01/04/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
January 4,2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance the meeting may be held electronically.After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City &
County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on the
Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or
availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:09:25:36
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.Hybrid Council meetings
allow people to join online through Webex or in person at the City &County Building.
Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during their 7 p.m.
formal meetings online through Webex and in-person in Room 326 of the City and
County Building.For more information,including Webex connection information,
please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.(A phone line will also be available
for people whose only option is to call in.)
What to Expect:The hybrid format allows in-person participation and remains
mindful of existing COVID-19 protocols and gathering limits.A maximum of 24
people,including Council members and City staff,will be permitted in a meeting room.
If the capacity has been reached in the primary meeting room,overflow space will be
provided.Social distancing will be maintained.
Per an executive order signed by Mayor Mendenhall,face coverings are required for
vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals inside Salt Lake City facilities.
Work Session Items
1.Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2022 ~2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will take a straw poll to nominate the Council Chair and Vice Chair for calendar year
2022.The process includes expressions of interest from Council Members,nominations for each
position,and then voting each for the Chair and Vice Chair positions.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,January 4,2022
2.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
3.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:45 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working
on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of
community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,
procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
4.Informational:SLC Emergency Management Update 2022 ~3:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an annual report of the City’s emergency procedures,the Council’s role
in an emergency,and an overview of Emergency Management’s current programs and efforts.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
5.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 ~3:30 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt
Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year 2021-22.Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,
including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposed amendment includes
funding for low-income senior and veteran transitional housing and public safety overtime in
neighborhoods hosting homeless shelters,among other items.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,January 4,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
6.Informational:2020 Census Results for Salt Lake City and Council
Districts ~3:45 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Gardner Policy Institute about the 2020 Census
results for Salt Lake City and individual results for the seven Council Districts.This information
will be used as part of the City's Council redistricting process over the coming months.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
7.Tentative Break ~4:30 p.m.
20 min.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -n/a
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
8.Informational:Chart of Account Updates ~4:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Chart of Accounts update.The Chart of Accounts is
the collection of cost centers and object codes staff uses to track expenses.This is a critical
component for the Workday ERP project because the Chart of Accounts serves as the
foundation for the financial system and all financial transactions.A revised Chart of Accounts
will allow staff to easily report out on leadership priorities with a cleaner,simpler structure.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
9.Resolution:Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds,Community Capital
Improvement Projects (Series 2021A and 2021B)Follow-up ~5:10 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of
up to $58 million for a tax exempt bond and a taxable bond that would fund several community
capital improvement projects;giving authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and
provisions of the sale within parameters set forth in the resolution;and providing for related
matters.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,September 14,2021;Tuesday,November 16,2021;and Tuesday,January 4,
2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
10.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~5:50 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed by the Administration and Governmental Affairs Leader about the
upcoming 2022 State Legislative session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
11.Board Appointment:Bicycle Advisory Committee –Ashley Lodmell ~6:20 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Ashley Lodmell prior to considering appointment to the Bicycle
Advisory Committee for a term ending January 4,2025.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,January 4,2022
12.Resolution:Amending Resolution No.31 of 2021 relating to a State
Infrastructure Bank Loan to the City Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution that would amend resolution No.31 of
2021,relating to a State Infrastructure (SIB)loan to the City from UDOT,to state and clarify that
the loan will be payable from the City’s Innkeepers Tax rather than from sales tax revenue;and
providing for related matters.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
Standing Items
13.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
14.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and
announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City
Council business,including but not limited to;
•Financial Disclosure;and
•Scheduling Items.
15.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under
Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an
individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including
any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right
or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered
for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah
Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah
Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,
does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake
Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated
interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options
discussed.
The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids
and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact
the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711.
City Council Update –January 4, 2022
Chief Mike Brown
Update on Response Times
November-2021
Priority 1 Average Response Time -12:58
Priority 2 Average Response Time -20:08
Priority 3 Average Response Time -50:59
December-2021
Priority 1 Average Response Time -10:46
Priority 2 Average Response Time -16:55
Priority 3 Average Response Time -35:47
Update on Response Times
November-2021
Priority 1 Average Response Time -12:58
Priority 2 Average Response Time -20:08
Priority 3 Average Response Time -50:59
December-2021
Priority 1 Average Response Time -10:46
Priority 2 Average Response Time -16:55
Priority 3 Average Response Time -35:47
Priority 1 Average Response Time Difference Between November and December: 2m:12s
Priority 2 Average Response Time Difference Between November and December: 3m:13s
Priority 3 Average Response Time Difference Between November and December: 15m:12s
Update on Response Times
YTD, SLCPD has received 127,668 calls for service.
That is an increase of 4,303 calls for service from this time in
2020.
Yet, our response times continue to improve.
Update on Response Times
•In October, SLCPD started a program to increase the number of officers
available to take telephonic calls for service.
•Between October 20th, 2021 –January 3rd, 2022, SLCPD officers have
handled 2,092 calls for service.
•SLCPD has generated 577 (or 29%) police written reports during this
program.
•The average telephonic officer is handling about 29 calls for service, per
shift.
•This program is allowing patrol officers to be available to respond to high
priority, in-progress emergencies.
Update on Response Times
Questions
Administrative
updates
January 4, 2022
COVID 19
update
Current metrics
Cases are surging and all 29 counties in the state are in the
"very high" transmission rate.
At 4,661, today is the second highest number of positive
cases in the state since the pandemic's beginning.
The statewide positivity rate is 31%, which means we are
yet to see the highest numbers.
COVID ICU utilization is at 34%, with ICUs 88% full
statewide.
About 22% of SLCo kids ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.
COVID 19
update
Omicron variant
Positive cases are
breaking prior records
over the past several
days.
SLCo Health Department
has issued a public
health advisory through
the end of this month.
Precautions include
consistent masking,
vaccination, boosters,
and avoiding large
gatherings.
Nearly a quarter of
County residents are
unvaccinated and at
serious risk.
Clinics will be open 10-4
every Saturday and
Sunday at Redwood
Road and the
Government Center.
COVID 19
update
SLC 14-day
snapshot
Citywide vaccination average = 66.94%
Zip code % fully vaccinated
1.4.22
84101 80.08
84102 61.68
84103 72.89
84104 51.40
84105 72.36
84106 66.13
84108 72.98
84109 73.72
84111 71.01
84115 60.08
84116 54.01
Homelessness Update:
HRC and Overflow Occupancy
STH -1000 West
Men's HRC
STH -King
Women's HRC
STH -Miller
Mixed HRC Total
St Vincent de
Paul
Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg number of beds occupied/night 297 195 190 682
Avg number of beds unoccupied/night 4 5 10 18
Avg % of beds occupied/night 98.9%97.6%94.9%97.4%
Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 1.5%2.4%5.1%2.6%
Resource Fairs
HEART is working with providers to explore hosting
winter resource fairs and high utilizer days out of the
High Needs Temporary Housing program at the
Ramada Inn.
Cleaning and Abatement
No abatements have occurred in the City since early
December.
HEART, Compliance and PD have worked together to
organize an occupied vehicle response day on 900 S
this week.These Occupied Vehicle Response days
include outreach intervention in between the time that
notice is provided to a vehicle to move and the follow
up 48 hours later.
Homelessness
update
Homelessness
update
overflow
shelter staffing
challenges
After the press event on December
23,the number of applicants for
overflow programs increased
significantly.
All providers are now in the process of
hiring up and we expect our overflow
programs to come online in the next
few weeks.
SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
RACIAL EquITY
IN POLICINg
COMMISSION
PhASE I
RESPONSE REPORT
IntroductIon 2 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
INTRODuCTION
The Commission on Racial Equity in Policing (REPC) was
formed to examine the Salt Lake City Police Department’s
(SLCPD) policies, culture, and budget and any City policies
that influence SLCPD’s culture or policies. The Commission
is composed of people who represent a diverse range of
Communities of Color, expertise, and viewpoints in Salt Lake
City. The Commission’s initial core committee members
were selected by the Mayor and Council of Salt Lake City
to lead in the structure of the Commission, to invite others
to participate (supported by the selected facilitator) and to
create the space for productive and inclusive discourse
with the broad group of Commissioners and the diversity of
opinions therein.
During Phase I, the Commission created recommendations
for the SLCPD. Many of these recommendations were
based on listening sessions with the community, City
Commissioners and police officers of all ranks to help gain
a better understanding.
PHASE 1 rESPonSE ProgrESS 3 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
PhASE 1 RESPONSE PROgRESS
RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLETED:
SLCPD Field Training Officer Program (Page 4)
Crisis Intervention Team certifications and re-certification (Page 5)
Addressing Recruitment (Page 6)
Addressing Hiring Issues (Page 7)
Working on School Resource Officer Program (Page 9)
Improving body worn camera markers (Page 11)
Improving Internal Affairs (Page 12)
Review Accreditation (Page 13)
Evaluate Co-Response team (Page 15)
Call diversion (Page 16)
Community Relations & Engagement (Page 16)
RECOMMENDATIONS IN-PROgRESS:
Expanding Field Training Officer positions (Page 4)
Request funding for Crisis Intervention Team and training (Page 5)
Evaluating Recruitment Efforts (Page 6)
Developing hiring committee (Page 7 & 8)
Solidify school resource officer memorandum of understanding (Page 9)
Expand modifications to internal affairs process (Page 12)
Review Implied Bias Survey (Page 13)
Developing training based on history of policing (Page 14)
Addressing staffing shortage on Mental Health Professionals (Page 15)
Continue working on Call Diversion (Page 16)
Expand Police Civilian Response Team (Page 17)
Develop Business Community Engagement Officer (Page 17)
RECOMMENDATIONS NOT YET COMPLETED/uNDER EvALuATION
OR NEEDINg ADDITIONAL TIME:
Full-time Recruiter for SLCPD (Page 6)
Advance Accreditation Opportunities (Page 13)
Increasing Staffing for Co-Response team (Page 14)
911 Script on mental health calls (Page 16)
Call Diversion: Develop list on calls for service (Page 16)
trAInIng SubcommIttEE 4 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
TRAININg SubCOMMITTEE
AREA 1: FIELD TRAININg OFFICER (FTO) PROgRAM
ISSuE: Demographics
RECOMMENDATION: Create a process to target/outreach to officers of color to increase the diversity
of the program.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The current SLCPD FTO demographics are as follows:
-Males - 77
-Females - 6
-Different Ethnic background -14 (16.8%)
• FTO School as of August 2021: 21 new trainers
-The SLCPD has modified the requirements to increase more FTO applicants
-The Department is allowing all applicants to attend FTO training
-The SLCPD has opened the FTO program to Lateral Officers who have put
in 1 year of service to the Department and 2 years previous experience.
• Long-term goals:
-The Department will continue to promote the need of the FTO program to all officers
-We will find more incentives (i.e. promotional process points)
-The SLCPD will look to open the program up to the Detective
Division to recruit more diverse officers.
AREA 2: CRISIS INTERvENTION TEAM (CIT)
ISSuE: Training not prioritized or mandatory
No budget to enlarge Co-Responder model
RECOMMENDATIONS: Require CIT certification/recertification for all officers to include lateral hires.
Increase or reallocate budget to complete this priority (zero-based budget).
Reprioritize budget to co-responder model unit to provide for more detectives to
cover more than one shift.
Prioritize filling detective positions (CIT) and mental health professional
positions to ensure quality response, and to add additional expertise and relief
to emergency mental health calls.
trAInIng SubcommIttEE 5 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The Department currently requires all officers, including lateral officers to complete CIT
certification and recertification.
• The SLCPD received a budget increase to facilitate:
-More academies and re-certification classes
-Overtime shifts to fill vacancies in patrol for officers to attend training
As of October 2021,
-87 recertifications need to occur within the Department
-56 full certifications need to occur within the Department
There are no more trainings being offered in 2021, but there are five scheduled for
2022, with the possibility of adding additional classes for upcoming SLCPD recruit
classes. It should be noted, more options are being provided to the Department
virtually to assist with recertifications.
• The Department will be requesting more officer FTEs as operational staffing numbers
increase to support the CIT Unit and the Co-Responder Model.
AREA 3: TRAININg ACADEMY AND IN-SERvICE CuRRICuLuM
ISSuE: Training concerns related to equity, implicit bias, and community
policy curriculum in the Academy and In-Service Training.
RECOMMENDATIONS: SLC community-based trainers of color to be part of training team.
Incorporate equity into curriculum using best practices.
Incorporate the history of the diverse communities for recruits.
Increase budget allocation to provide additional professional diversity, equity
and inclusion training.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The SLCPD will collaborate with the Mayor’s Office and city stakeholders to create a
curriculum, determine costs and a training schedule.
• The Department will reach out to the Community Action Board (CAB) to find members willing
to assist with the development of the curriculum and teaching.
trAInIng SubcommIttEE 6 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
AREA 4: RECRuITMENT
ISSuE: No full-time SLCPD recruiter
RECOMMENDATIONS: Create a position that provides for a full-time recruiter, tracking and keeping
individuals within the application process up to date on timing.
Regular recruitment budget to ensure that there is a budget that allows in-state
and out-of-state recruiting.
Communication strategy development of inclusive strategy, including a new video
with inclusive language with emphasis on recruiting candidates of color, social
media platforms to attract the very best officers and candidates to SLCPD.
Provide specific funding for a new recruitment video that is a more up-to-date
approach to recruiting, highlighting the continual hiring process opportunities.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The SLCPD agrees that there should be a full time recruiter for the department. Currently, this
falls to a detective with other primary responsibilities.
-The Department can forecast the following costs associated to this position:
$350,000
-The Department will seek to request 2 FTEs, one sworn and one non-
sworn (housed in HR) to focus on all areas of recruitment, track data
and maintain constant contact throughout the hiring process.
The sworn officer will facilitate the Outreach component while the non-sworn HR staff
will facilitate the recruitment component. This collaborative effort will ease the process
for potential candidates sworn and non-sworn.
-The funding needs for the department for this unit will include:
Vehicles
Travel
Promotional items/equipment fees
New Recruitment Video
Promotional costs (billboards, fliers, etc)
OT (Current team and collaterals).
• The Department is currently using the following practices for its recruitment efforts:
-Social media platforms
-Career fairs, as travel permits.
• The Department has done the following to increase recruitment:
-Changed testing process to make it more accessible for applicants
-Adjusted lateral process as to not lose potential candidates
-Offering monetary bonus to lateral candidates and current officers
-Increase meetings between recruitment team and stakeholders
-Engaged in continuous improvement.
trAInIng SubcommIttEE 7 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
AREA 4: RECRuITMENT
ISSuE: Oral interview process has no strategic approach to include
communities of color or civilian members on panel.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Require community members as part of panel sitting on any oral interview
panel, with the same decision-making authority as officers on the panels.
Define specific characteristics desired to become a SLCPD officer e.g:
Compassion, Empathy, Integrity, Eagerness to Learn, Mental Agility, Cultural
Humility, Awareness, Sensitivity, Communication Skills.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The SLCPD now involves selected community members with our interview process
-Two REP Commissioners volunteered to assist, as their schedules permitted
-This permitted the panel to ask a bonus question of their choice, as time permits.
• This was implemented in Spring of 2020
• The Department will develop a hiring committee and will continue to use the Department’s
core values as a framework for developing the characteristics we are seeking.
• The Department will continue working with the interview coordinator to add more questions
specific to the recruitment process that meet the department’s vision and mission.
