062 of 2007 - Budget Amendment No. 2 for FY 2007/2008 0 07-1
B 07--11
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. 62 of 2007
(Amending the Final Budget of Salt Lake City,
including the employment staffing document,
for Fiscal Year 2007-2008)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 24 OF
2007 WHICH ADOPTED THE FINAL BUDGET OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, THE
FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2007 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2008.
PREAMBLE
On June 12, 2007, 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, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008, 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.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final
budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved,
ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No.24 of 2007.
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, 2007 and ending June 30, 2008, 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 Amendments. The said Budget
Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments,
including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget
Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for
public inspection.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first
publication.
2
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 11 th day of
December , 2007.
✓'
`CHAIRPERSON G
ATTEST:
•
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY EC RD R
Transmitted to the Mayor on December 18, 2007
Mayor's Action: Approved Vetoed
'7t5r)
MAYOR
ATTEST:
. _II-4:-_07 "dz.._ -
„‹.-5.5'.-.777--, ks2 ,,,,.,_ .7,
.,„ .,;^:' 'C HIEF DEPUT I R CO ER
'' - ,.t`,! 4 ': '7
r ,� (SEAL)
~1uT-
ti,4,44.,„.4.4.,
ill No. 62 of 2007.
Published: December 26, 2007,
IIB_A1TY-42I69-vl-Budget_amendmcnt l 2007-2008 DOC
3
Atachrnent D
MOTIONS FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT No. 2
PUBLIC HEARING
December 11, 2007
ITEM C-1
1. HI move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance amending the
fiscal year 2007-2008 budget as proposed by the
Administration, with the exception of Item A-2, Central
Business District Recycling Program, Item A-15, Prosecutor's
Office funding, and Item I-1, a newly added request from the
Salt Lake Legal Defender Association.
Additional Motions:
2. Re: I-1 Legal Defenders:
["I move that the Council"] Add Item I-1, an appropriation for the
Salt Lake Legal Defender Association in the amount of$15.295.
3. Re: CBD recycling:
[-I move that the Council"] Approve Item A-2, an appropriation for
the Central Business District Recycling program in the amount of
S61.821. In conjunction with this item, the Council requested in
the motion that the Administration forward a complete
Recycling budget during the annual budget process, including
the costs associated with trash and recycling services for other
business areas, such as 900 South 900 East, and 1500 South
1500 East.
4. Re: Prosecutor's Office:
["I move that the Council"] Approve Item A-15, a request for the
Prosecutor's Office as proposed by the Administration in the amount
of S205,584.
5. Re: Lobbying:
["I move that the Council"] Reaffirm its condition on all funding
associated with State and National legislative efforts to require that
the Council agree to any contracts associated with lobbying on
legislative issues as well as to the list of issues on which any City
lobbying resources are expended.
ALL OF THE MOTIONS WERE ADOPTED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE.
FY 2008 Initiatives in Budget Amendment 1,12 — December
FY 2008 FY 2008
Gen. Fund
Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Fund
Amount Impact Balance
Impact
Section A New Items
1. State Roads Transfer to $318,033.00 Revenue Net Increase
the City 1300 East and Increase to Fund Bal
North Temple $1,504,149.00 $1,186,116.00
2. Central Business District $61,821.00 S61,821.00 $61,821.00
Recycling - Containers
3. Lyman Court Special $90,000.00
Assessment
4. 1300 East Safety Study $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
5. CIP—Asphalt Overlay $1,500,000.00
Class C
6. CIP—500 East 9th S. to $200,000.00
13th S. Class C
7. CIP—Calif. Ave. Special S2,650,000.00
Assessment
8. Engineering Mgr— $100,000.00 S50,000.00 $50,000.00
Contract- Airport TRAX
Extension
9. Sidewalk Replacement $550,000.00
Special Assessment
10. Fire USAR Deployment $89,380.00 S89,380.00
Reimbursement
11. Ground Transportation $234,981.00 S234,981.00 $234,981.00
Inspection Relocation
12. Airport Budget $27,885,600.00 1
Amendment
13. Police Dept Service Drug $5,000.00
Dog
14. Police Dept Evidence $16,000.00
Disposition Backlog
15 Prosecutor's Office $205,584.00 $205,584.00 6 $205,584.00
Additional Staff
16. Police Dept Special $75,400.00
Operations
17. CIP - Sidewalk $1,674.63
Replacement 03-04
Budget Increase
Section B Grants For Existing Staff Resources
FY 2008 Initiatives in Budget Amendment #2 — December
FY 2008 FY 2008
Gen. Fund
Initiative Name Initiative Gen. Fund FTE Fund Balance
Amount Impact Impact
1. Dept of Justice— COPS S447,136.00
Meth Grant
2. State of Utah Crime S1,334.85
Victims—VOCA Grant
3. Justice Assistance Grant S513,464.00
(JAG)—Law
Enforcement
Section C Grants For New Staff Resources
Section D Housekeeping
1. Jordan River Trail Re- S315,000.00
allocation of CIP Funds
2. Water Utility Budget S1,360,000.00
Amendment
3. Sewer Utility Budget S3,989,000.00
Amendment
4. Storm water Budget S323,000.00
Amendment
Section E Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1. State of Utah Emergency S124,216.00
Medical Service Grant
2. State of Utah Dept of S174,497.00
Natural Res. Jordan
River Trail Grant
Section F Donations
1. Donation Fund Interest S75,435.00
and Donations
Section I Council Added Items
1. Legal Defenders Assoc S15,295.00 S15,295.00 S15,295.00
Initiative Name:
State Roads Transfer - 1300 E. 3300 S. to 500 S. and N. Temple 1-80 to State St.
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-1
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The City reached an agreement with UDOT for transferring ownership of two streets from the
State to the City - 1300 East Street from 3300 South to 500 South and North Temple Street
from 1-80 to State Street. The State Transportation Commission took action to transfer these
streets to the City at their October 17, 2007 meeting. The Transportation Commission
Resolution transferred these streets with the adoption of a resolution at the Oct 17th meeting
and agreed to give the City a one-time payment of$1,504,149 for taking over these streets.
The payment could be sent to the City within a couple of weeks after the transfer resolution
was signed.
The City became responsible immediately for all street maintenance activities once the
Commission adopted the transfer resolution. As part of the agreement UDOT will continue to
snowplow North Temple through this coming winter but the City will be required to plow 1300
East Street. City Street and Traffic Signal Maintenance staff will meet with UDOT to
coordinate the City's effort in taking over these streets systems and coordinating the traffic
signals. Also, the handling of the accidents and investigations has become the responsibility
of the City. UDOT will work closely with the City to have a smooth transfer of the street
maintenance and operation work to the City. Routine maintenance includes expenses for
pothole repair, patching, crack sealing, sign and signal maintenance, road marking, snow
plowing, salting, fleet maintenance and fuel, etc.
The North Temple viaduct was recently inspected to determine any repair work needed to be
accomplished by UDOT as part of the transfer. Once the City receives the bridge report
Engineering will work with UDOT as they accomplish the identified repairs later this year or
early next spring.
State Road Transfer-
1300 E. 300 S. to 500 S. &
N. Temple 1-80 to State St.
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-1 2006-07
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Public Services Department New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Greg Davis 535-6397
Prepared By Telephone Contact
positive
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imps $ 1,186,116.00
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08
General Fund
$ 1,504,149.00
Total $ 1,504,149.00 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Fleet Fund $ 195,000.00
Total $ 195,000.00 $0
Staffing Impact:
New Signal technician - 0
Existing Signal technicians - 0
Total staffing after new position - 0
Description
New Traffic Signal technician I
or II, level 220-224
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
03-10610 1897 $ 1,504,149.00
Historical road maint costs $ 903,063.00
inflationary adjustment $ 207,127.00
Periodic milling and skin patch $ 393,959.00
Total $ 1,504,149.00
Note - Class C revenue budget will be increased in FY09
61-00020 1974-01 $ 195,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Cost Center 03-10610
Routine maintenance 2282 $ 13,792.00
Fleet maint and fuel 2390 $ 23,507.00
Signals 2399-97 $ 32,560.00
Snow removal seasonals 2141-01 $ 43,174.00
Signal maint tools 2282 $ 10,000.00
09-00700 2910-04 $ 195,000.00
Total $ 318,033.00
61-00020 2700 $ 195,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
The 1.5M is for five years period as follows:
Routine maintenance $ 76,207.00
Road surface treatment $ 351,919.00
Fleet maint and fuel $ 129,891.00
Signals $ 179,913.00
Snow removal seasonals $ 238,565.00
Signal technician $ 248,654.00
Signal maint tools $ 10,000.00
Signal lift truck $ 74,000.00
Ten-wheelers, sanders, plows $ 195,000.00
Total $ 1,504,149.00
Initiative Name:
Central Business District Recycling
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-2
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Salt Lake City has goals to increase sustainable activities such as recycling. Currently, there
is an opportunity to increase recycling in the Central Business District. It is projected that an
additional 100 tons of recyclable materials could be harvested from this area if the following
plan is implemented.
It is proposed that 105 new recycling containers be placed in the Central Business District.
These new recycling containers would be maintained by new seasonal labor. The recyclable
materials from the new containers would be staged in eleven 330 gallon containers. The
recyclable materials would be picked up from the staging area by BFI.
The funding is requested from General Fund Fund Balance of $61,821. The cost for 1/4 year
seasonal labor is $6,280. Other supplies of$421 and cost of containers is $55,120. For a
total cost of$61,821.
Central Business District
Recycling
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-2 _ _ _ 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Public Services New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Greg Davis _ 535-6397
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ($61,821)
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
-- --- --- --Total1 _ - $0 I $01
Internal Service Fund
Totals, $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0'
Other Fund
Fleet Fund —
Total 0 $0
Staffing Impact:
New seasonal _ 0.20 0.60
Existing = FT+ Seasonal 17.07 17.07
Total staffing after new position 17.27 17.67
Description 416.7 hours - mid year 1,250 hours -full year
'implementation ...beginning Mar
I08...need two months from Dec
107 approval to order cans and
Proposed seasonal will transport-1-
the recyclables from the two
different types of recycling
containers in the CBD area to
staging area.
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-2 CBD Recycling.xlsl0/24/200711:28 AM
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number i Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number _ Object Code Number Amount
Mid year implementation - beginning Mar 08 FY0708
04-11510 2161 $ 6,280.00
04-11510 2396 $ 421.00
04-11510 _ 2760-90 $ 55,120.00
Total $ 61,821.00
FY0809
04-11510 2161 $ 19,175.16
04-11510 2396 $ 1.262.00
04-11510 2760-90
Total $ 20,437.16
Additional Accounting Details:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-2 CBD Recycling.xlsl0/24/200711:28 AM
Initiative Name:
Lyman Court Special Assessment - 960 East 1214 to 1300 South
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-3
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
During the FY 07-08 CIP Process, $550,000 was awarded for the Lyman Court, 960 East,
1214 to 1300 South, Special Assessment Area (SAA). These funds were awarded to design,
construct and create the SAA for improvements to include replacement of street pavement,
construct cub, gutter sidewalk and drainage.
This project is proposed to be partially funded with property owner assessments. This
request is to create budget in the amount of $90,000 to accept the property owners portion of
funds.
Lyman Court Special Assessment-960
East, 1214 to 1300 South
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative# 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year _
Comm. Dev.-HAND New Item
Department _ Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared eaced By y Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
To_tall $0 $01 _
rinternal Service Fund
$0 $0
Enterprise Fund
--
$0 $0'
(Other Fund
183-CIP Fund $ 90,000.00
Total! $ 90.000.00 $01
Staffing Impact:
'New Number of FTE's _ _ 0' 01
Existing Number of FTE's O
Total 0.00' 01
I Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83 New Cost Center 1125 $ 90,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-New Cost Center 2700 $ 90,000.00
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? N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
1300 East Safety Study
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-4
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
With the jurisdictional transfer of 1300 East from State of Utah (UDOT) to Salt Lake City,
there is a need to have a study performed to evaluate the operation and function of this street
from a safety standpoint. Of concern to residents living on and around 1300 East is
pedestrian safety, congestion, vehicle speeds, and vehicle volumes. A consultant would be
hired to review existing data, collect needed data, analyze pedestrian patterns, the lane use,
speed limit, signal operation, signage, and other transportation aspects; and then provide
recommendations and cost estimates for any needed improvements to 1300 East.
It is request that the study is funded from the General Fund Fund Balance.
1300 East Safety Study
Title of Initiative
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-4 2007-08
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev. Transportation New Item
Department Type of Initiative _
Tim Harpst 535-6630
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imps ($100.000)
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total) $0 $01
Internal Service Fund
Total)' $0 $0
Enterprise Fund _
— Total $0 $01
Other Fund --- - ----- ------ -
Total) 0 $01
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's 0 0 _
Total _ _ 0 01
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
03-11700 2399 $ 100,000.00
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? N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
CIP - Asphalt Overlay - Class "C"
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-5
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
This project is included in the FY 2008/2009 CIP request for funding within the Class "C"
Fund. As in prior years, expedited budget approval of this project is being proposed to allow
the project to be bid in February of 2008 and construction to be completed during the
2008/2009 construction season. This project will increase pavement life, provide smoother
street surfaces for improved ride ability and will enhance streetscape appearance. In
addition, ADA barriers will be removed, sidewalk access ramps constructed and deteriorated
curb and gutter replaced. This request also includes approximately $100,000 to design the
fiscal year 2009/2010 overlay project.
This request is typically submitted during budget amendment #4 of each fiscal year and is
recognized as an expedited project. It is being requested during this budget amendment so
that it can be bid in February 2008 to obtain the best possible bids.
This request is to appropriate $1,500,000 of 2008/2009 Class "C" fund.
CIP -Asphalt Overlay - Class "C"
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-5 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev. - HAND New Item
Department Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund '
Total $0. $0
Internal Service Fund
Total' $0 $01
Enterprise Fund
Totals $0' $0i
Other Fund
83-CIP - Class "C" Fund $ 1,500,000.00
Total , $ 1,500,000.00 $0'
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 _ OI
Existing Number of FTE's Oi
Total 0.00 0'
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83- New Cost Center 1381 1,500,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83- New Cost Center 2700 1,500,000.00
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? N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
CIP - Class C - 500 East - 900 South to 1300 South
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-6
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The 500 East, 900 to 1300 South project was allocated $550,000 of Class "C" funds in the
FY 06 CIP Process and an additional $622,100 during budget amended #3 in FY 07. These
funds were allocated to design and construct major street rehabilitation to include street
pavement restoration, replacement of sidewalk, curb and gutter, ADA pedestrian ramps and
provide upgrades to traffic signals and street lights. These improvements are being
coordinated with the installation of major storm drain lines by Public Utilities.
The design is complete and the project was bid in April of 2007, however, the bids exceeded
the available budget. Engineering is requesting an additional $200,000 of Class "C"
unbudgeted fund balance. The project will be bid in February of 2008 to obtain the best
possible bids and construction will be completed during the 2008 construction season.
CIP-Class C- 500 East-900 South to
1 South _
Initiative300 Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-6 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev.- HAND New Item
Department �_ Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total _ $0 $01
Internal Service Fund
Total. $0i $Oi
Enterprise Fund
Totals $0 $0'
Other Fund
83-CIP-Class"C" Fund $ 200,000.00
Balance
Total $ 200,000.00 $01
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's
Existing Number of FTE's
Total 0.001 0
Description
---- --- --- --- -
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA -
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount _
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-08035 2700 $ 200,000.001
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? _ N/A
(Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A
1 Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? N/A _-
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? _ N/A
Initiative Name:
CIP - California Ave. Special Assessment - 4500 West to 5600 West
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-7
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
During the FY's 06-07 and 07-08 CIP Processes, $4,740,000 of General, Class "C" and
Impact Fee funds were awarded for the California Ave., 4500 to 5600 West Special
Assessment Area (SAA). These funds were awarded to design, construct and create the
SAA for improvements to include replacement of deteriorated pavement, street widening,
curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, streetscape, traffic signals and street lighting.
This project is proposed to be partially funded with property owner assessments. This
request is to create budget in the amount of $2,650,000 for the property owners portion of
funding.
CIP-California Ave. Special
Assessment-4800 W.to 5600 W. _
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-7 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev.- HAND New Item
_ Department Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
1General Fund
Total $0 $01
Internal Service Fund
Total' $0 $01
'Enterprise Fund _
Totall $01 $0'
Other Fund
' 83-Cip Fund $ 2,650,000.00
Totall $ 2,650,000.00 i $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0i 01
Existing Number of FTE's 0
'Total 0.00 0_
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83- New Cost Center 1125 $ 2,650,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 2,650,000.00
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? 1 N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
Engineering Manager - Airport TRAX Extension
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-8
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Engineering is requesting a budget in the amount of $100,000 to hire a contract Engineering
Manager for the City's work involved with the Airport Light Rail project. The contractual
engineer will work directly for the City's Airport Light Rail project manager and will coordinate
the efforts of all City departments in the engineering design and construction of the project.
City staff is not available to commit the full time effort needed to coordinate the engineering
and transportation aspects of the project.
Utah Transit Authority has agreed to provide $50,000 to offset one half of the costs
associated with contracting the Engineering Manager position. Engineering is requesting the
remaining $50,000 from the General Fund Fund Balance.
