advocate who provides on
scene crisis counseling and information pertaining to resource services to victims of domestic
violence; and $200 will be used for emergency victim assistance needs such as food, clothing,
transportation,etc. The PD receives this grant on an annual basis.
A$6,356.54 match is required which will be satisfied by the payment of salary and benefits of the
victim advocate program coordinator. These funds are budgeted for within the Police Departments
general fund budget.
This request will replenish the grant holding account.
A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any
additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant.
A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any
additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant.
Initiative#G-2
State Office of Crime Victim
Reparations,2010 VAWA Grant
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 initiative#G-2 2010.11
Initiative Number , Fiscal Year
Council Consent
CED Agenda-Grant Awards
Type of Initiative
Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By I Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None _J
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total 0 0
Internal Service Fund
Total 0 0
Enterprise Fund
Total $Oi $0
Other Fund
72-99999 $ 18,963.82J
Total $ 18,963.82 $0
IMMEM
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
_ _ r
Initiative#G-2-a
•
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 1370 18,963.82
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 2590 $ 18,963.82
Additional Accountinc Details:
I
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
I I
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grantfunding time frame? N/A
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? N/A
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non.proftt sector? N/A
Initiative eG-2-b
Initiative Name:
Executive Office of the President,Office of National Drug Control-Rocky Mountain
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Agency(HIDTA)
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-3
Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards
Initiative Discussion:
The Police Department applied for and received an additional $50,000 Rocky Mountain HIDTA grant
from the Executive Office of the President,Office of National Drug Control under their FY 10 program.
The SLCPD receives this grant on an annual basis and funds the salary and benefits of an
Investigative Law Enforcement Officers assigned to the Metro Narcotics/Drug Enforcement Task
Force to address drug issues throughout the Valley.
Of the additional funds awarded, $20,000 will be used for travel to local and regional community
prevention events that focus on training and educating the medical community in using the Utah
Controlled Substance Database, and site visits to other states to review their efforts in combating
pharmaceutical drug crime issues; $30,000 will be used for contractual components including
awarding an additional $10,000 to the required program evaluation contract; and $20,000 will be
awarded to the Department of Occupational and Professional Licensing to conduct educational
classes to medical professionals of the changes made to the Controlled Substance Database during
the 2010 Utah Legislative Session and the requirement of medical providers to register on the system.
A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any
additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant.
This request will replenish the grant holding account.
Initiative#G-3
I
Executive Office of the President,
Office of National Drug Control-Rocky
Mountain High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Agency(HIDTA)
) Initiative Name
BA14 FY2011 Initiative#G-3 _ 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
Council Consent
CED Agenda-Grant Awards
— _I —1 Type of Initiative
Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total _ $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
72-99999 $ 50,000.00
Total $ 50,000.00 $0
Staffinccj mpact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#G-3-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 1370 $ 50,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 2590 $ 50,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?I NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A
I I_
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? N/A
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or _
Non-profit sector? i i N/A
Initiative#G-3-b
Initiative Name:
State of Utah,Department of Public Safety,Division of Homeland Security-
Metropolitan Medical Response System(MMRS)Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-4
Council Consent Agenda-Grant Awards
Initiative Discussion:
The Fire Department applied for and received$317,419 from the State of Utah,Department of Public
Safety,under the FEMA Homeland Security.Metropolitan Medical Response(MMRS)grant program.
This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions across the County to plan and implement a
medical response mechanism in the event of a mass casualty or a weapons of mass destruction
terrorist attack. The SLC Fire Department is the lead agency partnering with local health,police,fire,
hospitals,ambulance and other agencies who make up the MMRS team.
Of these funds,$174,271 will be used to purchase equipment$30,000 will be used for required travel
and training to'regional and national training workshops by the MMRS Steering':Committee and
coordinators;$30,000 of the grant funding will be used to plan and coordinate MMRS activities,drills
and grant preparation as is required by the grant regulations;and$83,148 will be used to pay for the
Doctor contracted by the Fire Department who provides pharmaceutical oversight as is State
regulated in order for the Fire Department to disburse pharmaceuticals.