AREA 4: RECRuITMENT
ISSuE: There are no specific questions which allow for identification
of the ideal characteristics of the ideal candidate.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Create and use questions which help the candidate identify their place in the
world and describe their level of cultural understanding outside of their own.
Recognize that this is an on-going process of question creation for multiple
panels.
Mandatory training on a regular schedule with Chief’s Office representative
and Human Resources representative to ensure substantive discussion panel
members prior to the oral interview of entry level and lateral applicants, with
the goals of: 1. Addressing interview questions, 2. Discussing the intent of
character desired based on the questions, and 3. Creating awareness of
implicit biases that may impact decision-making
trAInIng SubcommIttEE 8 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The Department will continue to ensure and collaborate with SLCPD, HR, and Office of Equity
and Inclusion to ensure that components in the development of questions are equitable and
inclusive.
• We will develop standardized training for all panelists (sworn/community member) detailing
the expectations, provide an implicit bias training (already exist-HR will collaborate with Office
of Equity and Inclusion to review components of this training).
• SLCPD will continue to collaborate with Human Resources to develop behavioral based
questions, which allow to identify characteristics of the ideal candidate.
ScHooL SAfEty SubcommIttEE 9 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
SChOOL SAFETY SubCOMMITTEE
AREA 1: SChOOL RESOuRCE OFFICERS (SRO)
ISSuE: Continued racial disparity in the Students who are interacting
with School Resource Officers (SROs).
RECOMMENDATION: Extend Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) on SROs.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• Chief Brown and staff met with new Salt Lake City School District (SLCSD) Superintendent
Dr. Timothy Gadson and his staff on November 2, 2021.
-A committee was formed to rework the MOU before
the expiration date (December 31,2021).
-The goal to have the MOU completed is slated for June
2022 which was agreed upon by all parties.
-Superintendent Gadson wants to work on a partnership
with the SLCPD and the school district.
AREA 2: PROMISINg YOuTh PROgRAM
ISSuE: Concerns about barriers for at risk youth and the contributions to
the school to prison pipeline.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Promising Youth Program (PYP) reassess after one year to determine value
within SLCPD.
Allow all 10 SROs to work in the summer program.
Peer Court incorporating this into PYP and the Explorer program.
Ongoing and Increased funding.
SRO Oversight Committee.
ScHooL SAfEty SubcommIttEE 10 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• Due to operational staffing levels, only five SLCPD SROs worked the full 12 months (2020).
• SROs participated in the Summer Youth Program--hosting an average of 40 youth
-Graduated - 42
• During the COVID-19 pandemic:
-SROs went to the schools daily to assist in handing out meals building on relationships
• In the 2021-2022 School Year the Department has:
-Provided Peer Court training to the current SROs and its Sergeant
-Split the time of the five SROs among all SLC schools
-Addressed a variety of violent issues throughout schools.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 11 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
POLICIES AND PRACTICES
AREA 1: POLICE OFFICER bODY WORN CAMERAS (bWC)
RECOMMENDATION: SLCPD should strive to be the “Gold Standard” of best practices nationwide.
Make modifications to policy and ordinance 54.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD agrees with the recommendation of becoming the “gold standard” in this area. As
such, the Department’s Audit Unit will work with the Mayor’s Office to determine protocols
specific to the Department’s needs and capabilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Audit all Use of Force reviews to determine if the reviews were conducted
appropriately and if the outcomes are within policy.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD has been practicing this since 2020.
• Included in this review are three Chain of Command levels:
-Administrative (Sergeant)
-Command (Lieutenant)
-Internal Affairs Review (IA Lieutenant).
RECOMMENDATION: Increase random BWC reviews by an outside qualified individual from 5 to 20
per month and include random sampling of officer videos as well as completed
supervisor reviews and allow for direct selection.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• This is a function of the outside auditor hired by the Mayor’s Office.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 12 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
RECOMMENDATION: Provide a record and report to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• This is currently part of City Ordinance.
• The Department currently has the following audits in place:
-Internal (Random audit monthly, Supervisors)
-External (Outside)
-Council
-Annual (SLCPD Audit Squad).
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission has recommended quarterly reports on matters pertaining to
the SLCPD Audit and Inspection Unit’s findings on BWCs.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• This is currently part of the City ordinance and is in practice.
RECOMMENDATION: SLCPD should inform the Commission of any incidents reported to
Internal Affairs.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• Nearly all incidents referred to Internal Affairs are then reported to the Police Chief and his
Command Staff. These significant incidents may include allegations of law violations, criminal
investigations, bringing disparity to the Department or City, and major policy violations.
• The Department is working on a format to provide the same information to the Commission
that is given to Council
-This information will provide a brief statement about any significant allegations
-This will be included in the quarterly report
RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Ordinance 54, any findings of material non-compliance with State
law, City Code, and Police Department policy will be referred to the Chief of
Police, the City Attorney, the Council Chair, the Mayor and the Mayor’s Chief of
Staff. These findings should also be reported to the Commission.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD currently refers these to those mention with the exception of the Commission.
• The Commission will now be part of the referral group.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 13 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
RECOMMENDATION: Provide an annual report to CALEA and share with the Commission.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• An annual CALEA report is already created as part of the accreditation format.
• This report will now be shared with the Commission annually.
RECOMMENDATION: SLCPD should strive for an advanced accreditation and explore costs,
resources and benefits.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD is currently researching this matter.
AREA 2: INTERNAL IMPLICIT bIAS SuRvEY TO SLCPD
RECOMMENDATION: The survey shall be developed, administered, analyzed, and disseminated
by a third party as agreed on by the Commission and funded by the City. This
survey shall be modeled after the Pew Research Center 2016 national survey
of law enforcement officers. The results should be shared with the Commission.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD is working with the Mayor’s Office Equity Team to determine what organization would
be best used to implement a survey of this magnitude.
• Administration will request CREP funding to support this request.
• As always the Department will partner with Human Resources to accomplish this initiative.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 14 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
AREA 3: COMMuNITY bASED TRAININg ON ThE hISTORY OF POLICINg
WITh PEOPLE OF COLOR
RECOMMENDATION: Funding, development, and delivery of community-based training on the history
of policing of people of color.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD is working with the Mayor’s Equity Team to create a list of accomplished and skilled
individuals to provide and develop a program that will address providing budget for long-term
quality instruction of this program.
AREA 4: CO-RESPONSE (MENTAL hEALTh)
RECOMMENDATION: Focus on communities of color. Reach out to those communities and provide
more community policing in these areas and build trust.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• Due to low staffing levels and high call volume, our Co-Responder teams have
been unable to be proactive.
• Their goal is to be more proactive as the staffing levels increase
-Reach out to a community leader on a monthly basis
about resources available to their community
-Send a team of social workers to a community meeting monthly
-Grow our program to allow for more capacity for the various communities.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 15 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
RECOMMENDATION: Expand the Co-Responder teams to provide co-response during hours that are
at a higher risk for use of force situations.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The Department has been provided 10 more FTEs for the social work position
-Job opening has been posted
-Actively trying to fill vacancies
Currently, there is a national shortage in the number of mental health professionals
and the service needs in communities across the country are going unmet.
The SLCPD is exploring recruitment and hiring options for its mental health
professionals.
• Co-Responder Adjusted Schedule
-A pilot program was implemented in June of 2021 and is still active
-Our Social Workers call into dispatch at the start of their shifts.
-These social workers are then available over the radio to respond to calls for service
with patrol officers in the field. The teams respond to a variety of calls such as:
Violent Psych issues
Psych problem
Suicidal
Welfare check
Homeless calls
Suspicious person
Unwanted person
Substance abuse
Any crisis encounter
• Because of the Department’s current Co-Responder model, the Department has received
positive feedback from field operations.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 16 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
AREA 5: CALL DIvERSION AND DISPATCh
RECOMMENDATION: Collaboration with public safety to understand how 9-1-1 calls are being
taken and directed.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The Department currently has in place a call diversion program to assist with calls handled in
the field versus telephonically.
-This allows officers to respond more efficiently to in progress calls.
• Once the Call Diversion program has been finalized, the Department will increase messaging
for the community.
-The information will provide a list of calls handled online or telephonically and
will provide other resources available to report various criminal activity.
RECOMMENDATION: Understanding how communities are being policed and how they want to be
policed. Engage each of the City’s Community Councils and its communities.
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD currently meets with three community groups on a monthly basis
-Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander (NHPI)
-Refugee Community
-Latino Coalition.
• Division Community Liaison Officer (DCLO)
-Attends all community meetings within the various seven districts monthly.
• Community Outreach Team
-Active within the community
-Various events monthly
-Visiting with schools to build on the relationship with the youth.
RECOMMENDATION: Add a mental health question to the 911 script “Hello, 911. Is this a fire, health,
police or mental health emergency?”
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• SLCPD will present this to the SLC911 Director since SLC911 is its own department.
PoLIcIES And PrActIcES 17 SLcPd PHASE 1 rEPc rESPonSE rEPort
RECOMMENDATION: Establishing a civilian force response team to handle certain calls for service
related to low-level investigative crimes and low-level disputes (Matrix Call
Diversion Opportunities)
SLCPD RESPONSE:
• The department is in the process of implementing a Police Civilian Response Team (PCRT)
that will start with the hiring of Police Telephonic Specialists (PTS). This will help with handling
low-level calls that don’t require an in person response form a police officer.
• The department is in the process of developing a Business Community Engagement Officer
(BCEO) who will serve as a direct contact for the business operators and owners.
Annual
Emergency
Management
Briefing
Salt Lake City Council
January 2022
Overview
•Accomplishments & Goals
•Activation Levels & Notifications
•What is the EOC?
•Divisional Structure
•COOP
•Questions
Accomplishments & Goals
EM transitioned to SLCFD in April 2021.
Increased staff from 5 to 9 FTE (FTB to CAN/Housing Stability)
Met with leadership from all City Departments to discuss transition
Create 24/7 on call line staffed by EM personnel (P: 801-790-4466)
Establish partnership with County, State, and Federal agencies
Maximizing current PSB office space to accommodate increased staff In progress
Modifying City emergency notification system (Rave Mobile Safety)In progress
Coordinating with all City Departments to create or update COOP In progress
Joint venture with Sustainability to implement new Community Resilience program In progress
Implementing new Employee Preparedness apps (guidebook & SLCImOK)In progress
Activation Levels & Notifications
LEVEL 1 Highest level of activation
Significant community disruption caused by a disaster or event
You will be
notified
LEVEL 2 Significant level of activation
Widespread community concern or community protective actions need to be
addressed
You will be
notified
LEVEL 3 Lowest level of activation
There may be extraordinary public concern
You may be
notified
LEVEL 4 No activation
Monitoring and information gathering
No
notifications
LEVEL 5 Normal day-to-day operations No
notifications
What is the EOC?
The EOC is a resource intended to provide additional
support to Incident Command during an event. The
EOC and its staff are responsible for strategic overview
of an event.
The EOC and staff do not replace Incident Command.
EOC Structure
Policy Group Emergency Operations / Coordination Center
Joint Information Center
EOC Structure Staffing the EOC
requires
100% engagement
from all
City departments
and necessary
personnel
Incident Command or Unified Command
Operations Section Chief
Deputy Section Chiefs
15 ESFs
Planning/Intel Section Chief
5 Specialized Units
Logistics Section Chief
2 Branches
6 Specialized Units
Finance/Admin Section Chief
4 Specialized Units
Liaison Officer JIC / Public Information Officer
Safety Officer EOC Coordinator
EOC Structure
Operations Section
Planning and Intel Section
Logistics Section
Finance and Admin Section
COOP
Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP)
All City departments are required to file their COOP
with Emergency Management and evaluate it annually.
In 2021, EM staff are coordinating with all departments
to ensure that COOPs are up to date and assisting those
departments who need to build their COOP.
Questions
Item B1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:January 4, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number five FY22
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND PARTIALLY ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the FY 2021-22 final
budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the
motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items below; it is listed for reference. If
this motion is adopted, then the budget amendment is still open and remaining items may be
considered at a future date.
A-1: Salt Lake County Police Services at Homeless Resource Centers Contract ($400,000 from Fund
Balance)
E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant for the Switchpoint Hotel Project ($3 million from
Misc. Grants)
I-1: Council Office Reclassification and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan (-0-)
I-2: CARES Act Unused Funds – Firefighter Personnel Expenses (Estimated at $47,000 and
presumption authorization is for all unused funds)
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF Note
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards,
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:January 4, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Five FY2022
________________________________________________________________________________
Budget Amendment Number Five includes five proposed amendments and requested changes to two funds.
There are no expenditures coming from Fund Balance. There are no updates to Revenues and Fund Balance. The
Council may wish to note the two Council-added items found in Section I.
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for these items)
A-1: Salt Lake County Police Services at Homeless Resource Centers Contract ($400,000 from
Contract with the County)
The Administration received notification of funding for increased public safety costs for the areas surrounding the
homeless resource centers. Salt Lake County and the City have entered into a contract for an additional $400,000
of County funding to support the City in additional public safety costs associated with the homeless resource
centers. The contract runs through April 30, 2022. Funding will be placed in the Police Department to cover
additional overtime costs.
Policy Questions:
Public Safety Definition – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the contract with the County
provides flexibility of use for public safety such as social workers, fire fighters and 911 dispatcher overtime
or if the funding is limited to police officers.
Location of Overtime – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the contract designates specific
homeless resource centers that the funding must be spent at or if the City has flexibility to select the
locations and surrounding neighborhoods.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
(None)
Project Timeline:
Set Date: December 14, 2021
1st Briefing: January 4, 2022
2nd Briefing: TBD (if needed)
Public Hearing: January 4, 2022
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
Section E:
E-1 COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant for the Switchpoint Hotel Project ($3 million from
Misc. Grants)
The Mayor’s Office submitted a grant for $3,000,000 from the COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant
Program. The grant application was for the Point Hotel project. The Administration has received notification that
the grant will be awarded. The Amendment requests recognition of the grant funding. The project proposes to
change the ownership and repurposes the use of the existing Airport Inn from a traditional hotel to approximately
100 units of extended stay housing for adults over 55 years of age and veterans experiencing or at risk of
homelessness. The 501c(3) non-profit, Friends of Switchpoint, will own and operate the Point Hotel. Salt Lake City
committed a $2,250,000 match for the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. The sources of the
match funds are: − $2,000,000 from Salt Lake City General Fund approved in Budget Amendment No 8. FY2020-
2021 − $250,000 from the Friends of Switchpoint for renovation and remodeling to the facility
Policy Question:
Funding Gap – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the purchase and renovation of the
Airport Inn are fully funded after the $3 million State grant. During Budget Amendment #8 of FY21 the
Council approved $2 million from General Fund Balance and Funding Our Future dollars for the
development. At that time, the total cost was estimated at $8.5 million ($6.5 million to purchase and $2
million for renovations).
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda
(None)
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan
The Council Office is seeking to reclassify one FTE, Senior Advisor, at pay grade 37x to a Public Policy Analyst I at
pay grade 31x. The reclassification does not create a new cost because the new position is at a lower pay grade than
the current position.
I-2: CARES Act Unused Funds – Firefighter Personnel Expenses – $47,000
As the Council may recall, during the Budget Amendment Number Four discussion on December 14th, the Council
took a straw poll and expressed the intent to use $47,000 of unused CARES Act funding for Fire Department
personnel expenses, which is an allowable expense because it relates to the Pandemic. This item formalizes the
straw poll action and intent.