Engineering Manager-Airport TRAX
Extension
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-8 2007-08
Initiative Number 1 Fiscal Year
Public Services New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Max Peterson/Sherrie Collins 535-6231/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund Fund Balance 1 ($50,000)1
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
03-Public Services I $ 50,000.00
'UTA Award - --- ----- --
Total; $ 50,000.00 $01
Internal Service Fund 1
- — — _Totat $01 $01
Enterprise Fund
- -- -- ---- -Total -- -- $01 ---- $OI
Other Fund
Total, $01 $01
Staffing Impact:
1 New Number of FTE's 0' 01
Existing Number of FTE's _ 0'
Total 0.00 01
Description
Contract Engineer
L
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
03 12400 1895 — 50,000.00 I-
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
03-12400 2590 $ 100,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information: — __--- --- __ ---- -- — - ---- I'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? N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
Sidewalk Replacement Special Assessment - 1100 E. to 1700 E. - 1300 So. to 1700 So.
I I , /I„_\ _ 1 ,I. I\___
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-9
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
During the FY 07-08 CIP Process, $550,000 was awarded for the Sidewalk Replacement,
1100 East to 1700 East, 1300 South to 1700 South Special Assessment Area (SAA). These
funds were awarded to design, construct and create the SAA for improvements to include
ADA pedestrian ramps, tree replacement, and some corner drainage improvements as
funding permits.
This project is proposed to be partially funded with property owner assessments. This
request is to create budget in the amount of $550,000 for the property owners portion of
funding.
Sidewalk Replacement Special
Assessment- 1100 E.to 1700 E.-1300
So.to 1700 So.
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-9 2007-08
Initiative Number ] Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev.-HAND New Item
Department Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
1 General Fund
Total $01 $0 Internal Service Fund
Total] $0' $0]
Enterprise Fund
Total' $0 $0'
Other Fund
83-CIP Fund $ 550,000.00
Total'] ' $ 550,000.00 $01
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's - 01 01
Existing Number of FTE's 0
,Total _ 0.001 01 _
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-New Cost Center 1125 $ 550,000.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number i Object Code Number Amount
83- New Cost Center 2700 550,000.00
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? N/A
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
I Non-profit sector? NA
Initiative Name:
USAR Deployment - Hurricane Dean Reimbursement
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-10
Initiative Type:
New Item
initiative Discussion:
The Fire Department is part of the Utah Urban Search and Rescue Task Force. As part of the
Task Force, members of the Fire Department were deployed to assist with relief during
Hurricane Dean.
The costs associated with those Department members who were deployed and any costs
associated with backfill for their position will be reimbursed by the Federal Government. The
Fire Department has worked with USAR to turn in the federal reimbursement and is awaiting
reimbursement.
As per the policies set forth by FEMA for all USAR Teams the Fire Department paid those
individuals for the time spent assisting in the disaster recovery. FEMA will then reimburse the
Fire Department for all costs associated with the deployment.
The Fire Department does expect to receive full reimbursement from FEMA.
USAR Deployment- Hurricane Dean
Reimbursement
1 Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-10 2007-08 _
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Fire New Item
Department Type of Initiative
John Vuyk 799-4210
Prepared By Telephone Contact
,General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
1General Fund I _
12 - Fire Dept $ 89,380.00
FEMA Reimbursement
_ Total $ 89.380.00 $01
Internal Service Fund
$0 $OI
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $01
Other Fund
Total $ - $0
Staffing Impact:
'New Number of FTE's 0 01
Existing Number of FTE's 0
Total 0 0
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
12-00120 1956 89,380.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
112-00120 2123 64,040.00
12-00120 2125 25,340.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? I 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? N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
Ground Transportation Inspection Relocation
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-11
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
On February 20 ,2007 the Airport administration advised City Council that the City's
Commercial Vehicle Inspections as required by City Code 5.71 .180, would have to relocate
out of their current Airport location by late spring or early summer of 2008.
The Airport will need the inspection facility for bus storage and maintenance due to the
significantly expanded parking at the Airport. They also advised that there were no options
available on Airport property for such a facility. This was again mentioned in the City Council
meeting held on March 13, 2007 and May 15, 2007.
After numerous efforts to find a facility which met the requirements, it was determined
that the facility owned by the City at 650 South Redwood Road would be the best available
alternative at that time. The City's Engineering Office and HFS Architects were then tasked
with developing the requirements, plans and costs for a new vehicle inspection garage at that
location.
HFS Architects submitted a cost of $666,000.00 (includes equipment) for the proposed
vehicle inspection garage. This estimate was drastically higher than the original estimate.
In late September, 2007, the City found an alternative location at 218 North 2200 West
which has very suitable office space, processing and waiting space as well as three drive
through inspection bays.
There is an opportunity for a potential sale of the 650 South Redwood Road property.
The property located at 215 North 2200 West has a five year lease option. This new
option was presented to the City Council on October 2, 2007. They in turn asked for a budget
opening to address this option.
Ground Transportation Inspection
Relocation
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-11 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Community Development New Item
Department _ Type of Initiative
Orion Goff& Brent Kovac _ 908-7195
Prepared By - Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imp ($234.981)
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total I $0 $0'
Internal Service Fund
Totall $0 $0'
Enterprise Fund
Total' $0 $0'
Other Fund
Total 0 $01
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTEs 0 _ __ 01
Existing Number of FTEs 4 41 _
Total 4 4
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
06-00705 ;Other- Utilities 2590 $ 725.00
Electrical 2331 $ 4,640.00
Gas 233201 $ 2,280.00
Water& Sewer 2333 _ $ 1,200.00
Building Rental 2512 $ 42,200.00
AM 273020 $ 8,440.00
Equipment 2760 _ $ 41,000.00
LOffice Equipment 276051 $ 10,500.00
Leasehold Imprvmts 2730 $ 91,996.00
,Technical (Security) 2328 $ 5,000.00
Other Tech (Sig_nage) 2329 $ 5,000.00
1Computer Supplies 2225 $ 5,000.00
Other Materials 229996 $ 17,000.00
1TOTAL $ 234,981.00
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? N/A
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? N/A
Airport Budget Amendment
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-12 _ 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Airport New Item
Department _ Type of Initiative
Jay Bingham/J. Moratalla 575-2916/575-2918
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2006-07
General Fund
Totall --' $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
— _ Total] $0 $01
l Enterprise Fund
154 Fund -Airport Enterprise $ 27,885,600.00
(Fund
Total $ 27,885,600.00 $0
Other Fund
- --- — Total] --- $0 $OL—
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's _ 1.00' 01
Existing Number of FTE's 567.80 0
Total 568.80 0i _
Description
1 FTE - Director of Airport
Information
I Management
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount
54-03836 2773-10 26,141,000.00
154-03835 2760-91 1,292,600.00
54-03201 2399 305,000.00 I
54-03451 2399 70,000.00
54-03130 2399 40.000.00
54-20801 2111-01 37.000.00
Total 27,885,600.00
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? N/A
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? I N/A
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? N/A
Initiative Name:
Airport Budget Amendment
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-12
Initiative Type: Budget Amendment
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The Department of Airports FY 2007/2008 total budget of $209,697,000 provides for the
funding of O&M, capital equipment, projects planned to be implemented, and FTEs in this
fiscal year. However, additional operational needs, requests from tenants, unforeseen
circumstances, and to take advantage of favorable development opportunities requires that
we amend our FY 2007/2008 budget with the following:
1. Personnel Requests $37,000
A) One appointed FTE for the position of Director of Airport Information Management
to provide the necessary leadership, vision, and strategy to address the Airport's information
technology initiatives.
2. Operating and Maintenance Items $415,000
Additional custodial services $55,000, TVA - Well $70,000, ARFF Training Facility -
Recertification $40,000, Carpet for Terminal Concourse $200,000, Remodel of International
Center Bldg. # 1 $50,000.
3 . Capital Equipment $1,292,600
Loader attachment - skid steer $34,000, Three new shuttle buses (replacements) $1,200,000,
Various light vehicles- re-budgeted FY 2007 $58,600.
4. Capital Projects - CIP $26,141,000
See attached project description and justification sheets.
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
FY 2007/2008 Budget Amendment
FTE Amendment Amt
Requested
0 & M Budget
Personnel -Salaries and Benefits
Office of the Executive Director
Director of Airport Inormation Management 1 $ 37,000
This is for a three month funding requests, with
an annual salaries and benefits funding of $148,000.
Operations Division
Landside and Terminal Service Officers 18
This request if for FTE only with funding to start
in July 2008 estimated at$645,200.
Subtotal Personnel-Salaries and Benefits $ 37,000
Line Items
Maintenance Division
Additional Custodial Services 55,000
Tooele Valley Airport-Water Well 70,000
Remodel of International Center Bldg#1 50,000
Carpets for Terminal Concourse 200,000
Operations Division
ARFF Training Facility- Recertification 40,000
Subtotal Line Items $ 415,000
Subtoal 0 & M Budget Amendment Request $ 452,000
Capital Budget
Capital Equipment
Maintenance Division
Loader attachment- Skid Steer 34,000
Three new shuttle buses(replacements) 1,200,000
Three vehicles-re-budgeted from FY 2007 58,600
Subtotal Capital Equipment $ 1,292,600
Capital Projects
On going CIP Projects' Increases(Decreases)
Discontinued/Bid Variances _ (26,633,000)
New Capital Improvement Projects 52,774,000
Subtotal Capital Projects $ 26,141,000
Total Budget Amendment#1 Requested 19 $ 27,885,600
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: I Asphalt Overlay Program—Phase IV
Project Description: This project is the fourth phase of a continuing program to maintain the Airport's
infrastructure.The project will consist of surface preparation,asphalt overlay,and minor drainage
corrections to prolong the service life of the Airport's pavement.The primary areas to be overlaid in this
project will be miscellaneous roads and parking lots throughout the airport campus.
Project Justification: Various roads and parking lots throughout the airport campus are showing signs
of distress and require corrective action to avoid further aging and deterioration. The 2007 pavement
condition indices(PCI)for these areas range from the low to mid forties indicating that the pavements are
in poor to fair condition. Although the pavement receives periodic maintenance to fill cracks and repair
minor pavement deficiencies,a full asphalt overlay of these various areas is necessary at this time to
extend the useful life of the pavement.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
October 2007 May 2008 August 2008
Construction Outside Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Design Budget
$1,275,000 $50,000 $25,000 $15,000 $191,000 $1,556,000
Operational Impacts I One-time: none I On-going: none
PROJECT LOCATION
1 1 - l�_. Project L Al,tlik.
%. -.ei f /•",J d11
f : '(4 I ':.-: ' -.- 1,'' ....iiir7°.:t 'Yfr,, ' .:1 17.'r----.. ::::. 7"..... p— —irrt-- 7:-741111:'
/ ~ I
kaL - I@J l - le' .P ay � *'\ _ •
C. e
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: I Demolish Continental Reservations Building
Project Description: This project will demolish the Continental Reservations Building located at
the south end of Runway 17-35. Building materials will be dismantled,removed from the site,
and salvaged where possible.The site will be rough graded and seeded. The existing fencing
and access points will be secured.
Project Justification: The existing Continental Reservations Building is located within the
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)of Runway 35 defined by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, change 11 states the purpose of the RPZ is to
enhance protection of people and property on the ground. Such control includes clearing RPZ
areas of incompatible objects and activities. Land uses prohibited from the RPZ are residences
and places of public assembly. The FAA Advisory Circular further states that office buildings and
other uses with similar concentrations of persons typify places of public assembly. The
reservations center building is an older office building and is in need of major repairs and
upgrades. Being located inside the RPZ, this building should be removed according to the
allowed land uses stated in the FM advisory circular.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
November 2007 March,2008 June 2008
Construction Consultants Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Budget
$530,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $50,000 $600,000
I Operational Impacts I One-time: none I On-going: none I
•
' ,,,.._ ' W-1,?' 4t "/ • ,' s-- Ili,III L
'' Y le
, 1 _ _.
, ,.,__._
.,
qis-' .,,:j0j •• , I , .
r'
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: f End of Runway Deicing Program-Design
Project Description: This project will include consulting services to perform detailed analysis and design
for aircraft deicing facilities at the runway ends. End of runway deicing facilities will include new portland
cement concrete paving,glycol collection systems,airfield lighting,glycol storage facilities,fuel storage
facilities,deicing operations control facilities,and other support facilities for airline deicing personnel. The
project will also include the design of replacement cargo and postal facilities that will be impacted at the
approach end of Runway 34R. The end of runway deicing facilities will be constructed in a multi-year
program with the first construction contract starting in the spring of 2009.
Project Justification: Existing aircraft deicing locations around the existing concourses will be
supplanted as new concourses are constructed as part of the Airport's terminal area development plan.
Replacement of the deicing pads is one of the first enabling construction projects that must be completed
in order to construct new gates at the Salt Lake City International Airport. New facilities located at the
end of each runway will be constructed to replace the existing deicing pads that will be impacted by future
concourse construction.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
February 2008 n/a n/a
Construction Consultants Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost _ Budget
n/a $15,000,000 n/a n/a n/a $15,000,000
Operational Impacts I One-time: none I On-going: none
PROJECT LOCATION
VS -
s ., v !°,
/
( ( Air I— 1 i
I
,••-_ ..-‘....4.,-„-_,,,•.77,7-_,.-.7 a:
t_rx -7,4,„:-Y-:=4.. - •----- .1 :1__ :
�r� �, ^ Imh
� ,CIII_ 2 -- i L _ ' i7�4 h6rtt4� r _.-
�AI - _..r.cwr.....\
Jo. IA
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: I Taxiway H Reconstruction(H4-H5) 1
Project Description: A portion of Taxiway H,approximately 750 feet long by 50 feet wide between
Taxiways H4 and H5 will be reconstructed. The existing portland cement concrete pavement will be
removed along with the underlying base and subbase courses. The total pavement section will be rebuilt
with stabilization material,imported granular fill,lean mix concrete,and new portland cement concrete
pavement. Other work will include removing and replacing taxiway centerline lights,paint markings,and
other incidental storm drainage work as needed.
Project Justification: Taxiway H receives a high volume of aircraft traffic because it is the only parallel
taxiway for Runway 16L-34R. Because of the high traffic volume,portions of the existing pavement
originally placed in 1981 have deteriorated resulting in shattered slabs and corner breaks. The 2007
Pavement Condition Index(PCI)for this section of the taxiway is in the mid thirties indicating that the
pavement is in poor condition. Visual inspection of the pavement shows areas of settling between
adjacent slabs,broken slabs,and corner breaks. Reconstruction of this section will include subgrade
stabilization to resolve any underlying foundation problems that may be contributing to the deterioration of
the existin avement.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
October 2007 May 2008 August 2008
Construction Outside Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Design Budget
$1,146,000 $50,000 $30,000 $20,000 $172,000 $1,418,000
I Operational Impacts I One-time: none I On-going: none
PROJECT LOCATION
NI FFF
4
•_ ', !. i _`_.� ,..,di./ r-., l•l 'l yy
`.`' 1. - 1-y r`
�L` I '�♦
..ter. ,
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
I Project Title: I TVY—Water Infrastructure Improvements
Project Description: This project will provide culinary water service to the Tooele Valley Airport. The
project will include construction of a new 12-inch diameter water main that will connect into the existing 8-
inch diameter fire protection line at the airport. This new water main will be fed from a new water service
district that is being formed in Tooele County near the airport. SLCDA may have the opportunity to join
this new water service district and thus share the cost of developing this culinary water system with other
users rather than bearing all of the construction,operating,and maintenance costs alone.
Project Justification: Currently,there is no culinary water service at the Tooele Valley Airport. Water
for fire protection only is provided by a deep well and pump that charges the existing 8-inch diameter fire
line. Culinary water is required to meet State and County health requirements and to sustain future
development at the airport.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
February 2008 n/a n/a
Construction Consultants Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Budget
n/a n/a n/a $500,000 n/a $500,000
I Operational Impacts I One-time: none i On-going: none
PROJECT LOCATION • •
Pr�ectLocation_
—t"'_ -rv' ' •fir[
fie SK
r y
f. f j i �.�' •- - `-.:;.,a -
•
+ \ �!.- • r _ _ Sri E
i - . A ar';'
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: U42-Environmental Assessment - Runway 16-34
Project Description: An environmental assessment will be prepared that includes a study of the environmental
consequences that could result by the construction of a runway extension at Airport II. The runway extension is
proposed on the north end of existing Runway 16-34. The environmental assessment would identify any mitigation
actions that may be necessary and identify any further environmental evaluation prior to construction. The
environmental assessment would also support continuation of the Airport II development program and approval of
the proposed runway extension identified in the Airport Layout Plan and the 2006 Airport II Master Plan Update.
Project Justification: Before projects such as the runway extension can be funded with Federal Aviation
Administration grants, an environmental analysis must first be completed. An environmental evaluation would be
made of wetlands, cultural resources, endangered species, and other environmental factors required by regulation.
The most recent aviation trends and future development plans for the runway extension would be evaluated. The
environmental work would be completed in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's Environmental
Handbook.
Project Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
January 2008 n/a December 2008
Construction Consultants Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Budget
n/a $200,000 • n/a n/a n/a $200,000
Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none
\ RS. ti i .
