01/05/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
January 5,2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
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:16:28:30
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination
that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the
anchor location.
The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor
location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to
the health and safety of those who may attend in person.For these reasons,the Council
Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees
will connect remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel
most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are
available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect
through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at
801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an
email:
•24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and
voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda-
related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council
Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council
Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
1.Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2021 ~2:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will take a straw poll to nominate the Council Chair and Vice Chair for calendar
year 2021.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 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,January 5,2021
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:
•Local Emergencies for 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.
5 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:Update on the Utah Transit Authority (UTA)South Davis
Connector to Salt Lake City ~2:50 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a status update of UTA’s planned bus rapid-transit connector between
South Davis County and downtown Salt Lake City.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
5.Informational:Kem C.Gardner Policy Institute Homeless
Services Assessment ~3:20 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a presentation of the 2020 Utah Homeless Services Assessment from
the Kem C.Gardner Policy Institute.The assessment proposes a new governance structure and
funding model for services,and includes six recommendations to improve the homeless
services system in the state.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
6.Utah Open Meetings Law Training and Government Records Access and
Management Act (GRAMA)Training ~4:05 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the City Attorney’s Office about the Utah Open Meetings
Law,and from the Recorder's Office about the Government Records Access and Management Act
(GRAMA).This briefing will serve as the annual trainings for both the City Council and the Board
of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
7.Tentative Break ~4:35 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:SLC Emergency Management Update 2021 ~4:55 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 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
9.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2020-21 ~5:20 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake
City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year 2020-21.Budget
amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,
including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposal includes funding to
cover cost increases to turn the historic Fisher Mansion Carriage House into a recreation hub,
create a redevelopment plan for the former Glendale Waterpark,and consolidate multiple
employee positions in different departments and add one new position to form a new City
Innovations Team,among other changes.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,December 8,2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,January 5,2021 and Tuesday,January 19,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
10.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~5:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed by the Administration about issues affecting the City that may
arise during the 2021 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 5,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.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.
13.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.
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 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 NOTE
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE: January 5, 2021
RE: UTA Presentation: Davis-Salt Lake Community Connector Update
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
This note is intended as a supplement to information that will be presented by Utah Transit
Authority Board of Trustees Chair Carlton Christensen on the status of the Davis-Salt Lake
Community Connector – a bus rapid-transit line linking Davis County and downtown Salt Lake City. It
might be noted that Chair Christensen served on the City Council for 16 years.
The City Council adopted Resolution 33 of 2015 on October 6, 2015 for a locally preferred
alternative for a bus rapid transit route from Davis County to Salt Lake City. The motion said:
1. The City Council hereby endorses and approves the proposed construction of bus rapid transit along
400 West in Salt Lake City, along US 89 in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake City, and Bountiful City, and Main
Street to 500 South in Bountiful City as the Locally Preferred Alternative.
2. The Salt Lake City Council hereby authorizes City staff to work with UTA to proceed with and
complete the preparation of all additional documentation and take all necessary actions to implement the
Locally Preferred Alternative.1
Three things might be noted:
First, a 2015 presentation made by the Utah Transit Authority during a briefing included a discussion
of potential transit connections to the University of Utah, although the Transportation Division (at that time)
understood that the proposed project would terminate at North Temple Street.2 The inclusion of potential
connections to the university also raised concerns among the City Council.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: January 5, 2021
Set Date:
Public Hearing:
Potential Action:
Page | 2
After the Council raised its concerns, the Transportation Division sought clarification from the Utah
Transit Authority about the end point of the preferred locally preferred alternative in Salt Lake City. A letter
from UTA said in part, “We would request the Council consider adopting the LPA to 400 West and North
Temple. With evaluation in the SLC Transit Master Plan and in the next phase of the project, the final terminus
can be further evaluated and determined.”3
Second, the Transit Master Plan made no specific recommendation about a terminus different from
the 400 West North Temple Street site. According to the Master Plan, “This is a regionally-significant project
that has been studied by UTA. The Transit Master Plan focused on local needs and therefore did not consider
this corridor; however, the local portion of the project, which recommends Enhanced Bus along the 400 West
corridor, supports the plan’s local transit recommendations.”4
Third, the Palmer DePaulis Administration originally extended 400 West Street to intersect U.S.
Highway 89 to create an extra street to relieve traffic congestion created by people driving northbound after
Utah Jazz games after the “new” arena replaced Acord Arena at the Salt Palace.
In terms of the future construction of the rapid-transit line, the line is included in the Wasatch Front
Regional Council’s tier-one plans for its Regional Transportation Plan 2019-2050. Tier-one projects are
projected to be done within the first ten years of the Transportation Plan. UTA’s 2021 budget adopted by the
Board of Trustees at its December 16, 2020, meeting has a sentence in its message from UTA Executive Director
Carolyn Gonot that says, the 2021 capital budget “outlines the potential future construction of the proposed
Mid-valley and Davis-Salt Lake City bus rapid transit (BRT) lines.” In addition, another presentation to the
Board at its December 16 meeting said UTA is applying to the Wasatch Front Regional Council for a $1.5 million
federal Surface Transportation Block Grant to help fund designs for the rapid-transit line. UTA estimated total
design costs at $16.9 million.5
1 Attached Resolution No. 33 of 2015.
2 City Council staff report quoting Administration Transmittal, June 2, 2014, Page 1, Russell Weeks, September 30,
2015.
3 City Council staff report quoting letter to Robin Hutcheson, UTA Project Development Manager Hal Johnson, March
18, 2015, Russell Weeks, September 30, 2015.
4 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan, Page 3-17.
5 UTA Presentation PDF, Slide 76, December 16, 2020.
Salt Lake City Council RESOLUTION NO. 33 of 2015
A Resolution Adopting a Locally Preferred Alternative for Utah Transit Authority to Extend Transit
Options within the Davis-Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor
WHEREAS, the Utah Transit Authority (“UTA”) is a public transit district and authorized under Utah law
to construct, own, operate and maintain mass transit systems; and
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake City, Bountiful City, Davis County, and the Wasatch Front
Regional Council (“WFRC”) together with UTA performed a study and an alternatives analysis
(“Alternatives Analysis”) to evaluate transit alternatives in south Davis County and north Salt Lake
County, specifically from Salt Lake City’s central business district through North Salt Lake City, Bountiful
City, and Woods Cross City to the Woods Cross FrontRunner commuter rail station (the “Davis – Salt
Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor”); and
WHEREAS, during the Alternatives Analysis, Bountiful City, North Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City,
and Davis County (collectively the “City/County Sponsors”), together with community committees, agreed
upon a list of goals to determine the proper public transportation alternative to operate within the Davis –
Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the goals include: (1) increase mobility, connectivity, and travel choices; (2) support local
and regional land use initiatives; (3) promote economic development; and (4) improve environmental
quality; and
WHEREAS, UTA proposes to expand bus rapid transit to include, among other things, an extension of bus
rapid transit through the Davis – Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor; and
WHEREAS, UTA proposes to include in the Davis – Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study
project a revision of the background local bus network to provide more east/west service that connects to
existing and future bus rapid transit, and
WHEREAS, bus rapid transit within the Davis – Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor
would substantially benefit the residents of the City/County Sponsors by increasing access to bus rapid
transit to more residents and job sites; and
WHEREAS, operation of bus rapid transit in the Davis – Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study
Corridor will reduce reliance on the private automobile, improve air quality, reduce the growth of vehicle
miles traveled, and support the objectives of the WFRC’s Long Range Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City/County Sponsors desire to promote transit supportive land use within and
around the corridor and encourage the use of transit for a greater number of mass-transit riders; and
WHEREAS, the City/County Sponsors understand that more specific mitigation measures related to
specific impacts will be reviewed, evaluated, and addressed during subsequent environmental, design and
engineering phases of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City/County Sponsors find that their communities’ long term economic well-being and
viability would be negatively affected by increased congestion and decreased mobility; and
WHEREAS, the City/County Sponsors find that this proposed project best meets the needs of the
City/County Sponsors as a whole, and is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of the
City/County Sponsors,
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Salt Lake City Council as follows:
1. The City Council hereby endorses and approves the proposed construction of bus rapid transit
along 400 West in Salt Lake City, along US 89 in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake City, and Bountiful City,
and Main Street to 500 South in Bountiful City as the Locally Preferred Alternative.
2. The Salt Lake City Council hereby authorizes City staff to work with UTA to proceed with and
complete the preparation of all additional documentation and take all necessary actions to implement the
Locally Preferred Alternative.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 6th day of October, 2015.
Salt Lake City Council Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2015
The following Council Members were present: Charlie Luke, Luke Garrott, James Rogers, Kyle LaMalfa,
Erin Mendenhall, Lisa Adams
The following Councilmember was absent: Stan Penfold
7:52:07 PM Adopting a resolution adopting a locally preferred alternative for UTA to extend
transit options within the Davis-Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor.
The recommended Locally Preferred Alternative route includes a recommendation that Bus Rapid Transit
would be developed on 400 West to serve redevelopment, the commuter rail station and Downtown Salt
Lake City. View Attachments
Councilmember Rogers moved and Councilmember LaMalfa seconded to adopt Resolution 33
of 2015 adopting a locally preferred alternative for the Utah Transit Authority to extend transit options
within the Davis-Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor with the following amendments:
1. That in the resolution’s preamble Paragraph No. 5, the words “fixed guideway systems” be
replaced by the words “bus rapid transit” and that the word “system” be replaced by the
words “bus rapid transit”, so the paragraph will read: “WHEREAS, UTA proposes to
expand bus rapid transit to include, among other things, an extension of bus rapid
transit through the Davis–Salt Lake Community Connector Transit Study Corridor; and
2. That in paragraph No. 1 under “be it resolved by the Salt Lake City Council” that the words “the
high capacity fixed guideway system” be replaced by “bus rapid transit”, so the paragraph
reads: “The City Council hereby endorses and approves the proposed construction of bus
rapid transit along 400 West in Salt Lake City, along US 89 in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake
City, and Bountiful City, and Main Street to 500 South in Bountiful City as the Locally
Preferred Alternative”.
Councilmember Adams stated that she would not be supporting adoption of this resolution at this
time. She believed Council should wait until after the election to vote and even suggested waiting until the
Master Plan for Transit was received.
Councilmember Rogers referenced previous Council discussions of being a progressive City concerned
about air quality. He indicated that on I-15 along Davis County the traffic count is 87,000 cars a day and
on Beck Street the traffic count is around 40,000 cars a day; a total of 120,000 cars a day coming into
downtown Salt Lake City. Councilmember Rogers said that this was an option and opportunity to
cooperate with Davis County to improve air quality and transportation in Salt Lake City. He stated that he
would support adoption of this resolution.
Councilmember Garrott stated that he would support adoption of this resolution. He said this was
an existing artery between both communities and was not a commitment to run transportation beyond
downtown Salt Lake City or a piece of the City’s transit plan infrastructure. He believed capital investment
would be minimal to Salt Lake City and said he does not believe there would be opportunity for costs.
Councilmember Garrott called for the question, which motion carried, all Council Members
present voted aye, except Councilmember Adams who voted nay.
(R 14-7)
Davis-SLC Community
Connector
January 2021
Carlton Christensen, UTA Board Chair
Hal Johnson, Project Manager
Existing Route 455 and 470
•RT 470: 3,400 daily riders
•RT 455: 1,500 daily riders
1/4/2021 3
Regional Transportation Plan
Regional Transportation
Plan Cost Estimates
•Davis-SLC Connector BRT
•$167.3 M (this number is being refined
by the project team)
1/4/2021 5
SLC Transit Master Plan
Davis-Salt Lake Connector
Project Overview
•Improving transit service between southern Davis County and Salt
Lake City
•Davis-SLC Community Connector Alternatives Analysis
recommended BRT as the mode
•Aligns with WFRC long-range transportation plan, SLC Transit
Master Plan, and 30-year investment goal
•Will follow FTA guidelines for funding strategies and project
eligibility
Project History
•Previous transit studies have identified a need for a project
•South Davis Transit Needs Assessment (2005, WFRC, MAG,
Mayors, Envision Utah)
•South Davis Alternatives Analysis (2008, UDOT and UTA)
•Davis-SLC Community Connector Alternatives Analysis (2014)
1/4/2021 8
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK SHOWED A DESIRE FOR:
Connections between Southern Davis County and Salt Lake City
Connections from community locations to FrontRunner
What is BRT?
1/4/2021 9
Davis-SLC Community
Connector Alternatives
Analysis –
Purpose & Need
•Mobility
•Access and choice
•Development
•Revitalization
•Growth
•Increase transit ridership and improve service quality
•Build on successful existing bus routes
Locally
Preferred
Alternative
(2014 Study)
Woods Cross Station
FrontRunner Station to
Downtown SLC
Current Efforts
•Environmental work and preliminary design is currently underway
1/4/2021 12
•Traffic counts data
collected
•Aerial imagery obtained for
entire corridor
•GIS ROW Parcel Data
•Typical sections and station
configurations developed
•Utilities have been mapped
throughout the corridor
•Alignment has been
developed throughout the
study area
•Continuing coordination
with stakeholders
•Refining the LPA (Locally
Preferred Alternative)
Proposed Modifications
to the LPA
•Adjustment to downtown SLC alignment to better serve key
destinations
•Completed an evaluation of the exclusive lanes with project
stakeholders
•Recommend that lanes only be constructed in Davis County
•Operational connection proposed to Farmington
•Operational connection proposed to the University of Utah
1/4/2021 13
Proposed LPA Map
•Base project with capital improvements from
500 South in Bountiful to State Street and
200 South in SLC
•Exclusive bus lanes in Davis County
•Service connections
•F605 will continue to operate as a
community circulator
300 vs. 400 West
Alignment into Downtown Salt Lake City
Southern Route Alternatives
•The Alternatives Analysis conducted in 2014 identified the 400 West
alignment as the LPA because:
•Transit-focused zoning is most present along 400 West
•There is the potential to create a transit mall between 600 North and
200 South
•400 West is also better suited for pedestrians with less regional traffic
1/4/2021 16
•400 West
•300 West and 400 West
300 West to 600 North, jog west to 400
West and then south to the existing
North Temple FrontRunner station,
turning east to travel along North
Temple
•300 West
300 West all the way to North Temple
and go east from there, bypassing the
existing North Temple FrontRunner
station
Southern Route
Alternatives
•Average daily traffic (ADT) is lower
along 400 West compared to 300
West
•Truck percentages are slightly
higher on 300 West
ADT and Truck
Percentages
•Updated land use data continues to
demonstrate that the area around
400 West has several vacant
properties, industrial uses, and the
potential for higher density
development in the future
•The land use data around 300 West
shows many small parcels with
residential, commercial uses, and
larger parcels with government
land uses
Land Uses
•Zoning data shows that
property on the west side of
400 West between 600 North
and North Temple is zoned for
transit stations with high
density and mix uses
•Similar to the land use data,
zoning near 300 West is
primarily showing smaller
parcels with residential, mixed-
use, and government property
Zoning
Screening Matrix
Recommendation
400 West is the preferred alignment
•Direct connection to the North Temple FrontRunner station
•City Street typology supports this route
•Ridership potential
•Roadway jurisdiction
•More opportunities for transit-oriented development
However, we are exploring an additional alternative with the Capitol Hill
Community Council
Questions/Comments
Project Contact:
Hal Johnson
HJohnson@rideuta.com
(801) 237-1905
Thank You
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 NOTE
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:January 4, 2021
RE: PRESENTATION: UTAH HOMELESS SERVICES
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AND FUNDING MODEL
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
This note is intended as a short list of points to help inform a presentation about the Utah Homeless
Services Governance Structure and Funding Model report prepared by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. The
presentation by Institute Executive Director Natalie Gochnour is scheduled for the January 5, 2021, work
session.
Germane Points
o The structure outlined in the Institute report is intended to better coordinate allocations of state
public funds and philanthropic private funds to address helping people experiencing
homelessness statewide.
o The Utah Legislature will continue to have the final say over allocations of state public funds
through the Legislature’s consideration of the State of Utah’s budget.1
o Although renamed, the current Salt Lake County structure to address homelessness issues – the
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness – appears to remain intact. At least part of the
reason for that is the structure meets federal requirements. According to the report, “Beginning
in 1995, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care
(COC) Program required regions within states to establish Local Homeless Councils (LHCs) and
Item Schedule:
Briefing: January 5, 2021
Set Date:
Public Hearing:
Potential Action:
Page | 2
to consolidate funding requests from local and regional providers into a single annual
application.”2
o It should be noted that the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness is the result of then-
Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams’ Collective Impact initiative that started in 2016. One of
the Coalition’s goals has been to cultivate more cooperation among agencies and groups that
receive federal funds through the Continuum of Care program.
o It also should be noted that the Gardner report recognizes the informal efforts of Utah’s 13
regional local homeless coordination committees to work together. According to the report,
“The Utah Homeless Network, a statewide, service provider led organization was informally
created to increase collaboration and communication among local officials and providers. All 13
LHCs are represented in the Utah Homeless Network.”3
1 Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute,
November 2020, Page 11.
2 Gardner report, Page 9.
3 Gardner report, Page 9.
November 2020
Utah Homeless Services
Governance Structure and Funding Model Highlights
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu
The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute prepared this assessment of Utah’s homeless services governance structure and funding at the
request of the Utah Legislature and the philanthropic community. This assessment involved a collaborative review process of the
structure and funding model in Utah. We offer six recommendations that will create a simpler, more transparent, and coordinated
system for homeless services that will be more effective, efficient, and will improve alignment between public and private efforts.
1 Restructure top-level governance
We recommend restructuring homeless governance in the
state, including the appointment of a Utah Homeless
Services Officer and the creation of the Utah Homeless
Council (UHC) housed in the Governor’s Office of
Management and Budget.
2 Appoint homeless services officer
We recommend the appointment of the Homeless
Services Officer who will act as the executive director of
the Utah Homeless Council and leads the state’s response
to homelessness.
3 Create Utah Homeless Council
We recommend the creation of the Utah Homeless
Council to serve as the state’s coordinating and decision-
making body for homelessness. The UHC would replace
the State Homeless Coordinating Committee.
4 Create Philanthropic Consortium
We recommend the creation of a consortium of private
funders who will coordinate their efforts and funding for
homeless services. The consortium would also be
represented on the Utah Homeless Council.
5 Improve local coordination
We recommend greater communication and coordination
of local homeless efforts and the inclusion of the local
homeless councils on the state’s Utah Homeless Council
through representatives appointed by the Utah Homeless
Network.
6 Develop coordinated funding model
We recommend an annual state-wide funding plan that
builds from local to regional to a consolidated statewide
plan. The plan would include both funding and planning
efforts to reduce homelessness in Utah.
Department
of Public Safety
State Board
of Education
Utah Systems of
Higher Education
Department
of Health
Department of
Workforce Services
Departmental Council Representatives
Department of
Human Services
Department of
Corrections
Legislature
Sets State Policy
Appropriates Funds
Monitors Execution
Governor
Sets Executive Branch Policy
Governor’s Office of Management and Budget
Utah Homeless Council
Homeless Services Officer (Appointed by & reports to Governor)
Utah Homeless Network/Continuum of Care Systems
Local Homeless Councils
Philanthropic
Consortium
Top-level Governance
Coordinated Funding Model
Utah Homeless Council
Executive Committee
Homeless Services Officer (Executive Director)
Public Sector co-chair (appointed by Legislature)
Private sector co-chair
(appointed by Philanthropic Consortium)
Private sector representative
(appointed by governor)
Mayor Salt Lake County
Statewide philanthropic leader
(appointed by governor)
Statewide philanthropic leader
(appointed by Philanthropic Consortium)
Appointed Mayor*
Additional Members
Executive Director Human Services†
Executive Director Health†
Executive Director Corrections†
Executive Director Public Safety†
Executive Director Workforce Services†
Representative Utah Senate
(appointed by Senate)
Representative Utah House
(appointed by House)
Superintendent of Public Instruction†
Statewide faith-based leader
(appointed by governor)
Mayor Salt Lake City
Mayor Midvale
Mayor South Salt Lake
Mayor Ogden
Mayor St George
5 Local representatives, including at
least two providers (appointed
by the Utah Homeless Network)
Individual with “lived experience”
(appointed by governor)
UTAH HOMELESS COUNCIL I Homeless Services Officer serves as Executive Director
HUD and VA representatives serve as advisors to the UHC and are invited to every meeting.