I-3: Rescope FY22 CIP Funds for Tennis Improvements at a New Location ($400,000 in CIP Fund)
As part of the FY22 CIP budget, the Council approved $400,000 for reconstructing obsolete asphalt tennis courts
with new concrete courts at Wasatch Hills Tennis Center (1216 Wasatch Drive). The new concrete courts must be
installed before a new bubble is also installed. Private fundraising was anticipated to fully fund the bubble and any
costs over $400,000 for the new tennis courts. Fundraising levels are reported to be large enough to fully fund the
bubble and new tennis courts.
This item would rescope the $400,000 for improvements to tennis at Liberty Park which is also operated by the
same organization (Liberty Hills Tennis) as the Wasatch Hills Tennis Center. The bubble at Liberty Park tennis
courts recently collapsed.
Assuming the fundraising pledges are realized, and the Council approves this item, then the Wasatch Hills Tennis
Center improvements would be entirely privately funded. The resulting capital improvements would become City-
owned assets. The City owns the land underneath.
Page | 3
Policy Questions:
Capital Improvement Needs at Liberty Park Tennis – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what
caused the Liberty Park tennis bubble to collapse and what are the capital improvement needs at that
location?
Project Details – The Council may also wish to ask the Administration for project details such as will the
$400,000 be used for a new bubble, tennis court reconstruction (asphalt or concrete), if the project would
be fully funded, has Engineering reviewed the cost estimates, general timeline, etc.
Privately Funded Capital Improvements Process – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the
City’s processes are different for a privately funded capital improvement project than publicly funded
projects, and are there opportunities for the City to streamline those processes?
ATTACHMENTS
(none)
ACRONYMS
CARES Act – Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
Misc. – Miscellaneous
TBD – To Be Determined
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 9, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #5
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 400,000.00 $ 400,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
TOTAL $ 3,400,000.00 $ 3,400,000.00
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 9, 2021 13:09 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following
chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 are coming in better than expected, more detail will be shared as
the audit progresses.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With no additional use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance remains at 12.86%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 5,759,137 7,652,037 13,411,174
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 8,018,483 38,304,739 46,323,222
Final Fund Balance Percent 16.62%21.39%20.88%19.87%12.05%12.93%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 1,772,794 1,772,794
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - (4,657,529) (4,657,529)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - 400,000 400,000
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - (400,000) (400,000)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - -
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - -
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - -
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - -
Change in Revenue 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 39,062,788 46,081,271
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.28%12.86%
Projected Revenue 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $3,400,000.00 of revenue and
expense of $3,400,000.00. The amendment proposes changes in two funds, with no additional
funding from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes two initiatives for Council
review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Fifth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Salt Lake County Police Services Contract at
Homeless Resource Centers
GF 400,000.00 400,000.00 One-time -
1 COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant
for the Switchpoint Hotel Project
Misc Grants 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 One-time -
-
Consent Agenda #3
Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,400,000.00 3,400,000.00 - - -
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #6:
General Fund GF 400,000.00 400,000.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,400,000.00 3,400,000.00 - - -
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #5
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section I: Council Added Items
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #5
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,657,529.00 400,000.00 370,487,662.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 15,751,215.48 3,000,000.00 49,386,127.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 - 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 72,619,884.48 3,400,000.00 1,843,277,610.24
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
2
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Salt Lake County Police Services at Homeless Resource
Centers Contract
GF $400,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk / Mary Beth Thompson
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mike Brown, Andrew Johnston, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
The Administration received notification of funding for increased public safety costs for the areas surrounding the
homeless resource centers. Salt Lake County and the City have entered into a contract for an additional $400,000 of
County funding to support the City in additional public safety costs associated with the homeless resource centers. The
contract runs through April 30, 2022. Funding will be placed in the Police Department to cover additional overti me costs.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant for the
Switchpoint Hotel Project
Misc Grants $3,000,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier / Mary Beth Thompson
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Elizabeth Gerhart, Melyn Osmond
The Mayor’s Office submitted a grant for $3,000,000 from the COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program. The
grant application was for the Point Hotel project. The Administration has received notification that the grant will be
awarded. The Amendment requests recognition of the grant funding.
The project proposes to change the ownership and repurposes the use of the existing Airport Inn from a traditional hotel to
approximately 100 units of extended stay housing for adults over 55 years of age and veterans experiencing or at risk of
homelessness. The 501c(3) non-profit, Friends of Switchpoint, will own and operate the Point Hotel.
Salt Lake City committed a $2,250,000 match for the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. The
sources of the match funds are:
− $2,000,000 from Salt Lake City General Fund approved in Budget Amendment No 8. FY2020 -2021
− $250,000 from the Friends of Switchpoint for renovation and remodeling to the facilit y.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 415,503$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,487,183$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,948,216$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,101,644$ D
16,952,545$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 (0)$ -$ -$ -$ (0)$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ FY 2023Calendar
Month
Fiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 60,722$ 277,727$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ A
Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,959,195$ 281,315$
Fire
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B
Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 9,402$ 24,821$ 1,060,208$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ C
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 6,000$ 37,597$ 6,155$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 6,378$ -$ 9,183$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 169,077$ 59,946$ 3,114,882$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 92,174$ 30,958$ 265,346$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ 1,905$ -$ 56,109$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 287,290$ 8,852$ 227,746$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 173,467$ 34,134$ 16,646$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ -$ -$ 3,200,000$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,534,534$ 288,033$ 13,871,881$
Streets
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ 22,744$ 73,893$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$ D
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 44,088$ 50,864$ 700$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 10,244$ 7,033$ 204,411$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 888,511$ 1,392,421$ 3,686,472$
Total 25,400,567$ 3,718,120$ 3,641,511$ 18,040,936$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,948,216$
6,101,644$
16,952,545$
8484002
8484003
8484005
415,503$
$1,487,183
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
2010 2020 # %#%One 27,505 28,032 527 2%-500-2%Two 27,306 26,395 (911) -3% -2,137-7%Three 26,302 28,572 2,270 9%+400%Four 26,716 33,153 6,437 24% +4,62116%Five 25,904 26,936 1,032 4%-1,596-6%Six 26,546 28,767 2,221 8%+2351%Seven 26,132 27,868 1,736 7%-664-2%TOTALS186,411 199,723 13,312 7%Council DistrictCensus PopulationDeviation from Optimal District Population (28,532)Change from 2010 to 20202020 Census Results by Council Districts Summary Table
2020 Census Redistricting Data
Insights for the Salt Lake City Council
January 4, 2022
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What we get from the 2020 Census data (so far)
•Total populations for states, counties,
cities, and other statistical
geographies
•Detailed race and ethnicity (Hispanic
or Latino origin)
•Two age groups –over and under 18
years
•Housing units –occupied or vacant
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What we don’t get from 2020 Census data (so far)
•Full details from Census questionnaire,
including:
•Relationship in households
•Tenure
•Ancestry
•Sex
•Full age detail
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What is not included in the decennial census
•Characteristics of the population,
including:
•Educational attainment
•Household income
•Employment
•Veteran status
•Disability status
•Housing unit characteristics
Are available from the American Community Survey
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City is still the largest city in Utah
Top 10 Largest Cities in Utah, 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Census Redistricting File
199,723
140,230
116,961 115,162
98,129 96,904 95,342 87,321 81,773 77,487
Salt Lake
City
West Valley
City
West Jordan Provo Orem Sandy St. George Ogden Layton South
Jordan
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City is the largest it has ever been
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census
189,454 186,438199,723
68.9%
18.1%16.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Share of Salt Lake County PopulationTotal PopulationSalt Lake City Population Share of County
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Selected Cities in Salt Lake County by Rate of Growth, 2010 to 2020
153%
124%
54%
29%
21%21%17%13%
13%11%
10%8%
8%7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Rate of GrowthTotal Population2010 Census 2020 Census Percent Change, 2010 to 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Total Population by City Council District, 2020
33,153
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Districts east of I-15 added more new residents than those west of I-15
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
2,270
2,221
1,736
2010*2020
One 27,505 28,032
Two 27,306 26,395
Three 26,302 28,572
Four 26,716 33,153
Five 25,904 26,936
Six 26,546 28,767
Seven 26,132 27,868
Salt Lake City 186,411 199,723
Census PopulationCouncil District
Note: 2010 Reflects City Council Estimates used in
subcounty estimates found in Salt Lake City Data Book
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census
Four Census Tract Changes
Two areas were split from
one tract each into two.
•Former Tract 1014
•University of Utah
•Former Tract 1025
•South Temple to 400 South, I-
15 to West Temple
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Tracts west of State Street experienced the most absolute change in population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
+1,694
+1,736
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Citywide, the under 18 population declined by 4,993 between 2010 and 2020
2010 2020
One 9,110 7,458
Two 9,058 7,493
Three 4,319 3,948
Four 2,926 2,869
Five 5,255 4,677
Six 5,955 5,730
Seven 5,411 4,926
Salt Lake City 42,034 37,101
Council District
Census Population
Under Age 18
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Over 75% of tracts had declines in under 18 population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
-78
117
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
While only three tracts had declines in the 18 and over population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
+1,619
+1,772
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Increasing racial and ethnic diversity
Between 2010 and 2020, the
following populations
increased as a share of
citywide population
•Black or African American
•Asian
•Two or More Races and
Some Other Race (two
groups combined)
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
2020 Racial and Ethnic Composition of
Salt Lake City Council Districts
Area
Hispanic
or Latino NH White
NH Black
or African
American
NH
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native NH Asian
NH Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
NH Some
Other
Race
NH Two or
More
Council District 1 45.3%36.5%4.1%1.0%4.7%4.4%0.5%3.5%
Council District 2 47.4%32.4%3.8%1.1%4.9%7.0%0.4%3.1%
Council District 3 12.5%73.2%2.6%0.6%4.6%0.9%0.7%4.9%
Council District 4 13.1%68.2%3.1%1.1%8.2%0.8%0.7%4.7%
Council District 5 15.4%71.0%3.1%0.9%3.2%0.9%0.6%4.8%
Council District 6 6.5%78.1%1.4%0.3%8.4%0.4%0.7%4.2%
Council District 7 8.4%81.7%1.0%0.4%3.4%0.5%0.3%4.3%
Salt Lake City 20.8%63.4%2.7%0.8%5.4%2.0%0.6%4.2%
Note: NH means not Hispanic or Latino
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Hispanic or Latino origin
Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
White alone
Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Asian
Both Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Some Other Race
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Non-Hispanic White Alone
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
65
35
387
3,361
211
589
-294
2010 2020
One 10,154 10,219
Two 8,506 8,541
Three 20,531 20,918
Four 19,261 22,622
Five 18,924 19,135
Six 22,762 22,468
Seven 22,186 22,775
Salt Lake City 122,324 126,678
Council
District
Census Population Non-
Hispanic White Alone
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Non-Hispanic White
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Hispanic or Latino Origin Population
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
2010 2020
One 13,234 12,694
Two 14,272 12,514
Three 3,107 3,577
Four 3,678 4,357
Five 4,326 4,145
Six 922 1,882
Seven 2,028 2,335
Salt Lake City 41,637 41,504
Council
District
Census Population
Hispanic or Latino-540
-1,758
470
307
960-181
679
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Hispanic or Latino Origin Population
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
Chart of Accounts
January 4, 2022
Big Picture
•Workday ERP project is about new Finance and HR software and
improving how Salt Lake City does business
•Why City was deliberate in examining its current finance, human
resources and payroll business processes
•Consider needed improvements to meet best practices
•Develop common definitions
•City has contracted with the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) to revise the current Chart of Accounts
Program Based Budgeting
•Information is organized around the City’s programs and services
•Shows cost of a program, revenue the program may generate, and performance metrics to evaluate the program’s effectiveness
•Organizing information in this way provides a clearer picture of
•Money spent on each program
•Services that program delivers to constituents
•Program performance
•Meeting Mayor and City Council priorities and goals
•New Chart of Accounts will allow better report spending
•Common cost centers and reduction of fund classes
•Program and project tags, track programs/projects costs across departments
Priority Based Budgeting
•Related to program based budgeting
•Priority based budgeting focuses resources into programs based upon
community impact assessments and engagements
•Working with Resource X to establish the framework
•Testing Police and Finance
•Commonly other cities include public engagement into their priority
based budgeting process to identify priorities from residents
Chart of Accounts
•Collection of cost centers and object codes
•Used to track expenses
•Updating business processes, policies, and procedures in accordance
with industry standards
•GFOA is supporting the modernization and development
of improved and consistent policies and procedures
Chart of Accounts
•Critical component for the Workday ERP project
•Serves as foundation for financial system and all financial transactions
•Revised Chart of Accounts better tracks city expenses, helps
budgeting and increases public transparency
•Vital as City moves into program and priority based budgeting
•Allows staff to easily report out on leadership priorities
with a cleaner, simpler structure
Modern Chart of Accounts
•Based on relational fields where each field has its own definition
•What this means: combinations of fields may be used for
transactional and reporting purposes
•Best Practice: Each field has one (and only one) definition!
•Workday: Fields are commonly referred to as “Worktags”. Worktags
are often depicted as multiple spinning drums (similar to a bicycle
lock combination).
•Key: Worktags may be used throughout the solution –
not just chart of account structures
Workday “Worktag” Concepts
Salt Lake City
Company Fund
Spec. Rev. 1
Spec. Rev. 2
Debt Fund 1
Debt Fund 2
Gen. Fund
Mayor
Finance
Police
Fire
Parks
Attorney
Cost Center
Rest. Justice
Fraud, Abuse
COVID
Homeless
Program
Smiths
Walgreens
University
Costco
Spend
Category
Health Project
ERP Project
Construction
Project
Personnel
Benefits
Cont. Svcs
Supplies
Supplier
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Location
More
Detail Approximately 100 “wheels” available
Worktags Have Hierarchies
Mayor
Finance
Police
Fire
Parks
Attorney
Office of the
Chief
Operations Administration
City
Airport
Training Logistics
Fire
Prevention
Medical
Services
Technology
Services
Community
Relations
GFOA Recommended Practices
Component Description Possible Segments
Fund Fund is the self-balancing accounting unit
required for governmental accounting
•Fund
•Sub Fund
Organizational Unit Organizational unit represents the
organizational hierarchy represented by an org
chart, listing of business units, or locations that
the City wants to track data for.
•Company
•Department
•Division
•Location
Program / Activity Programs (also commonly called activity) are
the services performed by organizational units.
Each program should have a service outcome
(result produced). Typically programs are
ongoing and not limited to a specific
organizational unit
•Function
•Program
•Activity
•Sub-Activity
Object / Account The object or account is the classification of the
balance sheet item, revenue, or expense. For
expense and revenue, this defines what was
spent or earned (example: supplies).
•Object / Account
Project Projects are often used to track programs with
defined start and end dates or other events
that would require additional detail beyond the
chart of accounts. Project costs would be
summarized in this segment but broken out in
more detail in the project ledger. This allows
for detailed tracking department by
department.