-C 4 11
`i ■\....\�i..................■.....■■..
to1s, * Sall
I
a lisabil - -
i II
a IF Project '',Location ;.• -:Z w - , t'
. N 'II,. r I
-...„ ,...„
,,s „....••••,,,,7:., .-::-Ag, ,
.......■ .■ .,.,,
'4 * f.Li r .'sty _ -S ` ...... _ �.'l"t:- „.,•e 4,' j
�`f rI't f -...��Y ,Tr-A, P ' 1
4 . .. .
f ? `f?' 1I �iM�:rY, c J 'fi 1 +Ar• t
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: U42-Runway&Taxiway Extension - Design
Project Description: This project will provide the design services for the proposed Runway 16-34 extension at
Airport II. The runway and taxiway extension will be designed to dimensional design criteria for Airport Reference
Code C-II aircraft. The design will increase the runway length approximately 1100 feet to the north from its current
configuration. The runway and taxiway extensions will be designed to the criteria as outlined in the Airport II Master
Plan Update dated August 2006.
Project Justification: The Airport II Master Plan Update recommends a runway length of 6,600 feet to
accommodate projected increases in aircraft fleet mix using Airport II. Additionally, the city of West Jordan intends to
widen 7800 South Street on the southern boundary of the airport property. This widening will require displacing the
existing runway threshold to meet FAA standards. The proposed runway extension will provide adequate runway
length to accommodate the larger aircraft that are projected to use the airport in the future and will meet all of the
runway safety area dimensions at the ends of the runway as required by the FAA.
Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
January 2008 n/a December 2008
Construction Consultants Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Budget
n/a $ 1,500,000 n/a n/a n/a $ 1,500,000
Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none
11111110,
14
--- Projec . a#i .,
N
- I O
_--________:_______==._______\ ,,,,,
aisu
1
.., , , ,
, „„,. ...,„ .. ,
7 iiik,,, ,
, /
. , Is
ill
��i.° �•iti :.
•
1 / /
1 / /
/ /
i k / / .. ;• r Y i n e
// // / '•q i''WA. k{73t ►r 1, :r'
1 1 / / / -r " l e , ' ),1"
11 . ;/ / I' Je .'"1} rc'it•' / / i ,* ' ; t"t' ' '
i / / ,: : -
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2007/2008 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Project Title: Westside Land
Project Description: This project would provide funding to purchase land parcels located west of Salt Lake City's
runway 16R-34L, in the International Center as parcels become available on the market. The land purchases would
accommodate dimensional standards specified in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, "Airport Design" for a future new
runway, taxiways, and associated facilities.
Project Justification: It is expected that continuing population, employment, and income growth will occur in the
Wasatch Front communities. As the numbers of passengers and aircraft operations continue to increase, the airport
will need to develop a new air-carrier runway to increase the airport's operational capacity in the future. A new
runway requires additional land to support the runway, a taxiway system, a maintenance road system, and
dimensional standards for runway protection zones and object free areas. The FAA requires the airport to own or
control the property of the runway, taxiways, and runway protection zones and object free areas. The Airport
currently does not own or control sufficient property west of Runway 16R-34L to accommodate a new air-carrier
runway. Acquiring land, as it becomes available, will help to minimize future land costs for a new runway facility in
the future.
Project Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date
January 2008 n/a September 2008
Project Consultants Testing Expenses Contingency Total
Cost Budget
$32,000,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $32,000,000
Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none
-
...... ,]
�_ I i
• i-!�,A . - le,bi Project Loc: tto
i.
t
' I i ..../
MOW I
fikiif--r'.1'34-1.7 I ' I 11‘ - : : . .1- , ---.-.:-IA- 11 ''''' lie d':4 "1"1"11111"."4111"1""
411
f , i a I . L a
. ,,: a a I B,0 Ilirs.11r ,..2„:2.... -,...-4, _ _ -' i- -..7-...... . t..._—„r4-
f
, .
,. a.
•
,...a, • P
- . -...,....„—G--, . ,
. ,,, 146=44: . ' —
woo
),...4i it• eigisir
.•l•■••• .orlimi.
r
Initiative Name:
Service Drug Dog
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-13
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Provide funding to replace service drug dog used in conjunction with officer funded from the
Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Task Force at the airport. Department has transferred
existing officer to another assignment and practice is to evaluate useful life of the dog and in
this case the service dog "Bob" will be retired to the current handler. The original dog was
purchased with federal funds and no federal funding exists so the department proposes to
use asset forfeiture funds to purchase the dog in January 2008 based on council approval.
Service Drug Dog
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-13 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Police New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Jerry Burton _ 799-3824
Prepared By - Telephone Contact
'General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund 0 0
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Totall $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total] r $0 $0
Other Fund
73 -Asset Forfeiture Fund $ 5,000.00
Total l $ 5.000.00 $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's __ 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's 0
Total 0 0
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
73-73001 1457 $ 5,000.00
_ I
Expenditure:
enditure: --
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
73-73001 2750 $ 5,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
If funding is grantposition is it a expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A
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? N/A
Initiative Name:
Police Evidence Disposition Backlog
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-14
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Provide overtime funding from general evidence trust fund balance for existing employees to
increase purge rate of items held in evidence no longer needed for evidence. 600 hours at $
26 /hr for January 2008 to June 2008.
Police Evidence Disposition Backlog
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-14 _ - 2007-08
Initiative Number I - Fiscal Year
Police New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Jerry Burton 799-3824
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund 0 0
Total' $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
73 -General Evidence Trust Fund ' $ 16,000.00
-- - _ -- - Total $ 16,000.00 _-- $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number ofFTE's 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's _ _ 0
Total 0 0
Description _ — —
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
73-73002 l 2153 - $ 16,000.00
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? N/A
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? N/A
Title of Initiative:
Prosecutor's Office Additional Staff
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-15
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
The City Prosecutor's Office is requesting authorization to hire 2 attorneys and 4 support staff
(total $367,168) ( Attorney at 607 Mid-point, Paralegal at 309 Mid-point and Office Technician
at 216-E) ( 1/2 year total cost of$183,584) to address two needs. First, the current heavy
workload/caseload is having a negative impact on the ability of the City Prosecutor's Office to
retain experienced prosecutors, as well as the Justice Court's overall capability to process
cases. Second, in order to increase the capacity to process cases, the Justice Court has
realigned its judges to create additional court calendar sessions. The additional personnel are
necessary in part for the Prosecutor's Office to be able to staff these new, additional calendar
sessions held by the court.
The City Prosecutor's Office had been preparing a staffing request for this past spring's
budget cycle to address the first need, but held off because of the pending review of Justice
Court operations. We are submitting the request at this time because the burden of the
current heavy caseload on the individual personnel in the City Prosecutor's Office has
reached crisis level and the recent Justice Court realignment referred to above will add to that
already heavy workload.
The City Prosecutor's Office is also requesting an additional $10,000 1/2 year to supplement
currently available salary dollars to address recent changes in the marketplace that have
rendered our current salary structure significantly less competitive. The combination of the
heavy workload and the less competitive salary structure has created a serious problem for
the Prosecutor's Office in retaining experienced prosecutors. At least four of our prosecutors
are being actively recruited by the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office by offering better
pay and a smaller caseload and four already have left for the District Attorney's Office. If the
current four also leave, eight of the Office's prosecutors would have less than six months
experience.
The Office also is requesting $12,000 for computers.
The total amount requested is $205,584
Key Facts
1. The current average caseload per prosecutor of 1714 new case filings per year is
substantially above reasonable expectations. (See Attachment A)
2. Prosecutors are working on average 7 hours per week above a 40 hour benchmark. This
means late nights at the office, taking work home and/or working on the weekend.
3. While improved by Council support since the 2003 audit, the ratio of support personnel to
attorneys remains unreasonably low.
4. The heavy "workload" is creating a serious morale problem for the staff that is being
reflected in earlier departure of experienced attorneys.
5. The recent realignment of Justice Court judges that increased the number of sessions the
judges are on the bench ("calendars") will add to the already heavy workload of the
Prosecutor's Office.
Background Discussion
During FY 2007 (the twelve months ended June 30, 2007), 16, 213 misdemeanor cases and
49,123 traffic cases were filed in the Salt Lake City Justice Court. Over the last several years,
the number of cases filed that require the involvement of a city prosecutor has stabilized at
roughly 24,000 cases per year. Most cases are disposed of by the Justice Court without the
involvement of a prosecutor. For example, most traffic cases are disposed of by mail with a
guilty plea and the payment of a fine.
The City Prosecutor's Office has little, if any, control over the number of cases that initially
comes to it. The specific offenses that are prohibited are determined by the City Council and
the Utah Legislature. Enforcement in the field comes from the Salt Lake City Police
Department (440 Officers), the Airport Police (60 officers), the University of Utah Police
Department (31 Officers), the Utah Highway Patrol (37 Officers), and the Salt Lake County
Sheriffs Office (20 Officers). Deployment of law enforcement resources is determined by
executive decision and the issuance of citations is determined by individual police officers.
For example, the Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that the University of Utah Police
Department had undertaken more aggressive DUI enforcement activity, increasing arrests
from 93 in 2005 to 220 in 2006. This resulted in an increase of over 100 DUI "cases"—the
most intensive type of case in terms of prosecutorial resources—for the City Prosecutor's
Office. Those 100 DUI cases by themselves could have represented an additional one half
"prosecutor" FTE.
The City Prosecutor's Office is responsible for pursuing these cases to completion through
each of the various stages--Screening, arraignment, conferences with the judge, discovery,
motion, trial, appeal, etc. The amount of work required by a particular "case" can vary
significantly. Compare a jury trial resulting in a guilty verdict followed by an "appeal" (trial de
novo followed by a standard appeal) with an early plea agreement.
The appropriate "workload"/"caseload" per prosecutor is discussed below.
The screening process followed by the City Attorney's Office has a narrow focus: whether the
available evidence (witnesses, tests, etc.) can meet the legal requirements to establish the
offense. Because the City Council (or the Utah Legislature) already has made the policy
decision that the conduct charged is prohibited and the law enforcement officers issuing the
citation believe that the prohibited conduct occurred, the City Prosecutor's Office does not
normally screen out cases based on considerations beyond what is stated above. The City
Prosecutor's Office does not -- and should not -- decide on its own initiative that particular
conduct prohibited by the City Council should not be prosecuted. However, there may be
occasions, as discussed below, when due to a lack of resources the Office has to voluntarily
dismiss lower priority cases in order to properly prosecute the more important cases.
The types of cases that the Justice Court receives and the City Prosecutor's Office
prosecutes are quite varied. The following are the filing for FY 2007 by case type for the
major types of non-traffic (other than DUI) cases. Each of these types of cases has an impact
on the "quality of life" of the citizens of Salt Lake City.
DUI 1502
Assaults 1471
Theft 1826
Public Intox 1751
Illegal Sale-Alcohol 145
Open container and Other 2642
Controlled Substance 1966
Domestic Animal 526
Domestic Violence 1153
Other Mis & Infractions 6813
The Matrix Consulting Group audit of the Salt Lake City Justice Court noted that "it is
important to know how well a court is keeping current with its incoming caseload" and that a
good measure of a court's performance in this area is to measure the court's case clearance
rate." (Audit Report at 25) The same may be said of a city prosecutor's office. Matrix
Consulting stated that in theory a court should have a clearance rate of 100% or higher,
meaning that it is disposing of as many cases each year as the number of new cases that are
filed. A clearance rate of less than 100% results in the creation of a backlog, carrying over
old cases to add to the workload created by the new cases filed. (Id. at 26)
While the Salt Lake City Justice Court started out with a relatively low clearance rate (to be
expected for a new court), significant improvement has been made as indicated by the
following misdemeanor clearance rates:
FY 2003 49.2%
FY 2004 70.8%
FY 2005 76.9%
FY 2006 90.4%
FY 2007 120.4%
However, the results for FY 2007 and FY 2006 significantly overstate the amount of progress
because they include a significant number of voluntary dismissals--roughly 5000 over the two
years--by the Prosecutor's Office of older cases that the City Prosecutor's Office had not been
able to pursue because of limited resources or that had otherwise become stale with the
passage of time (e.g. unavailability of the defendant and/or key witnesses). Thus the Justice
Court and the City Prosecutor's Office do not yet have the capability to produce a "true" 100%
clearance rate.
Justice Court Realignment
The allocation of new resources by the Council has resulted in total funding for the equivalent
of five full time judges--four full time plus two part time. In order to increase its case
processing capacity, the justice Court has realigned these five full time judge equivalents to
schedule new, additional "calendars" --court sessions when the judges hear--and progress--
individual cases. See Attachment C. However, the City Prosecutor's Office does not have the
personnel available to staff these additional calendars without "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
The Retention Problem and the Necessary Mix of Experienced Attorneys
For many attorneys practicing criminal law, misdemeanor practice is seen as a training
ground leading to felony practice. As a result, most attorneys do not view the Prosecutor's
Office as a long-term career choice. The challenge for the Prosecutor's Office is twofold.
First, a small number of"career" prosecutors in addition to the City Prosecutor is necessary to
train the less experienced prosecutors, handle the more difficult cases, and provide
institutional continuity. We believe that this number is35% (three to four) (and we have put in
place a new compensation scheme to achieve that goal). Second, for those prosecutors who
do plan to move on, they must be encouraged to stay long enough to be effective prosecutors
for the City. We believe that a period of 36 months would satisfy the City's need.
It takes roughly six to twelve months for a new prosecutor to get up to speed (which is why
the current competition for our more experienced prosecutors is such a threat). The
remainder of the 36 month period allows the City to derive the benefit of that training.
The current "salary/career" structure was intended to achieve that objective. Attorneys are
hired as "Assistant" City Prosecutors and progress to "Associate" to "Senior Assistant".
The City Prosecutor's Office has prepared an analysis of how long the last 24 attorneys who
have left the office stayed and what their reasons for leaving were. The analysis covers
departures from February 2001 to date. Of these 24 attorneys, six had been hired prior to
2000. The analysis (Exhibit A) shows the following:
• Overall, two thirds (17 of 24) of the prosecutors left before the desired 36 months (See Ex.
A, Chart 1 and 2)
❑ However, of the 18 attorneys who started since 2000 and have left, only one served for
36 months (38 months).
❑ 40% (10 of 24) left before 24 months
• Prosecutors hired more recently have not stayed as long as prosecutors hired in the past
(See Ex. A, Chart 3)
• Money was part of the reason two-thirds (16 of 24) of the prosecutors left (See Ex. A,
Chart 4)
❑ It was the primary reason for 40% (10 of 24)
• Workload was part of the reason nearly 60% (14 of 24) of the prosecutors left (See Ex. A,
Chart 4)
❑ It was the primary reason for one-third (8 of 24)
❑ It was the primary reason for over half of the most recent departures (8 of 14)
■ 40% (and five of the last eight) left for the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office (See
Ex. A, Chart 4)
❑ The District Attorney's Office offers both a higher salary and a lower caseload.
❑ The District Attorney's Office is currently recruiting at least four of our prosecutors,
having already recently hired away another four.
As noted above, the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office is the most frequent
destination for the attorneys leaving the City Prosecutor's Office. The District Attorney's Office
has recently increased the salaries for its prosecutors so that it now has a competitive
advantage over the City Prosecutor's Office. Moreover, the District Attorney's Office is now
directly recruiting attorneys in the City Prosecutor's Office, having met with at least four of
them in recent weeks.
In order to address the competitive situation, the City Prosecutor's Office proposes to
increase salaries by $5000 per prosecutor for 14 prosecutors at a total cost of$70,000.
Approximately $50,000 is available in the current budget from a variety of sources.
The City Prosecutor's Office has four experienced prosecutors leave during the current fiscal
year. They have been "backfilled' with less experienced prosecutors at lower salaries. The
resulting salary "savings" on an annual basis are $41, 084 ($5435 + $5435 + $14,358 +
$15,856). In addition, on the "civil" side of the office, we have had two departures with
backfills at lower salaries resulting in salary "savings" of$16,183.92 ($8391.48 and $7792.44)
on an annualized basis. However, we anticipate needing approximately $7500 of that savings
for other purposes on the civil side, leaving $8683.92 potentially available.
The total "savings" is $49,767.92. We have requested the Administration to authorize us to
use these "savings" toward funding the proposed salary increase. If approval is granted, we
would need on additional $20,232.08 in this budget amendment.
Appropriate Caseload Per Attorney
As discussed in greater detail in Attachment A, determining the appropriate number of cases
to be handled by individual prosecutors on average is a difficult process, essentially driven by
a wide range of factors specific to the particular practice of a particular prosecuting office.
Comparison to the caseloads of other offices is difficult because of the need to equalize for
variables such as the ratio of support personnel to prosecutors.
Based on annual cases filed requiring a prosecutor, the average caseload per attorney for the
City Prosecutor's Office has been the following. (N.B. While we are focusing on new case
filings in the Justice Court for ease of analysis, that focus understates the actual "workload'
because it does not include the burden of the existing backlog of Justice Court cases, nor
does it include the Office's caseload in the Third District Court, or other activities such as the
nearly 15,000 case a year that are screened and the roughly 10,000 traffic pleas annually that
are reviewed by the City Prosecutor.
02 03 04 05 06 07
Case Filing (CF) 15k 20k 24k 24k 24k 24k
Cases/Atty(excl. City 1875 2222 2400 2400 1846 1714
Prosecutor)(CF)
Total Attys 9 10 11 11 14 15
Cases/Atty 8 9 10 10 13 14
While the trend has been a favorable one due to past support from the City Council, an
average caseload of 1714 per prosecutor is high, particularly considering the current
(relatively low) ratio of support personnel to prosecutors.