* The appointed mayor on the executive committee will be appointed by and from within the mayors with general population centers.
As of October, 2020 these cities include: Salt Lake City, Midvale, South Salt Lake, Ogden, and St. George.
† or designee
Legislative
Action in the
General Session
Philanthropic
Consortium
Local Homeless
Councils
n Create consolidated
local homelessness
plan inclusive of
plans from local
providers and
agencies
Utah Homeless
Council + GOMB
n Review and approve
consolidated state
homelessness plan with
projected budget and
funding sources
n Identify unfunded needs
n Coordinate with local
governments and private
donors to secure gap
funding
n Submit to governor with
state budget request
State of Utah and
Private Funders
n Contract with individual
service providers and
agencies to award
funding
Local Service
Providers and
Agencies
n Create individual
homelessness
plan with projected
budget and funding
sources
Utah Homeless
Network
n Create consolidated
state homelessness
plan inclusive
of the consolidated
regional plans
Continuum of
Care Systems
n Create consolidated
regional
homelessness plan
with projected budget
and funding sources
inclusive of plans from
local homeless
councils
Jake Anderegg
Pamela Atkinson
Kathy Bray
Mike Caldwell
Cameron Diehl
Steve Eliason
Michelle Flynn
Rick Foster
Natalie Gochnour
Brandy Grace
Jean Hill
Carol Hollowell
Bill Hulterstrom
Clark and Christine Ivory
Matt Melville
Erin Mendenhall
Gail Miller
Mikelle Moore
Wayne Neiderhauser
Jon Pierpont
Jon Pike
Randy Shumway
Rob Wesseman
Jenny Wilson
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Shaleane Gee
Michael Parker
Meredith King
Eric Albers
Governance Advisory Group
The Governance Advisory Group convened virtually six times beginning in August, providing feedback and expertise on homeless
governance and funding. The Gardner Institute thanks these leaders for lending their considerable expertise to this important topic.
Utah Homeless ServicesPrepared for
Utah Legislature
Prepared by
Kem C. Gardner
Policy Institute
Governance Structure and Funding Model
November 2020
411 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu
Public-Private Collaboration
The Utah Legislature and philanthropic community joined forces to commission this
rapid assessment of Utah’s homeless services governance and funding model.
Legislative Intent
The Legislature intends that the appropriation under Subsection (3)(b) of H.B. 440 be used by the Kem C. Gardner Policy
Institute to study the current decision-making framework and governance structure for the provision of services to homeless
individuals in the state and to provide a written report by October 1, 2020, to the Executive Appropriations Committee, the
Health and Human Services Interim Committee, and the Homeless Coordinating Committee containing recommendations
for improving the provision of services to homeless individuals in the state, including a potential realignment of the
decision-making framework and governance structure related to the provision of those services.
Statement from Benefactors
Utah faces a critical juncture in homeless services and must get the next steps right. We believe Utah must
leave a “firefighting approach” or hyper focus on shelters behind and shift to a strategic approach that anticipates
and accounts for the causes of homelessness. A more attentive and thoughtful approach begins with
an improved governance model.
This assessment recommends a clearer governance structure that will ensure coordination, oversight, public
accountability, and improved alignment between public and private efforts. We pledge our support to help implement
these findings and fulfill our collective aspiration to compassionately care for our community’s most vulnerable.
Bert Zimmerli, Intermountain Healthcare
Clark and Christine Ivory, Clark and Christine
Ivory Foundation and member of the Road
Home Board of Trustees
Christena Huntsman Durham, Huntsman
Family Foundation and member of the Catholic
Community Services and The Road Home
Boards of Trustees
David Huntsman, Huntsman Family Foundation
Gail Miller, Larry H. Miller Charities and Larry H.
& Gail Miller Family Foundation, and member of the
Shelter the Homeless Board of Directors and the State
Homeless Coordinating Committee
Harris H. Simmons, Zions Bancorporation
and chairman of Shelter the Homeless
Josh Romney, Romney Group and member of
the Shelter the Homeless Board of Directors
Lisa Eccles, The George S. and Dolores Doré
Eccles Foundation
Randy Shumway, Cicero Group and Community
Stakeholder
Scott Anderson, Zions Bank
Spencer Eccles, Cynosure Group and co-chair
of Mayor Mendenhall’s Homeless Services
Transition Subcommittee
Table of Contents
Transmittal letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Recommended solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Shelter the Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Process and Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Governance Advisory Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model 1
November 10, 2020
Dear Legislators,
I’m pleased to present a rapid assessment of Utah’s homeless services governance and funding model.
The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah prepared this assessment and makes these
recommendations in response to H.B. 440, passed in the 2020 General Legislative Session.
The assessment includes the results of a collaborative review process involving active participation
from representatives of the Utah House of Representative and Senate, the executive branch, homeless
service providers, local government (including four mayors), the philanthropic community, and other
business and community leaders. I want to thank these leaders for lending their considerable expertise
to this important topic.
After spending a great deal of time this summer and fall thinking about this issue, I offer four lessons
I’ve learned that will help you as you deliberate about next steps for our state.
First, we have made strides towards our goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring.
This is a tribute to the leaders of this state.
Second, we face the risk of backsliding if we don’t make smart decisions moving forward. Utah is at a
critical juncture.
Three, the current governance structure is rife with alignment and capacity issues, conflicts, and
inefficiencies. By implementing a well-defined statewide and systemwide governance structure and
funding model we will best serve the state.
Finally, we provide six recommendations that, if followed, will create a simpler, more transparent,
and coordinated system that is more effective. It will also be more efficient and save money over the
long term.
Thanks for entrusting us with this difficult task. We encourage urgent action.
Sincerely,
Natalie Gochnour
Associate Dean and Director
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
David Eccles School of Business
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model2
While Utah has made significant progress in addressing
homeless services, problems remain. Despite a major influx in
funds towards emergency shelters and resource centers, the
goal of making homelessness rare, brief, and nonrecurring is
not being met. Private donors and elected officials are
concerned the resources poured into solving these issues have
not warranted the expected results. Compared to 2019, among
the people in the state’s annual counts, 62% were experiencing
homelessness and seeking shelter for the first time, which
suggests the need for identifying additional ways of preventing
homelessness. Length of stay in shelters also increased. The
number of Utah’s children experiencing housing instability and
at risk for homelessness is also concerning. Local and regional
officials and service providers continue to face increasing
demand for shelter.
In addition to these concerns, a funding audit and a perfor-
mance audit, coupled with our own review, find the following
problems with the current system:
o Confusing leadership structure – Leadership roles,
including the chain of command, are not clear.
o No statewide funding plan or comprehensive budget –
Utah lacks a coordinated funding and spending plan.
As a consequence, Utah’s homeless population is
trapped in a system that often exhibits redundancies,
inefficiencies, and service gaps.
o Complex, inefficient decision-making framework –
Few people understand Utah’s complex decision-making
framework. Relationships at all levels – state, local, service
provider, philanthropic community – need to be clarified,
strengthened, and communicated.
o Communication gaps – The complexity of the system
creates gaps in communication that hinder the state’s
ability to collect data, measure progress, enact effective
policies, coordinate response, and share results.
o Incomplete data – State data reports often exclude
performance data on prevention and diversion by county,
spending data showing cost and service efficiency, and
other metrics that can be used to improve outcomes.
o Unclear role of Shelter the Homeless – Shelter the
Homeless plays an important role as a convener, provides
a strong community platform, and serves as a strong
connection to Utah’s philanthropic community. Its role
should be clarified as part of this improvement process.
The following diagrams serve as examples of the overly
complex, unaligned, and less than optimized governance
structure and funding model Utah currently operates under.
The Problem
Current Funding Model Issues
Service Providers
State Government
Local Government Local Government Local Government
Federal Government State Government Local Government Private Donors
Source: Legislative Audit, October 2017
Utah’s current funding model leaves service providers in a
predicament as they struggle to match the requirements of
various funders with the very real needs of the homeless
population. The complexity leads to redundancies,
inefficiencies, conflicts, and lack of transparency. The chart
below is from the 2017 legislative audit on homeless funding
and expenditures.
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model 3
Utah’s Current Homeless Services Governing Structure
Utah’s current governance structure includes an amalgamation
of well-meaning, but less than optimized entities and community
leaders that experience capacity and alignment issues, as well as
unnecessary conflicts or potential for conflicts. The figure below
is adapted from the State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness
and annotated and color coded to show the governance
problems.
Proposed LHCC Model
(Mandated by HUD per the States 2019 Strategic Plan)
Support Activities
Chair: Lt. Governor
Legislative Branch Executive Branch
State Homeless Coordinating Committee
(Utah Code 35A-8-6)
Voting Members:
State Planning Coordinator
State Superintendent
Board Chair, Utah Housing Corp.
ED, Workforce Services
ED, Dept of Corrections
ED, Dept of Health
ED, Dept of Human Services
Mayor of Salt Lake City
Mayor of Salt Lake County
Mayot of Ogden
Mayor of Midvale
Mayor of St. George
Mayor of South Salt Lake
Non-Voting Members:
Appointed by Governor
Local Governments
Local Housiong Authorities
Local Law Enforcement
Local Service Agencies
Local Private Agencies
Federal Agencies
A resident of Salt Lake County
Agencies or individuals
representing persons with a
mental illness, substance
abuse disorder, or a
disability; the elderly, single
parent families
Dept. of Health
Dept. of Corrections
Dept. of Workforce Services
Providers
College/Tech Schools
Schools/Educators
Homeless or Formerly Homeless
Local Govt. Leaders
Faith-based Organizations
Salt Lake County System LHCC
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to end Homelessness
Mountainland System LHCC
Utah, Wasatch, Summit
Balance of State System LHCC
Bear River, Davis, Uintah County, Carbon and Emery, San Juan,
Weber, Washington, Grand, Six County, Iron, Tooele
Support Agency:
Department of
Workforce Services,
Housing and Community
Development
Conflict/Potential
Conflict Issue
Capacity Issue
Governance v.
Advisory Issue
Aligment Issue
Chair: Elected Official
Vice Chair
Businesses
United Way
Financial Institutions
Housing Authorities
Police/Sheriff
Domestic Violence
Service Agencies
Native American Authorities
Community Clinics/Hospitals
Private
Funders
Shelter the
Homeless
Source: Kem C. Gardner Institute adaptation and analysis of SHCC and LHCC models in the State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness, 2019
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model 4
Recommended Solutions
The Kem C. Gardner Institute proposes six major recommendations and several supporting actions. Because of the important
role of Shelter the Homeless, we also reaffirm their mission and provide an example of how they fit into our recommended
funding model.
1 Restructure top-level governance
2 Appoint homeless services officer
3 Create Utah Homeless Council
4 Create Philanthropic Consortium
5 Improve local coordination
6 Develop coordinated funding model
1 Restructure Top-level Governance
The State Homelessness Coordinating Committee is com-
prised of state and local elected officials, private funders, and
service providers, but its current organizational location, deep
within the Department of Workforce Services, inhibits in-
ter-agency coordination and coordination between state and
local and private entities.
We recommend restructuring homeless governance with the
appointment of a Utah Homeless Services Officer and creation
of the Utah Homeless Council (UHC). The UHC and Homeless
Services Officer will be housed in the Governor’s Office of
Management and Budget. In future years, as the work of the
UHC and the Officer becomes more operational, these functions
could be moved to a state department.
The complexity of homelessness also involves other state
agencies (e.g. Department of Public Safety, Department of
Health, etc.) that are working with the same populations, but
not working in tandem towards achieving the same goal to
minimize homelessness for these populations. Appointing a
representative from each department who can assist the Utah
Homeless Council is critical to ensure progress towards
homelessness priorities and to develop coordinated plans,
budgets, and resource allocation.
Recommended Actions
Department
of Public Safety
State Board
of Education
Utah Systems of
Higher Education
Department
of Health
Department of
Workforce Services
Departmental Council Representatives
Department of
Human Services
Department of
Corrections
Legislature
Sets State Policy
Appropriates Funds
Monitors Execution
Governor
Sets Executive Branch Policy
Governor’s Office of Management and Budget
Utah Homeless Council
Homeless Services Officer (Appointed by & reports to Governor)
Utah Homeless Network/Continuum of Care Systems
Local Homeless Councils
Philanthropic
Consortium
WE RECOMMEND the Utah Homeless Services
Officer and the Utah Homeless Council be
housed in the Governor’s Office of Management
and Budget. In future years, as the work of the
UHC and homeless services officer becomes more
operational, these functions could be moved to a
state department.
WE RECOMMEND each state
department agency that sets policy and
directs funding affecting homeless
populations assign a staff person to
inform the work of the UHC and help
develop the statewide plan and budget.
WE RECOMMEND a review of all
state policy and code to ensure clarity,
efficiency, and accuracy regarding
homeless services governance and the
roles and responsibilities of the Utah
Homeless Council.
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model5
2 Appoint Homeless Services Officer
Appointed by and reporting to the governor, the Homeless
Service Officer is the chief policy officer and advisor for
homelessness in the state. The Officer acts as the executive
director for the Utah Homeless Council and represents the
deliberations and decisions of the UHC to the Governor, the
Legislature, key stakeholders, and the general public. This
position would reside in the Governor's Office of Management
and Budget, accessing GOMB staff for administrative, budget,
and data support. Additionally, the Officer would be supported
by a staff member "on loan" to GOMB from the Department of
Workforce Services with expertise in homeless service system
best practices and processes.
Leadership Profile
The “ideal” Homeless Services Officer will possess the following:
• Leadership experience and acumen – Seasoned leader
who has navigated change and complexity at the enterprise
level. Experience should include a previous role as a CEO,
COO, executive director, legislative or executive branch
leader, or non-profit leader.
• Finance and strategy expertise – Strong finance and
strategic thinking skills
• Relationships – Strong existing relationships with public
and private community leaders statewide
• Best practices – A commitment to implement best
practices in homeless services
• Public and private experience – Experience in both public
(including not-for-profit) and private sector settings
• Empathetic – A person with empathy who cares deeply about
people and community
• Service focus – A person who is willing to do this as a public
service (attractive salary, but the motivation is service, not
career)
• Commitment – Makes a three-year commitment to enhance
homeless services in Utah
Key roles of the Officer
• Achieve policy consensus - The Officer is responsible for
engaging Utah Homeless Council members in leading the
annual statewide response to homlessness and the state’s
long-term strategy to minimize homelessness and make it rare,
brief, and non-recurring.
• Oversee & recommend budget - The Officer liaises with Local
Homeless Councils, the Utah Homeless Network, and state
departments and agencies to create a statewide, system-side
annual homelessness plan and budget. The Officer is ultimately
responsible for presenting the plan and budget to the Utah
Homeless Council for review and approval and, once approved,
for representing the plan and budget to all stakeholders.
• Endorsement of UHC decisions - In addition to having a
voting seat on the Utah Homeless Council, the Officer publicly
endorses Council voting decisions and represents those
decisions to all stakeholders. Lack of endorsement by the
Officer on any single decision does not constitute a veto but
allows the Officer to voice concern with decisions for the public
record and encourage further deliberation.
• UHC accountability – The Homeless Services Officer will
ultimately represent the decisions of the Utah Homeless Council
to the Legislature, governor, federal, and local governments, LHCs,
and the public.
• Public/private sector coordination – The Homeless Services
Officer coordinates partnerships and funding from the public and
private sector that lend to a statewide and system-wide reduction
in homelessness.
• Coordinate homeless services agency leads – The Homeless
Services Officer coordinates homeless service experts from other
state agencies (e.g. Department of Health, Department of Public
Service, etc.) to promote funding and data-gathering transparency
and consistency.
• Administrative responsibility - The Homeless Services Officer,
with support from GOMB and the UHC Executive Committee, is
responsible for administrative duties (e.g. personnel issues, setting
agendas, etc.)
• Assist reviewing state code - The Homeless Services Officer
coordinates with supporting staff to review state code to ensure
clarity, efficiency, and policy regarding homeless services governance.
Recommended Actions
WE RECOMMEND the appointment of a homeless services officer
(appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate) to serve
as the executive director of the UHC. The homeless services officer
would lead the UHC, oversee statewide homeless services
coordination, endorse votes of the UHC, and represent homeless
services issues to the governor, legislature, and public.
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model 6
3 Create Utah Homeless Council
Homelessness is a complex issue requiring local, regional,
state, and private sector coordination. The Utah Homeless
Council (UHC) would replace the State Homeless Coordinating
Commmitee and serve as the state’s coordinating and
decision-making body for homelessness. The UHC will have a
statewide and system-wide purview. Housed in the Governor’s
Office of Management and Budget and led full-time by an
experienced executive, public and private co-chairs, and an
active executive committee, the UHC will provide the
experience, authoritative power, and dedication necessary to
address homelessness statewide.
* The appointed mayor on the executive committee will be appointed by and from within the mayors with general population centers. As of October,
2020 these cities include: Salt Lake City, Midvale, South Salt Lake, Ogden, and St. George.
† or designee
Executive Committee
Homeless Services Officer (Executive Director)
Public Sector co-chair (appointed by Legislature)
Private sector co-chair (appointed by Philanthropic Compact
Consortium)
Private sector representative (appointed by governor)
Mayor Salt Lake County
Statewide philanthropic leader (appointed by governor)
Statewide philanthropic leader (appointed by Philanthropic
compact Consortium)
Appointed Mayor*
Additional Members
Executive Director Human Services†
Executive Director Health†
Executive Director Corrections†
Executive Director Public Safety†
Executive Director Workforce Services†
Representative Utah Senate (appointed by Senate)
Representative Utah House (appointed by House)
Superintendent of Public Instruction†
Statewide faith-based leader (appointed by governor)
Mayor Salt Lake City
Mayor Midvale
Mayor South Salt Lake
Mayor Ogden
Mayor St George
5 Local representatives, including at least two providers
(appointed by the Utah Homeless Network)
Individual with “lived experience” (appointed by governor)HUD and VA representatives serve as advisors
to the UHC and are invited to every meeting.
Utah Homeless Council
Homeless Services Officer serves as Executive Director
WE RECOMMEND all members of the UHC serve as voting
members, with conflicts of interest declared.
WE RECOMMEND a UHC executive committee to help support the
homeless services officer with personnel issues, set agendas,
oversee strategic planning, and other executive committee
functions.
WE RECOMMEND a more equitable membership structure on the
UHC than previously on the State Homeless Coordinating
Committee with greater balance between state legislative and
executive branches; local public and private sector stakeholders;
and the philanthropic sector.
Recommended Actions
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model7
Roles and Responsbilities of the Utah Homeless Council
UHC Purpose
The Utah Homeless Council supports the statewide goal to
minimize homelessness by making it rare, brief, and non-recur-
ring. The UHC facilitates local and regional efforts to achieve
this goal and ensures those efforts are 1) undertaken in a coor-
dinated, equitable, and cost- and service-efficient manner
across the state and 2) aligned with existing local and regional
efforts to increase access to housing, health care and behavioral
health care, education and job training, employment, and other
resources that minimize homelessness and increase opportuni-
ties for self-sufficiency.