•Project Roll Up
•(Additional
segments defined
as part of
project/grant
accounting)
Fund
Cost Center
Program
Spend
Category
Grant/Project
GFOA Recommended Practices
•Define Each Segment
•Start Over
•Start Simple and Build-Out Detail
•Don't Store Unnecessary Data
•Don’t Repeat or Bring Forward Ineffective Numbering or Accounts
•Establish a Long-Term Vision
•Build Trust and Open Communication
•Use Collective Decision Making
•Create Clear Rules
•Treat Everyone Fairly
General Approach
•Establish a Long-Term Vision
•Build Trust and Open Communication
•Use Collective Decision Making
•Create Clear Rules
•Treat Everyone Fairly
Chart of Accounts Preparation
•Analyze Major Components Together
•Review current structure
•Gain understanding why structure exists
•Understand any recommended improvements (i.e., work done so far)
•Discuss approach for reviewing, improving, and preparing
Chart of Accounts
•GFOA and City team have been meeting since August
•Reviewing different aspects of the current Chart of Accounts
•Team has met with every department and reviewed every fund class
•GFOA learns City’s current structure and shares best practices for future structure
•Update goals
•Works for every department and finance activity
•Follows best practices to ease time and confusion
•Concepts and base structure will be refined during Workdaydesign process
Fall 2021 Budget Survey –Y2 Analytics
•Follow up to 2021 spring resident survey and based questions on
Mayor’s 2021 Plan
•Key takeaways:
•Quality of life remains stable with slight improvement in perceived value of
tax dollar spending.
•Of the three broad goal areas in the City’s budget plan, environment and
sustainability is seen as the most important among respondents.
•Regarding growth and development projects, respondents say providing
services and recreation is most important and needs the most focus.
•Water and air quality are top of mind for residents in thinking
about environment and sustainability projects.
•General access to housing and helping the unhoused are top
concerns for people regarding community/neighborhood goals.
Chart of Accounts
January 4, 2022
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: ___________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ______________
_____________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 13, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer___________________________________
SUBJECT: Chart of Accounts Update
STAFF CONTACT: Mary Beth Thompson
Chief Finance Officer
Marybeth.thompson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational Item
RECOMMENDATION: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Workday ERP project is not just about implementing new
Finance and HR software but also improving how Salt Lake City does business. That is why the City
was deliberate in examining its current finance, human resources and payroll business processes
to consider needed improvements to meet best practices. It is also why the City has contracted
with the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to revise the current Chart of
Accounts.
The Chart of Accounts is the collection of cost centers and object codes staff uses to track expenses. This
is a critical component for the Workday ERP project because the Chart of Accounts serves as the
foundation for the financial system and all financial transactions. A revised Chart of Accounts can not only
better track city expenses, it also helps budgeting and increased public transparency, all goals of the
Workday ERP project.
The Chart of Accounts revisions are not only critical to the Workday ERP project but are also vital as the
City moves into program and priority based budgeting. A revised Chart of Accounts will allow staff to
easily report out on leadership priorities with a cleaner, simpler structure.
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 15, 2021 15:29 MST)12/15/2021
12/15/2021
Chart of Accounts Update
Transmittal to City Council
December 13, 2021
Page 2 of 3
Chart of Accounts
The City is updating its business processes, policies, and procedures in accordance with industry
standards, along with the Workday ERP software implementation. GFOA has been contracted to support
the modernization and development of improved and consistent financial and human capital
management policies and procedures.
A core team of City finance staff and program managers have been meeting with GFOA since August to
review different aspects of the current Chart of Accounts. So far the team has met with every department
and is now reviewing different fund classes with department finance managers. During these meetings
the GFOA representative, Rob Roque, learns the City’s current structure and can share best practices for
the future structure. It is important that the new Chart of Accounts works for every department and
finance activity. It is also important that the new Chart of Accounts follows best practices to ease time
and confusion. The City team and GFOA are developing Chart of Account concepts and a base structure
that will be refined during the Workday design process that begins later this month.
Workday – ERP Software
Salt Lake City has chosen Workday as its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software vendor. Workday
will replace most of the City’s financial and human capital management systems, including OneSolution,
iCIMS, Kronos, CAMP, and more. Workday is being implemented in two phases. The first phase focuses on
HR and officially started in August 2021; “go live” for HR is planned for July 1, 2022. The second phase will
focus on Finance and Payroll which will begin in February 2022 with a “go live” tentatively scheduled
for January 1, 2023. For the Workday implementation to be successful, all employees need to be
comfortable using the new system in whatever role they fill. Workday training has been fully funded and
will be provided to all staff as the system is rolled out.
Part of the Workday ERP project is to create a common definition guide of financial terms commonly used
within the City. Two terms that will become a key part of the City’s lexicon moving forward will be
Program and Project. As existing efforts are assessed or possible new efforts are reviewed, it will need to
be determined if they are one of the two options: Program or Project. The current draft definitions are:
Program - Activities, operations, or organizational units directed to the attainment of specific
purposes or objectives. Example: Homelessness Services, YouthCity After School Program, Water
Conservation Program. Each program should have a service outcome (result produced). Typically,
programs are ongoing and not limited to a specific organizational unit. Programs help to create
transparency by showing what you do and what it costs, start discussions on trade-offs when
budgeting, provide comparisons, plan for changes in the workforce, and clarify the context of
performance and metrics. Programs are action-oriented, they are not a department, division, line
item, cost center or task.
Project - A temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result. A project is
temporary in that it has a defined beginning and end in time. Projects are often used to track
activities with defined start and end dates or other events that would require additional detail
beyond the chart of accounts. Project costs would be summarized in this segment but broken out in
more detail in the project ledger. This allows for detailed tracking department by department.
Chart of Accounts Update
Transmittal to City Council
December 13, 2021
Page 3 of 3
Program and Priority Based Budgeting
Program based budgeting is a form of budgeting where budgetary information is organized around the
City’s programs and services. It shows the cost of a program, the revenue the program may generate, and
performance metrics to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Organizing the information in this way,
rather than at the department and division level, provides a clearer picture of how much money is being
spent on each program, the services that program delivers to Salt Lake City constituents, and how well
the program is performing. Program Based Budgeting also allows staff to better track how the City is
meeting Mayor and City Council priorities and goals.
The new Chart of Accounts helps in the effort of modernizing the City’s budget process. Having common
cost centers, reduction of fund classes will allow staff to better report spending. The new structure will
also include program and project tags. If a program includes multiple departments or projects, program
costs can easily be reported.
The City is currently exploring priority based budgeting in relation to program based budgeting. Priority
based budgeting focuses resources into programs based upon community impact assessments and
engagements. Currently the City is working with a consultant, Resource X, to help it establish the
framework for priority based budgeting. An additional briefing specific to this effort may be requested.
To support this priority based budgeting framework, Salt Lake City commissioned Y2 Analytics to conduct
a survey of Salt Lake City residents to identify their budget priorities. The survey was in follow up to the
2021 spring resident survey and based questions on the Mayor’s 2021 Plan. Some key takeaways from
the survey are:
Quality of life remains stable with slight improvement in perceived value of tax dollar spending.
Of the three broad goal areas in the City’s budget plan, environment and sustainability is seen as the
most important among respondents.
Regarding growth and development projects, respondents say providing services and recreation is
most important and needs the most focus.
Water and air quality are top of mind for residents in thinking about environment and sustainability
projects.
General access to housing and helping the unhoused are top concerns for people regarding
community/neighborhood goals.
Many municipalities that use priority based budgeting include a public engagement element to their
budgeting process. Using Y2 Analytics allowed the City to know it identified budget priorities from a true
representation of Salt Lake City residents.
Notes:
Mary Beth Thompson and Rob Roque with GFOA plan on being at the table at the work session.
Attachments – Fall 2021 Budget Survey Report, Workday ERP Implementation Timeline
OFFICIAL FALL 2021 SALT LAKE CITY RESIDENT BUDGETARY PRIORITIES SURVEY
BUDGET SURVEYSALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY OBJECTIVES
RESEARCH GOALS
§Track health of the City and quality of life metrics
§Evaluate resident perceptions with regards to the following budget areas:
§Growth and Development
§Environment and Sustainability
§Neighborhoods and Communities
§Identify specific initiatives and projects with resident support
§Analyze specific trends and attitudes with respect to various demographic factors
such as
§Men vs. Women
§Whites vs. BIPOC (Black/Indigenous/People of Color)
§Income levels
§Time lived in Salt Lake City
§652 residents within the
boundaries of Salt Lake City
participated in this survey
§Data have been weighted to
reflect population statistics
from the U.S. Census’
American Community
Survey to ensure that the
sample is representative of
the City as a whole,
specifically regarding age,
city council district, race,
gender, and home
ownership.
§Margin of error +-3.8
percentage points
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
SAMPLING, MODE, & MARGIN OF ERROR
The raw frequencies and geographical distribution of our sample with regards to Salt
Lake City Council District are shown below. While certain City Council Districts appear to
be overrepresented in the sample, the responses were weighted to reflect observed
proportions of district residence in the publicly-available Utah Voter File.
N size
Weighted
Sample %
Census
Estimate %
47 10%10%
37 7 9
135 17 17
90 16 17
117 17 15
110 17 16
114 15 16
51.Quality of life remains stable with slight improvement in perceived value of tax
dollar spending.
When comparing quality of life benchmarks over time, key metrics have remained relatively stable,
with an average quality of life score of 75 out of 100. However, residents’ perceived value for tax
dollar spending increased slightly since April, indicating a positive trajectory for budget planning.
2.Of the three broad goal areas in the City’s budget plan, environment and
sustainability is seen as the most important among respondents.
Compared to other broad goal areas such as Growth and Community, Environment stands out as
both the most important to quality of life and in most need of the most improvement from the City.
3.Regarding growth and development projects, respondents say providing services
and recreation is most important and needs the most focus.
An overwhelming majority of residents (75%) consider supporting small businesses to be a high
priority project initiative. Residents also support projects that involve services and recreation such as
creating arts programs for youth and developing trails and trailheads.
4.Water and air quality are top of mind for residents in thinking about environment and
sustainability projects.
The vast majority of residents, around 75%, consider projects involving air quality and water
conservation to be high priorities. While air and water rise to the top of the list in terms of priority,
residents express majority support for most sustainability-related initiatives proposed by the City.
5.General access to housing and helping the unhoused are top concerns for people
regarding community/neighborhood goals.
While housing affordability is rated as the most important to quality of life, homelessness is
considered most in need of improvement. When considering specific project initiatives, preventing
homelessness and connecting the unhoused to shelters and resources are consistently ranked as
high priorities.
5 KEY FINDINGS TO REMEMBER
CITY HEALTH &
PRIORITIES
OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE AROUND 75/100
Respondents in Districts 6 and 7 rated their quality of life the highest (80.2 and 76.8, respectively), while individuals in District 5 reported their quality of life as the lowest,
right around 70. The average quality of life for the City overall was just under 75.
Overall Average: 74.6
Average: 73.1
Average: 73.0
Average: 74.6
Average: 73.2
Average: 69.9
Average: 80.2
Average: 76.8
Q: All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n = 651)
MOST RESIDENTS GETTING GOOD VALUE FOR TAX DOLLAR
The majority of residents (64%) feel like they are getting at least a good value of service for their tax dollar. Only a small percentage (6%) feel as though they are getting
poor service. The percentage of residents who say they are getting a “good” or “excellent” value for their tax dollar is up 7 points since April of this year.
Value for City tax dollar
Year Excellent +
Good
2015:66%
2017:70%
2019:60%
2021 (Spr.):57%
2021 (Fall):64%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
64% Total Excellent + Good
+ 7 points since Spring 2021
Q: In general, how do you rate the service you receive from Salt Lake City for your tax dollar? (n = 651)
WASTE CLEANUP & GREEN SPACE IMPORTANT SERVICES
When asked to describe the city services that have the greatest impact on their quality of life, residents have positive things to say about the City’s efforts to conduct waste
cleanup, develop green space, and maintain good road conditions (among other services). Areas in which residents express the greatest frustration crime, road safety and
the City’s approach to dealing with homelessness.
“Green space designation/maintenance/development, city
planning and urban development, governance over social
spaces, sanitation and public health, road maintenance.”
“Basic services… have the greatest impact,
[such as] composting (sic), recycling and garbage.
Quality of water and service is excellent. Road
maintenance is also great. Appreciate the new
curbs and sidewalks in our neighborhood. We also
use the foothills almost daily.”
“Control of the homeless
population, crime prevention,
traffic, air quality, noise and
light pollution, parking.”
“I am grateful for the
high quality of schools,
libraries, parks, fire
departments, public
health, and law
enforcement services!”
“Crime prevention is of course the
utmost importance, from policing on
the streets and through out the
community to the prosecution of those
crimes which have been committed.”
*Word cloud only contains words repeated 5 or more times
Q: Thinking generally about the responsibilities of city government, what things does the City do that impact you, personally, the most? Please briefly describe your
thoughts about the services or amenities that have the greatest impact on your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City. (n = 612)
ENVIRONMENT MOST IMPORTANT TO QUALITY OF LIFE
When comparing broad city priority areas, a plurality of respondents (42%) said that environment was the “most important” to their quality of life. Growth was broadly seen
as the least important priority area. Community was considered roughly equally important and unimportant by respondents.
17
-18
2
Net score
Q: Of the following city priorities, which is the most important to your quality of life? Which is the least? (n = 651)
Q: Of the following broad city priorities, which do you think the city needs to improve most? Which do you think the city does best? (n = 651)
17
-18
2
Net score
MOST/LEAST important to
quality of life
Net score6
3
-9
City does BEST /Needs MOST
improvement
CITY INFRASTRUCTURE MOST PRIORITIZED
City infrastructure, homeless services, and public safety were the top goals/priorities for respondents, with these areas receiving the most allocated” funds. Digital
accessibility, economic development, and equity and inclusion were the least prioritized areas.
$16
$14
$14
$15
$7
$9
$6
$5
$5
$4
$2
$3
Average $ amount allocated % of people who allocated >$0
Q: Imagine you were managing $100 from the Salt Lake City budget. If you could distribute that $100 toward any of the following potential goal areas or priorities, how
would you divide your $100? (n = 651)
GROWTH &
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES & RECREATION MOST IMPORTANT TO GROWTH
When asked about various growth initiatives, residents said that providing services and recreation was both most important to their quality of life and needed the most
improvement from the city. The initiatives supporting economic development and emphasizing arts and culture were seen as both less important to them and less in need
of attention from the city.
Q: Of the following aspects of growth and development, which is the most important to your quality of life? Which is the least important? (n = 568)
Q: Of the following aspects of growth and development, which do you think the city needs to improve most? Which do you think the city does best? (n = 564)
MOST/LEAST important to
quality of life
41
-18
-23
20
-14
-6
Net score Net score
City does BEST/Needs MOST
improvement
SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESS HIGH PRIORITY FOR RESIDENTS
When asked about relative priorities regarding growth and development in Salt Lake City, 3 in 4 respondents said helping small businesses is a high priority. Other popular
projects had only narrow majority enthusiasm, such as developing and supporting arts programs; developing trails; helping cultivate community pride; and increasing
opportunities for participation in arts, culture, and recreation.
Q: Below is a list of potential projects related to growth and development in Salt Lake City. For each project below, please indicate whether you think this should be a
high priority, or a lower priority as the City works to expand culture and commercial opportunities for all residents. (n = 563))
Category:
Economic Growth
Arts and Culture
Services and Recreation
Innovation
% Who say project is a high priority
(top 10 initiatives)
GROWTH PRIORITIES DIFFER BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP
There are some noticeable differences in development project priorities across different demographic groups.
