02/15/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
February 15,2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance,the meeting may be held electronically.After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City
&County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled
on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on
circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:12:57:56
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.Hybrid Council meetings
allow people to join online through Webex or in person at the City &County
Building.
Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during their 7
p.m.formal meetings online through Webex and in-person in Room 326 of the City
and County Building.For more information,including Webex connection
information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.(A phone line will
also be available for people whose only option is to call in.)
What to Expect:The hybrid format allows in-person participation and remains
mindful of existing COVID-19 protocols and gathering limits.A maximum of 24
people,including Council members and City staff,will be permitted in a meeting
room.If the capacity has been reached in the primary meeting room,overflow space
will be provided.Social distancing will be maintained.
Per an executive order signed by Mayor Mendenhall,face coverings are required for
vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals inside Salt Lake City facilities.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
2.Informational:Equity Update ~2:30 p.m.
15 min
The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity
and Inclusion.These initiatives include,but are not limited to,improving racial equity and
justice in policing.Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve
equitable service delivery,decision-making,and community engagement through the
Citywide Equity Plan,increased ADA resources,language access,and other topics
addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in
Policing Commission.
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.Ordinance:Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 1583 East
Stratford Avenue ~2:45 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of property
located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Avenue from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential District)to CN (Neighborhood Commercial District)and would amend the
Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map.No specific site development proposal has
been submitted at this time.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another
zoning district with similar characteristics.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 15,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 15,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 1,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 22,2022
4.Informational:Pioneer Park Improvements Project Update and
Conceptual Design ~3:05 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the conceptual design project,known as Your
Downtown Park,that is intended to guide future investments in Pioneer Park improvements.
The design was developed from analysis of past City actions,recent changes in the nearby
Downtown area,and feedback from robust public engagement.The total budget impact of the
improvements outlined in the conceptual design is estimated preliminarily at $20 million.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 15,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
5.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Follow-
up ~3:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final
budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year
2021-22.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the
City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and modifications.The Council will
discuss potential funding related to the emergency winter overflow shelter,among other
items.The Council adopted most items in this amendment at previous public meetings.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021;Tuesday,November 16,2021;Tuesday,December 7,
2021;Tuesday,December 14,2021;and Tuesday,February 15,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 9,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021 and Tuesday,February 15,2022
6.Tentative Break ~4:10 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
7.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Follow-
up ~4:30 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final
budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year
2021-22.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the
City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposed
amendment includes funding for new Arts Council employees,adding a second sergeant to
the Special Victims Unit,and additional Emergency Rental Assistance Program funding
from the Federal Government,among other items.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022;Tuesday,February 8,2022;and Tuesday,February 15,
2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 1,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,February 15,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 1,2022
8.Informational:Redistricting Update ~5:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive an update on the City's redistricting process to update Council
District boundaries based on the 2020 Census results.A resident Redistricting Advisory
Commission will recommend maps to the Council.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022;Tuesday,February 8,2022;and Tuesday,February 15,
2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
9.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~5:35 p.m.
30 min
The Council will be briefed about issues affecting the City that may arise during the 2022
Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 1,2022;Tuesday,February 8,2022;and Tuesday,February 15,
2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
10.Board Appointment:Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC):
Alexander Lovell ~6:05 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Alexander Lovell prior to considering appointment to the PUAC
for a term ending January 19,2026.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 15,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 15,2022
11.Board Appointment:Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC):
Kathryn Floor ~6:10 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Kathryn Floor prior to considering appointment to the PUAC for a
term ending January 19,2026.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 15,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 15,2022
Standing Items
12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
13.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 scheduling items.
14.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of
an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;
or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water
right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves
the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of
the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City
Recorder,does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to
The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others
who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of
options discussed.
The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids
and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please
contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711.
Administrative
updates
February 15, 2022
COVID 19
update
Current status
Three Utah counties are now in low transmission with the
remaining 26 still in high transmission.
Positivity rate is down to 31.1% and ICU utilization is down
to 84%.
In SLCo 66.21% of kids aged 12 -17 are fully vaccinated, up
about 0.5% from last week.
In SLCo, 29.16% of kids aged 5 -11 are fully vaccinated, up
about 2% since last week.
Reports of COVID -like illness are going down across all age
groups in the County.
Last week's update from the County showed
hospitalizations decreasing from 48 per day to 40 per day.
Citywide
vaccination
average =
68.33%
(67.98% last week)
Zip % fully vaccinated
1.11 1.18 1.25 2.1 2.8 2.15
84101 80.19 80.24 80.28 80.70 81.27 81.69
84102 61.72 61.82 61.86 62.08 62.27 62.56
84103 72.82 72.90 72.95 73.14 73.32 73.60
84104 51.64 51.78 51.87 52.23 52.68 53.15
84105 72.46 72.56 72.63 72.81 73.01 73.19
84106 66.30 66.38 66.53 66.81 67.06 67.40
84108 73.09 73.17 73.23 73.38 73.51 73.68
84109 73.96 74.19 74.34 74.65 74.89 75.11
84111 71.18 71.34 71.44 71.91 72.34 72.93
84115 61.08 61.28 61.43 61.82 62.17 62.49
84116 54.29 54.46 54.55 54.90 55.36 55.78
Community Engagement update
Name Lead Department/Division Status
1100 East Reconstruction Transportation / Engineering Active, Survey Closes end of this week
Pioneer Park Vision Public Lands / Parks Active, Survey Closes Feb. 18th
Urban Forest Action Plan Planning / Urban Forestry Active, Survey Open
Affordable Housing Overlay Planning Live Q&A Session on Feb. 16 at 9 AM
Thriving In Place Community and Neighborhoods (CAN)Survey Expected Public by the End of the Week
Connect SLC (Transportation Master
Plan)
Transportation Active, Public Engagement
Glendale Water Park Public Lands / Parks Active, Public Engagement
Ballpark Station Area Plan Planning Active, Public Comment Period
Shelter Zoning Planning Removal -@ Council /
Rewrite -Coming
Northpoint Small Area Plan Update Planning Ongoing Community Engagement, Public
comment in next 2-3 months
Downtown Plan Implementation Planning Public Input Phase, draft ordinance in next
month. Followed by adoption process.
www.slc.gov/feedback
Homelessness Update:
HRC and Overflow Occupancy
February 7th –February 11th
STH -1000 West
Men's HRC
STH -King
Women's HRC
STH -Miller
Mixed HRC Total
St Vincent de
Paul/ Weigand
Center
Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg number of beds occupied/night 290 197 197 684 61 / 26
Avg number of beds unoccupied/night 10 3 3 16
Avg % of beds occupied/night 96.6%98.4%98.7%97.7%
Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 3.4%1.6%1.3%2.3%
Cleaning and Abatement
-Two large camp abatements in the next two weeks
-Subsequent focus will be on Jordan River, but
continual evaluation of other city location needs.
Resource Fair
Friday Feb. 11th -North Temple High Needs Motel
Ruff Haven:7 pets served
Courts:1 case heard, multiple questions addressed
SLCo Health: 6 vaccinations
Weigand Center Client Advocate & employment
Counselor: engaged with 11 people
Sacred Circle Health Care
State Court Help Desk
Utah Transit Association: bus passes and new survey
Homelessness
update
Homelessness
Overflow
Shelter
status
801-990-9999
•St. Vincent de Paul-open nightly
•Weigand Center-open nightly
•Scattered Motel Rooms -24/7-referral only from
HRC's
•High Needs Temporary Housing Program
(formerly the Ramada Inn motel rooms)-referral-
only hotel rooms for elderly and medically
vulnerable people-open 24/7 116 beds filled
•Redwood Overflow Beds (formerly the Ramada
Inn common areas) -
opening tonight 11pm-6:30am
•The best way to access emergency shelter beds
is:801-990-9999
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:February 15, 2022
RE: 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
PLNPCM2020-00393 & PLNPCM2020-00394
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend zoning of the parcel at approximately
1583 East Stratford Avenue from its current RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family) zoning designation
to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). The proposal would also amend the Sugar House Community Master
Plan Future Land Use Map for the properties from “Medium Density Residential” to “Neighborhood
Business.”