As discussed in Attachment A, we think an appropriate target for our office is 1200 cases.
Adding two attorneys would reduce the average caseload to 1500 — still a relatively high
number, but important relief.
Approaching the workload perspective from an independent perspective, the City Attorney's
Office conducted a time study of the prosecutor's workload over a five week period from
September to November, 2007 (See Attachment B) On average, individual prosecutors are
working seven hours per week above the 40 hour base assumed by the APRI for its analysis.
These hours are reflected in late nights at the office, taking work home and/or weekend work.
While periodic "spikes" in hours worked are certainly to be expected, it is not reasonable to
expect personnel to operate based on "spikes' as the norm over the course of the. The reality
of the workload is having a serious impact on employee morale and retention.
Current Deployment of City Prosecutor Office Personnel
The City Prosecutor's Office essentially follows a "vertical" prosecution model.
Once a case is filed with the Justice Court it is assigned to an individual attorney for all
purposes through final disposition. (The Justice Court essentially follows the same vertical
model by assigning cases to a single judge for all purposes.) The 2003 audit concluded that
"the office structure of vertical prosecution appeared to be effective and functional." (Audit
Report at 4) Eleven attorneys are assigned on this basis.
The remaining three attorneys are assigned full time to "screen" complaints from citizens,
police, jail and matters entered into the court calendars for prosecution on citations to
determine whether a valid legal basis exists for filing criminal charges. This is an exception to
the "vertical " model. (The Justice Court also has an exception to the vertical model for its
arraignment calendars.) Finally, one attorney (the City Prosecutor) is assigned as the
administrative head of the office. The City Prosecutor also fills in as needed.
The office also has three paralegals. Two paralegals are directly associated with assisting the
screening process. One other paralegal is responsible for restitution follow up, plea by
affidavits with out of state defendants, expungments and working with the City prosecutor for
bond forfeiture recovery.
The office is also comprised of ten other support staff. Five support staff work directly as
assigned to existing judge caseloads. One support staff is responsible for front desk reception
and data entry. One support staff is responsible for arraignments. One is responsible for file
and citation updates. One staff is responsible for jail bookings, UHP support. Finally, one
support staff is part of the administrative team as the office manager. (There is also one
grant-supported person.)
One of the issues addressed in the 2003 audit was the ratio of support personnel to
attorneys. (Audit Report at 5-6) At the time of the audit, the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
had a ratio of 1:43 attorneys per support person, while the three other offices considered to
be comparable had a ratio of 1:1 and .55 to one (i.e. nearly two support personnel per
attorney).
With the Council's past support, the City Prosecutor's Office has been able to add additional
support personnel so that the ratio of attorneys has been reduced from 1.43 to 1.15 to one.
This is a definite improvement, but still fairly far from a reasonable target more like .75 to one
(ie. one and a half support personnel per attorney).
Proposed Deployment of the Requested Personnel
A. The Two Attorneys
As discussed above, we currently assign two prosecutors to work the caseload of each of
Judges Ward, Cutler, Robinson and Magid/Barring ham. The Office's most pressing workload
problem is the motion practice and jury preparation demands from the caseloads of these four
judges, particularly in DUI cases.
The Two attorneys will be assigned as an additional resource to handle the most pressing
case demands across the caseload of these four judges.
Addition of two attorneys would reduce the average caseload to 1500, which is still above our
1200 target, but which represents much needed relief.
B. The Four Support Personnel
(1) One Paralegal will be assigned to the "screening/arraignment" unit. The increase in
arraignment calendars will significantly increase the workload of this unit. Appearance at the
arraignment calendars must be by an attorney. Adding a paralegal to this unit will make the
current screening process more efficient, freeing up attorney time to cover the new
arraignment calendars.
C. Three Support Personnel
These three would be dedicated to assisting the attorneys with motion practice and trial
preparation.
D. Impact on Support Ratios
As noted above, the City Prosecutor's Office has improved its support personnel to
prosecutor ratio since the audit in 2003.
If two attorney and four support personnel are added, the Office will have a ratio of
approximately 1 to 1 --17prosecutors and 17 support personnel. (Including the grant-
supported person, the ratio is .94.) While this is a significant improvement from the ratio of
1.43 prosecutors to support staff a the time of the audit and it equals the 1:1 ratio for
Glendale, Arizona, it is still far short of the ratio of one attorney to nearly two support staff for
Henderson, Nevada and Reno, Arizona. We would still be short of our target ratio of .75, but
again the improvement would bring much needed relief.
Possible Alternative if Additional Staff Support is Unavailable
Continuation of the status quo is not a viable option for the City Prosecutor's Office. The
workload/caseload is simply too crushing.
Apart from adding staff, the caseload could be reduced through a combination of one or more
of the following possible initiatives:
(1) reducing the number of cases through a combination of stricter screening standards and
voluntary dismissals; (2) offering more favorable plea deals; (3) developing more efficient
procedures for handling cases; (4) "decriminalizing" certain categories of offence; and
(5)seeking external funding sources to support additional staff.
Each of these is discussed below.
Reducing the Number of Cases
Case filings are not solely determined by prosecutors. Cases are generated by police officers
in the field responding to calls for service from citizens or based on their own observations.
This field contact is the first step in the genesis of the criminal case. It is the field officer that
will issue a citation or take a police report that will become a criminal prosecution. The
prosecution caseloads are thus directly tied to the law enforcement citation policy and
response to community concerns.
The office has an affirmative professional responsibility to not prosecute cases that cannot be
supported by the evidence. The office has dismissed cases when the evidence is lost due to
reluctant or missing witnesses or when through the screening process it is determined that the
charges are not warranted. Due to lack of resources the office has also let a certain
categories of cases die on the vine when they have competed with limited resources. The
office has culled older cases by dismissing old warrants.
If the prosecution does not get the sufficient allocation of resources to meet the caseload
demands then the prosecution must seek way to lower the caseload consistent with the
resources at hand. The following case dismissals could be considered:
1. Dismiss all traffic violations entering the criminal court calendar. This would impact 8,000-
9000 cases.
2. Dismiss all infractions entering the criminal court calendars. This would impact some 2-
3,000 cases.
3. Dismiss all Misd. violations involving property crimes or crimes not against persons.
4. Dismiss cases by de-prioritized categories as follows (not in any particular order):
a) All thefts under $50
b) Open container in public places
c) Public Intoxication
d) Alcohol in Park
e) Code violations
f) Animal offenses
g) Possession of Alcohol by a minor
h) Park curfew
i) Tobacco violations
j) Reckless possession of weapon Airports (Infractions)
k) Failure to comply Class C
I) Camping sleeping in Public
Summary: The office screens to file as well as dismiss cases that cannot be supported
by evidence. The purpose of screening is to establish probable cause and to determine
if the evidence is sufficient to lead to a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. The
purpose of screening is not to merely dismiss cases. That is a separate policy issue.
Offering Favorable Pleas
The office has a policy to aggressively offer plea in abeyances in majority of its cases.
Prosecutors cannot force anyone to accept offers but we can only offer them. If the offer is
rejected then we try and determine if this case should be tried as Jury trial. In majority of the
cases we will amend misdemeanor cases to infractions precisely so we do not have to
expend the resources on a jury trial. However, there is a balance where we run the risk of
losing our enforcement credibility if we are not willing to hold accountable those who would
violate laws in our city.
The plea in abeyance program also diverts some 10-12,000 traffic matters and keeps them
from even entering the regular criminal calendars.
Summary: The SLC Prosecutor's office aggressively offers plea in abevances to settle
majority of the cases. The office has multiple programs through which many
defendants can be held accountable and have the opportunity to have their charges
dismissed. Thus offering more lenient pleas is not likely to have a significant impact on
the caseload without seriously impacting law enforcement and prosecution credibility.
Developing more efficient processes
The Office has aggressively sought out means by which to maximize our limited resources
and adopt more efficient process where possible. One such example, is the paperless
arraignment and discovery software development in collaboration with IMS. The office ,
through a federal grant and through collaboration with IMS has developed a four step
paperless model.
In the first step police screenings are sent over digitally avoiding DV detectives to come and
drop off screening packets. The digital data is screened and charged electronically. This
saves time and paper.
The second step, is a digital download of Justice Court arraignment calendars directly into our
laptop as the Court creates calendars. These calendars are identified by their case numbers
and the software automatically downloads police reports into digital packets in the laptop. This
way our arraignment attorney does not have to take over paper files (nor paper files have to
be created) and access police reports directly in court at the click of a button. A support clerk
with a second laptop updates the status in court with our prosecutor dialogue in our office.
Upon returning back only those cases that were not settled then can be directly downloaded
into files by the support staff. This saves enormous time for our staff.
The third step (under construction) will take the data from the laptop and digitally attach it to
an e-mail or a web file and send this discovery directly to Legal defenders electronically. This
will save us paper, lost files and delayed discovery which force continuing matters. It will
happen much faster.
The fourth step will be actually a build up from the first step and we want to ultimately have
our screening unit directly drop formal complaints directly into the Justice Court computer. All
of these are just example of our continuing effort to maximize our resources.
Another process efficiency is that we formally screen our matters now after pre-trials but
before trials. This slight change has reduced our total screenings by 40%. However, we still
screen approximately 60% of our total case filings or some 14,400 matters rather than some
24,000 matters.
Summary: The office has adopted and continues seek out means to maximize
efficiency through process improvement.
Decriminalization
There is some thought that matters may be de criminalized to reduce the caseloads. This may
be possible for certain code enforcement matters. Legal research still needs to be done to
see what is the scope of authority available to the City in order to achieve this without violating
any State statutes. The City had done so with traffic matters but that authority was rescinded
by the legislature. The City can opt to turn code enforcement into a civil/administrative
process first before reaching for criminal prosecution.
Summary: Code enforcement may be the most ripe matter to divert into civil or
administrative enforcement through decriminalization, but it likely would take more
time than is available to address our immediate needs. Moreover, it could simply
transfer the need for additional "prosecution" resources to the "civil" side of the City
Attorney's Office.
Seeking External Sources of Funding
The office has aggressively sought out external resources to supplement the lack of
resources within the office. For example, the office enjoyed 2 DOJ attorneys for 18 months;
the office has had two FTE support staff as a part of the YWCA and Safe at Home Coalition
grant working with victims of domestic violence. The DOJ monies have been used to develop
software applications for increasing process efficiency; and the Office currently has three third
law year student interns; and finally 300K upgrade to our computer system was done for free
several years ago and the same participation will provide the next generation of upgrades
without any cost to the City. The prosecutor's office will save several hundred thousands
dollars in upgrade cost.
Summary: The office will continue to seek grants to supplement its resources, but this
will not provide the immediate relief that is needed.
Prosecutor's Office Additional Staff
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 lnitaitve#A-15 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Attorney New Item
Department Type of Initiative
Ed Rutan/Sim Gill 535-7628
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Imps ($205,584)
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total SO $0
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total 0 $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 6 0
Existing Number of FTE's 28 34
Total 34 34
Description
2 attorneys 607
1 paralegal 309
3 clerks 216
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
15-01410 2100 $ 193,584.00
15-01410 2750 $ 12,000.00
Total $ 205,584.00
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? N/A
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? N/A
November 7, 2007
Attachment A
Workload Discussion
The search for the answer to the question "how many cases should a prosecutor
handle?"has proven as elusive as the Holy Grail. A joint study by the American
Prosecutors Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Justices' Bureau of Justice
Assistance concluded that it simply is not feasible to develop national standards because
the local variables are so significant. How Many Cases Should a Prosecutor Handle?
Results of the National Workload Assessment Project ("APRI Study") at I (2002).
With that important caveat, the APRI study analyzed data from prosecution
offices in six different states, which determined the average time spent by an attorney on
a misdemeanor case. The results ranged from 3 hours to 5.8 hours with an average of 4.3
hours of attorney time per misdemeanor case. The APRI study referred to a base of 1772
hours available per attorney per year (APRI Study at 22), which would indicate a
misdemeanor caseload ranging from 300 to 590 cases per year.'
While these numbers suggest a certain range of consistency. their value as a
benchmark is called into question by the fact that prosecutors in the Salt Lake City
Prosecutor's Office typically dispose of over a thousand cases per year. Moreover, in
their 2003 audit, Deloitte and Touche reported that Salt Lake City had 1472 new
misdemeanor filings per prosecutor in 2002, while Glendale, Arizona had 1825;
Henderson,Nevada had 1394; and Scottsdale, Arizona had 1204.2
As suggested by APRI, a "disposition-based" time study could be performed
(similar to the weighted case analysis done for the Justice Court). However, we believe
that the cost of such a study would not justify the additional degree of precision that it
might provide.
Although an average 400 cases per attorney in numerically justifiable (based on
APRI/ABA standards) a conservative empirical approach suggests a number of 1200
cases. This number is based upon empirical experience of our newer attorneys, allocation
for differences in case types, disposition, and adopting a fiscally responsible approach.
Adding two attorneys would reduce the caseload to 1500 cases per attorney. The
balance of the efficiency is to be picked by less expensive support staff rather than
Guidelines developed in 1973 by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and
Goals recommended that an attorney handle no more than 400 misdemeanors per year.An American Bar
Association study committee recommended no more than 300 misdemeanor cases in 1989.(APRI Study at
1)
`These numbers also illustrate the comparability problem—Scottsdale and Henderson had two support
people for every prosecutor and Glendale had one, while Salt Lake City only had one support person for
every two attorneys.
1
attorney costs. This conservative approach continues to maximize each resource
allocation.
The City Prosecutor's Office also took a different, independent approach to the
workload issue by conducting a time study.
The time study tracked the work of individual prosecutors over a five week period
fro September through November 2007. Following the approach of the APRI Study, a
baseline of 8 work hours per day, five days a week for a total of 40 work hours per week
was used. (APRI Study at 22)
The study has a number of methodological weaknesses. Notably, it covered only a
five week period and that period came shortly after a period of high turnover. However,
we believe that it is directionally correct over a one year period.
On average, the prosecutors worked an additional seven hours per week above the
40 hour baseline, ranging from an additional two to three hours to thirteen hours. [To be
updated]
While periodic "spikes" in hours worked are certainly to be expected, it is not
reasonable to plan based on the "spikes' becoming the norm over the course of the year.
Such an approach would raise serious morale and employee retention problems that
would adversely impact the office's ability to process its caseload.
2
Starting Separation Ending
No. ; Hire Date Title Salary Date Title Salary
1 05/16/941Associate . $30,372. 02/01/01:SeniorAsst. $58,053
2 07/01/951Associate $32,892 06/19/05;Senior Asst. $64,534
3 04/21/97:Associate 1 $33,924. 08/31/01 Senior Asst. $56,389
4 02/23/98 Associate $33,852 05/20/05'Senior Asst. $61,963
5 03/09/98;Associate , $33,8521 04/19/021Senior Asst. $56,389
6 08/24/98 Associate $34,908' 06/15/011SeniorAsst. $52,125
7 04/24/00;Associate , $38,813 02/23/01;Associate $41,101
8 02/18/011Associate $39,915' 08/13/03IAssistant $50,773
9 07/02/01;Associate $39,912 01/27/031Associate $43,493
10 07/23/01 Associate $42,0001 10/27/05;Senior Asst. $58,490
11 i 09/17/01;Associate $45,302 07/31/02 Associate $47,237
12 04/29/02;Associate $45,000' 02/25/05.Senior Asst. $61,131
13 07/08/02 Associate $43,500; 12/27/02;Associate $43,493
14 08/13/021Associate $42,5001 10/21/05 Senior Asst. $58,490
15 01/13/03;Associate $42,500, 06/19/051Assistant $50,123
16 01/27/03 Associate $42,500' 12/24/04 Assistant $47,965
17 01/27/03;Associate $42,500; 05/13/051Assistant $47,965
18 09/22/03 Associate $45,000. 07/22/05 Assistant $52,624
19 12/27/04 Associate $44,000! 08/15/07 Senior Asst. i $63,856
20 02/28/051Associate $45,008, 05/27/05:Associate $45,008
21 05/31/05Associate $42,848; 09/28/07 Senior Asst. $62,358
22 09/19/051Associate $43,706' 08/10/07 Assistant $53,435
23 , 11/21/2005 Associate $43,7061 07/30/07 Assistant $53,435
24 8/2/2006,Associate $45,500 01/12/07,Associate $45,510
•
PROSECUTOR SALARIES
f.�,u ti!Va ^^F f Y 't r�; ,.r •: •:, 1"'`�•, y., `„,,,A; •.. .„.„h •�``*`'„``h'g,,—'r h r.• S,7Y4"^•hFt'y+:�� ,„...14.::;z -:,!,,
r '° ,n.h .,.r:;r;r'; • ..,` .Y ;h t•'"' r •,., '`;kilo ...�•,;:•h'^y?,5.% h •}$i+ r...;`.• ,�, `..••• .'t k:11,7+ '' :'�;•;..70%%+"i�w,h _
'•.,:s..,'„:'s..1;.,.„.'.:•N„,,,*D./:,:'
•,.7-:,,'*,,„•,0..:..1,;..'.
.*.,,,,,,,?'.,,,)4,•,,C.',...:.\'=:,N`'g't8‘,,.;,,i
*.:,'%..:-".'','.''
:::::,i;.'
,'„.r;..-„;
k...,*..kV.'4Ca..,,...‘,,..