Q: Below is a list of potential projects related to growth and development in Salt Lake City. For each project below, please indicate whether you think this should be a
high priority, or a lower priority as the City works to expand culture and commercial opportunities for all residents. (n = 563))
•Women are more likely
than men on average to
rate all projects asked
about as high priorities
across the board
•73% of women think art
programs for youth is a
high priority, compared
to only 53% of men
•71% of women think
community pride is a
high priority, compared
to only 53% of men
•65% of white
respondents think
developing trails and
trailheads is a high
priority, compared to
56% of BIPOC
•64% of BIPOC say
developing
infrastructure for online
learning is a high
priority, compared to
only 49% of white
residents
•71% of respondents
making less than
$75,000/year say art
programs for youth is a
high priority, compared
with 59% of those
making between
$75,000 and $150,000,
and only 47% of those
making $150,000 or
more
•Only 49% of long-time
residents (20 years or
more)say developing
trails is a high priority,
compared with around
70% of the rest of the
respondents
•Similarly, only 38% of
long-time residents say
making Library Square
a civic and cultural hub
is a high priority,
whereas about 60% of
all other residents say
the same
RESIDENTS SEEK TO BUILD COMMUNITY & CONNECT THE CITY
Only about 70% of respondents had suggestions beyond the projects already proposed by the City. Among those respondents, the most common issues mentioned
included building permitting, cultural events, city walkability, and further development of arts and culture events in the city.
Q: Are there other aspects of growth and development in Salt Lake City that you think the City should focus on to expand culture and commercial opportunities for all residents? (n = 509)
“City-sponsored
community events like
cleanups.”
“The city could do more to make
the city more walk-able and bike-
friendly.”
“Make cultural events more
affordable. Most things are
not feasible for my family
“I am not in favor of expanding growth and development within
the city. More development results in more congestion and
more pollution.”
“Infrastructure for
roads and
transportation should
be a focus as we grow.”
ENVIRONMENT &
SUSTAINABILITY
AIR, WATER QUALITY AFFECT MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS
When asked about various environment and sustainability measures, a majority of residents said the most important aspect is air quality and efficiency, which is also
considered to be the most improvement by the city. Water conservation was also seen as important and in need of improvement. Sustainable infrastructure, emergency
preparedness, and re-using and recycling opportunities were seen as far less important.
MOST/LEAST important to
quality of life
City does BEST/Needs MOST
improvement
49
23
-11
-25
-35
48
15
-10
-23
-29
Q: Of the following aspects of the environment and sustainability, which is the most important to your quality of life? Which is the least important? (n = 578)
Q: Of the following aspects of the environment and sustainability, which do you think the city needs to improve most? Which do you think the city does best? (n = 575)
Net score Net score
RESIDENTS FAVOR WATER AND AIR INITIATIVES
When asked about environment and sustainability priorities, 3 in 4 respondents said that protecting water and air and implementing water conservation programs was a
high priority. In fact, of the top 5 priorities selected by respondents, 4 of them had to do with water and air. Relatively speaking, most infrastructure and emergency
preparedness initiatives were seen as low priorities by a majority of respondents more generally.
Q: Below is a list of potential projects related to the environment and sustainability in Salt Lake City. For each project below, please indicate whether you think this
should be a high priority, or a lower priority as the City works to protect our natural resources, advance development, and address climate change. (n = 574)
Category:
Infrastructure
Water
Air and Energy
Re-use and Recycling
Emergency Preparedness
% Who say project is a high priority
(top 10 initiatives)
ENVIRONMENT PRIORITIES DIFFER BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP
There are some noticeable differences in environment project priorities across different demographic groups.
Q: Below is a list of potential projects related to the environment and sustainability in Salt Lake City. For each project below, please indicate whether you think this
should be a high priority, or a lower priority as the City works to protect our natural resources, advance development, and address climate change. (n = 574)
•Women and men are
about equally likely to
see the various
environment projects as
high priorities.
•80% of women think
enforcing commercial
waste ordinances is a
high priority, compared
to 69% of men
•74% of women think
resilience to extreme
weather events is a high
priority, compared to
65% of men
•White respondents are
more likely to see water
conservation and
enforcing commercial
waste ordinances as
priorities (91% and 77%)
than BIPOC (79% and
66%)
•77% of BIPOC
respondents say
improving resilience to
extreme weather events
is a high priority,
compared to only 66%
of white residents
•Both lower-and higher-
income respondents
were more likely to say
renewable energy
incentives for new
buildings is a high
priority (76% and 84%)
than middle-income
respondents (66%)
•83% of those making
less than $75,000 call
enforcing commercial
waste ordinances a high
priority, compared with
65-70% of those who
make more
•Only 73% of recent
move-ins (5 years or
less) say water
conservation is a high
priority, compared to
about 90% of all other
residents
•Only 55% of recent
move-ins say improving
resilience to extreme
weather events is a high
priority, compared to
around 70 to 75% of all
other residents
XERISCAPING, RENEWABLE ENERGY ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
Only about 72% of respondents had suggestions beyond the projects already proposed by the City. Among those respondents, the most common issues mentioned were
water conservation, air quality, electric vehicle incentives, xeriscaping, and renewable energy alternatives.
Q: Are there other aspects of environment and sustainability policy in Salt Lake City that you think the City should focus on to protect our natural resources, advance development, and address
climate change? (n = 525)
“Decreasing food
waste.”
“I think water conservation is
very important and the worst
waste of water is landscaping.”
“Electric vehicle
[incentives].”
“Offer to help citizens that want to add solar and/or
other environmentally impactful upgrades to their
homes.”
“Air quality and water
conservation are the very
most important things the
city needs to work on.”
“Options
for xeriscaping”
NEIGHBORHOODS
& COMMUNITIES
HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS NEED IMPROVEMENT
When asked about the relative importances of community and neighborhood development areas, housing affordability, public safety, and homelessness were selected as
most important to peoples’ quality of life. While housing affordability was likewise identified as an area where the city needs to improve, homelessness has the highest net
score, indicating that residents widely agree that the city needs to improve in this area.
MOST/LEAST important to
quality of life
29
11
19
-10
-7
-19
-23
Q: Of the following aspects of neighborhood and community development, which is the most important to your quality of life? Which is the least important? (n = 583)
Q: Of the following aspects of neighborhood and community development, which do you think the city needs to improve most? Which do you think the city does best? (n = 583)
29
-13
41
-16
-13
-13
-14
Net score Net score
City does BEST/Needs MOST
improvement
RESIDENTS FAVOR INITIATIVES THAT TACKLE HOMELESSNESS
Of all neighborhood and community initiatives posed to our survey sample, preventing homelessness among low-income families was most-often selected as a high
priority. Projects that deal with homelessness are the top two priority projects selected. Thereafter, respondents also expressed concern about increasing affordable
housing, investing in neighborhoods with high incidence of crime, and effective use of abandoned properties.
Q: Below is a list of potential projects related to communities and neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. For each project below, please indicate whether you think this should
be a high priority, or a lower priority as the City works toward safe, affordable, and equitable neighborhoods. (n = 571)
Category:
Homelessness
Housing
Public safety
% Who say project is a high priority
(top 10 initiatives)
DIFFERENT COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS
There are some noticeable differences in community project priorities across different demographic groups.
Q: Below is a list of potential projects related to communities and neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. For each project below, please indicate whether you think this should
be a high priority, or a lower priority as the City works toward safe, affordable, and equitable neighborhoods.. (n = 571)
•Women are more likely
than men on average to
rate all projects asked
about as high priorities
across the board
•81% of women think
providing better
continuity in healthcare
for at risk individuals is a
high priority, compared
to 71% of men
•White respondents are
more likely to see
connecting the
unhoused with services
and shelter as a priority
(92%) than BIPOC (81%)
•BIPOC are slightly more
likely to see transitioning
abandoned properties
for community use and
providing better
healthcare continuity for
at risk individuals as
high priorities (84% and
80%) than whites (80%
and 76%)
•Lower-income
respondents (less than
$75,000) are more
likely to see increasing
access to safe, quality
housing, replacing
affordable housing
units, and developing a
rotating winter shelter
program as high
priorities (92%, 83%,
and 81%) than higher-
income earners (about
82%, 72%, and 70%)
•About 93% of recent
move-ins (less than 5
years) say transitioning
abandoned properties
for community use is a
high priority, compared
to about 78% of all
other residents
HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS, & POLICING AMONG TOP CONCERNS
Only about 71% of respondents had suggestions beyond the projects already mentioned. Among those respondents, the broad issues of mental health/social resources,
developing neighborhood-level civil society institutions, and zoning ordinances were top of mind for many respondents.
Q: Are there other aspects of neighborhood and community development in Salt Lake City that you think the City should focus on to create safe, affordable, and equitable neighborhoods? (n = 516)
“More LGBT outreach
programs for youth.”
“Reduce homeless
camping and increase
police presence at public
places and parks.”
“Encourage civil
interactions through
neighborhood councils to
prioritize needs in
neighborhoods.”
“Work on homelessness by addressing root causes.”
“Affordability is key.
…luxury apartments being
built at the detriment to
neighborhoods. Low
income families are being
forced out.”“Mental health services.”
Kyrene Gibb, Scott Riding, & Kelly Patterson, Ph.D.
y2analytics.com | (801) 406-7877
SAMPLE COMPOSITION
DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS
Male
47%
Female
46%
Gender Race
Age Range
No
50%Yes
50%
LGBTQIA+
No
76%
Yes
17%
N = 549
N = 548N = 548
N = 549 Non-binary 2%
Prefer not to say 5
Census
Estimate
Men 51%
Women 49
Census
Estimate
White 65%
Hispanic 22
Asian 5
Black 3
Pacific Islander 1.6
Native American 1.5
Other 13
Census
Estimate
18-34 43%
35-44 18%
45-54 13%
55-64 13%
65+14%
DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS CONT.
Time lived in SLC
Marital Status
No
50%Yes
50%
Number of Children
N = 549
N = 549N = 549
Religion
N = 549
DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS CONT.
Rent/
other
46%
Own
54%
Household Type Educational Attainment
Employment
No
50%Yes
50%
Income
N = 549
N = 549N = 544
N = 549
Census
Estimate
Own 48%
Rent/other 52
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:November 16, 2021
RE: Up to $55 Million of Bonds for Capital
Improvements (Series 2021A and 2021B)
NEW INFORMATION
The Administration transmitted a revised proposal for the capital improvements bond. The original and revised
proposals are compared in the summary table on the next two pages. The bond has fewer projects and increased
funding for several projects which reflect increased cost estimates partly caused by pandemic-related economic
circumstances as well as time lapse from original estimates. Major changes include:
- Total project costs for bond funding decreased by $4,137,000 from $57,090,000 to $52,953,000
- The split of projects between the three categories is nearly evenly split in the revised proposal:
o 38% for parks and public lands projects
o 32% for transportation projects
o 30% for facilities projects
- 11 projects are recommended for funding instead of the original 16
- 7 projects have increased funding amounts
- 6 projects were removed
- 1 project has decreased funding (Glendale Water Park Redevelopment)
o The Administration indicates an upcoming budget amendment would include transferring $3.2
million of parks impact fee from Pioneer Park Redevelopment to Glendale Water Park
Redevelopment.
- 1 new project is added (Folsom Trail Landscaping)
Design to Budget Approach: Three parks projects (Glendale Water Park, Pioneer Park and Westside
Neighborhood Parks) would use a “design to budget approach” meaning there are no current designs to use for
an Engineering provided cost estimate. Rather the projects would be designed later to fit within the bond
funding level based on public engagement feedback and construction prices at a future date. (note: sometimes
there is a gap between public expectations during the engagement phase, and available budget during the
construction phase such as scope reductions due to increased costs)
30% Contingencies for Five Projects: Transformer Replacements, Fisher Mansion, Warm Springs, Urban Wood
Reutilization, and Cemetery Road Repairs include 30% contingencies in the estimated costs to account for the
uncertainty of construction prices and inflationary pressures.
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
2nd Briefing: September 14, 2021
3rd Briefing: November 16, 2021
4th Briefing: TBD
Bond Public Hearing: TBD
Potential Action: TBD
Note: there is no legal deadline for the Council to
authorize, adjust or decline the proposed bond
Page | 2
Priority Revised
Funding
Original
Funding Project Name %Notes
1 $6,100,000 $2,500,000
Central Plant
Electrical
Transformer Upgrade
& Emergency Backup
Generators
11%
• Rocky Mountain Power requires by 2024
• Without backup generators some systems
and public services would be unavailable
during a power outage
• $3.6 million increase over original
• Cost based on 70% construction designs
2 $6,800,000 $10,000,000 Glendale Water Park
Redevelopment 12%
• In FY22 CIP, the Council approved $3.2
million for this project, and in FY21
$225,000 for creating a redevelopment plan
• $3.2 million decrease from original, offset
by future budget amendment to shift parks
impact fees (bringing total back to $10m)
• Administration would propose in a future
budget opening to shift $3.2 million of parks
impact fees from Pioneer Park to this project
• Federal requirement for at least some
active recreation by April 27, 2024
• Design to budget approach
3 $8,600,000 $5,200,000 Pioneer Park
Improvements 15%
• In FY20 CIP, the Council approved $3.445
million of parks impact fees for Pioneer Park
improvements. Admin is proposing to shift
these to Glendale Water park.
• $3.4 million increase over original
• Design to budget approach
4 $6,100,000 $6,100,000 Westside Railroad
Quiet Zones 11%
• Three at grade crossings would be
improved to create a single quiet zone in
residential neighborhood
5 $4,000,000 $3,400,000 Westside Park
Improvements 7%
• Locations are Modesto Park, Poplar Grove
Park and Jackson Park
• See Attachment 2 for the project
description was missing from the transmittal
• $600,000 increase over original
• Design to budget approach
6 $1,800,000 $1,500,000 Fisher Mansion
Stabilization 3%
• This funding is for structure stabilization
• Building would not be ready for public or
private uses
• In FY20 CIP, the Council funded almost
$1.4 million for restoration of the Carriage
House, and in FY21 another $504,732 for
construction overages
• $300,000 increase over original
• Could be combined with Warm Springs
Historic Plunge for $7.8 million available to
both historic buildings
7 $6,000,000 $3,000,000
Warm Spring Historic
Plunge Structure
Stabilization
11%
• Building would not be ready for public or
private uses
• $3 million increase over original
• Could be combined with Fisher Mansion
for $7.8 million available to both buildings
8 $2,000,000 $1,700,000
Urban Wood
Reutilization
Equipment and
Storage Additions
4%
• New program would also require one or
two new full-time City employees
• Program is focused on recycling wood
rather sending to the landfill and could
generate modest savings / revenue
• $300,000 increase over original
Page | 3
Priority Revised
Funding
Original
Funding Project Name %Notes
9 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
City Cemetery Road
Repairs /
Reconstruction
2%
• Total road repairs and reconstruction
estimated at $12.5 million
10 $9,753,000 $4,000,000 600 North Corridor
Transformation 17%
• In FY22 CIP, the Council approved over
$1.8 million for this project
• $5,753,000 increase over original
• Large cost increase from $8.7 million
earlier this year to $14.5 million
11 $800,000 NEW Folsom Trail
Landscaping 1%
• New; not included in the original proposal
• 10 feet on both sides of trail including
irrigation, seeding, trees and surface cover
• Over $3.5 million total budget for
construction from multiple sources,
landscaping, lighting, and other amenities
were largely removed due to cost increases
REMOVED $7,500,000 Fisher Mansion
Restoration
• Building would be ready for public or
private uses with both projects funded
• In FY20 CIP, the Council funded almost
$1.4 million for restoring the Carriage House
REMOVED $3,000,000 Smith's Ballpark
Improvements
• Total deferred maintenance and
improvements identified by the Facilities
condition index (industry best practice) is
estimated at over $12.7 million
REMOVED $5,250,000
Foothills Master Plan
Phase 2 & 3
Trailheads
• Five trailhead locations are identified,
three would have restrooms, no property
acquisitions would be necessary
• In FY19 and FY21 CIP, the Council
approved over $1.1 million for Phase 1
implementation
• In FY22 CIP, the Council approved $1.7
million for implementing the Foothills
Master Plan
REMOVED $1,300,000
Allen Park Historic
Structures
Improvements,
Utilities including
Power and Activation
• The City purchased Allen Park in FY20 for
$7.5 million
• In FY21 CIP, the Council approved
$450,000 for property protection, public
pathways and consultant services
• In FY22 CIP, the Council approved
$420,000 for this same project
REMOVED $1,200,000
Public Lands
Multilingual
Wayfinding Signs
• Locations are TBD, approximately 35 signs
per Council District
• See Attachment 2 for an additional project
description
REMOVED $440,000 Jordan River Paddle
Share at 1700 South
• Three already funded boat ramps within
Salt Lake City are expected to be complete
this year for a total of four
TOTALS 52,953,000 57,090,000
Green = Parks &
Public Lands
Blue = Facilities
Orange =
Transportation
100%
• Additional funding up to $55 million
includes costs of issuing the bonds and
premium from investors
• Depending on timing of Council approval
and bond sales, an interest only payment
may be needed in FY22 and the first full
payment would be in FY23
Page | 4
NEW POLICY QUESTIONS
Many of the project-specific and general policy questions in the first staff report (listed down below) remain
relevant to the revised proposal. The Council may wish to review the earlier questions in addition to the new
ones listed in this section.