The applicant originally proposed changing use of the site on the northeast corner of Stratford Avenue and
Glenmare Street from residential condominiums to office use. It should be noted the subject property is
under the same ownership as the parcel immediately west across Glenmare Street, which is also used for
offices and, if the proposal is approved, would extend its business campus to the subject property.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous negative
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed amendments. Eight people spoke at the March 24,
2021 Planning Commission public hearing. All were opposed to the rezone request. Concerns cited include
a loss of naturally occurring affordable housing units in a neighborhood largely comprised of single-family
homes, reducing already limited multi-family housing units (Planning staff found 17 multi-family housing
units in the area), the proposed business use doesn’t serve the neighborhood, additional traffic and
parking, and construction without permits converting two of the residential condominiums into one
commercial unit.
Following the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation, the applicant worked with Planning staff
to amend their request and agreed to keep six residential units on site through a condition of approval. The
updated proposal includes constructing a building on the property for office use north of the existing
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 15, 2022
Set Date: February 15, 2022
Public Hearing: March 1, 2022
Potential Action: March 22, 2022
Page | 2
building or demolishing the existing condominium structure and replacing it with a new mixed-use
building. It is unclear if a new building north of the current condominium structure, of sufficient size for
offices, would meet setback and buffer requirements. Mixed-use including offices and residential units are
allowed “by right” under the proposed CN zoning designation. Mixed-use developments are not allowed
within the existing RMF-35 zoning designation.
Aerial image with subject property outlined in red.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the
Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask if any of the potential new housing units will be affordable. If so, at
what percentage of AMI and for how long?
2. The Council may wish to ask if the applicant plans to assist current tenants with relocation.
3. Is the Council supportive of the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The current structure was developed in 1985 as an apartment building. At that time, it was in the B-3
zoning district which allowed all types of housing, retail shops, and retail services. During the 1995 citywide
zoning ordinance and zoning map update the subject property was rezoned to RMF-35 based on its use as
multi-family residential.
The subject parcel is in a small commercial node well-known in the community. This node includes offices,
restaurants, and retail shops. Other multi-family residential housing in the area includes a three-unit
condominium building adjacent to the east of the subject property, and a six-unit condominium building
located on the southwest corner of Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Street. Parcels in the commercial node
are zoned either RMF-35 or CN as shown in the area zoning map below.
Page | 3
Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in red.
Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-9 of
the Planning Commission staff report. They are summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see
the staff report.
Consideration 1-Compatibility with Master Plan Policies
Planning staff noted the subject property meets the intent and location criteria of the Medium Density
Residential future land use map in the Sugar House Master Plan, as the current building meets the
building height and garden type of apartment development. However, it is Planning’s opinion the original
proposed use as office space is not consistent with the future land use map because it would not provide
desired residential services within walking distance. Eliminating residential in favor of increasing office
space rather than services would not further the neighborhood commercial node.
Growing SLC, the city-wide plan, includes goals to address issues resulting from the city’s growing
population and ensure access to affordable housing. One of the Plan’s goals is to “increase housing
opportunities for cost burdened households.” It includes housing opportunities in neighborhoods without
many choices for cost burdened families. Planning staff believes the proposed amendments do not align
with the goals of Growing SLC.
Plan Salt Lake, another city-wide plan also includes goals for providing a variety of housing types
throughout the city which include:
“Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low income).”
“Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the
basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.”
Page | 4
Consideration 2-Urban Resiliency and Diversity of Housing
Planning staff noted an attribute of resilient places is a diversity of housing. They referenced a National
Science Foundation study that found diverse housing types promotes stability in the community and
market changes have an impact on affordable housing.
An American Planning Association Policy Guide on Housing was also mentioned by Planning staff. It notes
housing diversity in neighborhoods helps assure community viability by allowing for housing throughout
life phases, different income levels, and different lifestyles. These help lead to more stable housing demand
in communities through market changes.
Planning staff found the existing condominiums are naturally occurring affordable housing. It is unknown
if housing units in a new building would be affordable or market rate.
Consideration 3-CN District Compatibility and RMF-35/CN Zoning District Comparison
The CN District purpose statement says:
The CN Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to provide for small scale, low intensity
commercial uses that can be located within and serve residential neighborhoods. This district is
appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans and along local streets that are
served by multiple transportation modes, such as pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobiles. The
standards for the district are intended to reinforce the historic scale and ambiance of traditional
neighborhood retail that is oriented toward the pedestrian while ensuring adequate transit and
automobile access. Uses are restricted in size to promote local orientation and to limit adverse
impacts on nearby residential areas.
The table below compares standards for the RMF-35 and CN zoning designations. It might be noted the
existing building setbacks are 27’ from the front and corner side yard property lines. If the property is
rezoned to CN it would result in the existing structure being in non-compliance with setback requirements.
That said, a new structure could be built in compliance with setbacks.
Zone Max. Building
Height
Front Yard Min.Front Yard
Max.
Side/Corner Side
Yard Minimums
Rear Yard
RMF-35 35’20’No Maximum 4’/10’20’-25’
CN 25’15’25’Same as Front
Yard
10’
The existing RMF-35 zoning district requires a 10’ landscape buffer when adjacent to a single-family
residential district. The subject parcel requires a buffer on the north and east property lines. Planning staff
stated it appears the requirement is not currently being met.
In the proposed CN zoning designation, a 7’ landscape buffer is required when abutting residential
districts. If the proposed amendments are approved, landscape buffers would be required on the north and
east property lines.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment C (pages 27-28) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are
summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information.
Page | 5
Factor Finding
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with
the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as
stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Does not comply
Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the
specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
Does not comply
The extent to which a proposed map amendment will
affect adjacent properties
Complies
Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with
the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Complies
The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to
serve the subject property, including, but not limited to,
roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and
fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,
water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection.
Complies
PUBLIC PROCESS
• June 5, 2020-Information about petition sent to the Sugar House Community Council.
• June 20, 2020-Sugar House Community Council meeting discussion. Comments included
concerns about loss of housing/affordable housing, traffic and parking, offices not useful to the
neighborhood, current enforcement issues, liked live/work type of neighborhood.
• June 20, 2020-Early notification mailed to property owners within 300’ of the subject parcel.
• March 11, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to neighbors within 300’ of the
zoning map amendment site.
• March 11, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing newspaper notice.
• March 12, 2021-Planning Commission notice posted on property.
• March 24, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION // FEBRUARY 15, 2022
1583 EAST STRATFORD AVE: MASTER PLAN & ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
PLNPCM2020-00393/00394
1583 EAST STRATFORD AVE
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
VICINITY MAP
EXISTING CONDITIONS
•Current: RMF-35
•Proposed: CN
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ZONING MAP
Future Land Use Map
•Current: Medium Density Residential
•Proposed: Neighborhood Business
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
MASTER PLAN
Low Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Medium Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Neighborhood
Business
Yard Standards
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ZONE COMPARISON
Zone Front Yard Min.Front Yard Max.Side/Corner Side Yards Rear Yard
RMF-35 20’No Max.4’/10’20’-25’
CN 15’25’0’/ 25’10’
Zone When Abutting
Res. District
RMF-35 10’
CN 7’
Landscape Buffer
Zone Max. Building Height
RMF-35 35’
CN 25’
Building Height
Land Use
•Significant permitted and
conditional land use
differences.
Sugar House Master Plan
•“Prohibit the expansion of non-
residential land uses into areas of
medium-density residential”
•Identifies the Stratford/Glenmare
intersection as a commercial node.