This request will replenish the grant holding account.
No match is required.
A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the funds and any
additional grants or agreements that stem from the original grant.
Initiative#G-4
I I I
State of Utah,Department of Public
Safety,Division of Homeland Security
Metropolitan Medical Response
System1MMRS)Grant
J Initiative Name I I
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#G-4 2010-11
Initiative Number I I Fiscal Year
Council Consent
CED Agenda-Grant Awards
I I Type of Initiative
Sherrie Collins 535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact �—
L (Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- None
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total{ $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total 10 I $0
Other Fund
72-99999 $ 317,419.00
Total $ 317 419.00 $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative#G-4-a
I
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 1370 $ 317,419.00—
U
Expenditure-
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-99999 2590 $ 317,419.90
■ ■
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
If want is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are _
eliminated? N/A
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? I N/A
Initiative#G-46
Initiative Name:
Sugarhouse Fire Works
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#I-1
Council Additional Item
Initiative Discussion:
The Council amended the FY 2011 budget by$10,000 to fund a portion of the Sugar House
Park fireworks for the 4th of July celebration. In addition to the$10,000,the Salt Lake
City's Special Event Sponsorship Fund gave the organization raising funds for the
Sugarhouse Fireworks(Preserve Our Way Trust)a grant for$5,000.
These funds will come from the General Fund Fund Balance.
Initiative#I-1
Suaarhouse Fire Works
Initiative Name 1
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#1-1 2010-11
Initiative Number I L Fiscal Year
Council m Office Council Additional Item
Type of Initiative
Karen Halladav 535-7600
Prepared By I— Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance- $ (10,000.00)
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
Total $0
Total $0
Total $0`_
Total $ - $0
Staffing Impact:
Requested Number of 0
FTE's:
Position Title:
Initiative I-1-a
i I
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
- M2222113M.111111.MMMIIIIIIIMII"11111MCost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
General Fund CIP
09-New Cost Center 2590 $ 10,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? NA
Is there a potential for grant to continue? NA _ 4
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? NA
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? NA
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? I _ NA
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative#1-1-1)
Initiative Name:
Council Additional Expense Items Not Cover by CDBG Funds
Initiative Number:
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#I-2
Initiative Type:
Council Additional Item
Initiative Discussion:
In the FY 2011 allocation for CDBG,the Council approved$91,000 in CDBG funds to cover
expenses in the Council Office that are driven by service to CDBG-eligible areas
(constituent liaison response,outreach meetings,etc). Subsequent to that allocation,the
Administration discovered that CDBG funds cannot be used on legislative branch expenses.
In order to meet the Council's confirmed intent to cover this shortfall,the Council used that
$91,000 CDBG allocation to fund the CDBG-eligible portion of the City-wide Concrete
Study. This frees up funds in that are currently in the Non-Departmental budget to be
shifted back to the Council Office budget,meeting the Council's original intent. This
budget amendment request will complete this action.
Initiative#1-2
I-L
Council Additional Expense Items Not
Cover by CDBG Funds
Initiative Name
BA#4 FY2011 Initiative#I.2 2010-11
Initiative Number J Fiscal Year
Council Council Additional Item
—1 Department __ __Type of Initiative__
Karen Halladay_______ r 801-535-7600
Prepared By Telephone Contact
(Negative) Positive
General Fund-Fund Balance-
Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: Fiscal Year Annual
Impact Amount Impact Amount
General Fund
19-00100 i$ 91,000.00
Total $ 91,000.00 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total _ $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
0 0
Total $0 $0
I L
Requested Number of 0 0
Position Title: no staffing changes
Initiative#1.2-a
Accounting Detail Grant#and CI'DA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
19-00100 1974-05 $ 91,000.00
� t
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
71-36003 2590 $ 91,709.00
71-New Cost Center 2590 $ (91,709.00)
83-11043 2910-08 $ (91,000.00)
19-00100 2311 $ 91,000.00
Additional Accounting Dctails:
Grant Information: NOT APPLICABLE
Grant funds employee positions?
Is there a potential for grant to continue?
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame?
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated?
'Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector?
Initiative#1-2-b