1.Splitting $7.8 Million between Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs Historic Plunge – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether the funding should be considered
combined or separate for these two buildings. The revised proposal includes a note stating the $1.8
million to stabilize Fisher Mansion and the $6 million for Warm Springs Historic Plunge could be
combined. However, the two funding amounts are listed, and the projects ranked separately. It’s worth
noting that the Fisher Mansion is estimated to be 2,800 square feet of interior space and Warm Springs
40,785 square feet. A 2018 development scenario to make Warm Springs ready for public and/or private
uses estimated the total construction cost at $6.5 million. The cost for a similar development is likely
significantly higher in the current economy.
2.Historic Preservation and Disposal of Underutilized Property – In earlier discussions some
Council Members raised the question to what extent is the City’s role in preserving historic buildings?
Council Members also expressed an interest in fully funding a development scenario for the Fisher
Mansion and/or Warm Springs Historic Plunge to be ready for public and/or private uses. Council
Members may wish to discuss the City’s role and what amount would be necessary for the bond to make
these historic buildings ready for use.
3.Conditions on Projects and/or Bond – The Council may wish to discuss whether to add any
conditions on the bond funding or requests to the Administration such as providing status updates to
the public as projects progress, notification of any scope reductions or making project funding
contingent upon certain conditions.
4.How to Use $3.3 Million Not Needed this Fiscal Year – In the annual budget, the Council added
$3.6 million into CIP as a placeholder for the first full debt payment on the new bonds. Depending on
the timing of Council approval and sale of the bonds there might be an interest only payment near the
end of the current fiscal year. This means approximately $3.3 million would not be needed this fiscal
year and could be used for another purpose such as moving to Fund Balance or on other capital projects.
The Administration has recently suggested that this funding could be used to match a legislative ask
relating to irrigation at the Cemetery. Any usage of these funds would need to be approved by the
Council in a budget amendment (or annual budget). The Council may wish to discuss if it makes sense
strategically to approve this prior to the upcoming legislative session.
5.Larger Margin between Project Costs and Authorized Bond Total – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration why the margin more than doubled between the project costs and the authorized
bond total the Council would approve in the resolution. The original resolution had a $910,000 margin
which covers additional costs of issuance for the bond. The revised proposal has a resolution with a
$2,047,000 margin.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
On May 21, the Council received the Mayor’s bond proposal (Attachment 1) requesting the Council approve a
bond up to $58 million for 16 capital improvements. Project descriptions are shown on pages three and four of
Attachment 1. A table summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects is also available in this report on pages
two and three. The projects include restoration of historic City-owned buildings, quality of life and safety
improvements on streets, and nearly half the funding would go to enhancements of parks and public lands.
Two Bonds: One Taxable, Another Tax-exempt – The proposed funding is split between $22,490,000 for tax-
exempt projects and $34,600,000 for taxable projects. A project requires partial or full taxable bond funding if
the resulting use is for private and/or for-profit. A taxable bond is more expensive financing than tax-exempt
because of the additional tax cost and potential for a higher interest rate. The bonds can be structured to only
pay interest for the first six months, 12 months, or 18 months. This approach could delay the first full debt
payment of interest and principal until next fiscal year but at a greater total cost because a larger amount of
interest would be paid over the life of the bond.
Project Cost Estimates – The Council could discuss with the Administration about doing additional public
engagement and/or design for some projects to better define designs (amenities, locations, programming, etc.)
Page | 5
and costs before approving a bond. Most of the proposed projects do not have detailed budget breakdowns or
engineering reviewed designs. Note that a few projects have gone through public engagement efforts such as the
600 North corridor transformation and Glendale Waterpark redevelopment. Some City construction projects
have experienced double-digit price increases this year due to pandemic-related economic impacts. It’s unclear
how long these price fluctuations will continue. The Council could request a review of cost estimates, increase
project-specific contingency funding, and/or add a general contingency reserve available to any project.
Process to Adopt – It’s important to note that the proposed sales tax revenue bond only requires Council
approval unlike a General Obligation bond which requires voter approval at the ballot box. The Council would
need to adopt a public hearing resolution, set the date, and hold at least one public hearing about the bond. The
Council would also need to adopt a delegating bond resolution that formally authorizes the bond sales and
identifies eligible projects and scopes. There is no legal deadline for the Council to authorize, adjust or decline
the proposed bond.
Funding Opportunity after Older Bond Paid Off Last Year – The Administration is proposing the bond now
because an approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removed $5.3 million of annual debt
payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond up to $58 million for 16 capital improvements
around the City. In large part the size of the bond proposed is to account for the size of the debt service fitting
into the proposed FY 22 budget (the proposed budget had a placeholder). As part of the FY21 CIP debt service
budget, the Council included $3,657,667 for a first-year payment on the proposed bond. This funding could be
used for other purposes if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. If the
Council approves a bond larger than $58 million, then
additional funding would need to be identified to make the
first-year payment, or the Council could work with the
Administration to identify timing of first-year payment. Long
term the Council could accommodate larger bond payments
but would need to adjust the budget to remain balanced.
Projects Overview of $58 Million Bond Proposal – The pie
chart shows almost half of the bond funding would construct
enhancements to parks and public lands, a third would
address deferred maintenance at City buildings and create a
new facility and the remaining 19% would go to
transportation and streets reconstruction. Note that the City
is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87
Million Streets Reconstruction Bond. More ongoing funding
for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after
the bond funds are gone. A third of four bond issuances
totaling $87 million is planned later this year. The table below
summarizes projects by category, proposed funding,
percentage of total bond funding and notes such as recent
Council funding for the project from other sources, total
funding needs when known and related info.
Category $ Amount Project Name % of
Bond Notes
$ 7,500,000 Fisher Mansion
Restoration 13%
- Building would be ready for public or private
uses with both projects funded
- In FY20 CIP, the Council funded almost $1.4
million for restoration of the Carriage House
$ 3,000,000
Warm Spring
Historic Plunge
Structure
Stabilization
5%
- This would be for initial life/safety
improvements. Building would not be ready
for public or private uses
$ 3,000,000 Smith's Ballpark
Improvements 5%
- Total deferred maintenance and
improvements identified by the Facilities
condition index (industry best practice) is
estimated at over $12.7 million
Facilities &
Real Estate
$ 2,500,000 Central Plant
Electrical 4%- Required by Rocky Mountain Power by 2024
Facilities &
Real Estate,
34%
Transportation
& Streets, 19%
Parks & Public
Lands, 47%
% of $58 Million Bond by Category
$19.2 Million
$11.1 Million
$26.79 Million
Page | 6
Category $ Amount Project Name % of
Bond Notes
Transformer
Upgrade
$ 1,700,000
Urban Wood
Reutilization
Equipment and
Storage
3%
- New program would also require one or two
new full-time City employees
- Program is focused on recycling wood rather
sending to the landfill and could generate
modest savings / revenue
$ 1,500,000 Fisher Mansion
Improvements 3%
- This funding is for structure stabilization
- Building would be ready for public or private
uses with both projects funded
- In FY20 CIP, the Council funded almost $1.4
million for restoration of the Carriage House
Subtotal $ 19,200,000 34%
$ 6,100,000
Westside
Railroad Quiet
Zones
11%
- Three at grade crossings would be improved
to create a single quiet zone in residential
neighborhood
$ 4,000,000
600 North
Corridor
Transformation
7%
- In FY22 CIP, the Council approved over $1.8
million for this projectTransportation
& Streets
$ 1,000,000
City Cemetery
Road Repairs /
Reconstruction
2%
- Total road repairs and reconstruction
estimated at $12.5 million
Subtotal $ 11,100,000 19%
$ 10,000,000
Glendale Water
Park
Redevelopment
18%
- In FY22 CIP, the Council approved 3.2
million for this project
$ 5,200,000 Pioneer Park
Improvements 9%
- In FY20 CIP, the Council approved $3.445
million of parks impact fees for Pioneer Park
improvements. Public engagement is currently
ongoing for selecting amenities and locations
$ 5,250,000
Foothills Master
Plan Phase 2 & 3
Trailheads
9%
- Five trailhead locations are identified, three
would have restrooms, no property
acquisitions would be necessary
- In FY19 and FY21 CIP, the Council approved
over $1.1 million for Phase 1 implementation
- In FY22 CIP, the Council approved $1.7
million for implementing the Foothills Master
Plan
$ 3,400,000 Westside Park
Improvements 6%
$ 1,300,000
Allen Park
Historic
Structures
Improvements,
Utilities
including Power
and Activation
2%
- The City purchased Allen Park in FY20 for
$7.5 million
- In FY21 CIP, the Council approved $450,000
for property protection, public pathways, and
consultant services
- In FY22 CIP, the Council approved $420,000
for this same project
Parks & Public
Lands
$ 1,200,000
Public Lands
Multilingual
Wayfinding
Signs
2%
Page | 7
Category $ Amount Project Name % of
Bond Notes
$ 440,000
Jordan River
Paddle Share at
1700 South
1%
- Three already funded boat ramps into the
Jordan River within Salt Lake City are
expected to be complete this year for a total of
four
Subtotal $ 26,790,000 47%
TOTAL $ 57,090,000 100%
$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs Over Next Decade – Below is a list of the City’s unfunded capital needs
from large single-site projects to long-term best management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and
vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs may be higher since originally estimated. The total
unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and may be closer to $500 million depending on the
specifics of new construction and major redevelopments in the first section. Note that these estimates for new
assets do not include maintenance costs. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about their progress
on a City Capital Facilities Plan. Typically, these documents identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded
capital needs over a long-term horizon. This could include identifying future bond opportunities based on the
City’s current schedule of when bonds will be paid off. Note that the proposed bond includes funding for some
projects in the below list. Redevelopment Agency projects are not included in the below list. However, the
Council has previously taken a “whole City” perspective and leveraged multiple funding sources to complete
RDA projects including use of the City’s bonding capacity.
Costs TBD for potential new construction and major redevelopments:
o Old Public Safety Building
o Fleet Block mixed-use redevelopment potentially including housing, green space and
commercial
o Eastside Police Precinct
o Crime lab building out (currently leasing space)
o Multiple aging fire stations and training facilities need renovations or possible demolition and
rebuild
o Renovation of historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs Historic Plunge
o The old main library downtown (The Leonardo) renovations such as escalator
replacement/removal
o Expansion of the S-Line Streetcar which received $12 million in State funding to reach Highland
Drive
o Downtown and/or 400 West TRAX loops
o Railroad quiet zones on the westside
o Undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides (aka “Train Box” proposal)
o Implementing rest of the 9-Line and McClelland urban trails construction, landscaping,
amenities, and ongoing maintenance
o Downtown Green Loop regional park
o Build out of the multi-phase Foothills Master Plan
o Wingpointe Levee on Surplus Canal reconstruction to meet federal and state standards
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing ongoing funding level) to increase the overall
condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair
$50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s
Fleet needs
$47.7 million over ten years to bring all actively used City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$12.7 million for deferred maintenance and improvements at the Smiths Ballpark
$7 million for multiple bridge replacements that span the Jordan River
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$2 million for streets crew facility upgrades like asphalt steam bay and salt storage
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Page | 8
PROJECT SPECIFIC POLICY QUESTIONS
A.Adding, Removing and/or Changing Funding Level for Projects – The Council may wish to
discuss with the Administration if there are projects the Council wants to add, remove, and/or change
the proposed funding level. Does the Council want additional information on any proposed projects
before scheduling a vote? The Council may also wish to discuss if the bond funding by category (see pie
chart and table above) aligns with the Council’s policy priorities.
B.Cost Estimates and Contingency Funding – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when
the cost estimates were calculated and to what extent contingency funding accounts for the uncertainty
of market pricing caused by global supply chain fluctuations and other pandemic impacts to the
economy. The Administration stated projects include a 20% contingency. The Council could explore
adding a larger contingency to each project or adding a contingency / reserve available to all projects.
C.Conflicting Proposals for Same Property: Urban Wood Reutilization Program and Tiny
Home Village – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if either project could be located at
another location. The Public Lands Department stated that the location is important for a new urban
wood reutilization program and is located next to the existing Public Lands building, which staff
understands is the same location as the proposed Tiny home village.
D.End User(s) for Restoration of Fisher Mansion, Warm Springs Historic Plunge and Allen
Park – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what end users are intended for
restoration of these three historic facilities?
E.Projects Increasing Workload and Need for New Full-time Employees: The Council may wish
to ask the Administration which projects would create the need for new full-time employees, when that
new staffing need would begin (pending completion of construction in some cases), and how they would
be funded. An initial review of the 16 proposed projects indicates the following would create new
ongoing staffing workloads: Allen Park for property management and art programming/events, Urban
Wood Reutilization new program needs staff to operate equipment, paddle share new program with
some locker automation but also new administration and logistics work.
F.Expanding the City’s in-house Sign Shop – The Council may wish to continue the discussion from
the annual budget about options to expand the City’s existing in-house sign shop. The Public Services
Department stated the shop operates at capacity and additional employees would be needed.
GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Need and Ability to Spend Tax-exempt Bond Funds within Three Years – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration how tax-exempt bond funds will be spent within the legally required
three years, especially if additional engagement/design work is needed to finalize costs. This could
include the Engineering Division’s capacity to absorb the additional workload, availability of contractors
in the local market, phasing projects over multiple bond issuances (which is a common strategy), and if
CIP projects could be delayed because they are not subject to the three-year spending deadline. While
taxable bond funds do not have a legally required spending deadline there is a practice concern to spend
before they lose significant amounts of purchasing power.