•The intent is to allow adjacent
neighborhoods access to services
that are within walking distance. The
commercial node, “may consist of
four corner sites or isolated parcels”.
•Encourages increasing opportunities
for affordable housing.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
COMPATIBILITY WITH MASTER PLANS
Growing SLC
•“Increasing housing opportunities for
cost-burdened households”
•Ensure life cycle housing types are
available for different life stages
Plan Salt Lake
•“Ensure access to affordable housing
citywide”
•“Access to a wide variety of housing
types for all income levels throughout
the City,…responding to changing
demographics”
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Nan Larsen // Senior Planner
Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com
Erin Mendenhall DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 27, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00393/00394 – 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan & Zoning
Map Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
801-535-7645
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous decision
recommending denial of the proposed amendments. The applicant has modified his request
agreeing to enter into a development agreement to retain the existing residential uses. Staff
recommends that the Council consider this request with the proposed modifications.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Spring of 2020 the applicant, Erin Hoffman, representing the
property owner Stratford Investment Properties initiated a petition to amend the Master Plan’s
Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request is for a property located at approximately
1583 East Stratford Avenue, the site is presently used as a residential condominium complex. The
petition would amend the property from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business
on the Sugar House Future Land Use Map and amend the zoning map from RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Planning Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to City Council
at the time. The Planning Commission heard the petition on March 24 of 2021 where they
forwarded a recommendation to deny the proposal to City Council.
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 28, 2022 14:52 MST)01/28/2022
01/28/2022
After the Planning Commission public hearing the applicant worked with Staff to amend the
proposal to better conform to the Sugar House Master Plan and the City-wide Plan Salt Lake. The
applicant amended their proposal after a number of meetings with city staff.
Initially, the applicant was proposing to remove the 6-residential units on the site and convert the
building to an office use. The CN district permits both residential and office uses as by right.
Because there was concerns about losing naturally occurring affordable housing in a
predominantly single-family neighborhood, there were also concerns regarding diversity of
housing in the neighborhood. Presently there are a limited number of multi-family houses in the
area (only 17- residential units) that losing 6- residential units sufficiently reduces housing choices
in the neighborhood.
After the Planning Commission
public hearing the applicant
worked with staff on changes to
the proposal to amend the
Master Plan and Zoning Map.
The applicant agreed to keeping
the 6-residential units on site
through a condition of approval
of the proposed amendments.
The updated proposal would
include an additional office
building on the site with the 6-
residential units that will
remain. The proposed mixed-
use development of the site will
likely be designed so that it is
permitted by right in the
proposed CN district.
The subject property is located
on a corner site, fronting along
two streets of Stratford Avenue
and Glenmare Street. The site is
within the Highland Park Place
A subdivision in 1909 as a residential site. While there was no zoning designation in Salt Lake City
at the time, the parcel layout in this subdivision was for a residential type of development. At the
time the site was developed it was within the B-3 district, which permitted all types of housing,
retail shops, and retail services. In 1995, during the complete rewrite of the zoning ordinance and
zoning map, the subject site was rezoned to RMF-35 which was based on its existing use of multi-
family residential.
The current multi-family structure was developed in 1985 as an apartment building. In 2009 the
apartment building was converted to a condominium through the Glenmore Condominium
subdivision. This subdivision created 6-residential units, each approximately 850 square feet in
area. Since its construction it appears these residential uses have been occupied since.
If the master plan amendment and zoning map amendment is approved the property owner would
be allowed to fully redevelop the site in accordance with the CN (Neighborhood Commercial)
zoning district standards and permitted land uses.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Sugar House Community
Council on June 5, 2020.
o The Sugar House Community Council met on the proposed amendment on June
20, 2020 through a Zoom meeting.
Some of the comments included: housing being removed, office not useful
to neighborhood, traffic and parking concerns, current enforcement issues,
affordable housing, liked the live/work type of neighborhood.
• The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on
June 20, 2020.
• Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed March 11, 2021 to
all neighbors within 300’ of the Zoning Map amendment site.
• Public notification for the Planning Commission hearing was posted in the newspaper,
March 11, 2021.
• The property was posted March 12, 2021 noticing the Planning Commission.
• The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2021. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to deny the proposed
amendments to the City Council.
Planning Commission (PC) Records:
a) PC Agenda of March 24, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of March 24, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of March 24, 2021 (Click to Access Report)
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Avenue
from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CN Neighborhood
Commercial District, and amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
1583 East Stratford Avenue from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District
to CN Neighborhood Commercial District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00393, and
amending the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00394.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 24,
2021 on an application submitted by Erin Hoffman (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property
owner, Stratford Investment Properties, LLC, to rezone property located at 1583 East Stratford
Avenue (Tax ID Nos. 16-21-332-001, 16-21-332-002, 16-21-332-003, 16-21-332-004, 16-21-
332-005, 16-21-332-006, and 16-21-332-007) (the “Property”) from RMF-35 Moderate Density
Multi-Family Residential District to CN Neighborhood Commercial District pursuant to Petition
No. PLNPCM2020-00393, and to amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map
with respect to those parcels from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business
pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00394; and
WHEREAS, at its March 24, 2021 meeting, the planning commission voted to forward a
negative recommendation on these petitions to the Salt Lake City Council; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the planning commission’s recommendation, following a
public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in
the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CN
Neighborhood Commercial District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Sugar House Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map of
the Sugar House Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future land use
designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” from Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Business.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 1583 E Stratford Ave
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
December 29, 2021
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
and Subject to Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
1583 East Stratford Avenue
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-007
ALL OF LOTS 799 TO 802, HIGHLAND PARK PL A SUB & THE S 1/2 OF VACATED
ALLEY TO THE N. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEG AT SW COR
OF LOT 802, HIGHLAND PARK PL A SUB; N 0̊ 01'00" W 131.12 FT; S 89̊ 52'13" E 102.09
FT; S 0̊ 01'00" E 131.12 FT; N 89̊ 52'13" W 102.09 FT TO BEG. 0.31 AC. LESS UNITS. (BEING
THE COMMON AREA FOR GLENMARE CONDO). 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-006
UNIT 6, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-005
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 5, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-004
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 4, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-003
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 3, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-002
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 2, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
Tax ID No. 16-21-332-001
GLENMARE CONDO 1S 0313 UNIT 1, GLENMARE CONDO. 9739-8636
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Mailing List
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Project Chronology
Located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00393/00394
May 19, 2020 Zoning Amendment application received by the City.
May 20, 2020 Master Plan Amendment application received by the City.
May 21, 2020 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen.
June 4, 2020 Housing Mitigation application requested
June 5, 2020 Notice of the amendments was provided to the Sugar House
Community Council.
July 21, 2020 Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments routed for review
August 3, 2020 A number of public comments received through email from the
Sugar House Community Council
July 14, 2020 Email received regarding concerns site was being used as an
office.
July 20, 2020 Housing Mitigation application received by the City.
March 16, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
March 17, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
July 20, 2020 Sugar House Community Council meets on requested
amendments
August 3, 2020 Sugar House Community Council submitted letter to Planning
Commission through email.
August 11, 2020 Staff recommendation of denial is discussed with applicant.
Discussed additional items needed before item is presented to
Planning Commission.
September 14, 2020 Planning staff met with applicant to discuss the recommendation
to Planning Commission on retaining the 6-residential units.
October 15, 2020 Email sent to applicant asking how to proceed with the proposal.
October 22, 2020 Email received from applicant asking how to proceed to the
Planning Commission.
October 26, 2020 Voicemail and Email sent explaining needed item to proceed to
Planning Commission. Explained housing mitigation calculation
and expectations.
November 8, 2020 Public Comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments.
November 9, 2020 Received email from applicant stating they are working on
updated information
February 11, 2021 Received email from applicant concerning Housing Mitigation
calculations. I confirmed their understanding of those calculations
are correct.