UHC Responsibilities
Some of the Utah Homeless Council responsibilities include:
• Enacting a statewide, system-wide strategy to reduce
homelessness
• Review local and regional homeless services plans
• Pass a statewide homeless services budget
• Review all funding applications and requests
• Support consistent and transparent data collection on
homeless services
• Ensure that accountability and system performance
measures are prioritized
• Support the Homeless Services Officer in coordinating
gap funding at all levels of government and with the
private sector
The executive committee works closely with the Homeless
Services Officer to assist with personnel issues, set agendas,
oversee strategic planning, and other executive committee
functions.
UHC Membership
The success of the Utah Homeless Council requires active
participation from all members, each bringing unique
experience and governing roles to the Council. The UHC is
comprised of a Homeless Services Officer acting as the Executive
Director, two co-chairs from the public and private sectors, an
executive committee, and supporting members.
UHC representatives who have direct decision-making
authority over public funds and policies that can contribute to
this goal; direct decision-making authority over private sector
funds and policies that can contribute to this goal; direct
decision-making authority over implementation of public
funding and policies in service environments; direct lived
experience receiving services in Utah’s publicly-funded
homeless and housing service system; and mayors of cities that
host general population emergency shelters with 200 or more
beds that operate 24 hours a day, are open year-round, and
receive state funding.
Membership Assumptions
- All members are treated equally and given voting
privileges. Conflicts must be disclosed.
- All gubernatorial appointees must also be confirmed
by the Senate.
- Representatives of a larger body (e.g. Utah Homeless
Network) must represent the interests of the body or
community represented and not individual interests.
- A designee will inform and represent the represented
member for all decisions and votes.
- The Homeless Services Officer has both voting and
endorsement powers but no concurrence or veto powers.
UHC Membership Composition
Note: UHN representation may be comprised of local elected officials,
service providers, or members of the private sector
Legislative
Branch
UHN
Representation
Executive
Branch
Private Sector
Local
Government
31%
15%
23%
19%
12%
Two main objectives drive the size and composition of UHC:
1 To keep it as small as possible to limit inefficiencies,
or overrepresentation of one particular group
or region.
2 To increase efficiencies and minimize conflicts,
capacity restraints, governance/advisory confusion,
and alignment issues.
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model 8
4 Create Philanthropic Consortium
Leading private funders in the state have already begun
collaborating to coordinate funding for homeless services in a
more effective manner. We recommend the creation of a formal
Philanthropic Consortium with a compact outlining aspirational
guidelines for the funders. We also recommend Philanthropic
Consortium representation in the Utah Homeless Council to
maximize collaboration and communication between public
and private funding. Pooled and coordinated funding will lead
to the ability to track performance measures and homelessness
priorities.
Compact Concept
Compacts have been an effective way to convey a message or bring a group of people together to address one issue.
The Philanthropic Consortium may choose to include the following aspirational guidelines when prioritizing funding:
• Funders should take a system-wide and statewide
approach
• When funding, look beyond emergency shelter, focusing
on the goal to make homelessness reduced, brief, and
nonrecurring.
• Incorporate public health and safety
• Prioritize children and youth, the most vulnerable of the
population
• Acknowledge there are diverse needs of homelessness
and not every problem can be approached the same way.
WE RECOMMEND major private funders in the state form a
Philanthropic Consortium, with a compact outlining aspirational
guidelines to help address the complex challenges associated with
funding and evaluating a statewide homeless services system.
Recommended Actions
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model9
Utah’s current decision-making framework
has been largely shaped by federal policy
and funding. Beginning in 1995, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) Continuum of Care
(COC) Program required regions within states
to establish Local Homeless Councils (LHCs)
and to consolidate funding requests from
local and regional providers into a single
annual application. There are currently three
Utah Continuum of Cares, largely based on
population. There are currently 13 LHCs in
the state, regionally situated. The Utah
Homeless Network, a statewide, service-
provider led organization was informally
created to increase collaboration and
communication among local officials and
providers. All 13 LHCs are represented in the
Utah Homeless Network.
Local officials and service providers
understand and support the existing local
and regional coordinating structures. There
simply needs to be greater communication
and understanding between the state and
local entities. We recommend providing
voting representation of these coordinated
bodies on the Utah Homeless Council. We
recommend that local homeless services,
coordinating, and governing efforts be
represented on the UHC through
representatives appointed by the Utah
Homeless Network in collaboration with the
Local Homeless Councils. Recognizing the
importance of service providers at the local
level, we recommend at least three of those
representatives are service providers.
Utah Homeless Network
★ LHCs
Continuum of Care
Salt Lake
Mountainland
Balance of State
★ Bear River LHC
★ Mountainland LHC
★ Uintah Basin LHC
★ Six County LHC
★ Iron LHC
★ Carbon-Emery LHC
★ Tooele LHC
★ Grand LHC
★ San Juan LHC
★ Washington LHC
★ Weber-Morgan LHC
★ Salt Lake Valley LHC
★ Davis LHC
5 Improve Local Coordination
Recommended Actions
WE RECOMMEND that local homeless services, coordinating,
and governing efforts be represented on the UHC through
representatives appointed by the Utah Homeless Network in
collaboration with Local Homeless Councils. At least three of the
representatives must be service providers.
WE RECOMMEND renaming the Local Homeless Coordinating
Committees systems to Local Homeless Councils (LHC) to mirror the
Utah Homeless Council in name and purpose at a local level.
Utah Homeless Services: Decision-Making Framework, Governance Structure and Planning Process106 Develop Coordinated Funding ModelLegislative Action in the General SessionLocal Homeless Councilsn Create consolidated local homelessness plan inclusive of plans from local providers and agenciesUtah Homeless Council + GOMBn Review and approve consolidated state homelessness plan with projected budget and funding sourcesn Identify unfunded needsn Coordinate with local governments and private donors to secure gap fundingn Submit to governor with state budget requestState of Utah and Private Fundersn Contract with individual service providers and agencies to award fundingLocal Service Providers and Agenciesn Create individual homelessness plan with projected budget and funding sourcesUtah Homeless Networkn Create consolidated state homelessness plan inclusive of the consolidated regional plansContinuum of Care Systemsn Create consolidated regional homelessness plan with projected budget and funding sources inclusive of plans from local homeless councilsPhilanthropic ConsortiumA 2017 legislative audit determined there is currently no statewide homelessness budget that provides clear and transparent funding amounts or sources. We recommend an annual statewide funding plan that builds from local to regional to a consolidated, statewide plan. This plan would serve as the backbone of the statewide budget request from the Utah Homeless Council, federal funding, and coordinated philanthropic efforts.The plan will include not only a funding request but also a planning process on how to reduce homelessness. It would include a broad scope of funding and planning efforts, not limited to crisis services and emergency shelter planning. The process mirrors the consolidated plans and budget requests already made to HUD and other federal agencies and would strategically align the timing of local, state, and federal applications to allow for a comprehensive plan. This funding model will help identify the funding gaps that private and public funding is currently not covering and ensures transparency at all levels of funding. Recommended ActionsWE RECOMMEND all Local Homeless Councils coordinate with the Utah Homeless Network to provide an annual spending plan and funding request to the UHC for review, approval, and coordination in an annual statewide plan. WE RECOMMEND UHC coordinate with the private sector to ensure an aligned system-wide and statewide approach for all funding of homeless services.WE RECOMMEND the annual plans at each level to include but not be limited to identifying priorities for emergency and crisis services. The plans should be submitted with a projected budget and should identify anticipated funding sources -- federal, state, local, and private monies -- as well as unfunded needs.
Utah Homeless Services: Decision-Making Framework, Governance Structure and Planning Process11Legislative Action in the General SessionSalt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessnessn Create consolidated local homelessness plan inclusive of plans from local providers and agenciesUtah Homeless Council + GOMBn Review and approve consolidated state homelessness plann Identify unfunded needsn Coordinate With Local Governments And Private Donors To Secure Gap Fundingn Submit to governor with state budget requestState of Utah and Private Fundersn Contract with individual service providers and agencies to award fundingLocal Service Providers and Agenciesn Create individual homelessness plan with projected budget and funding sourcesUtah Homeless Networkn Create consolidated state homelessness plan inclusive of the consolidated regional plansShelter the Homeless Contributes valuable tangible and intangible assets to local planning efforts• Provides Service and Community Space— Provides safe, healthy and secure operating space for service providers, public agencies and community organizations through no-fee operating leases.• Acquires and Owns Assets In Trust— Holds a significant portfolio of land and facilities across the region in trust for the homeless and for the public community.• Fosters accountability for public safety and health— Working with community partners, seeks to insure that host neighborhood are safe and welcoming for all, and that community stardards for public safety and health are met.Philanthropic ConsortiumShelter the Homeless convenes the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and partners with Salt Lake County to provide backbone support for its planning and budgeting process.Shelter the Homeless works collaboratively with a broad coalition of stakeholders statewide to ensure that the Salt Lake Valley regional plan to minimize homelessness is implemented and evaluated successfully.Shelter the Homeless board members and chair help establish and contribute to the Philanthropic Consortium.Shelter the Homeless has several board members represented on the Utah Homeless Council+ Shelter the HomelessAlthough outside of this study’s scope, we recognize the essential efforts of Shelter the Homeless in addressing homelessness in the Salt Lake region. Shelter the Homeless’ existing mission provides a convening space and support necessary for the region. After meeting with the Shelter the Homeless board, our recommendation is that the organization review and reaffirm its existing mission in relation to the proposed new governance structure, funding model, and Philanthropic Consortium. The below model illustrates the role of Shelter the Homeless throughout the budget and funding model process, highlighting the existing alignment and opportunity for Shelter the Homeless.
Meeting with Governor’s Office of Management and BudgetFormation of Governance Advisory Group Meeting with Lt. Governor CoxCheck-in with Lt. Governor CoxShelter the Homeless Board MeetingLegislative Leadership BriefingLegislative Leadership draft presentationResource Center Site TourPhilanthropic leaders inputGovernance Advisory Group Meeting #2Governance Advisory Group Meeting #1Governance Advisory Group Meeting #3Governance Advisory Group Meeting #4Governance Advisory Group Meeting #5Governance Advisory Group Meeting #6Present recommendations to:State Homeless Coordinating CommitteeLegislative Executive Appropriations CommitteeHealth and Human Services Interim CommitteeJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberUtah Homeless Services: Decision-Making Framework, Governance Structure and Planning Process12Process and TimelineThe Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute utilized its INFORMED DECISIONS™ process to develop this rapid assessment. In this process we 1) convene a multi-disciplinary group of experts, 2)adhere to a clear scope of work, 3) follow agreed upon guiding principles, 4) utilize and share best available data, 5) make use of strawmen, 6) prepare and expert assessment, and 7) publish in an easy-to-digest format. Here is the rapid assessment timeline we followed:
Utah Homeless Services: Governance Structure and Funding Model13
Governance Advisory Group
Jake Anderegg
Vice President of Community Development,
Zions Bank; Senator, Utah Senate
Pamela Atkinson
Community Advocate and Stakeholder;
Advisor to the Governor; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee
Kathy Bray
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Volunteers of America, Utah; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee
Mike Caldwell
Mayor of Ogden; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee
Gail Miller
Owner and Chairwoman, Larry H. Miller
Group: Board Member, Shelter the
Homeless; Member, State Homelessness
Coordinating Committee
Cameron Diehl
Executive Director, Utah League of Cities
and Towns
Steve Eliason
CPA – Finance Director, University of Utah
Hospitals & Clinics; Representative, Utah
House of Representatives; Member,
University of Utah Medical Marijuana /
Opioid Taskforce; Board Member, The Road
Home
Michelle Flynn
Executive Director, Road Home
Rick Foster
National Welfare Director, The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Board
Member, Shelter the Homeless
Natalie Gochnour
Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute,
Associate Dean, David Eccles School of
Business
Brandy Grace
Executive Director, Utah Association of
Counties
Jean Hill
Director, Office of Life, Justice and Peace,
Catholic Diocese of SLC; Board Member,
Shelter the Homeless; Co-Chair, Salt Lake
Valley Coalition to End Homelessness
Carol Hollowell
Executive Director, Switchpoint Community
Resource Center
Bill Hulterstrom
President and CEO, United Way of Central
and So. Utah; Member, State Homelessness
Coordinating Committee; Past Chair,
Mountainlands Continuum of Care
Mikelle Moore
Senior Vice President and Chief Community
Health Officer, Intermountain Healthcare;
Board Member, Shelter the Homeless;
Board Member, United Way of Salt Lake
Matt Melville
Director, Gail Miller Homeless Resource
Center
Erin Mendenhall
Mayor of Salt Lake City; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee;
Board Member, Shelter the Homeless
Wayne Neiderhauser
Former Senate President, Principal Broker at
CW Real Estate Services; Board Member,
Pioneer Park Coalition
Clark and Christine Ivory
The Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation;
Board Member, The Road Home
Jon Pierpont
Executive Director, DWS; Board Member,
Shelter the Homeless; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee
Jon Pike
Mayor of St. George; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee
Randy Shumway
Chairman of the Board, Cicero Group;
Trustee, University of Utah
Rob Wesseman
Executive Director, NAMI Utah; Chair, Salt
Lake County Continuum of Care; Co-Chair,
Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End
Homelessness
Jenny Wilson
Mayor of Salt Lake County; Member, State
Homelessness Coordinating Committee;
Board Member, Shelter the Homeless
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Shaleane Gee
Senior Advisor, SG Community Partners
Michael Parker
Vice President of Public Affairs, Marketing,
and Senior Economist, Ivory Homes
Meredith King
Research Associate, Kem C. Gardner
Policy Institute
Eric Albers
Graduate Assistant, Kem C. Gardner
Policy Institute
The Utah Legislature requested the Kem C. Gardner Policy
Institute to provide an assessment of the current decision-
making framework and governance structure for homeless
services and recommendations for improvement. In response,
the Gardner Institute convened a Governance Advisory Group,
comprised of Utah’s best and brightest governing authorities
and major philanthropic donors focused on serving this
vulnerable population. The Governance Advisory Group
convened virtually six times beginning in August, providing
feedback and expertise on the subject. While the advisory
group was heavily involved in the process, they are not
required to support all recommendations.
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Staff and Advisors
Leadership Team
Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director
Jennifer Robinson, Associate Director
Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager
Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager
Dianne Meppen, Director of Survey Research
Pamela S. Perlich, Director of Demographic Research
Juliette Tennert, Chief Economist
Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Director
James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow
Staff
Max Backlund, Senior Research Associate
Samantha Ball, Senior Research Associate
Mallory Bateman, Senior Research Analyst
Andrea Brandley, Research Associate
Marin Christensen, Research Associate
Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-Residence
John C. Downen, Deputy Director of Economic
and Public Policy Research
Dejan Eskic, Senior Research Analyst
Emily Harris, Demographer
Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician
Mike Hollingshaus, Senior Demographer
Thomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst
Meredith King, Research Associate
Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism Analyst
Levi Pace, Senior Research Economist
Shannon Simonsen, Research Coordinator
Joshua Spolsdoff, Research Economist
Paul Springer, Senior Graphic Designer
Laura Summers, Senior Health Care Analyst
Natalie Young, Research Analyst
Faculty Advisors
Matt Burbank, Faculty Advisor
Adam Meirowitz, Faculty Advisor
Senior Advisors
Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst
Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business
Theresa Foxley, EDCUtah
Dan Griffiths, Tanner LLC
Roger Hendrix, Hendrix Consulting
Joel Kotkin, Chapman University
Darin Mellott, CBRE
Chris Redgrave, Zions Bank
Bud Scruggs, Cynosure Group
Wesley Smith, Western Governors University
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Advisory Board
Conveners
Michael O. Leavitt
Mitt Romney
Board
Scott Anderson, Co-Chair
Gail Miller, Co-Chair
Doug Anderson
Deborah Bayle
Cynthia A. Berg
Roger Boyer
Wilford Clyde
Sophia M. DiCaro
Cameron Diehl
Lisa Eccles
Spencer P. Eccles
Christian Gardner
Kem C. Gardner
Kimberly Gardner
Natalie Gochnour
Brandy Grace
Clark Ivory
Mike S. Leavitt
Derek Miller
Ann Millner
Sterling Nielsen
Cristina Ortega
Jason Perry
Ray Pickup
Gary B. Porter
Taylor Randall
Jill Remington Love
Josh Romney
Charles W. Sorenson
James Lee Sorenson
Vicki Varela
Ruth V. Watkins
Ted Wilson
Ex Officio (invited)
Governor Gary Herbert
Speaker Brad Wilson
Senate President
Stuart Adams
Representative Brian King
Senator Karen Mayne
Mayor Jenny Wilson
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Partners in the
Community
The following individuals
and entities help support
the research mission of the
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
Legacy Partners
The Gardner Company
Intermountain Healthcare
Clark and Christine Ivory
Foundation
KSL and Deseret News
Larry H. & Gail Miller
Family Foundation
Mountain America Credit Union
Mitt and Ann Romney
Salt Lake City Corporation
Salt Lake County
University of Utah Health
Utah Governor’s Office of
Economic Development
WCF Insurance
Zions Bank
Executive Partners
Mark and Karen Bouchard
The Boyer Company
Salt Lake Chamber
Sustaining Partners
Clyde Companies
Dominion Energy
Homeless Services Governance Structure and Funding Model
Recommendations
January 5, 2021
Presentation Outline
1.Background
2.Problem
3.Recommendation
s
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Background
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Utah has made great
strides towards
reaching the goal of
making homelessness
rare, brief, and
nonrecurring.
We face the risk of
backsliding if we
don’t make smart
decisions moving
forward. Governance is
key.
Utah Progress
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
The “Utah Way”
Collaborative/public-private partnership
Good will
Data-driven
Efficient and effective solutions
Emphasize self-reliance
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Senator Jake Anderegg
Pamela Atkinson
Kathy Bray
Mayor Mike Caldwell
Casey Cameron
Cameron Diehl
Bill Hulterstrom
Clark and Christine Ivory
Matt Melville
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Gail Miller
Mikelle Moore
Governance Advisory Group
Rep. Steve Eliason
Michelle Flynn
Rick Foster
Brandy Grace
Jean Hill
Carol Hollowell
Wayne Neiderhauser
Mayor Jon Pike
Randy Shumway
Rob Wesemann
Mayor Jenny Wilson
Natalie Gochnour
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Rapid Assessment Timeline
The Problem
Current Governance Structure
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Source: Kem C. Gardner Institute adaptation and analysis of SHCC and LHCC models in the State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness, 2019
Current Funding Model
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Source: Office of the Legislative Auditor General, October 2017
Six Major Recommendations
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
6 Recommendations
1. Restructure top-level governance
2. Appoint homeless services officer
3. Create Utah Homeless Council
4.Create Philanthropic Consortium
5.Improve local coordination
6.Develop coordinated funding Model
#1Restructure top-level governance
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
State Leadership and Coordination
#2Appoint Homeless Services Officer
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Key Roles of Homeless Services Officer
1.Achieve policy consensus
2.Oversee & recommend budget
3.Endorse UHC decisions
4.Provide UHC accountability
5. Coordinate public/private sector
6. Ensure statewide, system-wide view
7. Oversee state agency leads
8. Manage administrative responsibility
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
“Ideal” Leadership Profile
1.Seasoned leader
2.Finance & strategy expertise
3.Public/private relationships
4.Committed to best practices
5. Understanding of current system
6. Empathetic
7. Service focused
8. Three-year commitment
#3Create Utah Homeless Council
(Replaces State Homeless Coordinating Committee)
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Utah Homeless Council
Responsibilities
1.Enact statewide, system-wide
strategy
2.Review local/regional plans
3.Pass statewide budget
4.Review & award funding applications
5. Ensure performance measures
accountability
6. Support consistent/transparent data
7.Coordinate gap funding
8.Support & inform State Officer
#4Create Philanthropic Consortium
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Proposed Philanthropic Consortium
Founders
Gail Miller
Harris Simmons
Clark Ivory
Eccles family
Josh Romney
Roger Boyer
Kem Gardner
Scott Anderson
Huntsman family
Faith community
Bert Zimmerli
Randy Shumway
Others
#5Improve Local Coordination
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Local &
Regional
Homeless
Systems
#6Develop Coordinated Funding Model
Funding Model
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
State of Utah and
Private Funders
Award Funding
Legislative Action in
the General Session
Local
Homeless
Councils
Create consolidated
local
homelessness plan
Utah Homeless
Council + GOMB
Review and Approve State
Homelessness Plan
Identify Unfunded Needs
Submit State Budget Request
Local Service
Providers and
Agencies
Create
Individual
homelessness plan
Utah Homeless
Network
Create consolidated
state
homelessness plan
Continuum of
Care Systems
Create consolidated
regional
homelessness plan
Philanthrop
ic Consortium
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
6 Recommendations
1.Restructure top-level governance
2.Appoint homeless services officer
3.Create Utah Homeless Council
4.Create Philanthropic Consortium
5.Improve local coordination
6.Develop coordinated funding Model
https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/HomelessReport-Nov-2020.pdf
OPEN AND PUBLIC
MEETINGS ACT
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL/ RDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
2021
UTAH OPEN AND
PUBLIC
MEETINGS ACT
UTAH CODE SECTIONS 52-4-101 TO 305
OPEN AND
PUBLIC
MEETINGS ACT
•MEETINGS of a
PUBLIC BODY are
open to the public,
unless an
EXCEPTION is
available under the
Act that allows the
meeting to be
CLOSED.