2.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may
wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ million unfunded capital needs including deferred
maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets that will create new unfunded
maintenance needs including increased staffing workloads.
3.Public Engagement – The Council may wish to discuss what public engagement should look like for
the bond and individual projects. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration about public
engagement efforts for projects so far and how residents can provide feedback on the other projects.
4.Project Prioritization – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration which projects to
prioritize for the following situations:
a. Excess funds are available to go to another project
b. Actual costs exceed available project budget, and a project (or multiple projects) must be
reduced in scope
Page | 9
c. A project will not be constructed because available funding is significantly less than needed even
after scope reductions
5.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for Bond Projects – The Council may wish to
discuss with the Administration the option to use ARPA funding for two bond projects that are eligible
under the Treasury’s interim guidance: $4 million West Side Neighborhood Park Improvements and
$1.2 million Multilingual Wayfinding Signs. Note that the projects would need to be within qualified
Census tracts to be fully eligible. See Attachment 3 for the ARPA infographic and Attachment 4 for a
map of qualified Census tracts.
6.CIP Debt Level – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what debt level in CIP is
preferred to balance long-term bond payments with annual CIP project funding needs. The proposed
bonds would have an annual debt service payment over $3.6 million. See Additional Info section for
debt service projects to FY26.
7.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a first draft and expressed interest in identifying measurable goals to accomplish
through the CFP and guide prioritization of project planning (see Attachment 5).
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing
bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for
parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget
Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer
into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21. Note that the chart does not reflect the proposed
bond which would increase annual debt service payments and reduce funding available for CIP projects.
The projected debt load significantly decreased in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matured (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is
recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment over
$3.6 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through
a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
Page | 10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of CIP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Other Debt Service Othe r Commit ments Pay as You G o Pro jec ts
Cost Overrun Account
At the time of publishing this staff report, the account has an available to spend balance of $910,720. The
Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula
determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total
Council-approved budget. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning
to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is
to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act in a budget
amendment which typically takes a few months.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 5)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Fisher Mansion Feasibility Analysis
SLC has commissioned CRSA Architects to conduct a feasibility analysis for restoring and establishing active use
in the Fisher Mansion building. CRSA’s work will look at a series of conceptual alternatives, including the
adaptive reuse of the Mansion as a food & beverage + music & art venue, and alternately as a café and exhibition
gallery space with office space for city staff and/or community organizations, along with a reimagined outdoor
plaza for activities and events.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transmittal for Proposed $58 Million Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B
2. Description for $3.4 Million Investment in Westside Parks (was not included in transmittal)
3. ARPA Budget Update Infographic August 17, 2021
4. 2021 HUD Qualified Census Tracts Map
5. Capital Facilities Plan Council Requests from January 2019
Page | 11
ACRONYMS
ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Companies
FY – Fiscal Year
G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond
HUD – U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_________________________ Date Received: __________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ______________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 26, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022A and 2022B
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer
801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion in anticipation of adopting a Bond
Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider adopting a Bond
Resolution approving the issuance and sale of up to $55,000,000 principal amount of Sales and Excise
Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2022A and 2022B (the “Bonds”), and give authority to certain officers to
approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of the Bonds within certain
parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2022A – $23,653,000:
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement
projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached.
The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their
recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses.
Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use.
Lisa Shaffer (Oct 31, 2021 12:55 MDT)
11/01/2021
11/01/2021
Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
Transmittal to City Council
May 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the
total of $23,653,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average approximately $1,465,000 per year for 20 years. Attached are preliminary numbers
including estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2022B - $29,300,000:
The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in red for the total of
$29,300,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $1,872,000 per year for 20 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue:
NEW MONEY
New Money Project List $52,953,000
Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $23,653,000
Taxable (red & yellow
highlights) $29,300,000
An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your
review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change.
Attachments
cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt.
Recommended
Projects Proposed Bond Project Proposed Bond Notes Administration Notes
1
Transformer Replacement
Project - City & County
Building and Library Square
6,100,000.00$ - $3 million increase over
original
Recommend at $6.1 m. Increase is due to adding emergency
generators and refining the design to meet requirements
(larger vault). Four possible options being reviewed ranging
from $3.2 to $6.15 m. $6.2 is the recommended “50-yr fix”
that includes backup generators for all four facilities. Soft
cost contingency included.
- Based on 70% design Sep-21
2 Glendale Water Park 6,800,000.00$ - Design to budget approach
Recommend $10 m for Phase 1 (the total project could be up
to $25 m in several phases). LCWF time limits are driving
deadlines. Public engagement has just started—should be
done early ’22. Impact Fee CIP funds are available for $3.2 m.
Impact fees are currently allocated to the Pioneer Park
project.
Timing unknown
3 Pioneer Park 8,600,000.00$ - Design to budget approach
Recommend $8-10 m. It would be better to do it as one large
project versus smaller ones over time. Public engagement is
ongoing with concept design nearly complete, $3.4 m is
already available, the project will have very significant
community impact, a solid concept will be done in early ’22,
and it is not Impact Fee eligible
Timing unknown
4 Quiet Zones 6,100,000.00$ - Pending Engineering review Recommend $6.1 m. Costs reviewed in early Sept. ‘21
Timing unknown
5 West Side Neighborhood
Parks 4,000,000.00$ - Design to budget approach ARPA funding? If not, recommend $4 m. Four primary parks,
including a pump track
Timing unknown
6 Fisher Mansion
improvements - Stabilization 1,800,000.00$ - Based on February 2010
structural study
Recommend combining with Warm Springs below, project is
for structural and envelope stabilization only. Soft cost
contingency included.
- Pending Engineering review Sep-21
7
Warm Springs Historic
Structure Stabilization
(Needs description, wasn't
ont the original spreadhseet)
6,000,000.00$ - $600,000 increase over
original
Recommend combining with Fisher Mansion stabilization for
total of $6 m. Measures include protecting the Warm Springs
shell, security and fire systems, and seismic improvements to
the exterior walls. These improvements are not dependent
on the eventual end use. Soft cost contingency included.
8
Urban Wood Reutilization
Equipment and Storage
Additions
2,000,000.00$ - $300,000 increase over
original
Recommend at $2 m. Easy project to accomplish with no
civic engagement needed and minimal design. Estimate
contingency included. Soft cost contingency included.
-Sep-21
9 Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000.00$ - Based on October 2020
Cemetery Master Plan
Recommend $1 m. This investment has the potential to bring
in additional outside funds. Has good public support. Easier
project to accomplish with more predictable construction
costs. This project is also scalable to any investment up to
about $14 m. Soft cost contingency included.
- Pending Engineering review
10 600 N 9,753,000.00$ 600 N Reconstruction
11
Folsom Trail Landscaping
(Needs description, wasn't
ont the original spreadhseet)
800,000.00$
Phase I Landscaping Folsom Trail is designed and cost
estimates for this project are in the range of 800k to 1.2
Million. Phase I will not include any designed space for food
trucks, festivals or other commercially available space.
1.Minimal landscaping along the Folsom trail itself,
approximately 10 feet on either side of the Trail. Scope
includes irrigation, seeding and planting areas.
2.Landscaping at street and Folsom Trail intersecƟons
including 600 West, 800 West, Jeremy, 900 West and 1000
West. Scope includes irrigation, seeding, planting areas,
trees, crushed stone.
52,953,000.00$
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$48,785,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2022 A&B (February 10, 2022 )
($52.953MM Projects)
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 02/10/2022 | Delivered 02/10/2022
2022A TAX-
EXEMPT
2022B
TAXABLE
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $19,315,000.00 $29,470,000.00 $48,785,000.00
Reoffering Premium 4,451,199.45 - 4,451,199.45
Total Sources $23,766,199.45 $29,470,000.00 $53,236,199.45
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%) 53,116.25 81,042.50 134,158.75
Costs of Issuance 57,945.00 88,410.00 146,355.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 23,653,000.00 29,300,000.00 52,953,000.00
Rounding Amount 2,138.20 547.50 2,685.70
Total Uses $23,766,199.45 $29,470,000.00 $53,236,199.45
2022AB Comb New Money 10. | Issue Summary | 10/29/2021 | 8:45 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR) Page 1
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$19,315,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2022A (February 10, 2022 )
($23.653MM New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
02/10/2022 - - - - -
04/01/2022 - - 125,807.08 125,807.08 -
06/30/2022 - - - - 125,807.08
10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000% 444,025.00 1,029,025.00 -
04/01/2023 - - 429,400.00 429,400.00 -
06/30/2023 - - - - 1,458,425.00
10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000% 429,400.00 1,044,400.00 -
04/01/2024 - - 414,025.00 414,025.00 -
06/30/2024 - - - - 1,458,425.00
10/01/2024 645,000.00 5.000% 414,025.00 1,059,025.00 -
04/01/2025 - - 397,900.00 397,900.00 -
06/30/2025 - - - - 1,456,925.00
10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000% 397,900.00 1,077,900.00 -
04/01/2026 - - 380,900.00 380,900.00 -
06/30/2026 - - - - 1,458,800.00
10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000% 380,900.00 1,095,900.00 -
04/01/2027 - - 363,025.00 363,025.00 -
06/30/2027 - - - - 1,458,925.00
10/01/2027 750,000.00 5.000% 363,025.00 1,113,025.00 -
04/01/2028 - - 344,275.00 344,275.00 -
06/30/2028 - - - - 1,457,300.00
10/01/2028 785,000.00 5.000% 344,275.00 1,129,275.00 -
04/01/2029 - - 324,650.00 324,650.00 -
06/30/2029 - - - - 1,453,925.00
10/01/2029 830,000.00 5.000% 324,650.00 1,154,650.00 -
04/01/2030 - - 303,900.00 303,900.00 -
06/30/2030 - - - - 1,458,550.00
10/01/2030 870,000.00 5.000% 303,900.00 1,173,900.00 -
04/01/2031 - - 282,150.00 282,150.00 -
06/30/2031 - - - - 1,456,050.00
10/01/2031 915,000.00 5.000% 282,150.00 1,197,150.00 -
04/01/2032 - - 259,275.00 259,275.00 -
06/30/2032 - - - - 1,456,425.00
10/01/2032 960,000.00 5.000% 259,275.00 1,219,275.00 -
04/01/2033 - - 235,275.00 235,275.00 -
06/30/2033 - - - - 1,454,550.00
10/01/2033 1,010,000.00 5.000% 235,275.00 1,245,275.00 -
04/01/2034 - - 210,025.00 210,025.00 -
06/30/2034 - - - - 1,455,300.00
10/01/2034 1,065,000.00 5.000% 210,025.00 1,275,025.00 -
04/01/2035 - - 183,400.00 183,400.00 -
06/30/2035 - - - - 1,458,425.00
10/01/2035 1,120,000.00 5.000% 183,400.00 1,303,400.00 -
04/01/2036 - - 155,400.00 155,400.00 -
06/30/2036 - - - - 1,458,800.00
10/01/2036 1,170,000.00 4.000% 155,400.00 1,325,400.00 -
04/01/2037 - - 132,000.00 132,000.00 -
06/30/2037 - - - - 1,457,400.00
10/01/2037 1,215,000.00 4.000% 132,000.00 1,347,000.00 -
04/01/2038 - - 107,700.00 107,700.00 -
06/30/2038 - - - - 1,454,700.00
10/01/2038 1,265,000.00 4.000% 107,700.00 1,372,700.00 -
04/01/2039 - - 82,400.00 82,400.00 -
06/30/2039 - - - - 1,455,100.00
10/01/2039 1,320,000.00 4.000% 82,400.00 1,402,400.00 -
04/01/2040 - - 56,000.00 56,000.00 -
06/30/2040 - - - - 1,458,400.00
10/01/2040 1,370,000.00 4.000% 56,000.00 1,426,000.00 -
04/01/2041 - - 28,600.00 28,600.00 -
06/30/2041 - - - - 1,454,600.00
10/01/2041 1,430,000.00 4.000% 28,600.00 1,458,600.00 -
06/30/2042 - - - - 1,458,600.00
Total $19,315,000.00 - $9,950,432.08 $29,265,432.08 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $225,828.79
Average Life 11.692 Years
Average Coupon 4.4061840%
Net Interest Cost (NIC) 2.4586541%
True Interest Cost (TIC) 2.1531145%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4671886%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 2.1792385%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.9701956%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.744 Years
2022AB Comb New Money 10. | 2022A TAX-EXEMPT | 10/29/2021 | 8:45 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR) Page 5
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$29,470,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2022B (February 10, 2022 )
($29.3MM New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
02/10/2022 - - - - -
04/01/2022 - - 87,029.80 87,029.80 -
06/30/2022 - - - - 87,029.80
10/01/2022 1,255,000.00 0.380% 307,164.00 1,562,164.00 -
04/01/2023 - - 304,779.50 304,779.50 -
06/30/2023 - - - - 1,866,943.50
10/01/2023 1,260,000.00 0.480% 304,779.50 1,564,779.50 -
04/01/2024 - - 301,755.50 301,755.50 -
06/30/2024 - - - - 1,866,535.00
10/01/2024 1,270,000.00 0.810% 301,755.50 1,571,755.50 -
04/01/2025 - - 296,612.00 296,612.00 -
06/30/2025 - - - - 1,868,367.50
10/01/2025 1,280,000.00 1.160% 296,612.00 1,576,612.00 -
04/01/2026 - - 289,188.00 289,188.00 -
06/30/2026 - - - - 1,865,800.00
10/01/2026 1,300,000.00 1.360% 289,188.00 1,589,188.00 -
04/01/2027 - - 280,348.00 280,348.00 -
06/30/2027 - - - - 1,869,536.00
10/01/2027 1,315,000.00 1.570% 280,348.00 1,595,348.00 -
04/01/2028 - - 270,025.25 270,025.25 -
06/30/2028 - - - - 1,865,373.25
10/01/2028 1,340,000.00 1.770% 270,025.25 1,610,025.25 -
04/01/2029 - - 258,166.25 258,166.25 -
06/30/2029 - - - - 1,868,191.50
10/01/2029 1,365,000.00 1.850% 258,166.25 1,623,166.25 -
04/01/2030 - - 245,540.00 245,540.00 -
06/30/2030 - - - - 1,868,706.25
10/01/2030 1,390,000.00 1.950% 245,540.00 1,635,540.00 -
04/01/2031 - - 231,987.50 231,987.50 -
06/30/2031 - - - - 1,867,527.50
10/01/2031 1,420,000.00 2.050% 231,987.50 1,651,987.50 -
04/01/2032 - - 217,432.50 217,432.50 -
06/30/2032 - - - - 1,869,420.00
10/01/2032 1,450,000.00 2.200% 217,432.50 1,667,432.50 -
04/01/2033 - - 201,482.50 201,482.50 -
06/30/2033 - - - - 1,868,915.00
10/01/2033 1,480,000.00 2.300% 201,482.50 1,681,482.50 -
04/01/2034 - - 184,462.50 184,462.50 -
06/30/2034 - - - - 1,865,945.00
10/01/2034 1,515,000.00 2.400% 184,462.50 1,699,462.50 -
04/01/2035 - - 166,282.50 166,282.50 -
06/30/2035 - - - - 1,865,745.00
10/01/2035 1,555,000.00 2.500% 166,282.50 1,721,282.50 -
04/01/2036 - - 146,845.00 146,845.00 -
06/30/2036 - - - - 1,868,127.50
10/01/2036 1,595,000.00 2.600% 146,845.00 1,741,845.00 -
04/01/2037 - - 126,110.00 126,110.00 -
06/30/2037 - - - - 1,867,955.00
10/01/2037 1,640,000.00 2.700% 126,110.00 1,766,110.00 -
04/01/2038 - - 103,970.00 103,970.00 -
06/30/2038 - - - - 1,870,080.00
10/01/2038 1,685,000.00 2.800% 103,970.00 1,788,970.00 -
04/01/2039 - - 80,380.00 80,380.00 -
06/30/2039 - - - - 1,869,350.00
10/01/2039 1,730,000.00 2.900% 80,380.00 1,810,380.00 -
04/01/2040 - - 55,295.00 55,295.00 -
06/30/2040 - - - - 1,865,675.00
10/01/2040 1,785,000.00 3.000% 55,295.00 1,840,295.00 -
04/01/2041 - - 28,520.00 28,520.00 -
06/30/2041 - - - - 1,868,815.00
10/01/2041 1,840,000.00 3.100% 28,520.00 1,868,520.00 -
06/30/2042 - - - - 1,868,520.00
Total $29,470,000.00 - $7,972,557.80 $37,442,557.80 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $319,384.92
Average Life 10.838 Years
Average Coupon 2.4962224%
Net Interest Cost (NIC) 2.5215969%
True Interest Cost (TIC) 2.4969861%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4671863%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 2.5296291%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.4962224%
Weighted Average Maturity 10.838 Years
2022AB Comb New Money 10. | 2022B TAXABLE | 10/29/2021 | 8:45 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR) Page 8
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
ATTACHMENT 2 – Description for $3.4 Million Investment in Westside Parks
(was not included in Attachment 1 transmittal)
The $3.4 million listed in the bond proposal for Westside Parks will cover robust community
engagement, park design and construction of new improvements to Modesto, Poplar Grove
and Jackson Parks. Utilizing this funding for the Westside Parks is consistent with Strategy
W-1 of the Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan which states “Neighborhood parks
are designed and programmed to highlight the unique natural, historical, cultural and
economic identity of the surrounding area and community in which they are located.” The
policies that support this major strategy which will be included in the project scope include
data collection on park use and engagement, engaging the surrounding community in the
visioning of public spaces with particular emphasis on fostering engagement with under-
represented groups, and enhancing community pride and placemaking characteristics
within the parks. The overarching purpose of the funding is to create high-quality
experiences within these parks. As defined by the Urban Land Institutei, high-quality parks
are in excellent physical condition, are accessible to all potential users, provide positive
experiences and are relevant to the communities they serve, and are flexible to changing
circumstances. These are all standards that will be sustained in the development of this
project. Based on these qualities, the specific goals for the Westside Parks project are as
follows:
Improve west side parks so that they are in excellent physical condition. Evaluate the
condition of all assets to determine replacement or rehabilitation needs.