February 16, 2021 Received some updated information from applicant and a request
to proceed to the Planning Commission with the established
recommendation of denial.
February 24, 2021 Staff sent email asking for full information initially requested, and
confirmed updated information.
February 25, 2021 Received information needed in full from applicant.
March 1, 2021 Staff emailed applicant the date of the scheduled Planning
Commission hearing.
March 11, 2021 Newspaper notice posted
March 12, 2021 Property posted
March 16, 2021 Received supplemental letter from applicant to present to Planning
Commission
March 19, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
March 22, 2021 Staff report posted online and emailed to applicant.
March 22, 2021 Public comment received through email regarding concerns over
the amendments
March 24, 2021 Planning Commission recommended unanimously that City
Council deny the proposed amendments.
April 1, 2021 Received email from applicant with questions on next steps.
April 13, 2021 Met with applicants and discussed next steps, applicant stated
they will let me know when they are ready to proceed forward to
City Council.
June 15, 2021 Met with consultant to the applicant and explained next steps and
possible amendments to the application.
October 28, 2021 Applicant requested a Pre-submittal meeting with Staff. Discussed
steps forward and possible zoning districts for a mixed-use
development.
November 18, 2021 Updated application submitted by email requested mixed-use
redevelopment with a development agreement to maintain 6-
residential units.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00393 & PLNPCM2020-
00394 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendment – Salt Lake
City received a request from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment Properties, the property
owner, to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at
approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal would rezone the entire property from
RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and
amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Business. The proposed amendment to the Master Plan & Zoning Map is intended
to accommodate an office and residential uses on the site. The subject property is zoned RMF-35
(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located in Council District 7, represented by
Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen, 801-535-7645) Case Number: PLNPCM2020-
00393/00394.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at nannette.larsen@slcgov.com.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to attend this hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats,
interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or
additional information, please contact the Planning Division at (801) 535-7757; TDD (801) 535-
6021.
3. MAILING LIST
1583 East Stratford Avenue
Mailing List
STRATFORD 1588 LLC 1408 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARLO D BANFORD 1495 E 3000 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CAMERON HOLT; EMILY HOLT (JT) 1502 S WASATCH DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
Current Occupant 1550 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1555 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
WILSON-DEVERAUX LC
1555 E STRATFORD AVE,
#100 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
PKS TR 1556 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #1 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #2 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #3 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #4 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #5 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #6 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #7 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1560 E STRATFORD AVE, #8 Salt Lake City UT 84106
STRATFORD INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC 1567 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1571 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
STRATFORD, LLC 1582 E BRIDLEBROOK CIR HOLLADAY UT 84117
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #1 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #2 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #3 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #4 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #5 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1583 E STRATFORD AVE, #6 Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1586 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1588 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1592 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1595 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
JLO PROPERTIES, LLC 1596 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1597 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1599 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
JOSLIN CHRISTENSEN 1602 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1603 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
ALYSSA SCHRACK 1608 E STRATFORD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 1629 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1632 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1635 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 1636 E STRATFORD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84106
RHETT EVANS 1857 E HARVARD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108
EINAR W SWENSEN (JT) 1946 E ATKIN AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
EAST STRATFORD CONDOMINIUM
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2053C TUSTIN AVE COSTA MESA CA 92627
REESE CONDOMINIUM COMMON AREA
MASTER CARD 224 E ENSIGN VISTA DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RBC LIV TRUST 2265 E FARDOWN AVE HOLLADAY UT 84121
RED BRICK AVE INC 2319 S FOOTHILL DR # 160 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
KEVIN F & DEBRA D KAVANAGH TRUST
03/15/2007 24235 VALLEY ST NEWHALL CA 91321
Current Occupant 2521 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
BRADY MCKAY DUNCAN; JULIE NITA DUNCAN
(JT) 2522 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
JAMES F OGDEN 2522 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
RIO-DEAN CROCETTI MARTIN 2525 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MICHELLE RASMUSSEN 2526 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CHRISTINA STEELE; NATHAN STEELE (JT) 2526 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2527 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
MIHO A UJIIE 2527 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2533 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
Current Occupant 2533 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
ZACHARY S DURFEE; MICHAEL D MADSEN;
YVONNE C MADSEN (JT) 2533 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BNK TRUST 2534 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
J SHANE MATHER; JEANNE J MATHER (JT) 2534 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2539 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
AARON CROWDER 2539 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEBBIE YORK; THOMAS YORK 2540 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEBRA G GRIFFITHS 2540 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
ANN M KRUEGER 2541 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MND FAM TRUST 2545 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KORI A WETSEL 2545 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KAYLEY MILLER; STEPHEN D MILLER (JT) 2546 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DANIELLE B PROBST; GERALD G PROBST
(JT) 2546 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DEBRA A MAYO 2549 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
DOUGLASS R & KATHRYN B HUNTER FAMILY
TRUST 11/16/2016 2551 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
KRISTA TODD; ANNA E DEMOTT (JT) 2551 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
CARRIE B MILLER 2552 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2552 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SCOTT C SNOW; KARALEE SNOW (JT) 2579 E SAGE WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
Current Occupant 2611 S FILMORE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
MICHAEL & LYNDA PATRICK FAMILY TRUST
08/30/2018 2617 S FILMORE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARIAN DECKER 2624 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2625 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
SERGIO COPPA; ELISABETH COPPA (JT) 2625 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
MARIE L BLACK 2626 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
SYDNEY STONER; ERIK KISH-TRIER (JT) 2628 S GLENMARE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
Current Occupant 2629 S GLENMARE ST Salt Lake City UT 84106
JENNIFER JONES; DEREK ROCHE (JT) 2630 S HARTFORD ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106
BRIGHT HORIZONTAL REALTY LLC 2632 E ROBIDOUX RD SANDY UT 84093
SJC MANAGEMENT LLC 3336 E OAK HOLLOW CIR
COTTONWOOD
HTS UT 84093
GIAN J SEXSMITH; CORINNE D SEXSMITH (JT) 3480 S 3650 E MILLCREEK UT 84109
L FAM TRUST 3546 E BROCKBANK DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
ECHC HOLDINGS LLC 3793 E PARKVIEW DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
DAVE E RANDLE 4480 S ADONIS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124
JEFFREY D EISENBERG 4563 S PEACH ST HOLLADAY UT 84117
CHRISTOPHER CANNON; SUNITA CANNON
(JT) 5405 236TH AVE NE REDMOND WA 98053
COOLEY FILMORE LLC 6863 S BELLA VISTA DR
COTTONWOOD
HTS UT 84121
MATTHEW M COWLEY; JON COWLEY (JT)
7858 S PHEASANT WOOD
DR
COTTONWOOD
HTS UT 84093
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, 801-535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
Date: March 24, 2021
Re: PLNPCM2020-00393/00394 – 1583 East Stratford Avenue Master Plan and Zoning Map
Amendments
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1583 East Stratford Avenue
PARCEL ID: 1621332001, 1621332002, 1621332003, 1621332004, 1621332005, 1621332006, 1621332007
MASTER PLAN: Sugar House – Medium Density Residential
ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
REQUEST: Salt Lake City received a request from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment
Properties, the property owner, to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning
map for a property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal would
rezone the entire property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to
CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from
Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they deny the proposed
zoning map and master plan amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Applicant Submittal and Information
B. Zoning Map
C. Sugar House Future Land Use Map
D. Site Photos
E. Analysis of Amendment Standards
F. RMF-35 Zoning Standards
G. CN Zoning Standards
H. Department Comments
I. Public Process and Comments
3 | Page
The current multi-family structure was developed in 1985 as an apartment building. In 2009 the
apartment building was converted to a condominium through the Glenmore Condominium
subdivision. This subdivision created 6 residential units, each approximately 850 square feet in area.