.,5.:\;,:*A.',•,.,:,:.::..4,.,,•:,-:::,,::.!.:.:%,,i.. ,,%L,Ltr..k.4',X.')..t„
't,k'-,:.-„.,`::;:--:.'.:;:',...,':-.,:-.:::'1e*:.:::
.,..:-.,:-::--,:''..:::..::.,:,.':,.
kN-1,4.N`.,'....,A.,
.,i.:,!
•..-,..:::..,,:.,,::,,,,..„,.v
.,k‘NWop
k x,w,.N.Ns..4.o,s,,,.,',\•%v::t.*=:;..::':,",:.-•:.S‘,..,.c..,:.:::,:...,:,.;.',4.,„
6)I.-,'4,k...„tc,Wt,,',:'t,s'<4-,2c,-,N*,<-,,•.k.t',y'::,-,.!:':_v;.>.,.:.i-'„.':::t:
,,,:kr,%1.P,
`w�`.^^,�}� ;� 1?�'g'�k S: v'r} '{ �y'Y a � ;;yy,,. ..YY '�?,,, L�+ �2 �5S{� d ' ^.,`• •.dti••• 4 ' ,�n. Y„ t .^,,rt,,"v. ytn�.'
,,'v`l%..N..:s'.:,'`•',;.•4+,..
'\:H-':.:b,,t
bK� .�'�r;' }�":"^' .} `,��,r.-�•�'"� '•" xh+, ",k+rh' 4k�1xh'}.v. '. v�c"��r"Y mod.�,• ".r�} v x `'� `"xy
' h +v, tier ^,h�•,+ � Y h y... �ti. '�;+� ,^. �:• +.. Y"' M y'''�,ti '".}.�
hC tfW'':; n..y,���"W{"i95:;,1 � 'v5,�S � ,•. .yµ. .,�, .�., vY^ .�i• ''y.ti^ � �'�`v} :.• 4 Y s'..n.
}h KS�' '��4`���;. hyy \' Y�� . `: 'Y '.. h + Y4 ti„vti} i1 h rr rr.+;v{, ��. ^"Y••. •';1Y;�f. �:
r . 0,' h,v* 'h�+Y '',;›,: . ;�h,,Yti •. ,"Y" +-ANN..' % ti} yt�?} Y` h, •'.'s} y Y ,+ Y :;
{ � fl r 4Y�SYY h YY $+}. § n. h °"" h Y `;"•" ram' yti�Crt
tivkx ,. `C{h`R 'Y• .4,,,„,, :;Y,5,,, .\. ,, '" v+,'Lr.Y s, } ti `-C•,, Ytik .:
$60,000 ` 1+;" ti L hY _ h'r: +ti.• "Yar h
k.r 5N� ,,+.hr ,•'', +•r.,,••-..— ••$ ..s: •c% ,q, +"•• Y �+.k r Y N. ti
{ �` kwr ,r ,} i."+�:^���,.hv Y `ih r . {h +'•� •i•Y '+ +,,.. .k ., ••N• ;fir} v a;`i +.`!+.. ,{• Y , . • ,• i`:, ?
, x t' hr,�•. v�i ,S^s' ��ti;';,,, •'f'+,4����,,•,• tih, .. �, �ti�S++.. Y";'"••. . ��``+ry h r�: % � :�.,'4, ti'^ �'`�'',"`*^ ,`'7h`� ':.�.".
Y� h $$ -,, .r, C `r ,Y r. ti h y+"73`,4*:
Zs�Q �d• h,,.> .''"t. :.• •.+a , , .t, .Y Y Y.�;+ ° ; �`. y�.r �y Y ti %"' , h +r Y +' ^r :.':'
R �? 0,1, 4 ..1 r`5n' } kYv v �ti fir: + ›} ^} ti aw`ti g .+y
,. Y d R 'S 2.' . v +'C•"•+ YhY•.ry' '• ,. •.Y, ">i .*,, 'Yv Y.' . YSr.• '•'.,' �,.
`. y ,+ {'^, 'ti .h ,`�`' 4f,•• -'v`�Yh.h ' ^ '+i $'.�,� +. . + .�,Y.4 A Y g ,.Y•+ A' '.`• rY". }.,. ..-< . +11 Yl'Y Ah 4 `S y
$`ta,aaa ,�5�'�i .�.Y� +�� ,�a.�. . �'.�'`5 p'r..� '4 y+,.� R�Y'. �.�, 4•.. 4 L'v iy,,,,4a` . `'wv. o
' yi , h.-, • "•I �, Y t: .. k Y Y"•, ,,hM' • Y' 'YS Y , h7•k`3 .�,h•. '{Y`,, Y^ 'y .0 nv'',
h • y CF+ h'tik '"�h''�`°• w �'oV'C kySYy° ti 1
r ',. +, t . .' �k s :+ . ; Starting Salar'
li
.: kt;,.:, Nt„,,,,,., N.,,,,., ::„..,. .,-,:,, .,..,,,,,,,:: :.,,,:,. .., ,-,, ;..,,,,,,,, ,,,,,i.,;,..., .:,..: , .-,,, §;;;,..,', is.,:::: g::::: -n::: •1,:=: •;:s; . ..,:: - •;..,:::. ';l
$30,000 , R4,7 :i, ••••,',. • :s: 1,,tk* 0".:. '•'"-.:] :4,•;•••': 4,.,:•.--: *::.:: '.:,.: ':.:..., ,.....::: ;*. .':' kV,: e-,,, ..',:, 6,z:: • :,,- it),,,,:: t.,,,,, '...1.,.::: 1.., 6',,, 1
..„ . ,f<, ..: ....,::: w , ,:-, ,. ::::...:: ....t,,. . .ki: ,,:-, cz.* , 1.i .;,,,,,I,',. %.,_v k;,,,,. k,k.-:: % i'.i riff, '.':: ,::.:. p, V.1
*::.: ..R,.;,-.:.:, k'...:,i:. .,:::: IC '+:,.7 q':';':. *,. .. A,,,, ..,.. ,,,,,‘, . , :',-,,i .., : ,..:(: t..,k R.,,,::: ,,,,.',‘,. E,,,,: : ,t4 ..,:..,:si kzi.,.,::: 4::::::, 1.,.. . ,,.., ,,, ..
.-: .. ,:,.. kt, .,.: ,,,....r.,, 0,,,,: ,::, ..:,.,, ki..,,,,,,,,,,,, ..,,,„ ,,..„, ,,,,,,,, k .:.:: ' ....% 1,,A:::. 'R.::: i:5 :::: 4:,--: •.1 ., 'i-..:.: ::: ',, ,,
+ y�
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
TRANSITION
PROSECUTORS
140.0 : 4.n t Yt{;•:f 7} a .r �. 5 ,•; {y�{: '�+ ;.5% } J• .SxrG .• trn r4h� ��y, r t^.. .tip ;t} ;'
ti{ + of �; r z }i`ra;"+'.'••{'{++ ' }..iy' :,r^S+ ,, ..°"�4.x.• ,.`.},' r {,} •,"7..y ,t'. ,,.t> • _•;;t• r,�`;`r{ `io,,.;•' +L•• • • +%.,�k''•
M,,5++ {r., G• ^ .+i',CtA, `C? }`t`7.} ,+ ♦ "`+`:'1.•a.{ w,.,•rf, ti+, y t. •�}• "Tfi• ,
'�i. + } r{• t+ 'c `•} k '•: '` % t r+r•��'t�•* tv 1'' • v. '''' '•'' +:• h r r r;•:* v;F�.
:}'4} •. {a`' �pl vx %..„ }•, • • y',S v • ♦. vt5.,; $k+,tr•,, .•,•„t,,,, "•t�'`t,v%.% N.�''' t;4•: .y may.,,, ,,, t'tiry•a," :i •r}rr,�
:-.%. ':, • •,,.' r{ 4:.," ' '�Lw.4,V" :,M1♦ :, 4,k_ a{'',` ,;,•'},r"�,",'ti ,>,'R -PA. '�h,,, , "tv`ti, �.^�,4ti,�44, 4;,.,e. ;'ti7" ,,.^i+'•,ry,_ ", i"ti,
.`•-§,,,, '• `+'4't^•' ',.; + •}., , t '�7,7 " {{ %"hr 'K, • '}{r�{.,. .,,y .`. , t, '.. r +E.4 " '".• }t n4,r"ps, �µi
} , eic; .{.,r t%''' tiw :. :.,' ,N• Av ` h,::' . .' rh. t ':1.•^"r ., + ,, ,,," n,
120.0 ��+} ; ` �� u���,.��Vk �+�,�4 �+�'�,� .1,-tiM1":P,� 'y.,'a:�;' ����r� •�• ?C�• t, ;�'�'t.•, `C ,n,,•'rk;i.,�.*�,"J'4.,.,.,++� ^+t4�xCt�r � �0.•'%�rt�`'�
,.t } , 'Ks'' °.^.SF'ti• : 't',t '" ? 'T{ , ,h• 4{ } r , •�11, ' +r
•,ti `�' 1;", y y•+�tt' .:•,?`.. '''tr "`. +. ,,,-. . t'* �+, .'fir•. +,:` , r' .t•ti '' ♦ x- r . . t om,•,,
�' i ..x".1)''''' '' '•,pn'",a;; "•iS •"r+'k,,{r"Qy'`' ,•t^r•t<a4{�,•4'°� ;.„}rr tip• ^•`�,^tt}„' Zv,'••," . .ti{++fit^?{..'} it t1,1,y �,+¢'r tti•',4;.`
��... \%.. '.*,�}• ;,tt4 .• ,�1y •^• •+4 +••k.,, :C :,..4 t;• 4, n},` h ,'r{, ,•-• `�''v,•' 4"t }`••: ""•• �, :,. c. .
rr'': ,, °P,v` k,.`+:,4 'ti„v+,�t '."r3; ,. ,} ' • a♦41a „;y ,t�. X ' . .« -;:k',,;{. ,,*. •y fi,` f'�•C ,{ +'';St.•,,••Y„v•:,
}y tfi t t4`, t4 eft 41,)..,,,
:' 's" 4i y l.• .". +y tit`+ �4, .. } +{,�• +�y .' • }•{r ^•,
1n0,0 `Y,}. f4 ,kt ....m :,-",,..A.,...,....,-.... .
^N,... { •,'r',�'. ".. 4 ' 4} h +, r�4 ♦,4z'r . tS -
+' S ♦ � �,,�N.4.♦: 'h.'n'h°u� a ,. } 4} •"':.a,'yr. *, .♦ ,\`ti.. },"•. ' "' }., ., •7♦ ': t.,^} + • "v"•,,o :f '7",,�' +�:}i,'� •.+,'ti• i{Y'},..." N' �'a `v.• ."r ♦ '', .t; .'S 'w -•:':',.°',siX.. {.i.• -,,• 'ti, ti ',, ,�,., h�'�•r^'+`"� '.r :•„r+•�••�k�+}''��• ,'�' n.3�;�'i��;!Q�^j�'.�`" ', r�, tr ti•,•4� n�`� :'••,',� ;``.:`$;ri' •y, ♦ .:'s�•r��. `s,• � ,�,,ti�, 7{"',fi�., fit., ''�,� v+ ''.t�' '��4�`+y
r *f, • `,� 7',. "A.'• ..*,,�, 1 M :Y .4,,, ,• 'y, 'eI.,::„r,4 , J'+ 'j •''} r`:',: y,
•.. , t 4�x r e 4i • 4• ,,,,, 8t •ti .•t.,r,,`.•`'.„ '*`• '',4'."7'4 { ti , ,.�}•'}',.. , ..•. • \ , ",�• , < „4 •'.•.:,' ` }V,{,;
•
•
•
,sp. ,,y, , +,p, ,�5 ,.,,•'r.,+,e; ^a4. a1`,,•S,yy,, fife" • �'`'h„ }% %,, •,; ti,• ,'e;, . •,t .:;.••tt+r .""'�,, . t}: ,',•-�': .i ...
.`�:} ,� �,�},'�'} } y'`tL+Cr;-t`. .'Sh 4r ,y.'4'�•rt;' y'1 ,S, .,•:�. 1''4•., { `•"' - ,ti tu,°�.`i`t '.?r5• �, ,'�y, ,',r'.,f'i.
v «?'X .,, ^:,, } ,�:••,^,, kt+•tip R.? "*. '*t•:' ,.. � y", 74• , ,•,,` {„• , `,vr• : ♦,t •.}
-` a ^. iYY��c� � '� ,�,}ti�,• �v ti; ,k, +G -)1 ''vr �Y'�'' ,•,,,,,,,,...,.. . '�t ''�'�„ �° v�, d;v�' a`w'"+..+,�` .,
�•+M1 � „y ^ . ,.S ,c••,4•
•,. h•41.0
`,,,,y •4 .'+h,,, „„•,_,-...„.„,„„,
.h ,`h,t+r., t
:��,@``y•Av44` i,'�'`,�'{�:h••�y}•'4 ""h,M, � {{' 4t,, '�! �`4: �"•a.,',±•.�y •}°'••�a. Y, :h, 'v ''.'�4'9.t", ,y..:,. !ly ♦{-,[+ (C L� t[a�; , t•'•, .,,••}.. `{+ ♦Yk. •,,,,h y , :y ' ' '`,4 ...^ y'. „"i` 4`,r ' ;'',',"�,,,s.i.„Zf:� lYl�kl�J 1 '31. ,�4.1.'.Y ^• '♦ t7' �•'t '':• r� ?`, 4 $,r -. �;•1, k,,,,v.•:t''' , ^. L{?'`C-•C'�^?r, ". 4 ,�tt`„`+ {u,•v �' + ''' .„,,, tn ti♦.i�'�'';,r�„� ',:..,: ' , m-,: A:-..,ii,h,',''{. '4�`;,•0.y' ,:k•,..y };4�r: v"` 4 {• •, r, , 4,,p,4��'+ '+''� ♦f{ }'}: .', ' �:%4• .•{"ti•`YyA•,,'�••ti 4 .. ^.+r
•
60 0 • ,-p,+, v".\ '^4 .,, ,,� ;Ar,.:-.,4;...
�} '`,.,F, s 4' : ;``S,.,.t.,.• t t•`�r}
7•
ry}�,°. �• +\';. . � •.yrDt, ,,+'C `1':rt•• •R 4?k•s{}{',r ''�.••h:r't
• ,*,'�:� r{ <' ;{i r� 4{yti�nr
�� . s, � k.. }•, 4.. 4',` r n,{,, ^•r rh', J} 3,,;,."^C,, tip. },4•.fit'_,�;"�•;' , , +}r' s�':.rfi 'r w k •'• '� r'.t-a"'SL,•,ti } �. .y 'v{.
t . t,': �'}; & kk �• ;+, '•,.•, *t:Al ,, }: . i,, .• {,';i:r4 ,•- r '''Z' 'ti{,• yy + !!}}�� { , ', .p v,. ,.f'a hv, , ,, '•n' {r rxyr.,:Z " +h; 4':'4}}+'�`p`•.{+c SS��,,.�,��� \ ,+ � {• �•+5;+, '•:• }rV,+ rti}r�:r•}? ,�:•} ;r_.Z, ti ', "�, n-,: „• k ,'Gi•-i.,4.:C{,:?ti'} "err'•}•`}C`•\+v,•,�1+1:}• r , '{:,. . y° ,,,,,, •;' ,,• ›,,ti �; ,},•ti , ,r. n.,4 ti,• } , 4, „+C `� , ,`4''44{ �r} ,{'h 4,•.� , , + 'l'::•}ti• 4 �C ;.. ti ,4• ,+ f'�• `t°• , 4 ,r +� �41;
�1 :; •ti , ^Q , ''}C ��.N .+,tr'r+'{� ,. • '4 � , .n .i'°r•.',�: .vti'44•,�•,{;1 +fi�,,{ v t.
,.'$h.• . tiro "; .•:n, il...S 1..4 +. f'Yn, �y."++,s,`•: ., 4•::., +h. ;. r,,,y '.}r
•• ? { `' '+. r. ,y+•}r• `^++4+ rf,.,�iti•.,}} �' ,�h '"•'1+S ♦i `?,t+',+.A+:�+ r {.. ,�.a•`. ti
r •;, •, .- •, '.,•`2 Q,ti}• , r:. ",.,'rr Q 4'r,4': •• ,{} .:,,:.' ..ti �,•5*n. .ti:+7},.
. r , .,.. ,
`� + ,, •,}�•� `r$,,v;•:` ;•}'` h ,, . ?f,4'•.h 'I,r+r,.,•„ ,•� ,.w. ':.Piet,, 7,4. '`+T:, `y++^•a ti�:•;4'H.F•.