PUBLIC BODY
MEETINGS of a PUBLIC
BODY are open to the
public, unless an
EXCEPTION is available
under the Act that allows
the meeting to be
CLOSED.
Salt Lake City Council is
a PUBLIC BODY.
MEETINGS
MEETINGS of a PUBLIC
BODY must be open to the
public, unless an
EXCEPTION is available
under the Act that allows
the meeting to be CLOSED.
MEETINGS
•Convening of
•At least a quorum
•To discuss, receive
comments, or act on a
matter over which the
Council has jurisdiction.
WHICH GATHERINGS ARE SUBJECT TO
THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT?
YES
•Electronic Meetings
•Retreats
•Workshops
•Field Trips
NO
•Chance Meetings
•Social Gatherings
•No Quorum
TRANSPARENCY
TO THE PUBLIC
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OPEN AND
PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT
PUBLIC NOTICEPROVIDING PUBLIC NOTICE
•Posted at the principal office of
the Council
•On the Utah Public Notice
website
•Published in either the
newspaper of general
circulation or provided to a local
media correspondent
HOW?
•Post
•Publish
WHAT?
•Annual Meeting
Schedule
•Every Meeting
EMERGENCY MEETINGS
PUBLIC NOTICEANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE
•Annually scheduled meetings
–Date
–Time
–Place
–Does not need to be revised each
time a special meeting is
scheduled
–Revise if adding new regularly
scheduled meeting
HOW?
•Post
•Publish
WHAT?
•Annual Meeting
Schedule
•Every Meeting
EMERGENCY MEETINGS
PUBLIC NOTICE
HOW?
•Post
•Publish
WHAT?
•Annual Meeting
Schedule
•Every Meeting
EMERGENCY MEETINGS
EVERY MEETING
•24 Hour Notice
•Content
–Agenda
–Date
–Time
–Place
PUBLIC NOTICE
HOW?
•Post
•Publish
WHAT?
•Annual Meeting
Schedule
•Every Meeting
EMERGENCY MEETINGS
EVERY MEETING
•24 Hour Notice
•Content
–Agenda
•Reasonable Specificity
•Matters Not on the Agenda
–Date
–Time
–Place
PUBLIC NOTICE
HOW?
•Post
•Publish
WHAT?
•Annual Meeting
Schedule
•Every Meeting
EMERGENCY MEETINGS
EMERGENCY MEETINGS
•Unforeseen circumstances require
consideration of matters of an
emergency or urgent nature
•Best notice practicable of time, place,
and topics
•Attempt to notify all Council members
•Majority of Council members approve
holding the meeting
•Final action may be taken at an
emergency meeting
OPEN AND
PUBLIC
MEETINGS ACT
•MEETINGS of a
PUBLIC BODY be
open to the public,
unless an
EXCEPTION is
available under the
Act that allows the
meeting to be
CLOSED.
CLOSED
MEETINGS
A MEETING MAY BE CLOSED ONLY TO
DISCUSS SPECIFIED TOPICS
CLOSED MEETINGS
A MEETING MAY BE CLOSED ONLY TO DISCUSS SPECIFIED TOPICS
•An Individual’s Character, Professional Competence or Physical or Mental Health
•Collective Bargaining Strategy
•Pending or Reasonably Imminent litigation
•Real Property Purchase, Exchange, Lease
–Disclose appraisal or value or prevent transaction on best possible terms
•Real Property Sale
–Disclose appraisal or value or prevent transaction on best possible terms
–City previously gave notice that the property would be offered for sale
–Terms of sale are publicly disclosed before the City approves the sale
•Deployment of Security Devices
•Criminal Misconduct Investigations
•Advice of Legal Counsel
CLOSED MEETINGS PROCEDURES
•Open Meeting with Quorum
Present
•2/3 of Council is Present and
Approves the Closing
•Publicly Announce and Enter
Into the Minutes:
–Reason for closing the meeting
–Location of the meeting
–Vote by name
MEETING RECORDS
OPEN MEETINGS
•Recording
•Written minutes
–Date, time, place
–Members present and absent
–Substance of all matters proposed,
discussed, or decided
–Record of each vote
–Name of anyone who provided
testimony/comments and a summary of
the comments
–Other information requested
•OFFICIAL RECORD = WRITTEN
MINUTES
CLOSED MEETINGS
•Recording
•Written minutes optional
–Date, time, place
–Names of all present and absent (unless
disclosure would impair confidentiality
necessary for original purpose of closing
the meeting
•Exception if discussing
–Character, professional competence, or
physical or mental health of an individual
–Deployment of security personnel,
devices, or systems
•Protected Records under GRAMA
ELECTRONIC
MEETINGS
ARE COVERED UNDER THE ACT
ELECTRONIC MEETINGS
•Call or FaceTime into a Meeting
–Resolution, Rule or Ordinance – City Code 2.06.030E
–Majority of a quorum is physically present at anchor location
–Usual Notice
•Electronic Messages
–Council member is not restricted from transmitting an electronic message
to other Council members at a time when the Council is not convened in an
open meeting.
–Other electronic messages – is it convening a quorum for the purpose of
discussing matters over which the Council has jurisdiction?
ELECTRONIC MEETINGS WITH NO
ANCHOR LOCATION
•Virtual meetings with no physical presence at the City County Building (anchor location)
–Virtual meeting may occur if the chair:
•makes a written determination that conducting the meeting with an anchor location presents a substantial
risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location;
•states in the written determination the facts upon which the determination is based;
•includes in the public notice for the meeting, and reads at the beginning of the meeting, the information
described above; and
•includes in the public notice information on how a member of the public may view or make a comment at
the meeting.
–30-day expiration: The chair’s written determination expires 30 days after the day on which the
chair of the public body makes the determination.
PUBLIC
COMMENT OR
PARTICIPATION
PUBLIC COMMENT OR
PARTICIPATION
•State law or City Code may
require a public hearing in some
instances
•Other public comments
–At discretion of the Chair,
comments may be discussed
during open meeting if not on
agenda
–No FINAL ACTION if not on
agenda
DISRUPTION OF MEETING
•May REMOVE an individual
from the meeting if
–WILLFULLY DISRUPTS and
–The orderly conduct of the
meeting is SERIOUSLY
COMPROMISED
CONSEQUENCES
OF VIOLATING
THE ACT
CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE
ACT
•Class B misdemeanor to
knowingly violate the closed
meeting provisions of the Act
•Private individuals can bring
lawsuit for violation of the Act
–Final action may be voidable
–Suit must be commenced within 90
days of the final action or 30 days of
the final action concerning issuance
of bonds
QUESTIONS?
Thank you!
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
OFFICE OF THE CITY RECORDER
LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 415, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145515, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5515
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7671 FAX: 801-535-7681
MEMORANDUM TO COUNCIL
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Dec 28, 2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Briefing Request: Open and Public Meeting Act (Title 52, Chapter 4)
Utah State Code, Title 63G, Chapter 2- Government Records Access Management
Act (GRAMA)
STAFF CONTACT: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Katie Lewis, SLC City Attorney
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: N/A
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council is a public body under the Open and Public
Meetings Act (OPMA). Utah Code Section 52-4-104 of the Open and Public Meeting Act
(OPMA) requires that the members of the public body are provided with annual training on the
requirements of OPMA.
Pursuant to Utah Code Section 63G-2-103(24), and 63G-2- 108, the City Recorder is the official
records officer for Salt Lake City. The records officer is appointed by the chief administrative
officer to manage the care, maintenance, scheduling, designation, classification, disposal, and
preservation of City records. The Recorder's Office oversees all records requests received by the
City.
Provided in the memorandum is an overview of OPMA and the adjustments made in 2020 for
electronic meeting allowance and noticing, and the environment of electronic meetings. Also
included is an overview of the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA),
Record Retention practices and two exhibits.
Exhibit A is the fee schedule for GRAMA requests.
Exhibit B is the pending Email Retention Policy.
2
December 2020
Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (Utah Code Sections 52-4-101 to 305)
Meetings of a Public Body are open to the public unless an exception is available under the Act
that allows the meeting to be Closed. Meetings of a public body must be open to the public
unless an exception is available. Meetings are defined as the convening of at least a quorum, and
meeting for the purpose to discuss, receive comments, or act on a matter over which the Council
has jurisdiction. Regular meetings, electronic meetings, retreats, workshops, and field trips are
subject to the Open and Public Meetings Act.
Transparency to the Public
Public Notices of the meeting shall be:
1) Posted at the principal office of the Council
2) Published on the Utah Public Meeting Notice website, and
3) Published in either the newspaper of general circulation or provided to a local media
correspondent.
Due to the current circumstances of the state of emergency, the posting requirement at the
principal office is not required due to the Chair’s established electronic meeting determination to
hold the meeting without an anchor location. Additional amendments to Utah Code adopted in
June 2020 (52-4-207) adjust the transparency requirements for electronic meetings to include:
1) Description of how the members of the public body will be connected to the electronic
meeting
2) Means by which members of the public may view the meeting or provide comments by
electronic means to the public body
3) Written Chair determination to conduct electronic meetings without an anchor location
identifying the health and safety risks
Public Notices regularly published include:
1) Annual Meeting Schedule
2) Every Meeting
3) Emergency Meeting
Closed Meetings
A meeting may be closed only to discuss specified topics:
• An individual’s character, professional competence of physical or mental health
• Collective Bargaining Strategy
• Pending or Reasonably Imminent litigation
• Real Property Purchase, Exchange, Lease
• Real Property Sale
• Deployment of Security Devices
• Criminal Misconduct Investigations
• Advice of Legal Counsel
A meeting may be closed following a roll call vote wherein 2/3 of the members present approve
the closure of the meeting during an open meeting with a quorum in attendance. A public
3
December 2020
announcement of the closed meeting shall include the reason for closing the meeting, the
location of the meeting and a vote by name entered into the open meeting minutes.
The official record of an open meeting are the written minutes. Minutes of the open meetings
shall include:
• Recording
• Date
• Time
• Place of the meeting
• Members present and absent
• Substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided
• Record of each vote
• Name of anyone who provided testimony/comments and a summary of the comments
• Other information requested
Written minutes of a closed meeting are optional; however, a recording is maintained except for
discussion regarding character, professional competence or physical or mental health of an
individual or deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems. The closed meeting
recording and minutes (if completed) are generally protected records under GRAMA.
Public Comment or Participation
State law or City Code may require a public hearing in some instances. Advertising for these
hearings shall be satisfied by State code requirements or when possible by standards established
by the Council. Printed publication frequency will change beginning January 1, 2021 reinforcing
necessary forethought in planning the scheduling and publication of public hearing information.
Public comment information may be discussed during an open meeting at the discretion of the
Chair, although items may not have been listed on the agenda. Discussion may occur, but no
final action on the items raised by public comment may occur.
The circumstances of the electronic meeting have adjusted the environment for public comment.
Discussion points have included:
1. Chair role to establish and fulfill the guidelines that support being able to achieve City
business, to efficiently move through the agenda, and to ensure everyone in attendance
has the opportunity to voice their opinions.
2. Public comment speakers provide a name without a message;
3. Regular online publication of correspondence to Council Members on general topics or
for those associated with public hearings; and,
4. Speakers disrupting the meeting may be immediately muted or removed from the
electronic meeting.
Consequence of Violating the Act
The knowing violation of the Closed Meeting provisions can result in a Class B misdemeanor.
Private individuals may also bring lawsuit for violation of the Open and Public Meetings Act.
4
December 2020
Government Records Access Management Act, Title 63G, Chapter 2
Legislative Intent
Utah enacted GRAMA law in 1991, with the identified Legislative intent to:
• Promote the public’s right of easy and reasonable access to unrestricted public records.
• Prevent abuse of confidentiality by government entities.
• Provide guidelines for both disclosure and restrictions on access to government records.
• Establish fair and reasonable records management practices.
By enacting, the Legislature recognized two constitutional rights:
• The public’s right of access to information concerning the conduct of the public’s
business; and
• The right to privacy in relation to personal data gathered by governmental entities.
Persons have the right to inspect and take a copy of a public record. Record is defined very
broadly to include almost any document or electronic record prepared, owned, received or
retained by the City. GRAMA recognizes four records classifications: public, private, controlled,
or protected. The lists of examples below are not exhaustive and should not be used to limit
access to records.
Public
• Name, gross compensation, job title, job description, business address/e-
mail/address/telephone number, number of hours worked per pay period, dates of
employment, relevant education, previous employment, or similar job qualifications of
current or former City employee
• Final opinions of statutes or rules
• Police Initial Contact Report (generally)
• Contracts (generally)
• Minutes or reports of the open portion of a public meeting
• Administrative Staff Manuals and Statements of Policy
• Records documenting receipt or expenditure of City funds
• Final Audit Reports
• Business Licenses
Private
• Medical Information
• Records that would reveal home address, telephone number, social security number,
insurance coverage, marital status or payroll deductions
• Employment records concerning past or current employees
• Records concerning an individual’s finances (with some exceptions)
• Data, when disclosed would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy”
Controlled
• Psychiatric or psychological data
Protected
• Trade secrets (if a claim of business confidentiality is made)
5
December 2020
• Certain commercial or non-individual financial information
• Records, the disclosure of which, would impair City procurement proceedings (bids are
public once awarded and a contract is signed)
• Records that would identify real property (or its appraised or estimated value) under
consideration for acquisition by the City (with some exceptions)
• Records maintained for civil, criminal, enforcement, audit or discipline purposes if
disclosure would interfere with investigations or reasonably could be expected to disclose
the identity of confidential sources
• Records subject to attorney-client privilege
• Records, the disclosure of which, could jeopardize the life or safety of a person or the
security of government property
• Drafts (unless otherwise classified as public)
• Minutes or reports of the closed portion of the meeting of the public body
• Settlement negotiations (not final settlements)
• Names of donors who wish to remain anonymous
GRAMA Request Procedure
Persons making a request for a record shall furnish the governmental entity with a written
request including the person’s name, mailing address, daytime telephone number and a
description of the record requested identified with reasonable specificity. GRAMA requests have
been filed via email and responded to electronically. Record requests are received through email,
the State Records Portal, City portal (GovQA), and by written letters.
The City must respond to a request within 10 business days. If a requester asks for an expedited
response, the City must respond in 5 business days. Expedited responses are determined to be the
benefit of the public rather than the person. Generally, requests from the media are presumed to
be for the benefit of the public.
If the City denies the request it must provide a notice of denial to the request. The denial must
contain the following:
• A description of the record or portions of the record to which access was denied.
• Citations to the provisions of GRAMA or other law that exempt the record from
disclosure.
• A statement that the requester has the right to appeal the denial to the City’s Chief
Administrative Officer; and
• The time limits for filing an appeal, and the name and business address of the City’s
• Chief Administrative Officer.
A requester has 30 calendar days to appeal a records request, and the City has 10 business days
to respond to the appeal. The requester may make a further appeal to the State Records
Committee or District.
6
December 2020
A criminal penalty of a Class B misdemeanor can be imposed there is intentional disclosure of a
record that shouldn’t be disclosed or if there is an intentionally refusal to disclose a record that is
required by law to be disclosed.
2020 SLC Records Request Appeals:
12 Total Appeals
• Pending – 3
• Settled – 4
• State Records Committee – 2
• Partially Upheld – 2
• Upheld – 1
Fees
Governmental entities may charge reasonable fees to cover the actual cost of providing a record.
Salt Lake City Fees are included in Exhibit A of this report.
2020 GRAMA Requests
Total Number of Requests (as of 12/27/2020) = 14,929
7
December 2020
Retention Schedule
Salt Lake City adhers to the Utah State Archives General Municipal Retention Schedule.
Schedules are discussed with the City Records Committee Members for frequent review and
discussion.
A retention schedule:
• Describes the record
• States how long the record is to be kept
• Controls the volume of records stored
• Reduces costs associated with litigation
• Improves speed and accuracy of records retrieval
Content Management
Content management practices can assist with the development of retention schedules and
general organization. Records created on City property are subject to GRAMA/Discovery. It is
recommended City employees and elected officials be mindful of wording while conducting
official City business. There is almost nothing in GRAMA to protect and employee or elected
offfical from embarrassment.
Within the last year there has been extensive effort to develop an Email Retention Policy. The
policy is designed to ensure compliance with state laws and regulations for records retention, to
eliminate accidental destruction of email records, and to facilitate the City’s operations by
promoting efficiency and freeing up valuable storage space. The policy outlines the conditions
under which City-related email will be retained and ultimately deleted (pruned) from the City’s
email system as part of general maintenance.
The policy is shared for review with the Policy Subcommittee, with outreach for education on
the exception criteria and process to retain emails to follow. The pending policy is included with
this report as Exhibit B.
CITY RECORDS FEES FY 20-21
For questions regarding Records fees contact: 801.535.7671
Service Fee Additional Information
Copies of Records
Paper photocopies Not more than $0.10 Per copy
Copy to Computer readable format No more than cost of recording media and hourly staff time.
Size C blueprint Not more than $1.00 Per copy
Produced on a microfilm printer (silver paper) Not more than $2.00 Per copy
From microfilm (plain paper) Not more than $0.10 Per copy
Copy from a photograph Not more than $5.00 Per copy
Tapes or discs
Cost of media,
plus $11.00/hour for
employee time
Media plus employee time
Mylar or Vellum Prints
24” x 36” Not more than $6.00
Larger than 24” x 36” Not more than $2.00
per square foot
Dispatch Recordings/ Video Footage $12.25
Per Report/per Disc
May include additional charge for Media and employee time
if over 1 hour ($11.00 + $1.25)
Police Photos CD $12.25 Media plus employee time
Fingerprint Cards $10.00 Per card.
Justice Court
Certified Copy $4.00 Per quantity
Employee time $21.00 Per hour minus the first 15 minutes
Paper photocopies Not more than $0.25 Per copy
Labor Fees
Employee time $20.00 Per hour minus the first 15 minutes, compiling records as
listed in Section 2.64.040
Misc. Media
Body Cam Redaction/Video Production $37 Per hour; billable in quarter hour increments. No charge for
the first quarter hour of Staff time.
Body Cam DVD $27 Per copy
Reports
EMS Medical Report $17.00 Per Report
National Fire Incident Report (NFIR) $17.00 Per request, form, or property incident search report.