Since its construction it appears these residential uses have been occupied since.
The current configuration of the site is similar to other multi-family residential structures constructed
at that time in the city. The building is setback an approximate of 27’ from the south and west property
lines. This area is landscaped and maintained by the property owner. Parking is permitted and located
behind the structure towards the rear of the site. This parking lot includes both covered and uncovered
stalls and has accessibility from Glenmare street to the west. The height of the building is approximately
25’.
In July of 2020 the site came under enforcement for internal construction in the structure without a
building permit. The work being conducted was to combine two residential condominiums into one, a
stop work order was issued and the construction on the site ceased until a building permit was
obtained.
The subject property fronts on Stratford Avenue to the south and Glenmare Avenue to the west. Both
Stratford and Glenmare Avenues are listed as local streets in Salt Lake City’s Transportation Master
Plan. Local streets provide access to private property to a few number of cars and at low level speeds.
The uses around these local streets are generally directed to lower frequency of trips and are directed
toward the local neighborhood.
The subject sites are surrounded by single family residential houses at a small scale, generally these
houses were built in the 1940s. At the intersection of Glenmare and Stratford is a historic commercial
node that is well-known in the community. This commercial node includes 7 properties and is occupied
by offices, restaurants, financial institutions, and retail shops. Similar commercial nodes are generally
located on corner lots. Residential multi-family sites are also located within this commercial node, the
sites located on the south west corner of Glenmare and Stratford houses a 6-unit condominium and is
zoned RMF-35. To the immediate east of the subject site is also a multi-family 3-unit condominium
and is designated RMF-35. The multi-family structures near this intersection have a similar site layout
with approximately 20’ landscaped yards with parking located in or behind the structure.
The nearest bus line is a north/south line located on 1700 East, approximately two-blocks to the east,
this bus runs every half hour. The other transit line is another bus route on 1300 East, another half
hour bus frequency.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor
and community input, and department review comments.
1.Compatibility with Master Plans
2.Urban Resiliency
3.RMF-35 and CN Zoning District Comparison and Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent
Properties
4 | Page
Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies
Sugar House Master Plan
The site under review for the Master Plan Future Land Use Map amendment is within the Sugar House
Master Plan. This site is presently designated Medium Density Residential. Medium Density
Residential allow areas to accommodate for a mix of low-rise housing types – these housing types
include four-plex units, garden apartments, townhouses, and live/work units. The density of this
designation is between 10 and 20 dwelling units per acre. The Medium Density Residential future land
use has a location criteria that includes:
• “Proximity to arterial or collector streets;
• Proximity to higher design residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood
commercial nodes or the urban town center of the Business District;
• Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space;
• Prohibit the expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of medium-density
residential.”
The site’s location and use meet the intent and location criteria of the Medium Density Residential
future land use type in that the existing structure located at 1583 E Stratford meets the building height
and garden type of apartment development, it is also located within a commercial node at Stratford
and Glenmare avenues.
These location criteria state that expansion of non-residential land uses into areas of medium-density
residential is discouraged, and that it is recommended that these spaces remain residential in some
form.
The purpose of the Neighborhood Business designation is to provide an area for services, products and
attraction on a small scale and within close proximity to residential neighborhoods. This land use
designation allows for both residential and small business uses.
Within the Sugar House Master Plan is language that identifies the Stratford/Glenmare intersection as
a commercial node in the Stratford neighborhood. The intent of the commercial node is to allow
adjacent neighborhoods access to services that are within walking distance. It is stated that these
Neighborhood Commercial areas, “may consist of four corner sites or isolated parcels”, and the
“businesses range from grocery stores to restaurants”.
It doesn’t appear that the intent of the commercial node in the Stratford neighborhood, located at the
intersection of Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Avenue, is met with the proposed amendment to the
Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business. The
intent of this commercial node is to allow residents access to services that are within walking distance.
Because the amendments would result in the conversion of residences to office space rather than
services it would not further the purpose of the Stratford commercial node.
While the Stratford/Glenmare is identified as a commercial node in the Sugar House Master Plan, it
identifies this commercial node as consisting of 4 corner sites or isolated parcels. The existing Future
Land Use Map presently identifies isolated parcels on 2 corner properties of the Stratford/Glenmare
intersection, therefore the intent of the mater plan commercial node is currently being met.
5 | Page
Housing, particularly affordable housing, is addressed in the Sugar House Master Plan as well. The
Master Plan encourages increasing opportunities for affordable housing, it also promotes, “Developing
and implementing programs that encourage the provision of affordable housing”. The proposed
amendments do not meet the goals of the Sugar House Master Plan as it removes housing that is
considered to be more affordable from the City’s housing stock. Further, the propose amendments also
would remove naturally occurring affordable housing in an area with an already limited number of
affordable
housing units.
The
configuration
of the site
allows for
naturally
occurring
affordable
housing, in
that the units
encompass
approximately
900 square
feet and the
structure is
over 30-years
old. This is one
of the few
places in this
area of the
Sugar House
Master Plan
where
naturally occurring affordable housing is available, this site is generally surrounded by single-family
housing on privately owned lots, as shown in figure 2.
The Sugar House Master Plan emphasizes the importance of a diversified approach to affordable
housing in the community, stating that it is important that affordable housing is evenly distributed
through the community and city-wide.
Maintaining the City’s housing stock is addressed in the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance that
was codified in 2012. Housing Loss Mitigation application and calculation is attached to this report as
Attachment A. The housing mitigation ordinance goes into effect when a proposal includes the removal
of housing within Salt Lake City boundaries. This application is administratively approved by the
Director of Community and Neighborhoods and is calculated as the difference between the assessor’s
estimate of the building value and the price to replace the building.
Growing SLC
Growing SLC is a city-wide plan aimed at establishing housing goals and objectives in addressing issues
related in Salt Lake City’s growing population and ensure access to affordable housing. The goals within
this city-wide plan include “increasing housing opportunities for cost-burdened households” in the
City. This includes housing opportunities in neighborhoods that do not have many choices available
for cost-burdened families as well as established affordable spaces. The proposed amendments go
Figure 2: Surrounding Zoning Map
6 | Page
against this stated goal that was approved by City Council, by converting the building from residential
to office the affordable units are removed from the city housing stock.
Another objective within Growing SLC is to implement life cycle housing in each neighborhood in the
city. Life cycle housing is ensuring that housing types are available for different life stages in each
neighborhood throughout the City. Life cycle housing requires that a diversity of housing types are
provided in each neighborhood. The proposed amendments do not meet this objective as it further
reduces multi-family housing in a neighborhood that almost exclusively single-family residential.
Plan Salt Lake
Finally, Plan Salt Lake, another city-wide plan intended to provide guidance outlines initiatives to
support the guide the growth and changes as they occur in the City. Plan Salt Lake, in addition to the
Sugar House Master Plan, also has goals relating to providing differing housing types throughout the
city.
“Ensure access to affordable housing citywide (including rental and very low
income).”
“Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City,
providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing
demographics.”
The proposed amendments to the Sugar House Master Plan to facilitate the removal of 6 residential
units do not meet the purpose or intent of the Sugar House Master Plan, nor do the amendments meet
the initiatives of Plan Salt Lake. The existing multi-family residential units at 1583 E Stratford are one
of the very few multi-family uses available in the neighborhood that is mostly single-family. The intent
of the Master Plan at the intersection of Stratford and Glenmare is to provide an area for services or
retail within walking distance of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The conversion of
residential to office would reduce this environment as office types of uses generally are not limited to
the community but rather service a larger area and would encourage commuting into a residential
neighborhood.