Improve circulation in the park and access to the park so that it is accessible to all
potential users. Create a circulation network in the park to encourage walking and
improve access to park amenities and the neighborhood.
Collaborate with the community to identify multiple uses and opportunities to a
wide variety of users. This may include new passive recreation areas or new active
recreation options.
Include placemaking elements that are relevant to the communities they serve and
accurately reflect the community character. This might include public art,
interpretive signage or the development of special use or gathering areas.
Improve the climate resilience of the landscape by reducing the amount of
underutilized turf and replace it with a regionally appropriate and biodiverse
planting composition and potential accompanying irrigation. Include more shade
trees and pollinator gardens.
Funding will specifically go towards hiring of a consultant for comprehensive public
engagement and design, and a contractor for construction of the project. Project scope
will be developed with public input and may need to be phased based on costs and
funding capacity.
$1.2 Million will make a significant and noticeable difference in the City’s wayfinding
signage. There will always be a need to add, change or modify existing signage.
$1,200,000:
$300,000 Community engagement, consultant Services (planning and design),
permits, engineering project management and fees, project contingency and other
soft costs
Approximately $120,000 will be allocated for consultant services, master planning
and design, to develop a wayfinding best practices document and plan. This plan will
build on the recently completed SLC Public Lands Signage Guidelines. The
wayfinding plan will create an easy to replicate approach for identifying key
locations for wayfinding signage and appropriate sign type. This document will
provide guidance on immediate implementation as well as planning for future
additions to the wayfinding system. The goal of the project is to connect people to
the green space resources in the city including public lands and other public
resources like libraries and recreation centers.
$900,000 Construction Budget
Approximately $900,000 is allocated for wayfinding signage construction and
installation. Signage will include, but not be limited to, wayfinding, directional, and
naming signs to be installed across all districts. 2020 costs for signs range from
$2,250 to $5,000. Using an average sign cost of $3,500, an estimated 250
(approximately 35 + signs per council district) will be installed as part of this
project. The estimated number of signs installed as part of this project are based on
historic costs, actual numbers may differ, due to unforeseen future cost increases.
This project will make a substantial improvement to the city wayfinding system that
is an ongoing effort as we continue to add to the public amenities in our City
environment.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
BUDGET UPDATE
Learn more about funds spent at www.tinyurl.com/SLCBudgetFY21
AUGUST 17, 2021
Balancing Our Priorities
Funds Spent by Department
DEADLINE TO SPEND ONE-TIME ARPA FUNDS: DECEMBER 2024
Some ARPA-Eligible Spending Options
As suggested/asked by Council Members
1
Policy Questions
How much should we reserve for FY23?
Should we use ARPA for CIP/Bond to
preserve bond capacity/fund balance?
How do we balance one-time projects with
ongoing people and program expenses?
What are our unmet community needs?
What have we heard from the community?
*When will we revisit the $1.5 million
holding account from 10 ARPA-ineligible
administration funding requests?
1
2
3
4
5
6
3
FY23 Estimated
Funding Needs
$36 million
Ongoing expenses on
employees & programs
(e.g. police salaries, YouthCity,
10 new FTEs) and larger
revenue loss replacement
**Could be funded using other
sources; final amount TBD
2
General Fund Balance
Reimbursement
$3 million
$1 million
for small business loans
$2 million
for low-income senior
and veteran housing
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
$6+ million
Improve outdoor spaces
$500,000
to repair the Annex Building
(Odyssey House application #3)
Improve drainage on streets
4
Sales Tax
Bond
$5.2 million
Improve outdoor spaces
Holding account* (1.9%)
$1,583,500
FY23 estimated funding needs** (42.1%)
$36,000,000
Financial Overview
$85,411,572
$22,555,258
Total funds
Funds spent (26.4%)Funds remaining (71.7%)
50.7%
Revenue
Replacement
(General
Fund)
37.7%
Police
(Ocer
existing
salaries)
Apprenticeship Program
(Multiple Departments)
Community &
Neighborhoods
Economic
Development
Finance
Fire
4.4%
4%
1.5%
0.9%
0.8%
$61,272,814
Remainder (29.6%)
$25,272,814
Revenue Replacement for the General Fund
Police Ocer Salary Increases
Apprenticeship Program
Youth & Family COVID-19 Programming Continuation
Economic Development Sta (2 New FTEs)
Medical Response Team Expansion (4 New FTEs funded for 6 Months)
ARPA Grant Administrator (1 New FTE Sunsets with ARPA Funding)
ARPA Grant Manager (1 New FTE Sunsets with ARPA Funding)
Community & Neighborhoods Special Projects Assistant (1 New FTE)
Youth & Family Community & Program Manager (1 New FTE)
Economic Development Strategic Plan
Medical Response Team Equipment for Expansion
Total ARPA Funds Spent
98.7% spent on ongoing expenses
4% spent on 10 New FTEs
$11,432,646
$8,507,318
$1,000,000
$711,350
$290,000
$136,762
$101,020
$95,000
$93,829
$90,633
$50,000
$46,700
$22,555,258
$22,262,538
$807,244
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Arts Council Sta (3 FTEs), Operational Costs TBD
Associate Planners (3 FTEs)
Forest Preservation & Growth (1 FTE), Operational Costs TBD
Small Business Construction Mitigation Pilot Program
Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager (1 FTE)
Business & Cultural Districts (1 FTE)
Forest Preservation & Growth Program Equipment & Supplies (one-time)
Business Analyst (1 FTE)
Tech Lake City
American Express Card Merchant Fees
Holding Account
78% of holding account proposed for 10 FTEs and merchant fees (ongoing expenses)
$350,000
$235,000
$219,000
$200,000
$160,000
$150,000
$95,000
$89,500
$45,000
$40,000
$1,583,500
$1,243,500
ARPA-Funded Projects
Holding Account Proposals
650 North Bridge Replacement (partially ARPA eligible)
Damaged from March 2020 earthquake. The Administration applied to UDOT for replacement funding.
200 South Reconstruction and Transit Complete Streets (15% eligible)
For drainage, curb, and gutter.
9-Line Asphalt Pump Track
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways (100% eligible)
Odyssey House (100% eligible)
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway (100% eligible)
Street Improvements (15% eligible)
For drainage, curb, and gutter. Total estimated cost - $3 million.
Poplar Grove Sportcourt (100% eligible)
900 South Reconstruction and Signal Improvements
For drainage, curb, and gutter.
Three Creeks West Bank New Park (100% eligible)
Downtown Green Loop (partially eligible)
All of project may not be entirely eligible in a qualified census tract
West Side Neighborhood Parks (partially eligible)
TBD until more details are available.
Public Lands Multilingual Wayfinding Signage (partially eligible)
TBD until more details are available.
ARPA-Eligible CIP & Bond Projects
CIP
Bond
$5,600,000
$1,800,000
$615,777
$510,000
$500,000
$484,146
$450,000
$433,333
$375,000
$150,736
$4,000,000
$1,200,000
$16,118,992
$10,918,992
$5,200,000
ARPA-Eligible CIP & Bond Projects
= ongoing expense
CIPBond
Attachment 4 - Qualified Census Tracts for 2021 from HUD
ATTACHMENT 5 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP
and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high
alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 12/6/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 12/6/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 12/6/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Ashley Lodmell as a member of
the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
December 6, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee:
Ashley Lodmell– to be appointed for a term ending in three years starting the date of City Council
advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: ___________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ______________
_____________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 14, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer___________________________________
SUBJECT: Amendatory Resolution Stating and Clarifying that City’s Municipal Transient Room Tax
under Utah Code Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 3A (the “Innkeepers Tax”) is Pledged as Source of
Repayment for SIB Loan Instead of Sales Tax
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt an Amendatory Resolution on January 11, 2022
deleting any pledge of sales tax revenue as a revenue source to repay the State Infrastructure
Bank (SIB) loan and instead to pledge the City’s Innkeepers Tax as a revenue source to repay the
SIB loan.
BUDGET IMPACT: None at this time.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In the loan agreement the City pledged the annual distribution of
$1,100,000 authorized by H.B. 244 (2021). Utah Code section 72-2-204 requires the City to, also,
pledge a revenue source controlled by the City. Resolution No. 31 of 2021 said that the City was
also pledging its sales tax revenue; however, the City has determined that it is better to pledge its
Innkeepers Tax as a revenue source to repay the SIB loan and UDOT has agreed to this in the Loan
Agreement.
PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A
EXHIBITS:
1. Agenda and Motion Language
2. Amending Resolution
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 15, 2021 15:29 MST)12/15/2021
12/15/2021
Suggested Agenda Language relating to the amendatory resolution for the SIB
Loan from UDOT, to be considered by the City Council at its meeting on January
11, 2022:
Resolution: Amending Resolution No. 31 of 2021 relating to a SIB Loan to the City
from UDOT
Consideration of a resolution amending Resolution No. 31 of 2021, relating to a
SIB loan to the City from UDOT, to state and clarify that the loan will be payable
from the City’s Innkeepers Tax rather than from sales tax revenue; and providing
for related matters.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt
Suggested Motion Language is as follows:
I move that the City Council adopt the resolution amending Resolution No. 31 of
2021 relating to a SIB loan to the City from UDOT.
1
RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2022
(Amending Resolution No. 31 of 2021 that Authorized a Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan for
a Neighborhood Parking Structure Located between 400 West and 500 West and 600 South and
700 South)
WHEREAS, Utah Code section 72-2-202 created a revolving fund called the Utah State
Infrastructure Bank Fund (the “SIB Fund”) and authorized the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) to use moneys in the SIB Fund to make infrastructure loans to cities for transportation
projects, including the construction or improvement of parking facilities; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City) applied for a $7,000,000 infrastructure loan
to finance a portion of the cost of a neighborhood parking structure, a 926-stall garage, located
between 400 West and 500 West and 600 South and 700 South in Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“Project”) and on November 19, 2021, the State Transportation Commission approved that
$7,000,000 loan (the “SIB Loan”) to the City for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 31 of 2021 the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“City Council”), authorized the City to accept the SIB Loan and approved of the City entering into
a loan agreement (the “Loan Agreement”) with UDOT with respect to the SIB Loan; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2021, the City and UDOT entered into the Loan Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, in the Loan Agreement the City pledged to the repayment of the SIB Loan
the funds allocated to it by H.B. 244 (2021), consisting of (1) a one-time distribution to the City
of $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2020-2021 and (2) an annual distribution to the City of $1,100,000
for the next 15 years, beginning on or after July 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Utah Code section 72-2-204 requires that the City also pledge to the
repayment of the SIB Loan a revenue course controlled by the City, and in Resolution No. 31 of
2021 a recital said that the City was also pledging its sales tax revenue; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is better that the City pledge its Innkeepers Tax
as a revenue source to repay the SIB loan rather than its sales tax revenue, and UDOT agreed in
the Loan Agreement to the City pledging its Municipal Transient Room Tax under Utah Code Title
59, Chapter 12, Part 3A (the “Innkeepers Tax”) rather than its sales tax revenue as a revenue source
to repay the SIB loan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Resolution No. 31 of 2021 to state and
clarify that the City is pledging its Innkeepers Tax rather than its sales tax revenue as a revenue
source to repay the SIB loan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
2
Section 1. Resolution No. 31 of 2021 is hereby amended to delete any pledge of sales tax
revenue as a revenue source to repay the SIB loan and instead to pledge the City’s Innkeepers Tax
as a revenue source to repay the SIB loan.
Section 2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah on__________, 2022.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By _______________________________
Chairperson
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Recorder
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
___________________________
Boyd Ferguson
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
City Council Announcements
January 4, 2022
Information Needed by Council Staff
A. Financial Disclosure (attached)
During January of each year, Council Members are given an annual reminder to submit
financial disclosure form statement if the Council Member’s position in his/her business
entity has changed or if the value of such Council Member’s interest in the entity has
materially increased since the last disclosure.
Please let staff know if you need the documents to update your disclosure forms.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
§52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
§52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and
Public Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or
detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
City CouncilAmy Fowler 01/04/2022
4
4
44
Amy Fowler (Jan 10, 2022 09:35 MST)Jan 10, 2022
Closed Session January 4, 2022 - Sworn
Statement
Final Audit Report 2022-01-10
Created:2022-01-05
By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAXYcc5R-cKAgeMEahvwudq-wpSodUQgxh
"Closed Session January 4, 2022 - Sworn Statement" History
Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
2022-01-05 - 3:33:38 AM GMT
Document emailed to Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-01-05 - 3:35:28 AM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2022-01-07 - 1:51:12 AM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2022-01-08 - 5:28:33 AM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2022-01-09 - 4:35:33 AM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2022-01-10 - 4:35:29 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-01-10 - 4:35:36 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-01-10 - 4:35:36 PM GMT