Police Incident Reports
Not more than the fee charged by the State of Utah for
similar reports
Amended 6/16/2020 by Ord. 26 of 2020 Effective July 1, 2020
(;+,%,7$RI&RXQFLO0HPRUDQGXP
1 | Page
SALT LAKE CITY EMAIL RETENTION POLICY
XX-X-1: Purpose
The Salt Lake City email retention policy governs retention and disposal of all City-related
emails with the intention of assisting employees in determining which category of emails may
need to be retained and the duration of the retention. The policy is designed to ensure compliance
with state laws and regulations for records retention, to eliminate accidental destruction of email
records, and to facilitate the City’s operations by promoting efficiency and freeing up valuable
storage space. The policy outlines the conditions under which City-related email will be retained
and ultimately deleted (pruned) from the City’s email system as part of general maintenance.
XX-X-2: Scope
Each employee is responsible for properly retaining the employee’s email (based on the content
of the record and its value) for the established retention period shown in the Retention Schedule
table, Exhibit A. For specific employees, longer retention periods are possible as described in
Exhibit A.
Emails are defined as transitory, administrative, or executive. City employees should retain or
delete emails according to the retention period for the applicable email category.
The seven-year retention period applies to all emails, except as otherwise provided for emails of
Department Directors, Appointed Employees, Attorneys, or Elected Officials. Further evaluation
of retention beyond the seven years may be done by the City Recorder’s Office and department
leadership.
Definition of a City record: Utah Code 63G-2-103
(22) (a) “Record” means a book, letter, document, paper, map, plan, photograph, film, card, tape,
recording, electronic data, or other documentary material regardless of physical form or
characteristics:
•(i) that is prepared, owned, received, or retained by a governmental entity or political
subdivision; and
•(ii) where all of the information in the original is reproducible by photocopy or other
mechanical or electronic means.
(;+,%,7%RI&RXQFLO0HPRUDQGXP
2 | Page
XX-X-3: Retention Process
1) Active Employee Email
a) Except as otherwise provide in this policy, all City email that is seven years or older will
be deleted (pruned) automatically in an ongoing, continuous process from the City’s
email system as part of general maintenance (unless the employee is under a current
litigation hold).
b) Employees who have sent or received emails containing information fitting within the
Administrative correspondence and Executive correspondence categories shown in
Exhibit A are responsible to save the necessary information to the appropriate document
management system. Emails saved in the appropriate document management system are
subject to the City’s retention schedule.
2) Terminated Employee Email:
a) The emails of terminated employees will be deleted seven years after separation from the
City.
b) This policy will not apply if the user account is part of ongoing City litigation.
3) Capstone Employees: Appointed Employees, Elected Officials, Attorneys and
Department Directors Email
a) Emails sent from or received by users in this category will generally be retained for seven
years; however, an email will be retained permanently if it contains executive
correspondence described in the following definitions:
i) Policy: Establishes and disseminates City programs, policies, and procedures.
ii) Historical: Pertains to historical or significant events citywide or captures a historical
record.
iii) Legal: Contains legal or evidentiary information required by law to be retained for
more than seven years or has value in prosecution of a claim. Falls within a litigation
hold or relates to an internal investigation.
iv) Substantive Senior Management: Documents actions by City management if the
email helps a department to perform its primary functions.
v) Financial: Relates to the financial transactions of the City or is required for financial
reporting or audits.
vi) Regulatory: Satisfies regulations of City departments or other agencies (e.g., human
resources, HIPAA, facilities, OSHA, and Finance Sarbanes-Oxley.) The departments
may determine the email category designations.
vii) Operational: Contains information critical to maintaining operational continuity after
a disruption or disaster.
3 | Page
b) Actively identifying and categorizing the topics for permanent retention will permit the
email accounts of these users to be properly pruned before being sent to the Utah State
Archives. (For example, emails on the topic of the demolition ordinance; emails on the
topic of bonds. Permanent retention is limited to executive correspondence and not to
transitory or administrative emails also sent on those topics.)
XX-X-3: Enforcement
This policy applies to all employees, vendors, and partners who are assigned (or given access to)
a City email account. It applies to email accounts assigned to an individual (e.g.,
employeename@slcgov.com) or department (e.g. departmentname@slcgov.com) or group
working together on a single project (e.g., temporaryshelter@slcgov.com).
All City employees must fully comply with this policy. If an employee believes, or if the City
informs an employee, that emails are relevant to litigation or potential litigation (i.e. a dispute
that could result in litigation), then the employee must preserve the emails until notified in
writing by the City Attorney’s Office that the emails are no longer needed. Litigation holds
supersede established destruction schedule for emails. An employee who believes that an
exception may apply or has any questions regarding the possible applicability of this exception
should contact the City Attorney’s Office.
Annually, the IMS department will send out during Open Enrollment a reminder to employees to
clean and organize their email inbox. Employees should actively prune (delete) emails. The
seven-year retention period applies to all content in an email account – including folders and
subfolders.
Failure by City employees to follow this policy with intention to circumvent may result in
possible civil and/or criminal sanctions against the City and its employees and possible
disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
4 | Page
Exhibit A
Retention Schedule Table
Email Type Definition Example Retention Period
Transitory
Correspondence
Incoming and outgoing email correspondence
unrelated to City business or related to matters of
short-term interest. Correspondence between
individuals, departments, or external parties
containing no final contractual, financial, or policy
information. This correspondence does not impact
City functions.
Messages such as “Let’s meet for
lunch” or “Did you see the game last
night” or “Would you please add this
person to the list.”.
Temporary Retention
Retain until resolution of the issue
and then destroy.
Administrative
Correspondence
Incoming and outgoing business-related
correspondence created in the course of
administering City functions or programs. It
includes administrative correspondence documenting
work accomplished, transactions made, or actions
taken. This correspondence documents the
implementation of City functions rather than the
creation of functions or policies.
Messages such as “Did you complete
that report last night” are business
related but do not affect City policy
or change business practices.
Temporary Retention
Delete under the seven-year retention
guidelines.
Executive
Correspondence
Incoming and outgoing business-related
correspondence that provides unique information
relating to functions, policies, procedures, or
programs. These records document the City’s history
and executive decisions made regarding City
interests.
Messages discussing changes in City
policy or interactions and/or
discipline of an employee are
considered both executive and
confidential.
Permanent retention is an option for
department director/appointed
employee/elected official/attorney
emails
Those persons should identify
particular classes or subjects of their
emails that should be retained
permanently Executive
Correspondence. (That identification
can be done in the email program or
in a separate document.)
Government Records Access Management Act
Title 63G, Chapter 2
Utah Enacted GRAMA Law in 1991
Legislature Recognizes
1. Public’s Right of Access 2. Subject’s Right of Privacy
Two Constitutional Rights
Classifications
63G-2-301 - 305
§Public
§Private
§Controlled
§Protected
Retention Schedule
§ Describes the record
§ States how long the record is to be kept
§ Sanctioned by the State
§ Reduces costs associated with litigation
§ Controls the volume of records stored
§ Improves speed and accuracy of records retrieval
§ Can be found on the Recorder’s Intranet Site
§
2020 GRAMA Requests
Response Time
63G-2-204
§10 Business Days
◦All Requests
§ 5 Business Days
◦Expedited from the Media
Denials & Appeals
63G-2-400
§ 30 business days to appeal a denial
§ 10 business days once notice of appeal is received
§ Requester may appeal city decision to:
§State Records Committee
§District Court
E-mail
§ Public record, depending on content
§ Subject to GRAMA/discovery
§Cost of Storage
§ 85% is redundant, outdated or trivial
§Proposed Policy with 7-year retention;
provided exceptions for executive
correspondence by position
What Does Success Look Like?
•Frequent education/communication
•Maintain up-to-date business applicable retention
schedule
•Collaboration to understand concerns of retention
or disposition
•Realized cost savings & efficiency opportunities
•Transparency in improved searching and sharing
Questions?
Salt Lake City
Activation Protocol for City Officials
•Levels
•What is a EOC
•Specific functions and Responsibilities
•Required Core Members
•Other Members
•Assembly, Activation and Notification Objectives
•Notifications of City Admin and City Council
•Recommendations for City Officials Notifications
•City Departments Responsibilities
•COOP
•EOC Resources
Overview
Levels
•Level 3: Would occur when the EM coordinator, in consultation with
the Incident Commander determines that : the incident
commander would benefit from additional resources to
manage the event from the field; multiple City departments
may/will have accountabilities in an event; there is/will be an
extraordinary public concern with the event; community protective
actions may/will be needed; no extraordinary legal authorities
or resources are required. The mayor or designee and affected
departments would receive notice and situation reports, but the
policy group would not be assembled or activated.
Levels
•Level 2: Would occur when the incident commander, a department
director, or the mayor or designee determines that: the scope of
the event exceeds incident command’s on scene resources
and would benefit by assigning missions to the Salt Lake
City EOC; the event is significant and may not be resolved within a
single operational period (12 Hours); widespread community
concern about the event or community protective actions warrant
activation of the joint information system (JIS); no additional
legal authorities are required ; or the resources needed to
respond exceed department budgets or require significant mutual
aid. Such events require the mobilization of the joint information
system and/or the coordination group. The mayor or designee would
receive situation reports, but the policy group may or may not be
fully or partially activated.
Levels
•Level 1: Would occur when there is widespread, significant
community disruption caused by a disaster or event. In such cases,
the situation would exceed city resources and/or require
additional government authority the mayor would likely
“declare an emergency”, and take other actions to: communicate
with the public, assure continuity of City business, and plan for
community recovery. Such events will require the activation
of the joint information system, the coordination group,
and the policy group.
What is the EOC
An EOC is responsible for the strategic overview, or
"big picture", of a incident or event, and does not
normally directly control field assets, instead
making operational decisions and leaving tactical
decisions to lower commands. The common
functions of all EOC's is to collect, gather and
analyze data; make decisions that protect life and
property, maintain continuity of the organization,
within the scope of applicable laws; and
disseminate those decisions to all concerned
agencies and individuals.
What is the EOC
The EOC is organized into 3 bodies:
•Policy Group
•Emergency Operations Center
(Coordination Center)
•Joint Information Center
What is the EOC
The Policy Group under the authority of the Mayor has other
responsibilities within the EOC, when activated. The following are
additional roles and responsibilities of the Policy Group:
•Follows authorities established in City Ordinance 2.09
•Decides when to declare a state of emergency for the city
•Decides when to issue an evacuation order, in conjunction with the mayor
and police chief
•Decides when to close local businesses for duration of event
•Has authority to make formal requests of outside city departments,
agencies, and private and nongovernmental agencies
•Enables information communication through the ESFs to the Joint
Information Center
•Is accountable for content of messaging, both internal and external
communications
•Establishes communication with private sector and local government
liaisons
What is the EOC
The Coordination Center (EOC) is responsible for:
Supporting the Unified Command
•Providing support to all city departments
•Identifying strategic needs
•Providing support to Critical Infrastructure
•Tracking situational awareness
•Requesting and procuring resources
•Tracking finances
•Scheduling staff
•Producing a Incident Action Plan (IAP)
•Maintain staging, donated goods, and support bases
What is the EOC
The Joint Information Center (JIC ) is a central location that facilitates
the operations of t he Joint Information System (JIS) which integrates
incident information and public affairs into a cohesive organization
designed to provide consistent, coordinated, accurate, accessible,
timely, and complete information during crisis or incident operations.
The mission of the JIS is to provide a structure and system for
developing and delivering coordinated interagency messages;
developing, recommending, and executing public information plans
and strategies on behalf of the Incident Command (IC); advising the IC
concerning public affairs issues that could affect a response effort; and
controlling rumors and inaccurate information that could undermine
public confidence in the incident response effort.
Specific functions and responsibilities
•The Emergency Management Director, with support from the City departments,
assigns a SLC EM coordinator. The EM coordinator organizes a fully functioning
coordination group, with sections and emergency response functions (ESF’s), and
assures that these resources are trained and available in support of City extraordinary
events.
•The Joint Information System Coordinator, with support from the EM coordinator
and from the City departments, organizes and directs the City JIC and assures that
the City is constantly ready to notify and inform the public.
•The City Council Executive Director who facilitates the notification, briefing and
emergency mobilization of city council members.
•City Council Members may actively participate in the City’s external affairs process
while interacting with constituents. City council may be asked to perform emergency
actions as authorized by City code.
•The policy group coordinator, with support from the City departments, organizes a
fully functioning policy group, which can support the mayor and city council when a
significant event disrupts the City. That policy group should include the following or
their designees:
Required Core Members
•The mayor or acting mayor
•The city attorney
•City Council Director
•Director of communications
•Policy group coordinator
•Finance director
•City Recorder
Other Members
•City council chair or acting
city council chair
•Airport Director
•Director of
Communications
•Chief Information Officer
•Community and Economic
Development Director
•Community and
Neighborhood
•Fire Chief
•Human Resource Director
•Police Chief
•Public Services Director
•Public Utilities Director
•Sustainability Director
•Others as dictated by
incident
Assembly, Activation and Notification Objectives
•For any level of activation or assembly, the City should be able to
establish communication with any required employees within 120
minutes from an activation or assembly decision by the EM
Coordinator, a department director, the Mayor, or the Mayor’s
designee.
•When appropriate, Incident command/Unified Command should
direct that the public should receive initial and continuing updated
information from the City no later than 60 minutes from the onset of
an event.
•The City’s activation and notification system shall be exercised, and
shall be evaluated for enhancements and improvements with each
exercise.
Notifications of City Admin and City Council
•Level 3 - City Departments have the responsibility to notify The
Mayor`s office and City Council of major incidents. This includes
Level 3 activations of the EOC. The department management can
direct the emergency management coordinator to perform those
notifications as appropriate.
•Level 2 -.In addition to notifications made by City departments, the
emergency management coordinator will notify City administration,
City department heads and the City council executive director, of all
level 2 activations. A brief situation report will be provided and
those with a stake in the incident can choose their level of
involvement. The Policy Group may be partially or fully activated
dependant on the event.
•Level 1 – The emergency management coordinator will make the
same notifications as level 2, but the policy group will be fully
activated.
Recommendations for Policy Group Notifications
Determine the scope of the event/incident:
•What internal essential functions of your
department are affected?
•What external essential functions are affected
such as suppliers, and/or customer.
Assess the situation and determine if your COOP
plan must be activated.
Recommendations for Policy Group Notifications
When activating your COOP plan start with the
following tasks:
•Conduct accountability of personnel and resources
•Determine the appropriate lines of succession if
necessary
•Identify your alternate facilities and start the transfer
process if needed.
•Prioritize your essential functions (critical services,
supply chains, and work procedures)
•Prioritize your mission critical systems (databases, work
documents, and other computer programs)
Recommendations for Policy Group Notifications
Call into the city’s conference bridge and be prepared to notify the Mayor or
Designee of your departments personnel and resource accountability, prioritize
essential functions, and prioritized mission critical systems. Once on the
conference bridge you will get a situation briefing and a meeting/conference
schedule for the policy group:
If for some reason the phone lines are not working please turn to the City
Command 1 on your 800 Mhz radio
If phone lines and 800 Mhz radios are not working please proceed to the EOC
at the Public Safety Building
Recommendations for Policy Group Notifications
•Identify any special authorities needed to complete a task or essential
functions.
•Identify possible funding streams and total amount available for use .
•Identify what kind and types of resources and financial needs are needed by
your department. (The local jurisdiction should exhaust all jurisdictional
resources, and mutual aid before requesting help from the county.)
•Determine if a City Declaration of disaster is needed. (According to State
Law a local disaster may be declared only by the Mayor or Emergency
Manager.)
•Track all expenses including work hours according to Federal standards.
The finance section of the coordination group can help with all standards.
Recommendations for Policy Group Notifications
Be prepared to provide a status of your
department’s activities bi-hourly until
notified otherwise.
Unified Command
A unified command is an authority structure in
which the role of incident commander is
shared by two or more individuals , each
already having authority in a different responding
agency. The UC links the organizations responding
to the incident and provides a forum for these
entities to make consensus decisions.
***We will setup in Unified Command whenever possible***
Recommendations for City Council Notifications
•City council notification is best facilitated through the council executive
director. Department officials should contact the director and provide a
brief situation report including location incident type and expected
duration, affected location(s), casualties, location of the command post
(CP), and the incident Commander (IC).
•The department official and council director will agree on who and how
city council members will be notified and if/ where they should respond.
•Council members who respond to the EOC or CP should bring official
credentials and identifying outerwear when responding. This will enable
City employees and citizens to readily identify them and assist them to the
CP for briefing.
•Council members may assist administration in many ways, but they do not
have a directive operational role. It is important they have a full brief on
what is occurring and what is reasonably expected to occur.
•Council members can contribute greatly by participation in the Joint
Information System (JIS) process.
Departmental Responsibilities
Flood Natural or Human
Cause Public Utilites
Contamination of Water
Supply Public Utilites
Earthquake Fire
Fire Multi-
Structure/Wildland Fire
Hazardous Material Fire
Mass Injury/Death Fire
Building Collapse Fire
Extreme Cold Weather Public Services
Weapons of Mass Destruction Police Department
Cyber Event IMS
Extraordinary Criminal Event Police Department
Crowd Management Police Department
Civil Disruption Police Department
Evacuation Police Department
Communinty Protection Police Department
Air Crash (On Airport)Airport
Air Crash (Off Airport)Fire
Utility Disruption Emergency Management
Public Health Fire
Disease Outbreak Fire
Tornado/High Winds Public Services
Extreme Hot Weather Fire
Economic Disruption CAN
Large-Scale Special Event Public Services
Departmental ESF Responsibilities
ESF 1 Transportation CAN
ESF 2 Communications IMS
ESF 3 Public Works and Engineering Public Utilites
ESF 4 Fire Fighting Fire
ESF 5 Emergency Management Emergency Management
ESF 6 Mass Care Public Services
ESF 7 Logistics Public Services
ESF 8 Public Health Fire
ESF 9 Search and Rescue Fire
ESF 10 Hazmat Fire
ESF 11 Agriculture CED
ESF 12 Energy Emergency Management
ESF 13 Public Safety and Security Police Department
ESF 14 Long Term Recovery CAN
ESF 15 Public Information Mayor's Office
Access and Functional Needs Mayor's Office
Departmental RSF Responsibilities
Local Disaster Recovery Manager TBD
Community Planning and Capacity Building CAN
Economic CED
Health and Social Services Fire
Housing CAN
Infrastructure Systems Emergency Management
Natural and Cultural Resources Mayors Office
EOC Resources
•WEBEOC
•WAVE
•Contact Box
•Laptops
•Radios
•CAD
•HAM Radio
•Mobile EOC
•GIS Maps
Questions
To learn more about Salt Lake City, visit MAYOR.SLCGOV.COM
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
PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:January 5, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY21
MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to Tuesday, January 19.
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 REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:January 5, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY2021
________________________________________________________________________________
Budget Amendment Number Six includes requested changes to four funds. Total expenditures are $1,810,804 including
$63,673 from Fund Balance. There are a total of seven items, five of which are new items in Section A. The sixth is a
Housekeeping item in Section D. The seventh is a Council-added item in Section I. Additionally, this budget amendment
includes the transfer of six employees from the General Fund to the IMS fund and the creation of one additional position
within the IMS Fund. The Administration is requesting a straw poll on the Housing-related Funding Our Future
Applications. (See Item I-1 Council-Added Item.) The Administration indicates that all seven of these budget
items are time-sensitive.
General Budget Updates
The Administration anticipates updated sales tax revenues for October and Comprehensive Annual Finance Report
(CAFR) confirmed Fund Balance numbers will be available to share with the Council at the January 5 briefing.
The City received $150,000 from the County for a third round of CARES Act funding. The Administration plans to include
in an upcoming budget amendment the $150,000 and a reconciliation of the second round of CARES Act funding.