} rf,St•4, '+v.� i } •+. r ,"}. • t SSti, ` d {P.j� ti• •,,+�', •4•�.`�.X. tiv.V
+'� Ait.',. '�•• t..,+ +:, •4 . , '4 i4` Cyr `,4} ` •( 1 r r>#''.,
, . •..,`: ‘,...ik.:: -:, 't,r):,: 44,—;":A" 44 y'...i•i .. -:."••• A;:::.::*. '':*: "*::i'i,„$;,,..,i;.4,....:' %.*:<.:kg,........'\ii.%.,'Es.. ,.... go:K.,P,Nt ' ,..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
TIMEFRAME FOR TRANSITION PROSECUTORS
8 ?7i* : "`z5 •.C%};t e•r "vf y;y�'S}"sW. .y4y`{' ,wcx a}}••,
r:xr.'}r>Jr ':y",+,2`,., '''' ' Y r°?r.ti{, +:•' 1• v 4,•'{n,{.,• >'4'' ,^'•' "a•.h^sr
;h"w:C=,?.,:1r,,`;:+ 'f, .i a"Y y .{r}+{f +}"i:,}':^ •"{`,'*,`M"ti i .},, :1i-9�;f{i•,7,-.: ,k T.{C+S" 1 ,:gx ti,• 1. 1';,, • r }-r,:�>• .}, ^,y r
,''sr }:tt} 'v * r1}, i^'. ; • i1���ti ' , :, r w,-f v,,{k° .},'Qs's?�, S'c`,�y4 '1`"4
ti .y ",�'• } +: '1 {•4r",r• a ��^ �, ��'Jr.. r1';},• *,,Ni:,..,, ,.1 '1�'`.a�;•S •' � `•q:`. ;{�+:;. ,w�,}�<"�.k.'i.�`•Cti.;`�'`..
�i:' •'CY.`f 4r'�., { Y+, � {1 }�, {' : :y. 1,":,•,}}r,;: L'1ti .�y r i 4'1` .�. }1 4a4;^'i�".
},,E,, •{; ",t, , •, `i.• "'ti s ... t.;`.h ,-"4: '4n,a ,,,,L_°•, i i• w}'r„ t v7,, ,r1 .7 - "t{., •,5$S.' , .+n 14 ,, w1,o;,f.
11 .4 yr.^'.1...lY:r: Y•S'' •.{Lr." •,.0 r. :1 {.•v,�'}r ''rr,j, .,'kwvv}, r y. r1 '�+, sS v Y ; is»,
r <� _'"^'_} S Y �" "1' S( J .�. 1 ;4.. '.• hh ^ 1, y1l"4 w r 1+ M$S r t.
\M1.:�y4,{1 ,A'"`•�i,�.1A:C• .fh�} * ,y."{ ^tiv'r.}i '^ apr`••''' ".ti;;�:'.••`°' •'"1'••^r` 5`�r' ��. h { i'"',^+, y{iti't. '`'`L�'v" �'+Q�i ��o�'���"�j�4:
*: ,'•'' 4 ys 1 { v 1 n'•. 1{{ '}r'* .r.'{C .v' '�S^1.,.y �. {,; a ;• , i$°v.&-n',i,, •+ ;' ,+' '+;•
v?t 1rl''4,r1 r:�: rS'1'w.r,i,.{,.} "'^. }., i '�1,�v {•"�••' "}`L' �y✓w, 1 .z �}r,.y.' t1. �*�„" 'r
.„,,,'�e•.�• i ..* }^' ;} ;}. ..i , `i 1,... ,,7.e'.ti ,r•:. ",w.% ,..,0•rs 'Ci s1..:}„' ,y 1Stir ."., 1;r. ,,:%•:t> i..�°} ;r, -�'>,4 ei.•
}�;�,}'```y.•y, y'a S} ,+ `'' r :�';s ^rr, -k'''1;ti, �j'.'yi�,, `^.',0:•� 4 "}. ti}'ti,�.ev'a}:�,.'r.:• 1,;y ,.•.,� e• ?-: �' "d'v .,:'..3'.r �• v vtih•�".}• ' '�'+.' ti�°";``5rr4=
l,','"�:.:,^ry^:?'v^�:�,}v': �:w��}1,;,}. {,,,�r�1�1,,,`,•',•,:�yy:?•"y��,11:�•^, v�;, �,:CS}r�, � :•tiv.�,''S::i •,},•�.•�i,} v� } �^s^"• ^. ,('r�'i; '•��� v.,a, '�a hS
7 } ��'''',,,::: h $%.<':r,;. .,y�.. .n,°•° .' r,t.1. r i. i '. { `.i•'+W n,'`U-r•�+':'
"? y, =v {= i{i w. r ,,, r {. v} .ry N , .. fi :rff, 4 • '{ 1 r ^T 1, i .,,.
1'�}{;,�:.^:'` t� t.,._$._vrr, Yti*:, '`'",1'i, '"` ''1 S.�S+�,:{+''�} a� :.�:; i'1"� w 1,;"'is� r" � .y w, , �;r€ .,::�
;dry r+i�
'}rw '.:.,'','"• G' v ^? "5,{v„ y" . .w' ;,cie ,t �"•" }% t r �y „ ,-*v�kn,v,,,,
�r,vv}ys,V`rt.;�=^*� 1::�<„'�itii,,�•�` ,ti .,•r.,,} } 4.-srp�� +.:1=• S�•r :"`'fix`+. •�h.i: '{ •' 'Yr•,C,.:{''•"M„,�`1 y. r .;'�rr �n vyC r 'h:•.,tyro `,�.s,:�r r,.:
'.;4:},q:v SC:iti.'1t '"",v,K r{ }'s,''w.° "1, "r � .;,,.'�}�l .�5 11,^:'S`ry1 r :{•' •t.` .ti• 4{•,'.;• i}'+"y,,i 1 ''' ?• r'�C •?:�{y iti, ; v,*.a%`.=.4,,`4:
r''C+..x r .:r,•,ti:,,�,.y{,•}, v�+, ,,:; ::,i'r},; '},,v k°''{{�-^C �'} flee" ='. v`4."ir •%'�"r h :+. •'^ r„�,}„ K%I 7. vy 3 ,,.,�„'i'4';',.ii.
tiv;�,..,,,,- iv�.'^t=,, "r :h ,rn{ ;k,r, '41.Y,i`, 1, y }„x.5, .. {; r,•'•.:+fi.''.. {;�^T.k. .7,.' ,4..kWv a
^:M 4�• r3,G^;'l't; {: 'ti.•", •�'��y*, •.; 1{. �}, ti° �v„?, }''1'$C..: ,1�'�'':,r",S's�•4{•�•'7 •h � '�.,y�h�`iry ,rti .s"'^" �'{;�^.�, �;�""s,' :y+{ ��'�'i,r'`'���i.
°ri, ...1;'` "'S {4. `t :}° er ''v,. 1 }`i,{ 'i, {.. 5•":•1'}r" ... r,.4r' ��, vi .ti :S:„ •rd if•: f
i;�' �>.k`'�v .���',1,�1��, �, i y��• '� }•, :� ,: ?^,ta,'•'N 1.. yr,�v,',�•. i S ti1 '! , �,� �"�^_.„
'Z{ 1,r^ 41 � ,, y ti:. ",,,,,,,,. ....„,,,,,,,•,,,„,„: am'{ a+,,{fi, r•s ',, :,}rwY i} 5r y, vrh,�. ., ,,, , ,;ua:•F,„ "`.
M1x,i ,r w {^, .ir22,,.• . 'q„, } ``'�C �. {{d r.•, _'k
6 ���� : > ��*,':� .{�.�` ✓ : v '�r�"'•'�C.;Sk"i,and� 5 ,,,,,,....,,.,,,,,•,,,. ..... ..›.' '' ,;^ k� �"k i h 'vs{,,.ti^.=, }'•s^,.a;S•i,,,.
^.•{}} �i' `�; } .v i. r i• w w �., '� ��. .. ,,, ,fi� r. +{,,,�,�:�, .w. r'''+y;G;.,,.
°„,„„ ,,, :ti 1 r, °^ti••4 r va',;�+,�',i ail •C�' "• •. •*r .w 'y •'•".4;.`• •,...4 'r�� '`,y •l.12At,
:;hfr,{,}}-v ti:44 :,:,,'{v}} °,}.,�,,,'_ % • nryk ','v'•�"%::%*-,G••'•,24• 'X,I.,;'4'?, . J. {X".t.:;•r, ':•.:••. - -"Y�. y,, :•"'r':.
,,1�r^�'` ••, ��:�ZM4h'r;•gs ti a �� +. .ti'i. ?1;}:�C. .'1'�1,:�• w �t 7'.,ra iv�iy��£i"• °• :*r, '°�•^:ti•�{i r r.,',. }'�^�'S. }1��,,, �,r�:'•'•�r``�.",
•"it G, g hi ;w,*. Y'y •{,} M1i,,, .�:'S}, '` 1h. •{ {YY :"9.,}•.1' '". 1 `: "V{{:Yt ^}• a.4{4' ova` '`,, h •„ ,�f { tt.11ry ,�, 0,A;
�+i'r,`�`�; •,`r^:''<�}''� i'„, }' .�}.•r`,yg Y� 'y r i, 1 ,�{*rr '*^. Y r�r i" .�5,'i}i 'r $��* ^:^ r
r,•:1.',''?•''�,,^,:r,' .';" "1> 11 h • a•. •n i}�i :. i,. a .wr,:i� : Nd'Os.' ;�;.y.;{ } \• ,} 1.k'Y 'Xe,:. �•, "�h s.� "`,0:•,�;
.iv{,{.iv�'yti4} Mr }i r°�r ''s'? i } .ti",}4' 'Sf' ",.r•r1,.'++,=iti i . ., { rites {. 4 a}y a^,1''vy, v r �+..�r. was t'4w �":, a°4i,1w., ,,�s•rz. ''.u-=,..
.}. S "1'40,.i : •$, •7f r ``+, 1 ir. v. :: ,, :.',.' .4 , ", •ik'Gw•D'•',,,�:`,•�i}ti,,'"�y?.•`,a'.}•,�;n .„ ',1"y�„�,i
�,•"' ` v'" .ci. �`• ''^. t, .. rrr,�". ,$ w`'`r,,,,,1 r•'...:{, Y . ..c``{' + 1 iK2}•'4 {�, d',�'_„•„r.>,;• ,:,
5 r 4..,e�`•'"w�^s•e�'v`+}.A,�.:"'r, 1{ �'i '�y},�,a+ $.,L}�, �^ �""i 7. ri r4" :;• "' _' kvt ry ;'���}�,�} }rti,• }.{�h •':' n•, \'rs'j'�:4;.
'' *i'�`}{ ,, }. Y •••'/'k ."k',,h,, r.., �;°} {::` ^vi,,, "•Sr^i",, k.. ,{':,' s.4 '�, '. i. 'S�,y'v, t ...to.,,,, +•r
ti." :i 4 K •}.;. ''aa,��,S�; r ' '�-` w i �'{ r. {'.Y"��?4�' r y '?�k��'�:.
co i ':>tv'r 3`.}„ 1„}: Y •S, 4, 4 d ,:°*:%Nr ',',+,y v, 40 y ="vi ,1;,, ^.'')���,,,S:,,,, 1 ,,41 " ��,,,",..x. , ,• -';5`
{i•�' : w'hr74� ^:,d rrr"w� � ^S {�.� �'.h k1 Si{�ti •,{,�hr`1�;'. '�'w'�yr,f}•���w° Y��r �h��rr <� �. :°^x"a2'^' :r i1ti., .�,•,.+,y2,�,F
��;i•,.�•,,
/•� v e ;,` v`.,, i`. . 4 w ti. ,�'�"'�1.•``::�t• `,, '11•1$7.yyy1 i, . rMS., 1 r, "v .1:,,,i, 1;,,1 r,;fi," '3„?L}, i,. ,n,'r t..w,,.
,\/ y t ,, `�,t°y54,, y, :''S�`.rrri`, i ,1,••1 '`}':•. "n..,K }4',',},�{r ',fk^C}.a• •. rn•, Z5r�} 11.''^•��a''A.r•• �1."}, ."•a..,�}� ;4 hy.,%.,,,.•{`,' 1 • :,{W ,
'45° ', y ,w,.$,}}:v "1,,,, 5';„,s,k^":*.: ,"}' v P43::.•p.{ ...: i ;X},,, ti'S�e •4 ry°: 'Sy,� ♦ n.:w,''vL'••,, a ,', �r ti t't,.
LL � w 'ti i xe`� +•"^i iv {^ M� r �:;h} avj�} weG^�S .;: .+� w' }� by '�yy ,4.i+, h:' c�;
ti v 1 Z •�1~a 44 `s •} i i,. ^:..1y °'' ,v. :r.• :• cya,�:k•1,W, •4}" 'S.}� 1."{'v:•'•'�'''\ `;&,.,•' : �,ti. '.�y ,3° y"" y.
O U 4 av� .,,2 . ht.. f•. .,r •%,n h: fi. % °rr; y+� r. } + h i y y •y��'`1�yclAi.
it UJQ , , s� { ... • l ' }r • by 1t k ey:s % v ,,,A4? \
�,n^ C,,,,„,,v.,
kv ry`5,� •. + f�.y ,•w"•ra,,n' 1 $r�,,, .v1 'i�1CiV .t'� w 5. y,' t+s�" M"'' ®NUITi�.)'G�! '
VJ "r1\ ,",,,,,9 r, 1 '1,.�i ."Mr'. y{' �'.'" i x`S 'ki°'p`' ry'• t''' ?r'+v : r.. ^'.,"i •�'. ....... K •f L 4
`Y h � X r { if.^l,,,ki $•.••", ;y k., 7rf' s„,r4',,,....•• "r°1�' {_' 4. .k , ',s ',' :r} s47" ',' \'`,� �;•-a`•g.+; '•v i
(� ttf rL y y1 ,"�t..'�•"}; :;=i,v:y i M {%'NI',. 1 ti,.r4 } ,,.,4{} S•r{. , ',`1},,:r :' 'fi,,yy. v;,,-, M,,v,a
41�°", 77 %w i $i �"", yr. • .`";ahh :}� •�y r} }•..5",i• i r. 'i �A�•:h .} w ,;r .;� ..r;. '�`: +�y,,i t
0 �` { ,, ,�" :l ^✓ *,, •ky f} „„„,rf•{r . -:6} ,'e * 4,,• 1"},'}; r, ids .31.:„.. i. :.r.." ,," ,'.jrke,
(� : r ;'`�i, ' r, \ 4, {�"a,i�t„ ,••V{,:{`' }'.'f',r•�,.' 4•.'h ?"1, i' ,f,.1Mr'" '. `'' �, 1'}hy {h'N � ,�
�y, "r: ni �"2C ��{;;�,r`. r^ >. .M1l�.y..,,l,"} ,r y�r.,r' 1{ r'r `h5,Y1 } 'ti 'J,v.. 4;tivv^",'}^ L, '1:�,�';;
} *P ,'14 hr"1 :i�}...;ti: ,,}:' '1 i' :$ i""';},} ""f:;"{_•a `":ry v •;p;1•::,y.,fir ,^ •' 'rh+ •,}1".;i•.• •:yL.''i^• }?ti:rti::t. n, F.:, :v r,,::,.
3 , x .,h •4 l {l ,' i+ 1 { tt}' .`,{C,w•}•,1i .•°,i'i, y• �SY `} .t�yr rk•'�'; `.. ''.',rC^s.:ti,,,•'2 ". i�{;•,,,,,1„. - t
*SO: '1 � ''1' : i�ar a. 1 a ,}�' }.1 {: �v}G'�+', ,}r' r �" 1�yh �•va{ i �4 .}S'1'�t a'�;�r `�,`v '+ ,,•n,
S t '' a: i,`4 +. 4 `4• "•• . 7} 'r +'•' . :; `•h .1.raX �11'"{,vf,1.'`•c`".E..,
vat} �r."`i; '} 'N.:"
: vrrf r ▪tt,,",".1 i '�,,.},} y•,, y:;h v.. h •¢�'��4,,.r.., `� .y..•,h.'S«' 't�:
,)+`^`ti,� o'� v}, i rri�� so r,:" ;,v}'}. 14•h'` :'::::*�.h, "'v,:G?." ;:},h{`•`• : r,r •, S { •,},"• .,�N y^` }L:,,
r ry ,:`ti°� "? •'1's, ,{ `l •,, r., "ti,• }•} }•}}, v1 :. x r : yati..: r��, }'S♦•' "1 la,,,,thy
',,,} 'w�,,. i1, r? :, .•'' .; r ;.1hti }:^�C}.. .„}$ h :'$�: .. +h,.Yr i.4.-,"111. :{ZQ,: ..&:. a3t:.`...
ai }1 v,i { l;{.};},,i r � 1}" { v°r..{i :'},: {4••:k^� 1 ,,1, 1 •,v: ,,},,"�•`'�v'', 1
11' ,S?,4� 4vir { i r.�1,y: '{�'� 1� ,,}y .}r" "'••r•:h'ti ;}�r}t h f 1r a,1$,.:i ''J;.}'.. 4'r'4r'•„r� ;t,•r" :•} k'.,�.vi;,r
r,} *Ai',?....,,' .,;7 'yv a .}S:{•^n: \ . r•1 {� v,^ �{^ r r .},,:.,' . w ry fir:}.}r,,::ti :.ti ti'• 1,,nr� 1.�.: tr'
r h�1,' .}k$ v{• •tip',.}r. `, ,:t.. Yv r r :•:i r. .: $,..4, ;'�t:.:.„,a4^.,:i{ titi,} {' ,r&fir,.,§.*,•f',,"•,,,,, i. . ,, v
"�+ �v,`,.t, } i • +: w .,l i hh �'}1. '. v i`�'?a�i r { '' � r" r ka.fi '"F � •t%.
