Loading...
089 of 1996 - Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 35 of 1996 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, i0 96-1 B 96-1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 89 of 1996 (Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 35 of 1996 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 1996-97) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 35 OF 1996 WHICH APPROVED, RATIFIED AND FINALIZED THE BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, INCLUDING THE EMPLOYMENT STAFFING DOCUMENT, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1996 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1997. PREAMBLE On June 11, 1996, the Salt Lake City Council approved, ratified and finalized the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997, in accordance with the requirements of Section 118, Chapter 6, Title 10 of the Utah Code Annotated, and said budget, including the employment staffing document, was approved by the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. The City Council fixed a time and place for a public hearing to be held on November 19, 1996 to consider the attached proposed amendments to the budget, including the employment staffing document, and ordered notice thereof be published as required by law. Notice of said public hearing to consider the amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing document, was duly published and a public hearing to consider the attached amendments to said budget, including the employment staffing document, was held on November 19, 1996, in accordance with said notice at which hearing all interested parties for and against the budget amendment proposals were heard and all comments were duly considered by the City Council. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document, have been accomplished. ,Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City Utah: 2 SECTION 1. Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 35 of 1996. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1996 and ending June 30, 1997, in accordance with the requirements of Section 128, Chapter 6, Title 10, of the Utah Code Annotated SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City's Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City's Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendment . The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including 3 amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _Lath day of Novamber ATTEST: ITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: , 1996. -CHAIRPERSON 11-19-96 XXXX Approved Vet•ed MAYOR 4 Ar4p ROVED 12 TO F��°LIZ,T o .f SD.Sti.a?to Cy A;:i;m y°s 3il`ScE; Date BY ATTEST: Published: CITY RERDER 89 of 1996. 11-29-96 G:\ORDINA96\AMENDBUD.N12 5 Issues in Budget Amendment -- November 1996 Policy & Budget 1. Police -COPS/Universal Hiring - Phase 2 $200,470 2. Public Services Environmental Clean-up $65,000 Liability 3. Alternatives to Jail Study $48,000 Capital Planning and Programming 1. Budget Revisions to Current Projects $25,616.80 2 Issue #1 Police-COPS/Universal Hiring -Phase 2 General Fund $200,470 (E) It is requested that a budget in the amount of $200,470 be added to the police department expense budget and $ 123,038 be added to the General Fund revenue account to reflect the funding of 10 additional police officers added as part of phase 2 of the COPS Universal Hiring Grant to be hired February, 1997. The initial grant proposed the hiring of 50 officers over the next 5 years. The COPS office notified the city of an opportunity to accelerate the hiring of the second group from July 1, 1997 to February 10, 1997. It is proposed that the $ 77,432 (25% match and associated outfitting and processing costs) be funded from a projected increase in property tax revenue. The adjustment necessary to amend the budget is as follows: Fund Department/Category Decrease Increase General Fund Property Taxes Revenue $77,432 (R) Grant Revenue $123,038 (R) Police/Personal Services $200,470 (E) Total General Fund $200,470 (R) $200,470 (E) Issue #2 Environmental Clean-up Liability General Fund $68,643 (E) Asbestos Abatement: Train at Pioneer Park Upon discovery of friable asbestos leaking from the engine on display at Pioneer Park, the City became liable under state and federal laws. That liability was mitigated by taking immediate abatement action. After an accelerated bid process the asbestos abatement was initiated in compliance with strict federal and state regulations. Total cost of the abatement is $35,000. PCB Disposal Storage of used transformers containing PCBs at the De Long Street Yard over the past ten years caused the City liability under federal regulations. The mitigation of that liability required the incineration of the transformers at a cost of $30,000. The city's self insurance fund has no appropriation for this type of mitigation expense. The city has recently received $50,000 from the settlement of an asbestos removal project. It is recommended to appropriate this revenue and apply it toward the cost of these projects. 3