The President has not decided whether to declare a disaster for the September windstorm. The March earthquake did not
qualify for FEMA reimbursements to the City. However, individual and household assistance is available up to $938,506.
279 applications have been submitted at the time of publishing this report. FEMA’s website for the earthquake disaster is
available here: https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4548
The Administration provided the following status update on insurance claims and payments for earthquake damage to
City buildings: “The City received a $2,000,000 advance payment from the property insurance carrier for earthquake
damages. Once the City’s expenditures for repairs exceed $2,100,000 ($100,000 deductible + claim
advance), we can submit those expenses for reimbursement.”
Project Timeline:
Set Date: December 8, 2020
1st Public Hearing: January 5, 2021
1st Briefing: January 5, 2021
2nd Briefing: January 12, 2021 (if needed)
2nd Public Hearing: January 19, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
Revenue Update
The Administration indicates that they are seeing a decrease in revenue budget due to trends for apartment units, new
business license and business license renewals. Due to the administrative order for COVID, parking ticket revenue shows a
decrease of nearly $500k due to only 51,000 pay station transactions through the end of August (normally well over 200k).
This decrease is also having an effect on citations written. Additionally, Justice Court fines are down $37,000, while moving
violations are down $151,000. In Charges and Services, field reservation fees are down $273,000 while auto parking fees
are also under budget. Miscellaneous revenues are also down due to a decrease in special events and the elimination of take-
home vehicle fees during the current pandemic.
Page | 3
Fund Balance Update:
This fund balance projection includes a line item adding in funding budgeted for use for expenses associated with COVID-
19 in the fiscal year 2020 that was not spent.
Page | 4
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of
unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of December 1, 2020. $88,479 of police impact
fees are scheduled to expire by the end of this fiscal year. The Administration reports the impact fee consultant is
finalizing the police section update and transmittal to the Council Office is anticipated in early 2021.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $732,533 More than a year away -
Parks $6,404,154 More than a year away -
Police $318,626 December 2020 $9,155
Transportation $3,623,027 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items (note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the
Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items)
A-1: Fisher Carriage House Exploration Center Construction Overage ($540,732 – CIP Impact Fees)
See Attachment 1 for renderings of the Fisher Mansion Carriage House redevelopment project
In FY20 CIP, the Council approved $1,098,764 of parks impact fees for this project which is in addition to $280,000 from
the Chevron donation (2010 oil spill in Red Butte Creek). The total approved budget for the project was $1,378,764. The
new funding request represents a 58% increase for a new total project budget of $2,172,496. If approved, then the
available to spend balance of parks impact fees would be $5,610,422.
Council staff asked the Administration if the impact fee consultant had confirmed using $253,000 of parks impact fees to
purchase indoor furnishings and equipment. It was determined these expenses are for items with a useful life less than 10
years and ineligible for parks impact fees. As a result, this request was reduced from $793,732 to $540,732. It’s unclear
how the $253,000 will be funded or if scope reductions can deliver the project within the approved budget.
The Administration’s transmittal indicates the following: “As design development nears completion, SLC Engineering and
the consulting architect, CRSA, have updated budget projections for the project. Unfortunately, those cost projections
have increased significantly from the original budget estimate created in 2018 based on a preliminary conceptual design.
This budget amendment requests the additional funding necessary to implement the project, which (if funded) would go
to bid in December 2020 and be constructed in 2021. Increased costs for the project are associated with all project
elements, but particularly relate to the preservation of historic windows and doors, interior finishes, necessary plumbing
and electrical upgrades, unforeseen utility upgrades and increased cost for proposed furnishings associated with the public
exhibit space”.
This project is eligible for up to $100,000 from the CIP Cost Overrun Account. In previous discussions the Council
expressed a preference to spend impact fees before General Fund dollars because impact fees must be spent within six
years or refunded to the developer with interest.
According to the Administration, “The project scope includes construction of an exploration center at the historic Fisher
Carriage House that provides standing exhibits on the natural and cultural history of the Jordan River and surrounding
area, and which showcases a beautiful restored historical structure. The exploration center will provide space for activities
and education programs, places for visitors to engage with city staff and partners and get information about the Jordan
River Parkway Trail and water trail. The center will also provide a home-base for outreach & education staff with the SLC
Trails & Natural Lands Division, from which they can conduct programming up and down the Jordan River. Additionally,
the project will compliment an adjacent boat ramp (construction planned for winter 2020) and create a recreational
jumping-off point for the future Folsom Trail, the Jordan River Parkway Trail, and the Jordan River 'Paddle Trail”.
The Administration would also like to let the Council know about future costs associated with the project. The two new
employee positions and the ongoing costs listed below are anticipated to be needed for the FY23 annual budget based on
the current project timeline.
Future Ongoing Costs
FTE Site Manager & Part-time Assistant $ 90,000.00
Supplies and Materials $ 20,000.00
Page | 5
Kayak Rental Fleet (One-Time) $ 10,000.00
Facility Maintenance Costs $ 18,238.00
Grounds Maintenance Costs $ - *
TOTAL $ 138,238.00
* In Trails Natural Lands budget
Policy Questions:
$253,000 Indoor Furnishings Unfunded – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for funding
recommendations and/or scope reductions to address the $253,000 of indoor furnishings that are ineligible for
parks impact fees.
Fisher Mansion Redevelopment – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if redevelopment of
the Fisher Mansion should be prioritized instead of the Carriage House given the project cost increases. During
FY20 CIP, the Administration had a general cost estimate of $3.7 million to redevelop the Fisher Mansion. Note
this cost may have increased due to damage from the March earthquakes. The Administration anticipates detailed
Fisher Mansion redevelopment scenarios to be available mid-2021 such as public-private partnerships,
nongovernmental organization operated facility models and City-operated models. The scenarios could inform a
new Request for Information (RFI) for the mansion.
A-2: Glendale Water Park Redevelopment Plan ($225,000 – CIP Impact Fees)
The Administration’s transmittal indicates the following: “Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for $225,000
in parks impact fees to hire a consultant to create a Development Plan for Glendale Water Park, a Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) site. A recent community survey found slightly more than half of the 3,700 respondents
supported new uses on the site. The Development Plan would articulate a long-term community supported vision for the
site with phased implementation.” Full restoration of the water park may be cost prohibitive at over $20 million but reuse
of some components may be feasible.
According to the Administration, the first phase, (to be determined with the input of public feedback) would implement
active recreation on site within the three-year LWCF requirement. The clock begins once the State LWCF official inspects
the site which is currently on hold due to the pandemic. The City will receive a letter confirming the three-year deadline to
restore public access to the site. A violation of the conservation easement could result in denial of future federal funding
grants to the City and/or a court action by the National Parks Service to require active outdoor recreation access.
The resulting redevelopment plan will be considered a small area plan. A draft will be presented to and reviewed by the
Planning Commission in an open and public meeting. Then the Council will be briefed, review and have the opportunity to
adopt, modify and adopt or decline the plan.
As indicated by the Administration in their transmittal,
“The 17-acre water park site located along the Jordan River is adjacent to two park sites, a golf course, the surplus
canal and natural areas along the Jordan River… The benefits or goals of the project would include the following:
Creating a plan that unifies these public amenities through connecting trails, unifying landscape character and the
development of complementary recreation uses into a regional asset. Developing the water park site within the
context of the more than 210 acres of public lands would foster positive activation and creating a dynamic
community asset. Because this site was private for so long, the development will essentially create a new park,
added to the City’s park inventory, with new service to residents and is impact fee eligible. In the time of a
pandemic and political divisions, it is more important than ever to invest in dynamic public spaces that connect
people and break down demographic and economic divides. The Glendale property is a unique opportunity to
create a very special place the supports economic development, public health, a sense of community, and
environmental sustainability as well as increase confidence in city government’s use of public funds.”
Project Tasks may include but not limited to:
• Analyze the site and surrounding context: opportunities and constraints
• Facilitate community and stakeholder engagement: community support
• Define the Park Vision: Community vision and goals
• Develop conceptual site plan alternatives: Explore development alternatives and cost estimates. Include
analysis of alternative plan operations and maintenance requirements and cost estimates
• Develop Final Site Development Plan
• Develop an implementation plan that includes plan phasing and funding strategies
• Facilitate adoption by City Council.
Page | 6
The Administration shared the following general timeline for project based on annual quarter (for example “Q1” is first
quarter from January 1 – March 31):
Q1 Engage a consultant
Q2 Engagement Window #1: Foundation of Understanding
Share background on the project site and City goals
Gather information from the community about what kinds of activities they would like to see
and priorities
Understand how they see the park playing a role in their neighborhood, community, city and region
Present engagement results to Council
Q3 Engagement Window #2: Visioning Glendale
Present preliminary site improvement vision for feedback
Targeted engagement and city department collaboration
Initial strategy recommendations development
Present engagement results to Council
Q4 Final Community Engagement Window #3
Sharing of the draft plan
Focus on next steps of implementation
Planning Commission Review
Council hearings
Q5 Plan adoption by Council
Policy Question:
Small Area Plan Early Council Input – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when the Council will be
able to provide early policy input on the small area plan similar to the master plan process.
A-3: Trailhead Property Acquisition ($275,000 – CIP Impact Fees)
The Administration is requesting $275,000 of Impact Fees to purchase land for a trailhead. The Administration is
prepared to provide additional details of the property in a closed session.
A-4: City Innovations Team ($63,673 - General Fund/$453,399 – IMS Fund)
See Attachment 2 for the Chief Innovation Officer job description
The Administration’s transmittal indicates the following: “Salt Lake City Administration is looking to take transformational
steps with regards to enterprise technologies and improved business practices. To do this the development of a team is
required, this team will be known as the City Innovations Team. The team initially will be built upon existing resources
from the Mayor’s Office, Public Services, IMS, and Community and Neighborhoods. This team will take on larger enterprise
projects like the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) effort.”
The Administration states the team’s services will be available to all General Fund departments with a goal to increase
service levels over time. The team will be located on the fifth floor of Plaza 349. No additional costs are needed to make that
office space ready. One new FTE position, a second strategy & special projects manager, is requested for a total of seven
FTEs on the team. The total annual cost for the new FTE is $106,348 but this request is for $63,673 or seven months of
funding. One of the Public Services Department deputy director positions will be removed from the staffing document.
Public Services will have two deputy director positions after this change. A new title and FTE, Chief Innovations Officer, will
be created on the staffing document for IMS. The total annual cost for the Chief Innovations Officer is $220,500. See
Attachment 2 for the job description.
The team will also improve coordination and resources between the Civic Engagement Team and IMS Media Services. A
further step to improve engagement is to combine SLC Media Services and the Civic Engagement Team into a city-wide
communications/engagement team in the Information Management Services (IMS) which is an internal service
department. As indicated in the transmittal, “Currently, departments work with both teams separately to develop
engagement and communications strategies for projects. Both teams also co-manage SLCgov social media accounts. By
combining the groups, the City can create a one stop shop for engagement & communications efforts.” The proposal also
includes operational costs associated with the team. The positions include:
Public Services:
Chief Innovations Officer – Nole Walkingshaw transfer FTE Deputy Director position
Strategy & Special Projects Manager – Alyssa Johnson transfer FTE Strategy & Special Projects Manager
From Community and Neighborhoods:
Civic Engagement Team – Four FTE’s transferred from Community and Neighborhoods
Page | 7
o Elizabeth Buhler, Civic Engagement Manager
o Kyle Strayer, Civic Engagement Program Specialist
o Christianna Johnson, Civic Engagement Program
Specialist
o Ronnie Buttons, Special Projects Assistant
New Position:
Strategy & Special Projects Manager
Policy Questions:
In addition to the ERP effort, will there be other projects this group tackles in its first year?
From a longer-term perspective, will this team be similar to an internal service for all City departments? Or will that
be project or service dependent?
Back when the Civic Engagement Team was initially created, it was anticipated that they would provide support and
engagement work for both branches of government. As the group launched and the Council Office’s communications
work evolved, there has been a different but successful way that the groups coordinate. Will the future Innovations
Team, and specifically engagement staff, continue to be available to extend and collaborate on the Council
engagement efforts?
A-5: Police Department Hiring Class ($ -0- General Fund)
See Attachment 3 for the Administration's memo about this request.
The transmittal indicates the following: “The Administration and the Police Department are seeking Council support for
the hiring of a police recruit class in January or February of 2021. The Police Department is not seeking additional funding
but will use current budget for fully funded positions and attrition savings from the first six months of the year”.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Airport Interim Financing ($ -0- Airport Fund)
The Administration’s transmittal indicates the following: “Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) plans to issue
interim financing up to $300 million in the form of either Commercial Paper backed by a Letter of Credit or a revolving
Line of Credit directly with a bank. We are currently in procurement and are negotiating the terms of the agreement which
we deem to be favorable especially considering the low interest rate environment. These funds will ultimately be refunded
with long term debt, but we will maintain the facility for upwards of three years to help with financial flexibility on the
Airport Redevelopment Project. These funds can be used for operating and maintenance expenses or to fund construction
costs as determined by the Airport Finance division”.
If the Council approves this request, then the Administration will transmit a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale
of bonds not to exceed $300 million. A public hearing must be held after the resolution is approved and following public
notice of the bonds issuance per state law. Council staff is working with the Administration to understand the time
sensitivity of the resolution in January.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
(None)
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda – Grant Awards
(None)
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: Housing-related Funding Our Future Applications (time-sensitive) Straw Poll Request
The Administration has indicated that two categories of applications received fewer funding requests than what the
Council approved in the FY21 annual budget, and two categories received more funding requests. The Administration is
requesting a straw poll from the Council to approve a shift of the unallocated $797,000 to unmet Incentivized Rent and
Page | 8
Vulnerable Populations needs.
CATEGORY TOTAL BUDGET TOTAL FUNDING REQUESTED
IN APPLICATIONS
Community Land Trust $500,000 $0
Landlord Assurance Program $350,000 $53,000
Incentivized Rent Assistance $900,000 $2,323,512
Service Models for the Most Vulnerable
(children experiencing homelessness
and individuals with mental illness)
$200,000 $725,380
The $900 billion pandemic relief bill approved by Congress (pending presidential action at the time of writing this staff
report) includes an extension of the national eviction moratorium through January 31, 2021 and $25 billion in rental
assistance, however, it’s unclear how those funds will be distributed / accessed by landlords and renters. Utah is estimated
to receive $214 million.
The public facing website www.fundingourfutureslc.com provides the following program descriptions:
Community Land Trust (CLT): make homes perpetually affordable. There are currently 9 properties in the
CLT. The program reduces the cost of home ownership significantly, decreasing the purchase price of a home by
removing the land cost from the total mortgage price.
Landlord Assurance Program: works to mitigate perceived risks related to renting to low-income clients. Agency
will recruit eligible landlords, provide tenant financial assistance, landlord financial assistance, and provide
tenant education.
Incentivized Rent Assistance: continue to fund an assistance program to stabilize low-income renters using best
practices and an outcome-based approach, to help prevent homelessness.
Service Models for the Most Vulnerable: support housing programs for individuals with mental illness and
children experiencing homelessness.
Policy questions:
Outreach to Applicants – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how would potential applicants have
learned about the Funding Our Future housing programs and how to apply? The Council may also wish to ask if
how many applications were received in prior fiscal years for these programs.
Status of Community Land Trust – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on the
City’s Community Land Trust and how the model compares to others around the nation.
Balance of Other Housing Budgets – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the other Funding Our
Future budgets for FY21 have been spent or if funds remain that could be recaptured for urgent housing
assistance.
Connecting Applicants with Other Funding Sources – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how
applicants are connected with other funding sources from the City, County, State, Federal (such as HUD Grants)
when Funding Our Future budgets are less than applicant’s requests.
I-2: HUD-CV Emergency Services Grant for the Temporary Winter Shelter ($750,000 – ESG-CV Grant)
A request was made through the City’s modified mid-year HUD Cares Act funding cycle for $750,000 to fund the
operating costs at the temporary winter shelter. The shelter, which is located on North Temple, will be operated by
Switchpoint.
The Council may recall that in a previous budget amendment, the City received a round of Cares Act funding ($7.1 million)
that would be set aside for a modified mid-year CDBG-type process. The Council appropriated the money, but it has been
held while the Administration publicized the funding availability and received applications from community organizations
for the grant funds for COVID-related services.
The Administration has transmitted the funding log with recommendations from the Mayor and Community Development
and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board. However, we are requesting that the item for Switchpoint be pulled
out and considered separately in order to ensure the operating costs for the temporary shelter are in place as quickly as
possible.
Page | 9
Funding: Some questions may arise related to the funding partners for the temporary winter shelters. In addition to this
funding request for $750,000, the Administration has shared this public funding breakdown:
State ESG-CV funding, $525,000, operations, Millcreek and SLC Airport Inn.
County ESG-CV funding, $234,320, operations, just Millcreek.
There is also a private contribution related to security expenses at the Millcreek and Salt Lake City locations.
Overall ESG Projects: The Council may also have questions about the remainder of the ESG funding availability. The
log for those items is included in Attachment 4 and will be scheduled for a full briefing as soon as possible. The full
briefing would include the remainder of the ESG funding requests, plus the other CDBG funding requests. As a note,
based on this $750,000 request and the other applications that were received, there would be $460,828 in funding
remaining for future discussion.
Policy Questions:
The Council may wish to ask whether additional funds will be requested for the temporary shelter.
The Council may wish to ask whether there have been any conversations about the County providing funding for
the Salt Lake City side operations.
The Council may wish to ask about the other support costs related to shelter-resistant camping locations in the
City, and whether adequate budget remains for the waste disposal and temporary restroom facilities.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fisher Carriage House Redevelopment Renderings
2. Chief Innovation Officer Job Description
3. Administration's Memo about Request for Hiring Police Officers in Budget Amendment #6
4. ESG Funding log
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CARES Act – Federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CLT – Community Land Trust
COPS - Community Oriented Policing Services
DAQ – Utah Division of Air Quality
ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE – Full time employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department
IMS – Department of Information Management Services
LWCF - Land and Water Conservation Fund site
RFI – Request for Information
SLCDA – Salt Lake City Department of Airports
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
SITE PLAN
W 200 S
FUTURE
BOAT
ACCESS
FOLSOM TRAIL
JORDAN RIVER TRAIL
PADDLE
SHARE
LOCKERS
CARRIAGE HOUSE
FISHER
MANSIONJORDAN RIVERLOCATION MAP
N
PROPOSED
BOAT ACCESS
BOAT ACCESS
BOAT ACCESS
JORDAN
RIVER
TRAIL
FOLSOM TRAIL
NORTH TEMPLE
W 200 N
I - 15
I - 80
W 200 S N 800 WS 900 WN 900 WS 1000 WEMERY STS CHEYENNE STREDWOOD RDNAVAJO STCALIFORNIA AVE
INDIANA AVE
W 300 S
W 400 S
W 700 S
POPLAR GROVE BLVD
W 1700 S S 700 WJOR
D
A
N
R
I
V
E
R
PROJECT SITE
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
MAIN LEVEL PLAN UPPER LEVEL PLAN
N
OPEN
OFFICE
MEETING
AREA
RESTROOMS
WORK ROOM /
FLEX SPACE
UTILITY
CLOSET
OFFICE OFFICE
EXHIBIT SPACE /
FLEX SPACE
EXHIBIT
FOYER
OFFICE
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
SECTION LOOKING WEST SECTION LOOKING NORTH
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTHWEST
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTHEAST
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvements
JORDAN RIVER TRAILSIDE EXPLORATION CENTER
PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTH
Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department
Job Title: Chief Innovation Officer
Job Code Number: xxxxxx FLSA: Exempt
Pay Level: 039 EEO Code: 1
Bargaining Unit: 000 Benchmark: Executive / Administrative
JOB SUMMARY:
Working under the general direction of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), incumbent is responsible
for managing the innovation process within the City and providing the necessary ecosystem that allows
ideas to germinate, take root and flourish. Works closely as a management consultant to departments
to develop and inspire the creation and implementation of data-driven best practices in municipal
government and foster a culture of innovation, efficiency, and process improvement. Focuses on
identifying and scaling creative ideas that work throughout the City’s business, operational, and
administrative functions. Implements solutions in partnership with internal and external
stakeholders. Acts as a strategic and forward-thinking catalyst for change throughout City Hall and
identifies opportunities to improve, adapt, and implement creative, data-driven, comprehensive
solutions to traditional, technological, and operational problems. Drives the organization towards
innovative solutions. Assists with and coordinates the implementation of citywide administrative and
policy initiatives. May direct and/or supervise staff and program functionality in the Mayor’s office.