1 : kry.\v � �{,,i Z `N � .� v �i •a.f,}���w,y 4r �r,,: v„{r�+.a {i�,r. 1 ta„• ti ih`v! {v ,y ,
� q ,,� ,.,Y :fir •,.:} 4 ,, ,,5: , ti'✓Y ,h,�., i•_, : , r1 .•`. 4,�°.ti i:'a„.•:::• .„t,,,},,,.- ,,1� :„ r1
2 \Clr •• i•,,.l \�a�, v :' } ..ti4 ✓ 1 . 7 1 i,{� ....„ rl .Y,a•5}ry,h y,"r . \,
,,, � }r• 4 Y � "•'}� ,C4 •i �}{}=,�1i\''y,4 J?.}r•�'�•y�� 4•�}�{y, ♦ ':v'.�',.• itiF {.rv�.,l� r i h�'ni ti+iti.ti•
�•�,'{ 'v w ititivr vqq { {i} .'•ti} ..P..s'�, -...h.::.,v:�4•} vN t'.4'• f,' r v•` :':;• ;: 'S S,kY;a •i 71
q}}. 4 r„, t r: `7 K• ::S .•i:1 :, riff:}:i. l i{ ,S•, ,i•r : ;; .},{. v. ^:
i ti;wd: .,Y� M1`v � 1 Gti�•. ,i •}ti'f•i 4r } }, }� , 1{n'?:\,.t�.,1. i.r '};: �:�' ryR• ti;.
, : v J:v f , y} •KX" •{}f G_ ,<$%F,)%* nY>
v n, F 4n� 1. Y t '}�,• +� } ,Y i.. ,...,,,,,,:::..,,..v.,.ri} Fr,? ti.",+�?•ti: 'h,;.r.,..k '�,ti '*."1 S, ,';,�i,)
,, u•�;' •K. •b° " v` t, i, 1:r t•: i ti 'j7. :r .,£ti,: `• ``;ti�' r
.•$v i'i' �: •,..'_•4 .5;.i \ �,yr.1. :}ir}.rti v� �'y,. a }. .a. )„ 1 f�P: ,^�
r si 1.' r„« L ti.-4.: ., •-•• ,,,, "r 4i4T{..c:k}',+t.v.:.• :,,,4`.}f i v •.y. S }cna.. v 'tix„,,.G;;t� :}t,i"••. ;,. . • `�, , ,v\4
rr• :1• : frlti 1 t{ L:`'r v'fiC�•
�,'�,{:',°a ti. 1 t i�"Y.�w}}' y.}7'�::ti;'4, •{:};:r''S�;�, 'i .,�,i+4v,:�.•.v.,�: ti;yr •C:} :�i?�n�Y��4: �,7. w r
r {v r«{;< a yr• L. i r } ak:.:,. iyn',+,,•'^w,, r w.a .� •F 1 rnt
• y,, .., {rr,,,,r4`t, : 'i `: .v4• 'v r ,4�. r,::m4;" i•¢{ .':, 11•' Y k %},. , „...... "a i 4'...p��,,,,,,^, "h
.t +. S�} i rr r f.:.k.t.c.: .'rtiy. 4 :{V r1''r.}i,u,v vw{,,.✓�.:h. '} ,},, .'t• '?r' ,•,•,:r y, 'S,,y1 'Ccn,�....^,,•f'�y"^`1 .'.,s ti, y k if ''°}}* 4„r,,r,, '4 v4 �4�'}.fi, ;•, ti��.liric,;,G4�v ••:tihs{,'aL r} 'rS� v7�ry 1;t �• 2`ir41 "',i r k+:''S•4Yi i ...� ,l ,.rh i {•v,.• } i'h }, �Y`l. ,: ,. is'.�•.•, •.'.°h ti w } { h v�i,y':.h}y. ',\h"'hk,,l,,� ,.,:\,- : `+} 'rr ! •,,,,,,^* ',Yf„ y'ivl"'1 „,,t`,.1� 1 ti e�l•4, '1' 1 }•i;r } 7',yl<
.,,:v�,, 4 :yr'N r aSG+, ,,,.1jr2`' {+1 + ,,} ? j... el• .,::ti`"'} }'.,}„.•,'�,`:�,��i,„,: r%. . „r :, 'wy { }.,,'tihi '.'�r:n\r,.
+ ` '� k,},r r ''i i { • {r }'r..•;? �:}r^v, v�"Sr�h,�,. v.,,;, ,fin`}:.'
`1 } ,fit, e {r. vrr•` , w {
{ r ',i•.1 y�'i ,. r�'.}i`•.` �. 1.�`.,,,`4 { �h,i;':.a ti a v,'r.}1""�"}. :}'w'r v.•"l•,t,s a '`^.1 r � 1 L
,J,, w 4r.•- 1+y y v} {';s nr. �,i r. ,{1r%':a}1 .}ni•• 4 ,' ,"'1:,r1 +7 r,,�,}4i k-'••tii
')• k 5rr ,� 1 1Y• .1, Y '�y 1. t Y rrr,a i,v�} ,; '•s f' "* t.*.
1 r it ,1,yS" 1. y .r'' ,}. ff,,,•,ar `:;:::s.,s,}r +�Sr;{• ,,;a r'vh {,}n• rw,ll. ,.: 7.'",. S �+.,4�"�,`...,,: t+:;
r r}•, `� "L ``!,i.. *. w s4Y.'.*::,i''f. } :w::. ''�'.'r,.?,r?e„y • „i �R rvr ..,;;;yryr,.}•:`v.:�:,`. ': "r.�.11"''',!!!?.,.,.pPti S.•,,},,4.,,h•" '• i':r•,.�p{!",���,'h `_...,sf,c,,tir� a "�:,'.•,.`'1,},
O ,. .n + M✓.•Y.`. r ,S,,.y.`t{4w•{M1:•4{"":V:+,.tiar11 . r '�•C;,a;{,a,,."'Y1'1•r ......._h; . " S1 4L' ^+•+'•+°#
0-12 12-24 24-36 36-48 48-60 60-72 72-84 84-96 96-�` `�
MONTHS OF SERVICE
1. Why $$;CA
Where Jud.
2. Why $$;CA
Where Jud
3. Why RL
Where
4. Why SS;CA;WL
Where DA
5. Why SS;CA
Where Gov.Fed
6. Why $$;CA;WL
Where DA
7. Why $$;CA
Where DA
8. Why TR
Where PR
9. Why $$
Where PR
10. Why RL;$$;CA
Where DA
11. Why $$;WL;CA
Where DA
la. Why WL;$$;JC
Where PR
13. Why PROB;WL
Where PR
14. Why WI;J'.
Where
15. Why SS:CA;VL
Where Jud
16. Why SS;WL
Where PR
17. Why WL;S$:
Where DA
18. Why WL;S$;JC
Where Gov.Other
19. Why WL;CA;$$
Where DA
20. Why PROD;WL
Where Gov.Other
21. Why WL;$$;JC;CA
Where DA
22. Why WL;CA;JC;$$
Where DA
23. Why WL;$$;JC;CA
Where DA
24. Why Prob.;
Where
$ = More Money
CA = Career Advancement
WL = Work Load
IC = Justice Court
RL = Relocation
TR = Terminated:Work
PROB. = Probation Period
DA = Dist.Attorney
PR = Private Practice
Gov. -ed = 'S Arty
Gov. = Goy.Other
Jud{. = Judicial
Initiative Name:
Special Police Operation
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #A-16
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Joint cooperative effort to reduce crime funded from asset forfeiture funds
Special Police Operation -
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-16 2007-08
Initiative Number - Fiscal Year
Police New Item
Department ' Type of Initiative
Jerry Burton 799-3824
Prepared By I Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund 0 0
= Total' $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
-- - - - - Total' $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
Totall $0 $0
Other Fund
73 - Asset Forfeiture Fund $ 75,400.00
Total, $ 75,400.00 $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's l 0
Total 0 0
Description - __
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
73-73005 I 2548 $ 75,400.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? _ I N/A
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A
1 _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? _ _ N/A
Initiative Name:
Sidewalk Replacement 03-04 Budget Increase
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #A-17
Initiative Type:
New Item
Initiative Discussion:
Following the Bond issuance for the 03-04 Sidewalk Replacement SAA, it was realized that
the budget and revenue had a shortfall of $1,674.63.
This request is to increase the budget in the 03-04 Sidewalk Replacement SAA and reduce
the FY 06 cost over-run account by the $1,674.63.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary budget increase to cost center
83-04048 and reduce the cost over-run account to facilitate the overage.
•
Sidewalk Replacement 03-04 Budget
Increase
I
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#A-17 2007-08
Initiative Number _ Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev.-HAND - New Item
Department I I _ _ - Type of Initiative
Randy Hillier/Sherrie Collins 535-6641/535-6150
Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact
i
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 --
'General Fund I
1 — Totall $0' $0
Internal Service Fund 1
' - - _ _ Total. $0' $0'
Enterprise Fund 1 - _ - -
-
1 I
Totall I $0, $01
Other Fund
83-CIP Fund Balance I - 1,674.631 -
Total 1,674.631 $01
—
Staffing Impact:
'New Number of FTE's 0 0'
Existing Number of FTE's- - 01
'Total I 0.00 0'
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83-04048 2799-01 $ (1,674.63)1
83-06099 - - 2799-01 $ 1,674.63
Additional Accounting Details: — —
Information:
Grant Info _—
Grant funds employee positions? N/A
Is there a grant for potential to continue? - -_- NIA
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will '
be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A
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? - - N/A
Initiative Name:
Dept. of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, (COPS) Meth Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #B-1
Initiative Type:
Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Police Department applied for and received $447,136 from the US Department of
Justice, Office of COPS, under the Methamphetamine Grant Program to increase the level of
law enforcement equipment, training and cross training of joint agency responders to
methamphetamine drug cases, and to develop and implement a community awareness
campaign.
These funds will be used to defray $90,000 of costs associated with Police detectives over
time to increase investigations and enforcement of methamphetamine cases focusing on use
and distribution; $9,136 will be used for travel, conference registration and training; $8,000
will be used to purchase equipment and supplies; and $340,000 will be used to contract with
service providers to include: $100,000-National Jewish Hospital and Research, $80,000-Utah
Department of Health, $80,000-Utah Department of Environmental Quality, $40,000-Lamar
Advertising, $20,000-Utah Council for Crime Prevention and $20,000 for program evaluation
services.
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.
Dept. of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Service (COPS)
Meth Grant
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #B-1 _ 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Grants for Existing
Police Staff Resources
Department Type of Initiative
Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins 799-3265/535-6150
Prepared By - Telephone Contact
GGeneral Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total' $0 $0
l Enterprise Fund
Total) $0 $01
Other Fund
72- Grant Fund $ 447,136.00
Total' $ 447,136.00 $01
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's 0
Total I 0 0
Description
Office OT- $6 Officers @ 17.05 $ 90,000.00
hrs x 22 mos. X $40.00 per hr
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: 16.710 -2007CKWX0215
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72- New Cost Center 1360 $ 447,136.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72- New Cost Center 2133 $ 90,000.00
172- New Cost Center 2590 _ $ 357,136.00
-------- - - ------
— 447,136.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information: _
Grant funds employee positions? I No
Is there a potential for grant to continue? Possible
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A
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
Initiative Name:
State of Utah, Office of Crime Victims Reparations - VOCA Grant
Initiative Number:
BA# FY2 2008 Initiative#B-2
Initiative Type:
Grant for Existing Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Police Department applied for and received $28,039.78 from the State of Utah, Office of Crime
Victims Reparations, Victim of Crime Act (VOCA), for continuation of the Mobile Response Team
program during FY 06-07. This amount was received to cover a nine month period.
The Police Department recently requested and was granted a three month grant extension and an
increase to their grant award in the amount of $1,334.85 to cover the partial salary and benefits of two
victim advocate positions. The $1,334.85 is the remaining amount needed to cover the cost of the
three month extension.
An additional 20% or$126.48 of match is required and is budgeted for within the Police Departments
general fund budget.
The Police Department is requesting an increase to the grant budget of$1,334.85 to facilitate the
increased amount of their grant award.
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.
State of Utah, Office of Crime Victims
Reparations -VOCA Grant
Initiative Name
BA#1 FY2008 Initiative#B-2 2007-08
Initiative Number _ Fiscal Year
Grant for Existing Staff
Police _ Resources
Department Type of Initiative
Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins _ 799-3265/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Totall $0 $01
Internal Service Fund
Total $0 $0
Enterprise Fund
-- -- ------------ --- Total $0 $0,
Other Fund
72-Grant Fund $ 1,334.85
Totall $ 1,334.85 $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 01
Existing Number of FTE's 2 1 01
Total 2 01
Description
Grant currently funds 2 Victim
Advocate positions.
-
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: 18PRM0599Z
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-20706 1370 1,334.85
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72-20706 2131-01 1,334.85
Additional Accounting Details:
Increase budget by$1,334.85
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? Yes
Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant? No
The department would request the GF to fund the positions
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
Initiative Name:
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program - Law Enforcement
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #B-3
Initiative Type:
Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Police Department applies for and receives this grant annually. It is awarded to provide
operational support and services in the eligible areas of law enforcement, crime prevention
and drug courts. As in FY07, the City was awarded Salt Lake County's portion of the grant
funds and will act as the lead agency. The City's amount is $327,585 and the County's is
$185,879.
The Police Dept. proposes to fund the following projects/programs at the levels indicated:
$17,000 will be used to pay direct community policing over-time to provide the resources for
the patrol and investigative divisions to focus on community issues and to direct over-time to
work directly with the community in solving the problems; $10,000 will be used to pay officer
over-time when participating in recruitment campaigns by attending community events and
staffing booths intended to draw young people into enforcement careers and $4,000 will be
used to contract for recruitment advertising; $2,000 will be used for K9 dog replacement;
$164,585 will be used to purchase 2 mobile surveillance cameras, 67 MGhz radios and other
miscellaneous supplies; $40,000 will be used for sworn and $20,000 will be used for civilian
personnel training; $40,000 will be used for contractual services related to prosecution and
courts programs to include the Salt Lake Criminal Justice System and YWCA for Family
Justice Center; and $30,000 will be used for contractual services related to prevention and
education programs to include Salt Lake Peer Court and Crime Prevention Supplies.
The City will also contract with the County who will purchase equipment and contract with
local service providers who provide services related to prosecution and courts programs.
No match is required.
A Resolution was previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept the grant and
any additional grants or agreements that stern from the original grant.
Justice Assistance Grant(JAG)
Program - Law Enforcement
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#B-3 2007-2008
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Grants for Existing Staff
Police Resources
Department , - _ Type of Initiative
Krista Dunn/Sherrie Collins _ 799-3265/535-6150
Prepared By _ _ Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Totals $0 $0
Internal Service Fund
Total' $0 $0
Enterprise Fund _
Total $0 $0
Other Fund -_
72-Grant Fund $ 513,464.00
TotallI $ 513,464.00 $0
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's _ 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's 0
Total 0 0
Description
Officer OT Only-
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72- New Cost Center 1360 513,464.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72- New Cost Center 2590 513,464.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? No
Officer OT Only
Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes
If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
I be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A
'Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? Yes
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 Name:
Jordan River Parkway Trail - Re-allocation of CIP Funds.
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #D-1
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
During the 07-08 CIP Process, $375,000 was allocated as a UDOT Match for improvements
to the Gadsby Trailhead. This is the section of the trail located at North Temple on property
that Pacific Corp. donated to the City. Engineering is requesting that $315,000 of the
$375,000 be re-allocated to two trailway projects as follows: a. $140,000 to the Jordan River
Trail - Rose Park Golf Course Bridge to South of Redwood Road (previously identified as
Rose Park Golf Course Bridge to Davis County Line); and b. $175,000 for Jordan River Trail -
Rose Park Golf Course Bridge to Redwood Road. This budget will be used as the match for
the State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Grant that is also included in this budget
amendment.
The purpose of this request is to re-allocate funds previously allocated as UDOTmatch for the
Gadsby Trailhead to the sections of the trail from the golf course bridge to Redwood Road
and South of Redwood Road. This will satisfy the UDOT match for these sections of the trail
and will complete these two projects.
The design for the Gadsby Trailhead is complete, a detailed cost estimate based on
completed plans prepared and ready to be bid by UDOT. $300,000 of funds were allocated
for this project during the 04-05 CIP Process. Based on initital cost estimates, these funds
as well as the remaining $60,000 of the $375,000 allocation, will be adequate to complete the
Gadsby Trailhead section and satisfy the City's match to the UDOT grant for this section of
the trail.
Engineering is submitting a CIP Application in the 08-09 CIP Process to complete the section
of trail to the Davis County Line. It is not believed that UDOT will allocate any additional
funds for this section of the trail.
No additional funds are being requested at this time. This request is for adjustments to
current budgets allowing the three sections of trailway, from the Gadsby Trailhead to South of
Redwood Road, to be completed.