Consideration 2 – Urban Resiliency and Diversity of Housing
Another significant consideration for any proposed Master Plan or Zoning map amendment is whether
the proposed amendments furthers the resiliency of the community. One attribute of resilient places is
a diversity of housing. One study, funded by the National Science Foundation, found that allowing for a
diversity of housing types promotes stability in the community as shifts in the market impact
affordability of housing, providing a mix of housing ensures that housing will remain available and
maintained within the community.
The American Planning Association in their Policy Guide on Housing notes that a diversity of housing
in neighborhoods also helps assure the viability of communities as it allows for housing of all life phases,
many different income types, and different lifestyles. Encouraging housing for all life phases allows
residents the chance to remain within their community and near people with whom they are familiar as
their need for housing changes. Diversity in housing also allows for different income types so that as
trends in the market fluctuate housing demand is more stable in the community.
Attainable and affordable housing is essential to preserve as demand for housing in these communities
increases. Ensuring that there is attainable or affordable housing options in every community allows
low-income households the opportunity to live in areas that are established or developing towards
9 | Page
While neither zoning district landscape standards are presently being met, the site is able to be updated
so that it is in complying whether the proposed amendments to the master plan or zoning map are
approved or denied.
Use
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing multi-family residential structure to office. The RMF-
35 district permits residential multi-family as a permitted use, residential multi-family is not permitted
in the CN district however. Office is allowed in the CN district as well as mixed use development
(commercial/residential). Because RMF-35 is a residential district, generally only residential or uses
related to residential are permitted in this district. CN allows a greater range of uses that are oriented
to the surrounding residential uses.
DISCUSSION:
It is necessary that the purpose and goals of the Sugar House Master Plan are shown to be met prior to
any amendment to the master plan and zoning map. It is also necessary that a rezone of the site
complies with the requirements of the proposed zoning district.
It was found during the review of the Key Considerations of the proposed amendments that the
conversion from multi-family residential to office is contrary to the intended purpose and goals of Salt
Lake City’s master plan and large area plans. The intent of the Medium Density Residential designation
and the commercial node near the intersection of Stratford and Glenmare Avenues are presently being
met and the requested amendment would disrupt this. Further, it was found that reducing the available
housing types in this Sugar House community would diminish the resilient nature of this area and
reduce the number of affordable residential units within the City.
Finally, approval of the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments would create a noncompliance that
is not already existing on the site. The maximum setback in the CN district is 25’, the structure exceeds
this by 2’ at 27’ front and corner side yard setback. The RMF-35 does not limit the maximum setback
so keeping the subject property within the RMF-35 zoning district would allow the site to stay in
compliance.
While the proposed amendments to the Master Plan and Zoning Map may bring additional jobs into
the City, the goals, initiatives, and purpose of the Sugar House Master Plan and the city-wide plan, Plan
Salt Lake, have been found are not being met.
NEXT STEPS:
A recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission will result in the proposed
Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment to be sent to the City Council for a final decision.
Master Plan and Zone Amendment Approval
If the master plan and zone amendments are approved, the applicant will be permitted to build or
operate any use allowed in the CN, Neighborhood Commercial, zone on the site. A list of uses allowed
in the zone is included in this report as Attachment G. The developer will need to obtain a building
permit or business license for any new development or new business and will need to comply with all
applicable zoning standards. Also, prior to the elimination the Housing Loss Mitigation Report will
need to be approved and the corresponding fees paid to the City.
10 | Page
Master Plan and Zone Amendment Denial
If the master plan and zone amendments are denied, the property will remain zoned RMF-35,
Moderate Density Residential. This zone allows the continued use of residential, whether that is
residential rental units or individually owned.
11 | Page
ATTACHMENT A: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL AND INFORMATION
1
106139586.1 0069070-00003
MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
1583 East Stratford Ave
1. Describe the proposed master plan amendment.
We are the owners of the property located at 1583 East Stratford Ave, SLC, UT 84106 (the
“Property). We intend to convert the building on the Property from a residential condominium
six-plex building into a commercial office building. We are therefore applying to change the
Land Use Map in the Sugar House Master Plan to identify the Property as Neighborhood
Business. This is a much better use of the Property given its location and the use of the
neighboring properties, and fits well with recent development in Sugarhouse to create a livable
walking community.
2. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
Our plan is to maintain the structure currently on the Property but upgrade and convert the
building to be used as an office space. We would take the old, run-down building that has
collected a junkyard behind it and make it into something the community and city could be proud
of. This would include exterior improvements to the aesthetics of the building (paint,
landscaping, and structural repair) as well as reconfiguring and upgrading the interior of the
existing structure to meet building codes and exceed environmental and efficiency standards.
This requires the Land Use Map to change the use of the Property to Neighborhood Business.
3. Declare why the present master plan requires amending.
This Property is an ideal location for commercial use, as currently outlined in the master plan.
The properties to the east, west, and south of the Property are currently identified as
Neighborhood Business. The Property is located on the corner of a prominent 4-way intersection.
It is a better and higher use of the Property to identify it as Neighborhood Business.
The Sugar House Master Plan specifically calls out this intersection as an ideal location for
Neighborhood Commercial use:
“Neighborhood Commercial areas may consist of four corner sites or isolated parcels. The
businesses range from grocery stores to restaurants. Some neighborhood business centers
identified in the land use plan are at 2100 South and 2100 East, Stratford Avenue and
Glenmare Street, 2700 South and 2000 East, and portions of 2300 East and Parley's Way. The
community supports a Citywide effort to revise and strengthen the Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district.” Sugar House Master Plan, Pg. 6.
Changing this Property to Neighborhood Business on the Land Use Map unifies the use of the
intersection and is supported in the area’s master plan. Recent development in Sugarhouse has
established a unified neighborhood that includes offices, shopping, restaurants, and an upgraded
2
106139586.1 0069070-00003
trail system within a residential area to encourage social gatherings and reduce transportation
impact. Many of the employees at the existing adjacent businesses walk or ride bikes to work,
reducing vehicular traffic and environmental impact. Offering additional walkable office space
reduces after-hours neighborhood noise and impact and adds an attractive, efficient, and
environmentally friendly building to a revitalized and thriving area.
The added commercial space, while a small addition to a growing area, would offer patronage of
the adjacent shops, restaurants, and salons, ensuring the intersection’s small business success for
years to come.
4. Is the request amending the Land Use Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
16213320010000, 16213320020000, 16213320030000, 16213320040000, 16213320050000,
16213320060000, and 16213320070000
1
106139585.1 0069070-00003
ZONING AMENDMENT
APPLICATION ATTACHMENT
1583 East Stratford Ave
1. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
We are the owners of the property located at 1583 East Stratford Ave, SLC, UT 84106 (the
“Property). We intend to convert the building on the Property from a residential six-plex
condominium building into a commercial office building. We are therefore applying to change
the zoning of the Property from Moderate Density Multifamily Residential (“RMF-35”) to
Neighborhood Commercial (“CN”). This is a much better use of the Property given its location
and the use of the neighboring properties, and fits well with recent development in Sugarhouse to
create a livable walking community.
2. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
Our plan is to maintain the structure currently on the Property but upgrade and convert the
building to be used as an office space. We would take the old, run-down building that has
collected a junkyard behind it and make it into something the community and city could be proud
of. This would include exterior improvements to the aesthetics of the building (paint,
landscaping, and structural repair) as well as reconfiguring and upgrading the interior of the
existing structure to meet building codes and exceed environmental and efficiency standards..
This requires the zoning on the Property to be changed to CN.
3. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
This Property is an ideal location for commercial use, as currently outlined in the master plan.
The properties to the east, west, and south of the Property are currently zoned CN. Changing the
zoning of the Property to CN would be more in line with the uses of the neighboring properties
and create a centralized neighborhood commercial location.