This is an appointed, at-will position without tenure and exempt from the career service system.
TYPICAL DUTIES:
1. Formulates and implements effective new ideas and innovative strategies and incorporate them into
the City’s plans.
2. Researches and analyzes trends in local government to forecast future changes in practices,
processes, and programs; explore and import innovations from other communities for testing where
they may be applicable.
3. Utilizes quantitative and research methods to identify opportunities for improvement in operations and
services throughout the city. Analyzes and researches a variety of administrative and operational
issues/problems/opportunities and provide sound solutions or courses of action; establishes and
maintains systems for measuring, monitoring and reporting on operational and management
performance citywide.
4. Formulates solutions and provides implementation alternatives to various governmental systems,
processes, and service delivery models and delivers recommendations to the mayor, city council,
departments, and outside agencies.
5. Evaluates the progress of innovation and adjust the pace or direction of new projects in accordance
with the city’s various strategic priorities.
Chief Innovation Officer - Cont.
6. Provides citywide oversight of metrics and data analytics to facilitate strategic utilization of data.
7. Forges partnerships with local community groups, companies, universities and school systems that
can support the research and development of innovative solutions.
8. Works in partnership with the Chief Information Officer on identification, development, and testing of
civic technologies and projects that advance the city’s Open Government mission; ensures a forward-
thinking, cohesive, and strategic approach to technology in support of all municipal business units.
9. Represents the city and serves as liaison and convener with other local, state and federal agencies
and related NGOs to align community innovation with broader regional and national programs.
10. Leads multi-functional, cross-departmental teams that may consist of employees from all levels of the
organization.
11. Develops and equips managers in their role as change agents and leaders of innovation in their
respective departments.
12. Performs highly responsible and complex administrative work related to planning and managing the
activities of assigned departments and units; develops short- and long-range plans, goals, and
objectives with clear objectives, outcomes, and performance measures.
13. Advises city leaders on the effective, efficient, and economical management of the areas of
assignment; submitting reports; monitoring grant opportunities (i.e., local, state, federal, private) to
add innovative capacity to city operations.
14. Performs other duties as assigned.
KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL REQUIREMENTS:
Demonstrated knowledge of:
• Complexity management, organizational alignment and change management, supported
by complex technology operations.
• Fiscal management, including budget preparation, expenditure control, and record
keeping.
• Management and supervisory principles and practices.
• Leadership theories and practices, work styles and teambuilding.
• Principles and practices of municipal administration, functions, services and organization.
• Advanced project management skills.
• Organizational development principles and practices.
• Innovation and continuous improvement principles and practices.
• Management and supervisory principles, practices and methods.
Demonstrated skill in:
• Interacting with a variety of agencies and departments, community groups, elected
officials, and advocates.
• Developing program goals and objectives.
• Developing program goals and objectives and directing, conducting and implementing
planning activities.
• Identifying new ideas, potential opportunities and ways of working by leveraging
technologies; ability to frame problems and perspectives
• Analyzing and evaluating program operations and develop and implement corrective
action to resolve problems.
• Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with department
management, employees, city council members, other agencies, and the general public.
• Representing the city to external contacts and customers at the highest professional
level.
• Communicating effectively, both orally and in writing, with individuals and groups
regarding complex or sensitive issues or regulations.
• Facilitating group decision making and resolve complex problems at a high level of
complexity.
• Building and maintaining strong internal and external relationships
• Influencing others toward process improvement, developing effective means to challenge
assumptions and "usual" ways of doing things.
• Presenting complex concepts and issues to a wide variety of audiences in an effective
and understandable manner.
• Communicating effectively both orally and in writing, regarding complex technical issues.
• Assembling, organizing and presenting complex statistical and factual data derived from
a variety of sources.
• Analyzing and interpreting complex data and information; direct others involved with
analysis.
• Remaining current with technical developments in the field.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
• Light physical effort. Intermittent sitting, standing and walking. Comfortable working
conditions.
• Considerable exposure to stress resulting from complex problem solving, stringent
project deadlines, and liaison work between City departments, Mayor’s Office,
politically powerful community groups, and the City Council.
A TEN YEAR PERSONAL, CRIMINAL AND EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND CHECK IS REQUIRED
FOR THIS POSITION.
The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed
by persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties,
responsibilities and skills required of personnel so classified.
All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals
with disabilities.
Position Review Information
Date: 3-31-2020
Departmental Approval: Lisa Shaffer, Deputy Chief of Staff
HR Consultant Approval:
Compensation Approval: David Salazar
Notes: New job/position
Request to hire Police Officer positions
vacated through resignations, separations and
retirements
The Police Department is requesting to hire Police Officers to
replace vacancies created through resignations, separations
and retirements.
While the Police Department understands the City Council’s resolve to increase civilian positions in
community programs such as social work and relieve some of the need for police officers in the
community, those positions and programs are not fully developed. The need to maintain police officer
staffing to adequately respond to community needs, calls for service and emergency response is still
paramount for the police department and the City.
The community deserves excellence, not adequate service and we are not even at adequate.
The Police Department is experiencing low staffing levels which creates difficulties in providing timely
response to calls for service and other community needs. These low staffing levels have created an ever
growing concern that, in the event of an emergency, the police department does not have the necessary
staffing to respond to basic community safety needs or provide the level of service required to maintain
safety in the city. With these low staffing levels there is very little opportunity for patrol to provide
proactive policing.
Contributing issues to the understaffing of police
officers
Resignations, Separations and retirements
The Police Department is experiencing an unprecedented number of resignations, separations
and retirements. From July 1, 2020 to December 20, 2020.
S wo rn c ou nt by FY
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Grand To tal
1 July 2 1 7 9 11 30
2 August 2 3 5 1 4 15
3 September 2 2 1 4 10 19
4 Octo ber 4 4 6 1 17 32
5 No vember 3 2 5 2 4 16
6 December 3 4 6 2 7 22
7 Ja nua ry 2 8 1 3 1 15
8 February 4 4 4 2 14
9 Marc h 4 2 6 1 13
10 April 2 4 3 2 11
11 May 1 4 8 4 17
12 June 3 6 6 15
Gran d Total 29 41 58 37 54 219
THIS CHART IS CALENDAR YEAR – FOR COMPARISON to Fiscal Year above
THIS CHART IS CALENDAR YEAR – FOR COMPARISON to Fiscal Year above
The Police Department will have 53 vacant funded (including attrition positions) sworn and 20
vacant unfunded sworn positions with the announced retirements and resignations through
December 2020. There are also 3 pending vacancies for January.
Departmental Leaves
The number of Officers on leaves from the Police Department, including Short term disability, Workers
Compensation, FMLA, ERPL, Administrative Leave, Parental Leave and Military Leave has fluctuated from
45 leaves in July to a high of 70 leaves in October.
These numbers do not include accrued leave time available and taken to include Vacation, Personal
Leave, Compensatory Time, Holiday and Funeral Leave. Other factors that affect officer availability
include court time and training time.
Quarantines
The nature of police work lends itself to exposure risk of the COVID 19 virus.
The Police Department has worked diligently to reduce the risk from COVID by implementing training,
PPE requirements and contact tracing. Along with all other precautionary measures taken, quarantines
have been necessary to reduce spread of the virus within the department and the community.
COViD Quarantines
This chart represents persons placed into quarantine. Quarantines last between 4 and 14 days in most
cases. **The data in this chart are preliminary figures due to changing protocols throughout the time
of the data collection, some data may be missing and/or incomplete.
The chart above reflects the number of employees that entered quarantine per day. Quarantined
employees are assigned to work telephonic but are not available for patrol response.
The culmination of resignations, separations, retirements, leaves, quarantines and training creates a
huge gap in staffing. The Police Department is now staffing at a level that does not provide adequate call
response or timely case resolution for the community we serve.
Other issues affecting staffing
The city continues to see an increase year to year in calls for service
Calls for Service
Call time response has increased due to many factors including the increased number of calls for service
and the reduced number of officers available.
Protest and free speech events
The City continues to experience protest and free speech events on a regular basis. For the period of
March to November the city has had over 270 protests or free speech events. These events all require
research and analysis. When safety concerns are identified for any event staffing for safety and
investigation are also required. It also required deployment or standby of motors and public order units
to mitigate potential or experienced civil unrest.
Homeless Encampment cleanups
The Police Department has been integral in working with the Department of Health on all encampment
cleanups. This has put a strain on both on-duty and overtime resources.
COVID mitigation
Salt Lake County and DNR have funded overtime resources for COVID mitigation in parks and open areas
of city. Working these overtime shifts have also strained the ability to staff departmental overtime
patrol coverage shifts.
Use of on-duty resources
The Police Department continues to utilize on-duty resources for large events such as the Vice-
Presidential Debate, protests, free speech events and public safety response such as homeless
encampment cleanups and COVID 19 mitigation whenever possible. Use of on-duty resources is
necessary to reduce the budget impacts that would occur with the use of overtime as well as the
inability to fill overtime rosters with voluntary signup by officers.
Inability to fill overtime shifts
The police department is experiencing low rates of voluntary overtime shift signups including patrol
coverage signups. This is seemingly due to many factors including morale and the increased stress that
they are experiencing related to their positions.
All factors mentioned above are damaging to the ability of the police department to maintain an
adequate response but in totality they are detrimental to public safety, the city and the communities we
serve.
Budgetary Impacts of low staffing numbers
The police department is experiencing multiple impacts related to the inability to retain and maintain
adequate staffing.
Overtime
Call outs
Backfill
Officer mental health and wellness (workers compensation)
Retirements, separations, resignations
Cost of retirement, separation and resignation payouts
Retention vs replacement
Required attrition savings – the retirements that are providing these savings are also creating costs
related to retirement payouts and overtime.
Overtime needs and associated costs will continue to increase as the number of officers on staff
decrease. Overtime costs will not decrease at the time officer vacancies are filled but approximately one
year after the hiring process of a new officer begins. We currently have officers in the background
process that could be hired in February and placed into service in January of 2022.
Cyclical issues - Low staffing in an environment with increasing calls for service creates backlogs in calls
for service and longer response times. The mental stress from running from call to call and never
catching up creates additional stress. When officers are under additional stress that they cannot
mitigate we see additional mental health and physical illness. These stress related issues have multiple
costs which includes medical visits, workers compensation and leaves. When officers go out on leave, it
again lowers staffing which increases the workload and stress on the other officers.
Police Department efforts to
improve community response
times
The police department has been proactive in efforts to mitigate the staffing issues presented above, but
these efforts are not sustainable long term.
Redeployment of resources
The police department recently made a temporary reallocation of resources from investigative and
special response areas of the department to patrol. This temporary redeployment will help manage calls
for service in the short term but puts extreme limitations on the resources available to investigate
crime, respond and investigate increasing gang related violence and criminal activity, it reduces school
resource officer availability as schools return to on-site learning, reduces focused enforcement of drive
by shootings, narcotics, auto theft, property crimes, reduces motor deployment availability and creates
issues related to delays in solving criminal cases and taking the criminal element off the street in a
timely manner. Bike squads are not currently affected, but daily needs to cover calls for service may
require us to reallocate bike squad resources on a daily basis.
Use of available overtime funding
The police department has been utilizing available funding for overtime related to COVID from outside
agencies such as Salt Lake County and the Division of Natural Resources. This funding has been
temporary in nature and most of it has ended. Grant funding for overtime has been utilized when it is
applicable to the grant objectives.
Ongoing evaluation of community needs and the most
effective ways to meet those needs
Preparing to meet the long term needs of the
community
Hiring
The police department has been working towards a hiring class to fill vacant officer positions. A hiring
class can be implemented as early as February of 2021. Officers from this class will not be available to
handle calls for service for 10 months which would put them in service in January of 2022. This is an
extremely long time to improve staffing and calls for service response. In order to proceed with this
hiring class in February of 2021, the police department would need approval to hire no later than
January 12, 2021 to meet post requirements for an academy.
It is paramount to maintain a consistent hiring process in order to mitigate large swings in staffing.
Redeploying resources on a regular basis incurs costs in multiple areas. Consistent small academy
classes are more manageable in budget and curriculum scheduling then fluctuating hiring processes.
Training
The police department also supports the administration, city council and the community to provide
increasing training within the department. Training would need to be dynamic to meet the needs of the
community and to provide training in a timely manner additional time availability for officers or
overtime would be needed to accomplish additional training.
1 Utah Community Action New REQUEST:1,212,940$
Homeless Prevention CDCIP:1,212,940$
MAYOR:1,212,940$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 108.42
REQUEST:1,212,940$
CDCIP:1,212,940$
MAYOR:1,212,940$
COUNCIL:-$
2 Utah Community Action New REQUEST:773,355$
Rapid Rehousing CDCIP:773,355$
MAYOR:773,355$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 110.81
3 The Road Home New REQUEST:50,000$
Prevention Assistance CDCIP:50,000$
MAYOR:150,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 105.89
REQUEST:823,355$
CDCIP:823,355$
MAYOR:923,355$
COUNCIL:-$
SALT LAKE CITY ESG-CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020-2021
Support for households who have recently exited Rapid
Re-Housing Program and are in need of an immediate intervention to
retain their housing stability.
ESG-CV RAPID REHOUSING TOTAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
$3,986,9112020-2021 Funding Available:
Emergency rental assistance for clients experiencing a COVID related
crisis, and funding for case managers to provide case management
services to clients.
ESG-CV HOMELESS PREVENTION TOTAL
Emergency rental assistance for clients experiencing a Covid related
crisis, and funding for case managers to provide case management
services to clients to ensure they are able to become self-reliant.
ESG-CV RAPID REHOUSING
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
ESG-CV HOMELESS PREVENTION
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
ESG-CV Page 1
4 Volunteers of America New REQUEST:128,917$
Homeless Outreach Program CDCIP:128,917$
MAYOR:128,917$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 106.70
5 Soap to Hope New REQUEST:112,180$
Street Outreach Program CDCIP:112,180$
MAYOR:112,180$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 71
REQUEST:241,097$
CDCIP:241,097$
MAYOR:241,097$
COUNCIL:-$
6 Friends of Switchpoint New REQUEST:750,000$
Salt Lake Winter Overflow Shelter CDCIP:750,000$
MAYOR:750,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 96.7
7 The Inn Between New REQUEST:114,400$
Medical Respite CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:-$
CDCIP did not score this application due to it's HUD-CV ineligibility.
REQUEST:864,400$
CDCIP:750,000$
MAYOR:750,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Reach the increased number of unsheltered individuals experiencing
homelessness due to COVID-19. Funding will support new positions,
and to provide basic needs items.
Essential care and supplies for homeless persons living on the street,
including substance abuse services. Staffing costs to increase outreach.
ESG-CV STREET OUTREACH TOTAL
Staff costs for a medical housing, to medically frail and terminally ill
homeless individuals, who need to be in a COVID-free environment due
to underlying health conditions and other high-risk factors.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Application is HUD-CV ineligible. Application does not meet the HUD-CV definition of
Emergency Temporary Shelter.
ESG-CV STREET OUTREACH
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Funds will be used for staffing two 24/7 facilities that will operate as
winter overflows. Shelter rental costs, staffing, food and
PPE supplies will be included in the use of funds.
ESG-CV EMERGENCY SHELTER TOTAL
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
ESG-CV EMERGENCY SHELTER
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Emergency Shelter Housing
ESG-CV Page 2
8 Salt Lake City Corporation New REQUEST:398,691$
Administration of Grant Programs * CDCIP:398,691$
MAYOR:398,691$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 103.9
REQUEST:398,691$
CDCIP:398,691$
MAYOR:398,691$
COUNCIL:-$
FUNDS REQUESTED FUNDS AVAILABLE
Homeless Prevention 1,212,940$ 3,986,911$
Rapid Rehousing 823,355$ 3,986,911$
Street Outreach 241,097$
Emergency Shelter 864,400$ FUNDS RECOMMENDED
Administration 398,691$ CDCIP:3,426,083$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:3,540,483$ MAYOR:3,526,083$
COUNCIL:-$
CDCIP Board Recommendation:
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:460,828$
COUNCIL:3,986,911$
Administration Staff Analysis:
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
% OF GRANT AWARD
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:
TOTALS
Board Motion For Remaining ESG and CDBG Funding: To go to homeless service agencies that could help with
COVID-19 vaccination, such as agencies that can help identify low income, homeless, marginalized populations, and
communities of color, to obtain and receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Grant administration for ESG-CV Funding.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover
administration costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the
remainder of the grant period.
ESG-CV ADMIN
GRANT AWARD:
(NOTE: 10% is the maximum ESG-CV amount) ESG-CV ADMIN TOTAL
ESG-CV Page 3
2020-2021 Funding Available: $87,443
1 Utah Community Action REQUEST:82,196$
Housing Stability HTFAB:82,196$
MAYOR:82,196$
COUNCIL:-$
Max Score: 129
Applicant Score 119.83Applicant Score 119.83
REQUEST:82,196$
HTFAB:82,196$
MAYOR:82,196$
COUNCIL:-$
2 Salt Lake City Corporation REQUEST:5,247$
Administration of Grant Program*HTFAB:5,247$
MAYOR:5,247$
COUNCIL:-$
Max Score: 129
Applicant Score: 109.17
REQUEST:5,247$
HTFAB 5,247$
MAYOR:5,247$
COUNCIL:-$
FUNDS REQUESTED FUNDS AVAILABLE
Housing Stability $ 82,196 87,443$
Administration 5,247$ 87,443$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED 87,443$
FUNDS RECOMMENDED
HTF Board Recommendation:HTFAB:87,443$
MAYOR:87,443$
COUNCIL:-$
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
Administration Staff Analysis:HTFAB:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:87,443$
HOPWA-CV ADMIN
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
This funding will be utilized to provide Permanent Housing Placement
(PHP) and Short-term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRMU) assistance for
persons with HIV/AIDS, during the COVID-19 Crisis
Grant administration for HOPWA-CV funding.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration
costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant
period.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
SALT LAKE CITY HOPWA-CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020-2021
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
HOPWA-CV HOUSING STABILITY TOTAL
HOPWA-CV HOUSING STABILITY
PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARD
TOTALS
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
GRANT AWARD:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:
(NOTE: 6% is the HOPWA-CV admin amount.) HOPWA-CV ADMIN TOTAL
HOPWA-CV Page 1
SALES TAX REVENUE UPDATE THROUGH OCTOBER
The monthly total table shows the FY Month of Sale after distribution calculation.