Jordan River Prkwav Trail-Re-
allocation of CIP Funds _
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#D-1 ' 2007-08
Initiative Number I Fiscal Year
Comm. Dev.-HAND _ Housekeeping
Department
Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By 1 Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
- - - -- — -- Totall $0 $0
Internal Service Fund 1
Total $0' $01
-
Enterprise Fund
I
Total $0 $0'
Other Fund i 1-- _ __ 1
— - l $01 $01
_ Tota
Staffing Impact:
'New Number of FTE's 01 01
Existing Number of FTE's 4 01
Total 0.00' 0
Description 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
83-08025 2700 _ $ (140,000.00)
83-08025 - - 2700 $ (175,000.00)
1 83- New Cost Center 2700 $ 140,000.00
183- New Cost Center 2700 $ 175,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
'Create new cost center with
budget of 140,000 titled Rose Park I
9
Golf Course Bridge to South of
Redwood Road
Creat new cost center with budget
lof 175,000 titled Rose Park Golf
Course Bridge to Redwood Road
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 _ _ N/A
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? - _ _ N/A
Initiative Name:
Water Utility Budget Amendment
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #D-2
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
The Water Utility is requesting to amend the 2007-2008 budget for carryover projects and
equipment purchases. The Utility is also asking for funding for the following new projects:
1. Mount Olympus Tank Paining Project $ 175,000
2. Huntsman Center Connection Line 500,000
3. South Temple Water Line Adjustment 180;000
4. North Crest Drive Water Line 225,000
5. G Street to 13th Avenue 180,000
6. Fluoride System Upgrade - Parley's TP 100,000
Total New Projects $ 1,360,000
The Water Utility is requesting the budget be amended to fund projects which were budgeted
last year, but not expended until the current budget year. This will allow the continuation of
the utilities capital improvement program.
Due to the fiscal year ending on June 30th, which falls in the middle of our construction
season.
Projects are started in one budget and completed in the next.
Water Utility Budget Amendment
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#D-2 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Public Utilities Housekeeping
Department _- Water Utility
Jim Lewis _ 483-6773
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year -�
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total $0 $01
Internal Service Fund
Totall $0 $0
Enterprise Fund r _
151 -Water Fund $ 5,243,000.00
Total. $ 5,243,000.00 $0
Other Fund
Total 0 $0'
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0, I 0
Existing Number of FTE's 0 0'
Total 0 0'
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number _ Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
151-01301 2720-30 $ 231,000.00
51-01301 2730-02 $ 300,000.00
51-01301 2720-35 $ 126,000.00
51-01301 2730-07 $ 390,000.00
51-01301 2730-08 $ 3,851,000.00
51-00801 _ 2760-20 $ 200,000.00
51-01301 _ 2760-90 $ 45,000.00
_L51-01701 _ 2760-90 $ 100,000.00
$ 5,243,000.00
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? N/A
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
1 Non-profit sector? N/A
Initiative Name:
Sewer Utility Budget Amendment
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #D-3
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
The Sewer Utility is requesting to amend the 2007-2008 budget for carryover projects and equipment
purchases.
The Sewer Utility is requesting the budget be amended to fund projects which were budgeted last
year, but not expended until the current budget year. This will allow the continuation of the utilities
capital improvement program.
This is an established process to open the budget for carryover projects for each of the Utility
Enterprise Funds.
The major impact of this amendment is a shift of funding from last year to the current year.
Due to the fiscal year ending on June 30th, which falls in the middle of our construction season.
Projects are started in one budget and completed in the next.
Sewer Utility Budget Amendment
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#D-3 2007-08 _
Initiative Number _ _ Fiscal Year
Public Utilities Housekeeping
Department Type of Initiative
Jim Lewis 483-6773
Prepared By - Telehphone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
,General Fund
-- -, ---- --_ Totals -- $0 -- $0
Internal Service Fund _
-1-- -
Totals $0 $01
Enterprise Fund
52 - Sewer Fund $ 3,989,000.00
Total $ 3,989,000.00 $0'
Other Fund
Total 0 $01
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 _ 0
Existing Number of FTE's 0 0i
Total 0 0'
Description
� II
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount
52-11201 _ 2720-30 - $ 1,070,000.00
152-10401 2730-14 $ 2,793,000.00
52-11201 ' 2760-20 $ 14,000.00
52-11201 2760-50 $ 112,000.00
$ 3,989,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
I
Grant Information:
IGrant 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? N/A
'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
1 Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? N/A
Initiative Name:
Stormwater Budget Amendment
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #D-4
Initiative Type:
Housekeeping
Initiative Discussion:
The Storm Water Utility is requesting to amend the 2007-2008 budget for carryover projects and
equipment purchases.
The Stormwater Utility is requesting the budget be amended to fund projects which were budgeted last
year, but not expended until the current budget year. This will allow the continuation of the utilities
capital improvement program.
This is an established process to open the budget for carryover projects for each of the Utility
Enterprise Funds.
The major impact of this amendment is a shift of funding from last year to the current year.
Due to the fiscal year ending on June 30th, which falls in the middle of our construction season.
Projects are started in one budget and completed in the next.
Stormwater Utility Budget
Amendment
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#D-4 2007-08
Initiative Number - Fiscal Year P
Public Utilities Housekeeping
Department Type of Initiative
Jim Lewis 483-6773
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total $ $0
IInternal Service Fund
Total $0 $01
_
l Enterprise Fund
153 -Stormwater Fund $ 323,000.00
TotaII $ 323,000.00 $01
Other Fund
Total l 0 $0'
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 0
'Existing Number of FTE's 0 0�
Total _ _ _ 0 Or
Description I
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
53-10301 2730-18 323,000.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
I Grant funds employee positions? I N/A
Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
be eliminated at the end of the grant?I N/A
Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A
IWill grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? N/A
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? N/A
Initiative Name:
Utah Dept. of Health, Emergency Medical Services - EMS Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #E-1
Initiative Type:
Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Fire Department applied for and received $124,216 from the Utah Department of Health,
Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. Of this amount $99,711 will be used to purchase
medical supplies and equipment, $12,005 will be used for a Research Project, $4,500 will be
used for training and $8,000 will be use to purchase a defibrillator.
The funds awarded for the research project will allow the Fire Department to experiment with
alternative treatment methods for asthma and heroine overdose patients. Currently, as the
Fire Department responds to these calls, the closest unit is sent which is sometimes a Basic
Life Support (BLS) unit. BLS providers under current state statutes are not allowed to provide
certain types of drug intervention treatment. There have been advances in some of these
medicines which will enable a BLS provider to administer drugs in a form that does not require
Advanced Life Support (ALS) training. This grant will allow the Department to test these new
methodologies to see if they assist the patient and enable better care. Because of the grant
the Fire Department can purchase supplies (Drugs) and train the BLS providers on the proper
methodology of administering them. They will then be able to begin treatment for these
patients while the ALS providers are still in route saving critical time. If the study proves these
drugs are effective it will help not only Salt Lake City but all EMS providers in the state by
providing an additional level of care available to BLS providers.
The required match is $8,500 which will be satisfied and is budgeted for within the Fire
Departments general fund budget.
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.
Utah Dept. of Health, Emergency
Medical Services - EMS Grant
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #E-1 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Grants Requiring No
Fire _ New Staff Resources
_j Department _ Type of Initiative
John Vuyk/Sherrie Collins 799-4210/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
1 General Fund
Total $0 $0'I
i Internal Service Fund
-- --- Totall -' - -- $0 $0'
Enterprise Fund
Total' $0 $0,
Other Fund
'72- Grant Fund $ 124,216.00
� --- ------ Totall --- 124.216.00 OI -
Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 0'
Existing Number of FTE s 0
Total 0 01
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: G0718714
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
72- New Cost Center 1370 124,216.00
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
172- New Cost Center 2590 124,216.00
Additional Accounting Details:
Grant Information:
Grant funds employee positions? No
I Is there a potential for grant to continue? Yes
I If grant is funding a position is it expected the position will
7-be eliminated at the end of the grant? N/A
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
Initiative Name:
State of Utah, Dept of Natural Resources - Jordan River Trail - Rose Park Golf Course
to Redwood Rd Grant
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #E-2
Initiative Type:
Grant Requiring No New Staff Resources
Initiative Discussion:
The Public Services Department through the Parks Division applied for and received a
$174,497 federal recreational trails grant from the State of Utah, Department of Natural
Resources. This grant was awarded to continue the Jordan River Trail development from the
Rose Park Golf Course to Redwood Road.
The grant requires a $174,497 match which will be satisfied with the $175,000 of re-allocated
funds from the Jordan River Parkway Trail funding allocated during the FY 07-08 CIP
Process. The request to re-allocate the 07-08 CIP allocation is included in this current budget
opening.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the necessary Resolution authorizing the
Mayor to sign and accept the State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources grant and to
sign any additional agreements or awards as a result of this grant.
State of Utah, Dept of Natural
Resources,Jordan River Trail -Rose
Park Golf Course to Redwood Rd Grant
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative#E-2 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Grant Requiring No
Comm. Dev.-HAND New Staff Resources
Department -- Type of Initiative
LuAnn Clark/Sherrie Collins _ 535-6136/535-6150
Prepared By Telephone Contact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
,General Fund
Total $01 I $01
Internal Service Fund
Totall $0' $0
rEnterprise Fund
— -- Total' $0, $01
'Other Fund —
72-Grant Fund $ 174,497.00
Totall $ 174,497.00 $01
Staffin. Im•act:
New Number of FTE's
Existing Number of FTE's _ I 0
Total 0.001 01
Description
•
1
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA#If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
83- New Cost Center 1370 174,497.00
L f
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number I Object Code Number Amount
83-New Cost Center I 2700
174,497.00
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? N/A
yvill grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? I 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? N/A
Initiative Name:
Donations Fund Interest and Donations
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #F-1
Initiative Type:
Donations
Initiative Discussion:
As of the end of October, 2007, the Donations Fund has received $47,885 in new donations
and generated $27,550 in interest income, totaling $75,435.
It is recommended that the Council increase the budget in the Master Budget account by
$75,435 to bring it back up to $100,000.
Donations Fund Interest Income and
Donations
Initiative Name
BA#2 FY2008 Initiative #F-1 - 2007-08
Initiative Number Fiscal Year
Management Services _ Donations
Department Type of Initiative
Elwin Heilmann 535-6424
Prepared By Telephone Contact
General Fund ( Fund Balance) Impact
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
'General Fund
Total, 0' $01
Internal Service Fund
Totals 0 $0
l Enterprise Fund
Total $ - $0i
Other Fund
-- --- --- ----- —
77 Fund Donations $ 75,434.54
Totals $ 75,434.54 $01
Staffing Impact:
1 New Number of FTE's 0 0,
Existing Number of FTE's 0 01
Total 0
1 Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable:
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
77-77001 1895 _ $ 47,885.10
77-77001 1830 $ _ 27,549.44
Total $ 75,434.54
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
77-77001 2590 _ $ 75,434.54
See detail index
for donations and-I-- - __ -- - -_- - — - - - - ----- --
interest income.
Additional Description:
Grant Information: --�_ ---_- -----_- I -
'Grant funds employee positions? N/A
'Is there a potential for grant to continue? N/A
L IIf grant is funding a position is it expected the position will _
be eliminated at the end of the grant? - - N/A
1Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A - -
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
eliminated? N/A
1Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? _ _ N/A
detail index
'',$, , M .rho .l oYernber 2$ 40.7Z 7$A0$Q2
Cost Beginning Interest New
Center Title Budget Received Donations Budget
7700785 MAYOR'S RECYCLING COMMITTEE 5,064.78 17.72 5,082.50
7700875 Youth City Programs 51,463.74 605.97 18,908.51 70,978.22
7709100 Child Abduction Fund 12,626.15 12,626.15
7710000 CYCLE SALT LAKE 2,737.64 33.28 2,770.92
7777103 ACCESS SALT LAKE CITY 21,585.96 283.04 21,869.00
7777108 PARKS & REC. MAINTENANCE DONAT 38,314.21 504.27 161.25 38,979.73
7777113 Develop. agreemnt Hughs Inv. 61,712.79 809.17 62,521.96
7777114 Sorenson Ctr.aftrschool - -
7777115 Sorenson Ctr.Arts Program 11,429.86 149.87 11,579.73
7777116 Sorenson Ctr Sports - -
7777119 Sorensen Technology Center 11,023.46 144.53 11,167.99
7777121 Rainy Day Gallivan Center 418,589.42 6,061.59 424,651.01
7777122 SLC Classic Donations 19,856.34 260.36 20,116.70
7777123 Salt Lake City Fndation 501-C3 163.15 2.14 165.29
7777124 SLC Fire Training Center 152,671.75 2,001.81 154,673.56
7777125 Eccles SLC Foundation 15.56 0.21 15.77
7777126 SLOC Tornado Pins 14,436.93 189.29 14,626.22
7777130 Imagination Celebration 28,785.82 397.05 16,646.00 45,828.87
7777131 Junior Golf Donations 7,207.20 94.50 7,301.70
7777132 SLC Tree Replacemnt 99 Tornado 123,150.86 1,614.74 124,765.60
7777133 Millenium Poor & Needy Gift 2,861.69 2,861.69
7777134 Physical fitness of Cities - -
7777135 Installation of Greek Sculptur 10,000.00 10,000.00
7777136 Police Equipment Endowment 9,764.35 108.10 9,872.45
7777137 Fire Equipment Endowment 81,196.34 1,064.63 82,260.97
7777139 Reward fund Anna Palmer 5,770.97 75.67 5,846.64
7777140 Cannon Farms Indemnification 2,062.83 27.04 2,089.87
7777141 Plaza - Glendale Community Ctr 637,011.61 8,352.43 645,364.04
7777142 Park Plaque 8,695.23 114.00 8,809.23
7777143 Youth Cities Employment 1,075.00 1,075.00
7777145 Youth City Government - -
7777146 Gilgal Gardens 3,204.16 42.02 3,246.18
7777147 Sugar House 13th East Crossing - -
7777148 Mayor's spotlight of excellanc 3,902.30 51.17 3,953.47
11/5/2007 Page 1
detail index
_x :Thou November 2, 20Q7 77$AQ802
Cost Beginning Interest New
Center Title Budget Received Donations Budget
7777149 Council Misc. Donations 35.00 35.00
7777150 Memorial House Maintenance 17,513.34 247.64 2,691.63 20,452.61
7777151 Equipment purchase 5,488.83 71.98 5,560.81
7777152 Environmental Donations 9,577.59 139.68 9,717.27
7777153 SLC to Torino Italy 2006 Games - -
7777154 Service dog donations 148.76 3.28 152.04
7777155 Safe Neighbors Project 843.89 11.06 854.95
7777156 Cannon Frms.Holdng.Strp Indemn 4,039.86 52.96 4,092.82
7777157 SLC Library Paver Replacement 175,889.73 2,220.67 178,110.40
7777158 Mayor's organ donation - -
7777159 CIT Scholarship 17,334.69 237.92 3,035.00 20,607.61
7777160 Environmental Programs - -
7777161 Be Safe Be Seen 467.50 6.13 473.63
7777162 Art Projects Maintenance 11,834.56 155.17 11,989.73
7777163 World Changers 16,637.17 34.18 6,412.83 23,084.18
7777164 Energy Solutions - Police 2,015.74 17.73 2,033.47
7777165 PAX natura Donation CO2 offset - 0.15 29.88 30.03
7777760 STEINER ACQUATIC TRUST 90,817.10 1,190.78 92,007.88
7777780 NEWSPAPERS FOR TREES 11,860.88 155.51 12,016.39
2,110,884.74 27,549.44 47,885.10 2,186,319.28
11/5/2007 Page 2
Initiative Name:
Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association Request for funding
Initiative Number:
BA#2 FY 2008 Initiative #I-1
Initiative Type:
Council Added
Initiative Discussion:
During the December 4, 2007 Announcement portion of the Council Work Session, Council
Members indicated initial support to add the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association's mid-year
budget request to the current budget opening.
According to John Hill, Director of the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, three of their
nine funded attorneys accepted employment offers recently from other firms offering more
competitive salary and benefit packages. Mr. Hill indicates the loss of three employees has
created a serious morale issue, affecting the stability and retention of their staff.
Mr. Hill has requested $15,295 to increase the base salaries for his attorneys, which he
indicates is comparable with the salaries offered by the Salt Lake City Prosecutor (assuming
the Council approves the Prosecutor's Office budget amendment request) and Salt Lake
County District Attorney offices. The base salaries of the nine attorneys currently range from
$45,000-$47,000 annually, and this request would raise the salaries to $51,000 annually. A
full year's cost is $49,000, which will be included in their request during the next annual budge
$ 24,500 6 month cost to bring 9 attorney salaries to $51,000 annually
$ 2,295 FICA
$ 26,795 Subtotal
- 11,500 Subtract one-time surplus of$1,500 plus $10,000 (other available funds)
$15,295 TOTAL REQUEST
Legal Defender Assoc.
request for funding
Initiative Name
BA#2FY2008 Initiative#I-1 _ _ 2007-08
Initiative Number
Fiscal Year
Council Office _ Council
Department Type of Initiative
Sylvia Richards 535-7656
Prepared By Telephone Contact
L - -
General Fund Fund Balance Impact $ (15,295.00)
Revenue Impact By Fund: 1st Year 2nd Year
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
General Fund
Total r
'Internal Service Fund I
C
Total _ _ $0 I $0j
Enterprise Fund
Total $0 $0
Other Fund
Total 1 Staffing Impact:
New Number of FTE's 0 0
Existing Number of FTE's 01
Total 0.00 01
Description
Accounting Detail Grant#and CFDA# If Applicable: NA
Revenue:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount �
Expenditure:
Cost Center Number Object Code Number Amount
09-00404 2312 $ 15,295.00
11
Additional Accounting Details: Object Code Number Amount
4
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? N/A
j Will grant program be complete in grant funding time frame? N/A
Will grant impact the community once the grant funds are
-- !eliminated? I ----- N/A -- �-
Does grant duplicate services provided by private or
Non-profit sector? 1 N/A