The Sugar House Master Plan specifically calls out this intersection as an ideal location for CN
zoning:
“Neighborhood Commercial areas may consist of four corner sites or isolated parcels. The
businesses range from grocery stores to restaurants. Some neighborhood business centers
identified in the land use plan are at 2100 South and 2100 East, Stratford Avenue and
Glenmare Street, 2700 South and 2000 East, and portions of 2300 East and Parley's Way. The
community supports a Citywide effort to revise and strengthen the Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district.” Sugar House Master Plan, Pg. 6.
Changing this Property to Neighborhood Commercial zoning unifies the use of the intersection
and is supported in the neighborhood’s master plan. Recent development in Sugarhouse has
2
106139585.1 0069070-00003
established a unified neighborhood that includes offices, shopping, restaurants, and an upgraded
trail system within a residential area to encourage social gatherings and reduce transportation
impact. Many of the employees at the existing adjacent businesses walk or ride bikes to work,
reducing vehicular traffic and environmental impact. Offering additional walkable office space
reduces after-hours neighborhood noise and impact and adds an attractive, efficient, and
environmentally friendly building to a revitalized and thriving area.
The added commercial space, while a small addition to a growing area, would offer patronage of
the adjacent shops, restaurants, and salons, ensuring the intersection’s small business success for
years to come.
4. Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
16213320010000, 16213320020000, 16213320030000, 16213320040000, 16213320050000,
16213320060000, and 16213320070000
Salt Lake City Planning Division
March 16, 2021
Page 2
110057061.1 0069070-00003
is identified as a neighborhood business center. Moreover, the Master Plan states that “The
Stratford Avenue and Glenmare Street neighborhood shopping node is an example of a center
that is underutilized.”
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the
zoning ordinance.
The “zoning ordinance” refers to Title 21A of the Code. The overall purpose of the zoning
ordinance is “to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of
the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the City,
and to carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act.”
Code § 21A.02.030. The purpose of the CN Zone is “to provide for small scale, low intensity
commercial uses that can be located within and serve residential neighborhoods.” Code
§ 21A.26.020. But for other commercial uses on the same intersection, as further described
below, the Property is within a residential neighborhood and is ideally positioned to provide just
such small scale, low intensity commercial use. The conversion of the existing residential units
to commercial offices would have the same intensity of use as previously existed, but would
provide walkable office space for the neighborhood. Commercial use of the Property would also
promote convenience for local residents and would help establish and support this intersection as
a thriving commercial node.
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties.
Both the northwest and southeast corners of this intersection are already within the CN Zone and
used for commercial purposes. The property to the east is also within the CN Zone. Rezoning
the Property to the CN Zone would draw additional local residents to those existing businesses
and would offer patronage to those businesses from individuals working at the Property. This
would also provide walkable office space for the neighborhood. Allowing commercial use on
the Property would promote this intersection as a viable neighborhood commercial center.
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
There are no applicable overlay zoning districts.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,
including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire
protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse
collection.
The existing building will undergo some updates and improvements, but the structure, and need
for public facilities and services, will remain the same.
Analysis of these five items demonstrates that the Property is appropriate for the CN Zone. We
therefore respectfully request that the Applications be approved.
13 | Page
ATTACHMENT C: SUGAR HOUSE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
14 | Page
ATTACHMENT D: SITE PHOTOS
View of Site, looking north/east on Stratford Avenue
View of Site, looking east on Glenmare Avenue
15 | Page
View of Site, looking south/west on Denver Street.
View of Site, looking south/east on Glenmare Avenue
ATTACHMENT F: RMF-35 ZONING STANDARDS
21A.24.130: RMF-35 MODERATE DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT:
A.Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family
Residential District is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate
density housing types, incl uding single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings
with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35 '). This district is appropriate in areas
where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density ofless than thirty
(30)dwelling units per acre. This district incl udes other uses that are typically found
in a multi-family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving
the neighborhood. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and
intensity of the ne ighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide
for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and comp atible
development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
B.Uses: Uses in the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, as
specified in section 21A.33.020. "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For
Residential Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set
forth in section 21 A 24 010 of this chapter and this section.
C.Minimum Lot Area And Lot Widtl1: The minimum lot areas and lot widths
required in this district are as follows:
Land Use Minim1un Lot Area Mininnun Lot Width
Multi-family dwellings (3 through n units) 9,000 square feet' 8ofeet
Multi-family dwellings (12 or more units) 26,000 square feetl 8ofeet
Municipal se1vice uses, including City No minimum No minimum utility uses and police and fire stations
Natural open sp ace and conse 1vation Nomininmm No minimum areas, public and private
Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 14ofeet
Public pedest1ian pathways, trails and No mininmm No minin1um greenways
Public/private utility transmission wi res, No minimum No minin1um lines, pipes and poles
Single-family attaclied dwellings (3 or 3,000 square feet per unit Inte1ior: 22 feet more) Corner: 32 feet
Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 5ofeet
Twin home dwellings 4,000 square feet per unit 25 feet
Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet
Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 5ofeet
Other permitted or conditiona l uses as 5,000 square feet 5ofeet listed in section 21.A.33.020 of this title
181 Page
19 | Page
Qualifying provisions: 1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty five feet (35'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (2) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however, if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. d. Multi-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Side yard shall be at least ten feet (10'). e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need not exceed twenty five feet (25'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards", of this title. 6. Existing Yards: For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building unless the proposed yard encroachment is to accommodate additional units. New principal buildings must conform to current yard area requirements, unless the new principal two-family dwelling or twin home has legal conforming status as outlined in section 21A.38.070 of this title. F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one of the interior side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. G. Maximum Building Coverage: 1. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty five percent (45%) of the lot area. 2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot area. 4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area. 5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of such existing buildings shall be considered legally conforming. 6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the lot area.
20 | Page
ATTACHMENT G: CN ZONING STANDARDS
21A.26.020: CN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT: A.Purpose Statement: The CN Neighborhood Commercial District is intended to provide for small scale, low intensity commercial uses that can be located within and serve residential neighborhoods. This district is appropriate in areas where supported by applicable master plans and along local streets that are served by multiple transportation modes, such as pedestrian, bicycle, transit and automobiles. The standards for the district are intended to reinforce the historic scale and ambiance of traditional neighborhood retail that is oriented toward the pedestrian while ensuring adequate transit and automobile access. Uses are restricted in size to promote local orientation and to limit adverse impacts on nearby residential areas. B.Uses: Uses in the CN Neighborhood Commercial District as specified in section 21A.33.030, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C.Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D.Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required. No lot shall be larger than sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500) square feet. E.Maximum District Size: The total area of a contiguously mapped CN District shall not exceed ninety thousand (90,000) square feet, excluding all land in public rights-of-way. F.Minimum Yard Requirements:1.Front Or Corner Side Yard: A fifteen foot (15') minimum front or corner side yard shall be required. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. 2.Interior Side Yard: None required.3.Rear Yard: Ten feet (10').4.Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5.Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. 6.Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least sixty five percent (65%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is twenty five feet (25'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Planning Director, in consultation with the Transportation Director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk
21 | Page
is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The Planning Director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the Planning Director finds the following: a.The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b.The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. 7.Parking Setback: Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. The Planning Director may modify or waive this requirement if the Planning Director finds the following: a.The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b.The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. c.The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of screening. d.The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoodcharacter. e.The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.050 of this title.Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission. G.Landscape Yard Requirements: Front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards. Subject to site plan review approval, part or all of the landscape yard may be a patio or plaza, conforming to the requirements of section 21A.48.090 of this title. H.Maximum Height: Twenty five feet (25'). (Ord. 14-19, 2019: Ord. 12-17, 2017)
23 | Page
ATTACHMENT I: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related
to the proposed project:
PUBLIC PROCESS AND INPUT
Timeline
• The application for a rezone was submitted on May 19, 2020.
• The application for a master plan amendment was submitted on May 20, 2020.