Note: For the first 4 months, SLC is receiving 77% of the total distribution. This number is has climbed from 74% last year
Month of Sale 2019 2020 diff 20-19 % Change 2021 diff 21-20 %Change Note
July 5,166,159 5,509,305 343,146 6.6% 5,506,282 (3,023) -0.1%
August 5,494,943 5,453,557 (41,386) -0.8% 5,363,921 (89,636) -1.6%
September 5,990,942 5,979,661 (11,281) -0.2% 6,506,479 526,818 8.8%
October 4,966,702 5,463,847 497,146 10.0% 5,190,694 (273,154) -5.0%
November 5,186,889 5,461,007 274,119 5.3% 4,936,434 (524,573) -9.6% At budget
December 6,321,763 6,883,312 561,549 8.9% 6,177,447 (705,865) -10.3% At budget
January 4,901,735 5,697,416 795,681 16.2% 4,814,755 (882,661) -15.5% At budget
February 4,925,841 4,468,260 (457,581) -9.3% 4,687,540 219,280 4.9% At budget
March 5,739,003 5,980,157 241,154 4.2% 5,617,941 (362,216) -6.1% At budget
April 4,743,045 4,607,410 (135,635) -2.9% 4,508,143 (99,267) -2.2% At budget
May 5,480,257 4,834,144 (646,112) -11.8% 5,009,171 175,027 3.6% At budget
June 5,980,148 5,986,060 5,912 0.1% 5,767,149 (218,911) -3.7% At budget
Total 64,897,427 66,324,138 1,426,711 64,085,955 (2,238,182)
1% Budget 62,049,593
YTD Est Over 2.0 M
Top 5 Sectors (>79%) of sales tax revenue. Numbers below represent pre-distribution totals
YTD Jul-Oct Month of Sale 2020 2021
Sector Name sales_credit Diff FY
Y/Y
% Ch
% of
Total sales_credit Diff FY
Y/Y
% Ch
% of
Total
Retail Trade 12,473,423 344,851 3% 40.6% 12,923,680 450,257 4% 43.8%
Accommodation and Food Services 4,404,066 185,112 4% 14.3% 2,500,242 (1,903,824) -43% 8.5%
Wholesale Trade 3,923,738 82,327 2% 12.8% 4,310,498 386,760 10% 14.6%
Manufacturing 1,849,530 (67,199) -4% 6.0% 2,054,593 205,064 11% 7.0%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,619,499 (60,392) -4% 5.3% 1,414,678 (204,820) -13% 4.8%
CATEGORY TOTAL BUDGET
TOTAL FUNDING
REQUESTED
IN APPLICATIONS
DIFFERENCE REMAINING
BUDGET
Community Land Trust $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000
Landlord Assurance Program $350,000 $53,000 $297,000 $297,000
Incentivized Rent Assistance $900,000 $2,323,512 ($1,423,512)$0
Service Models for the Most Vulnerable
(children experiencing homelessness
and individuals with mental illness)
$200,000 $725,380 ($525,380)$0
TOTALS $1,950,000 $3,101,892 -$797,000
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
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
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 16, 2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #6
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 2020 – 21 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 0.00 $ 63,673.00
IMS FUND 453,399.00 453,399.00
AIRPORT FUND 300,000,000.00 0.00
CIP (IMPACT FEE) FUND 0.00 1,293,732.00
TOTAL $ 300,453,399.00 $ 1,810,804.00
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 16, 2020 14:21 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2019-20 Budget Adjustments
The Fiscal Year 2021 projections are coming in below budgeted revenues. The following chart
shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2021.
Business licensing is seeing a decrease from budget due to trends for apartment units, new
business license and business license renewals. Due to the administrative order for COVID
parking ticket revenue shows a decrease of nearly $500k due to only 51,000 pay station
transactions through the end of August (normally well over 200k). This decrease is also having
an effect on citations written. Additionally, Justice Court fines are down $37k, while moving
violations are down $151k. In Charges and Services, field reservation fees are down $273k while
auto parking fees are also under budget. Miscellaneous revenues are also down due to a decrease
in special events and the elimination of take-home vehicle fees during the current pandemic.
FY20-21 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 111,418,455 111,418,455 -
Sales and Use Tax 67,999,593 67,999,593 -
Franchise Tax 26,812,125 26,812,125 -
PILOT Taxes 1,508,894 1,508,894 -
TOTAL TAXES 207,739,067 207,739,067 -
License and Permits 28,601,482 28,225,928 (375,554)
Intergovernmental 4,444,400 4,444,400 -
Interest Income 1,900,682 1,900,682 -
Fines & Forfeiture 3,938,848 3,202,960 (735,888)
Parking Meter Collection 3,347,986 2,848,523 (499,463)
Charges and Services 4,428,069 4,083,647 (344,422)
Miscellaneous Revenue 4,014,037 3,435,330 (578,707)
Interfund Reimbursement 20,281,706 20,281,706 -
Transfers 9,750,600 9,750,600 -
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 288,446,877 285,912,843 (2,534,034)
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 32,797,506 32,797,506 -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 321,244,383 318,710,349 (2,534,034)
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
This projection of fund balance includes a line item adding in funding budgeted for use for
expenses associated with COVID-19 in fiscal year 2020 that were not spent.
2019 Actual FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 56,104,269 10,372,054 69,441,955 79,814,009 6,625,050 36,900,813 43,525,863
Budgeted Use of Fund Balance (380,025) - (1,510,094) (1,510,094) - (4,885,620) (4,885,620)
Prior Year Encumbrances (8,731,774) (3,105,004) (6,566,830) (9,671,834) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 46,992,470 7,267,050 61,365,031 68,632,081 6,625,050 32,015,193 38,640,243
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.57%18.52%21.06%20.76%20.20%11.38%12.30%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,701,982) - (4,127,838) (4,127,838) - - -
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 43,290,488 7,267,050 57,237,193 64,504,243 6,625,050 25,390,143 38,640,243
Final Fund Balance Percent 13.42%18.52%19.65%19.51%20.20%9.03%12.30%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,858,647)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - (410,173) (410,173) - - -
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - 135,628 135,628 - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (745,025) (745,025) - (288,488) (288,488)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (50,000) (50,000) - (6,239,940) (6,239,940)
BA#4 Expense Adjustment (2,300,000) (10,987,506) (13,287,506) - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - - - (242,788) (242,788)
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (1,350,000) (1,350,000) - (2,783,685) (2,783,685)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - 438,980 438,980 - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (3,071,042) (3,071,042) - (63,673) (63,673)
FOF Revenues 3,149,980 - - - - - -
Projected Revenue Shortfall 758,000 (4,297,242) (3,539,242) - (2,534,035) (2,534,035)
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase 2,500,000 900,000 - 900,000 - - -
Unspent COVID Funds - - - - 5,900,000 5,900,000
HAND Rent Assistance Reimbursement - 1,100,000 1,100,000
- Adjusted Fund Balance 47,081,821 6,625,050 36,900,813 43,525,863 6,625,050 20,237,534 33,487,634
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 14.60%16.88%12.67%13.17%20.20%7.19%10.66%
Projected Revenue 322,562,293 39,242,000 291,317,665 330,559,665 32,797,506 281,282,923 314,080,429
2021 Projection2020 Projection
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $300,453,399 of revenue and
expense of $1,810,804.00. The amendment proposes changes in the four funds, including the
General Fund, the IMS Fund, the Airport Fund and the CIP Impact Fee Fund, with $63,673 from
the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes six initiatives for Council review. Each of
the initiatives are time sensitive.
The proposal does include the transfer of six employees from the General Fund to the IMS fund
and the creation of one additional position within the IMS Fund.
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 2020
(Sixth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-2021)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2020 and Ending
June 30, 2021.
In June of 2020, 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,
2020 and ending June 30, 2021, 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. 27 of 2020.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, 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 __________, 2020.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2020.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
_________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Fisher Carriage House Exploration Center
Construction CIP - 793,732.00 One-time -
2 Glendale Waterpark Redevelopment Plan CIP - 225,000.00 One-time -
3 Trailhead Property Acquisition CIP - 275,000.00 One-time -
4 City Innovations Team - Non Departmental GF - 453,399.00 On-going -
4 City Innovations Team - CAN GF - (166,764.00)On-going (4.00)
4 City Innovations Team - Public Services GF - (222,962.00)On-going (2.00)
4 City Innovations Team IMS 453,399.00 453,399.00 On-going 7.00
5 Police Department Hiring Class GF - - On-going -
1 Airport Interim Financing Airport 300,000,000.00 - One-time -
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 300,453,399.00 1,810,804.00 - - 1.00
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #1:
General Fund GF - 63,673.00 - - (6.00)
IMS Fund IMS 453,399.00 453,399.00 - - 7.00
Airport Fund Airport 300,000,000.00 - - - -
Capital Improvement Program Fund CIP - 1,293,732.00 - - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 300,453,399.00 1,810,804.00 - - 1.00
- -
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #6
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
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #6
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2020-21 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2020-21 Adopted
Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total BA #6 Total Total To-Date
General Fund (FC 10)326,130,003 288,487.58 6,184,940.00 2,783,685.00 63,673.00 335,450,789
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,763,746 1,763,746
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,379,697 1,500.00 5,381,197
Water Fund (FC 51)126,333,193 296,750.00 126,629,943
Sewer Fund (FC 52)212,638,399 108,500.00 212,746,899
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)17,961,860 32,650.00 17,994,510
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,311,600 - 520,000.00 38,956,452.00 341,788,052
Refuse Fund (FC 57)16,515,438 53,200.00 2,742,500.00 19,311,138
Golf Fund (FC 59)8,484,897 8,484,897
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,789,270 3,789,270
Fleet Fund (FC 61)19,209,271 93,000.00 19,302,271
IMS Fund (FC 65)18,289,687 237,000.00 453,399.00 18,980,086
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)7,571,945 7,571,945
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)3,509,164 3,063,849.00 6,573,013
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,261,044 716,764.00 5,925,738.42 5,925,738.00 7,818,505.00 28,647,789
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)- -
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,380,172 2,380,172
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)23,248,016 23,248,016
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)37,519,401 (3,858,955.00) 33,660,446
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)24,420,242 36,435,000.00 1,293,732.00 62,148,974
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,855,203 2,855,203
Risk Fund (FC 87)51,409,025 14,350.00 51,423,375
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,221,534,273 716,764.00 7,463,826.00 45,141,392.00 5,925,738.00 49,091,934.00 1,810,804.00 1,331,684,731
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
2
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Fisher Carriage House Exploration Center Construction
Overage
CIP Impact
Fees
$793,732.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente/Lorna Vogt
The Carriage House Exploration Center project was initially funded through the CIP process, using Park Impact Fees, in
FY2019. The project scope includes construction of an exploration center at the historic Fisher Carriage House that
provides standing exhibits on the natural and cultural history of the Jordan River and surrounding area, and which
showcases a beautiful restored historical structure. The exploration center will provide space for activities and education
programs, places for visitors to engage with city staff and partners and get information about the Jordan River Parkway
Trail and water trail. The center will also provide a home-base for outreach & education staff with the SLC Trails & Natural
Lands Division, from which they can conduct programming up and down the Jordan River. Additionally, the project will
compliment an adjacent boat ramp (construction planned for winter 2020) and create a recreational jumping -off point for
the future Folsom Trail, the Jordan River Parkway Trail, and the Jordan River 'Paddle Trail.'
As design development nears completion, SLC Engineering and the consulting architect, CRSA, have updated budget
projections for the project. Unfortunately, those cost projections have increased significantly from the original b udget
estimate created in 2018 based on a preliminary conceptual design. This budget amendment requests the additional
funding necessary to implement the project, which (if funded) would go to bid in December 2020 and be constructed in
2021. Increased costs for the project are associated with all project elements, but particularly relate to the preservation of
historic windows and doors, interior finishes, necessary plumbing and electrical upgrades, unforeseen utility upgrades and
increased cost for proposed furnishings associated with the public exhibit space.
The Administration would also like to let the Council know about future costs associated with the project.
Future Ongoing Costs
Personnel
FT Site Manager and PT Assistant $ 90,000.00
Supplies and Materials $ 20,000.00
Kayak Rental Fleet (One-Time) $ 10,000.00
Facility Maintenance Costs $ 18,238.00
Grounds Maintenance Costs $ - *
TOTAL $ 138,238.00
* In Trails Natural Lands budget
A-2: Glendale Waterpark Redevelopment Plan CIP Impact
Fees
$225,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente/Lorna Vogt
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for $225,000 in Impact Fees to hire a consultant to create a Development
Plan for Glendale Water Park, a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) site. A recent community survey found
slightly more than half of the 3700 respondents supported new uses on the site. The Development Plan would articulate a
long-term community supported vision for the site with phased implementation. The first phase, (to be determined with
the input of public feedback) would implement active recreation on site within the three-year LWCF requirement.
The 17-acre water park site located along the Jordan River is adjacent to two park sites, a golf course, the surplus canal and
natural areas along the Jordan river. This is an opportunit y to create a plan that unifies these public amenities through
connecting trails, unifying landscape character and the development of complementary recreation uses into a regional
asset. Developing the water park site within the context of the more than 210 acres of public lands would foster positive
activation and create a dynamic community asset. Because this site was private for so long, the development will
essentially create a new park, added to SLC's park inventory, with new service to residents and is impact fee eligible. In the
time of a pandemic and political divisions, it is more important than ever to invest in dynamic public spaces that connect
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
people and break down demographic and economic divides. The Glendale property is a unique opportunity to create a very
special place the supports economic development, public health, a sense of community, and environmental sustainability
as well as increase confidence in city government’s use of public funds.
Project Tasks may include but not limited to:
• Analyze the site and surrounding context: opportunities and constraints
• Facilitate community and stakeholder engagement: community support
• Define the Park Vision: Community vision and goals
• Develop conceptual site plan alternatives: Explore development alternatives and cost estimates.
Include analysis of alternative plan operations and maintenance requirements and cost estimates
• Develop Final Site Development Plan
• Develop an implementation plan that includes plan phasing and funding strategies
• Facilitate adoption by City Council.
A-3: Trailhead Property Acquisition CIP Impact
Fees
$275,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente/Lorna Vogt
The Administration is requesting $275,000 of Impact Fees to purchase land for a trailhead. The Administration can
provide additional details of the property in a closed session.
A-4: City Innovations Team GF $63,673.00
IMS $453,399.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Lisa Shaffer/John Vuyk
Salt Lake City Administration is looking to take transformational steps with regards to enterprise technologies and
improved business practices. To do this the development of a team is required, this team will be known as the City
Innovations Team. The team initially will be built upon existing resources from the Mayor’s Office, Public Services, IMS
and Community and Neighborhoods. This team will take on larger enterprise projects like the new Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) effort.
The team will also improve coordination and resources between the Civic Engagement Team and IMS Media Services. A
further step to improve engagement is to combine SLC Media Services and the Civic Engagement Team into a city -wide
communications/engagement team outside of the Mayor’s Office.
Currently, departments work with both teams separately to develop engagement and communications strategies for
projects. Both teams also co-manage SLCgov social media accounts. By combining the groups, the City can create a one
stop shop for engagement/communications efforts.
Positions:
From Public Services
Chief Innovations Officer – Nole Walkingshaw transfer FTE Deputy Director position
Strategy & Special Projects Manager – Alyssa Johnson transfer FTE Strategy & Special Projects Manager position
From Community and Neighborhoods
Civic Engagement Team – Four FTE’s transferred from Community and Neighborhoods
Elizabeth Buhler, Civic Engagement Manager
Kyle Strayer, Civic Engagement Program Specialist
Christianna Johnson, Civic Engagement Program Specialist
Ronnie Buttons, Special Projects Assistant
New Position
Strategy & Special Projects Manager
The proposal also includes operational costs associated with the team.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
A-5: Police Department Hiring Class GF $0.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
The Administration and the Police Department are seeking Council support for the hiring of a police recruit class in
January or February of 2021. The Police Department is not seeking additional funding but will use current budget for fully
funded positions and attrition savings from the first six months of the year .
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Airport Interim Financing Airport $0.00
Department: Airport Prepared By: Brian Butler
Salt Lake City Department of Airports (SLCDA) plans to issue interim financing up to $300 million in the form of either
Commercial Paper backed by a Letter of Credit or a Line of Credit directly with a bank. We are currently in procur ement
and are negotiating the terms of the agreement which we deem to be favorable especially considering the low interest rate
environment. These funds will ultimately be refunded with long term debt, but we will maintain the facility for upwards of
three years to help with financial flexibility on the Airport Redevelopment Project. These funds can be used for operating
and maintenance expenses or to fund construction costs as determined by the Airport Finance division.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Quick Summary Confidential
Data pulled 12/01/2020
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 318,626$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 732,533$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 6,404,154$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 3,623,027$ D
11,078,339$
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 9,155$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 9,155$ Current Month
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 669$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 669$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 88,481$ -$ -$ -$ 88,481$
Notes
^1 Fiscal Year 2021Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
FY 2022Calendar
Month
12/01/20: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $88k in the next 11 months without offsetting expenditures
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 12/01/2020 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Crime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Impact fee - Police 8484001 -$ -$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 5,462$ -$ 58$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 2,883$ 536,804$ A
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 291,454$ 2,883$ 2,217,979$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,650$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ -$ 52,040$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$ B
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 10,907$ -$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ 2,000$ 8,576$ 55,971$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ -$ 541,106$
Fire Station #14 Debt Service 8421201 339,172$ -$ -$ 339,172$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 19,653$ 55,610$ 1,088,913$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 159,062$ 13,955$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 7,601$ -$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 353$ 414$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ -$ 1,056$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ 50$ 10,237$ 1,570$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,155$ 1,932$ C
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 7,561$ 11,210$ 8,707$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ 760$ 4,851$ 10,329$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 38,566$ 34,689$ 13,067$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ -$ 27,000$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 57,482$ 1,226$ 66,897$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ -$ 102,256$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 70,340$ 17,100$ 112,560$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 319,862$ (7,517)$ 202,900$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 323$ 24,045$ 325,881$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ -$ -$ 400,000$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 63,456$ -$ 663,544$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 64,287$ 15,756$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 94,100$ 14,400$ 3,333,699$
Grand Total 10,375,136$ 951,025$ 412,329$ 9,011,782$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 258,285$ 899,221$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 575,000$ -$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ 3,120$ 121,485$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ 20,000$ 821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,953$ 347$ 2,244$ D
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ -$ 13,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 211,917$ -$ 38,083$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 118$ -$ 40,909$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 60,848$ -$ 64,152$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 118,878$ 6,134$ 85,740$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 2,162$ 7,506$ 138,244$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ 9,969$ 5,719$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 452,870$ -$ 2,405,220$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 1,817,510$ 1,815,625$ 5,659,112$
Total 23,343,877$ 3,079,643$ 2,286,446$ 17,977,787$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
318,626$
$732,533
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
6,404,154$
3,623,027$
11,078,339$
8484002
8484003
8484005
City Council Announcements
January 5, 2021
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 (SLC Code 2.44.050).
Please let staff know if you need the documents to update your disclosure forms.
City Council Announcements
January 12, 2021
Information Needed by Staff (4:08:27)
A. Council District Newsletters for Public Utilities Mailing
At the beginning of each calendar year, the Public Utilities Department
identifies certain months for Council Members to include Council District
newsletters as an insert in residents’ monthly utility bills. Each Council
Member may opt to use the Public Utility billing for outreach
purposes once per calendar year.
The advantage of sharing in the Public Utilities mailings is Council Members
only pay for printing expenses out of their communication budget, saving on
costs associated with postage.
Due to limitations with mail sorting machines, only three Council District
newsletters can be accommodated each month.
➢ The following months have been identified for the Council to include a
newsletter insert. Please let staff know which month you would like to
include a newsletter as part of the Public Utilities billing :
o April
o August
o December
Council Members Johnston and Rogers chose December , Council Members
Wharton and Mano chose April, Councilmember Dugan chose August , and
Councilmember Valdemoros said to give her what ever was left to choose from.
Please note:
Council Members running for reelection should avoid choosing August in
keeping with Council policy: A.19 NEWSLETTERS (04/2019).
Filing Deadline – June 7, 2021
Primary Election – August 10, 2021
General Election – November 2, 2021
A.19(d) policy states:
Using the U.S. Congress once again as a guide, Council Members who are
campaigning for an elected office should not mail out Council newsletters any later
than 90 days before a primary election. There are fewer than 90 days between Utah
municipal primary and general elections and therefore no Council Member
campaigning for elected office should mail out a newsletter between the primary and
general elections.