• Notice of the proposal, and request for input, was provided to the Sugar House Community
Council on June 5, 2020.
o The Sugar House Community Council met and discussed the proposed amendments on
July 20, 2020 through a Zoom Meeting.
Some of the comments included: housing being removed, office no useful to
neighborhood, traffic and parking concerns, current enforcement issues,
affordable housing, liked the live/work type of neighborhood.
• Early Notification mailings were sent out on July 20, 2020 to property owners and residents within
300’ of all four corners of the project site.
• Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to property owners and residents
within 300’ of the subject site.
• A public notice sign was posted on both frontages of the subject site on March 11, 2021.
• Public comments were received through email before the writing of this report. They are attached
to this report.
From:Judi Short
To:Larsen, Nannette
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
Date:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:30:34 PM
I just got this, so it isn't in what I sent you yesterday, thought I would start a second COMMENTS document and see
if we get more.
I thought I would send this to you now, since it is one of the few that thinks the rezone is a good idea. udi
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: David Fernandez
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM
Subject: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
To:
From: David Fernandez <2685 S Hartford>
Subject: 1583 Stratford Ave
Message Body:
I virtually attended the Sugar House Council meeting on the property located at 1583 Stratford
Ave on 7/20/20. I strongly approve of changing the zoning to CN (Neighborhood
Commercial) to allow the owner to convert the existing building to additional office space.
The Joint Orthography is exactly the business that fits in this neighborhood. A small low
impact, non-obtrusive business that employees highly educated and community oriented
personnel. They have been part of this community for quite some time. With the recent
Covid-19 stay at home order it has demonstrated that the amount of personnel parking in the
area was reduced. Upgrading the existing horrible apartment complex even a little will
enhance the neighborhood and provide them even more business parking. It was suggested
during the meeting that a variance be granted for the upgrade to prevent the owner from
flipping the property without another chance to bring it before the City Council. However,
since the Sugar House Master Plan does not allow this type of variance, I support the change
of zoning to neighborhood commercial. Even though the owners and the Sugar House Council
may not have followed all the codes and regulations according to Hoyle, in the end I trust the
owner’s to do the right thing rather than any legislation, enforcement, punitive actions, or
codes.
--
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Sugar House Community Council
(https://www.sugarhousecouncil.org)
--
Judi Short
1
Larsen, Nannette
From:Debbie Mayo
Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:48 PM
To:Larsen, Nannette
Cc:Tim Krueger; Brenda Koga; Judi Short
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 83 East Stratford Ave conversion of residential property to commercial with a request to
rezone to CN APN: 16-21-332-001 thru 007; PLNPCM2020-00393; PLNPCM2020-00394
Hello Nanette,
I have been copied on all the emails that have been going around about the above rezone at 1583 E. Stratford. I would
like to make a comment to be included in your report to the Planning Commission. I live at 2549 S. Glenmare St. and
share a property line with this apartment building. I have serious concerns about this lot getting rezoned to
commercial. The owners of this property have already built a new large multistory building on their property across the
street on the opposite corner of Stratford and Glenmare. This building went right up to the property line of the home next
door to it and has completely blocked that home off. That homeowner looks from both her home and her yard into this
commercial building. I am afraid that if the apartment building is rezoned commercial, the same thing will happen to
me. When I bought my home 20 years ago, the apartment building was already there and they have been fine neighbors
for the most part and no bother. If there was a commercial business on that property, I would never have purchased my
home. This is a residential neighborhood with with a few small businesses on that intersection. They are neighborhood
friendly businesses, a hair salon, a small restaurant and so on. Things that are a good and useful addition to a
neighborhood. Total Joint Orthopedics is not a good and useful addition to our neighborhood. They are a design,
manufacturing and sales business that has no business being in a residential neighborhood. No one in our neighborhood
is able to utilize their products or services.
Since Erin Hoffman has made this application for the rezone, she has proven time and again to disregard the entire
process. Construction started almost immediately and has continued to the point where now they have moved in and are
occupying the 2 lower units (which have now been combined into one) of the apartment building. All of this was despite
not having a work permit, despite have a work stop order placed and despite not having a business license or this zoning
change in place. I have documented this process and have sent photos to Judi Short, Amy Fowler and Les Koch. At one
point I went over and spoke with the man who did most of the construction work. He told me the 2 lower units were being
remodeled to be one large 4 bedroom/4 bathroom apartment. As I glanced around this was obviously not the case at the
time and I was quite surprised he would tell me that. It is definitely not the case today. I took a photo this morning that
clearly shows it is not an apartment and that it is being moved into as a business.
Another of my concerns is that if the zoning change is approved, Erin will evict the tenants on the upper floors and covert
the entire building into an expansion of Total Joint Orthopedics. I have actually had the thought that she might do that
whether she gets the zoning change approved or not as she seems to think rules do not apply to her.
Sugarhouse is being overrun with new apartment buildings these days. I should think it is not the best use of land to
convert an existing apartment building into office and manufacturing space, especially in a residential
neighborhood. There is not enough parking space to support this building being converted totally to a business. Currently
there are parking issues with the existing Total Joint Orthopedics. They don't begin to have enough parking space for all
their employees and they park all up and down the adjacent residential streets. If they continue to grow their business,
they will have more commercial trucks coming on our streets as well. There are a lot of kids in this neighborhood that play
in front yards. They frequently run over to friend's houses so increased truck traffic would be a danger to them. Again, I
can't say enough that this type of business does not belong in a residential neighborhood.
I would encourage the Planning Commission members to please deny this application for a zoning change.
I am planning on attending the Planning Commission meeting on March 24th..
Regards,
1
Larsen, Nannette
From:Larsen, Nannette
Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:54 PM
To:'Judi Short'
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
Thank you Judi,
I will be sure to include all of these comments in my report to the Planning Commission.
Best,
Nan
From: Judi Short <judi.short@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 1:30 PM
To: Larsen, Nannette <Nannette.Larsen@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fwd: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
I just got this, so it isn't in what I sent you yesterday, thought I would start a second COMMENTS document
and see if we get more.
I thought I would send this to you now, since it is one of the few that thinks the rezone is a good idea. udi
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Fernandez
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:32 PM
Subject: 1583 E Stratford Avenue
To:
From: David Fernandez ><2685 S Hartford>
Subject: 1583 Stratford Ave
Message Body:
I virtually attended the Sugar House Council meeting on the property located at 1583 Stratford Ave on 7/20/20. I
strongly approve of changing the zoning to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to allow the owner to convert the existing
building to additional office space. The Joint Orthography is exactly the business that fits in this neighborhood. A small
low impact, non‐obtrusive business that employees highly educated and community oriented personnel. They have
been part of this community for quite some time. With the recent Covid‐19 stay at home order it has demonstrated that
the amount of personnel parking in the area was reduced. Upgrading the existing horrible apartment complex even a
little will enhance the neighborhood and provide them even more business parking. It was suggested during the meeting
that a variance be granted for the upgrade to prevent the owner from flipping the property without another chance to
bring it before the City Council. However, since the Sugar House Master Plan does not allow this type of variance, I
support the change of zoning to neighborhood commercial. Even though the owners and the Sugar House Council may
not have followed all the codes and regulations according to Hoyle, in the end I trust the owner’s to do the right thing
rather than any legislation, enforcement, punitive actions, or codes.
‐‐
This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Sugar House Community Council (https://www.sugarhousecouncil.org)
2
‐‐
Judi Short
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:February 15, 2022
RE: INFORMATIONAL: PIONEER PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT UPDATE AND
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration will provide the Council an introduction to their conceptual design to guide investment in
Pioneer Park improvements, titled Your Downtown Park. Work on this project is being led by the Public Lands
Department, assisted by the Engineering Division and consultants Design Workshop. The process began in early
2021, and included the review and analysis of past processes, data about demographic, housing, and other
changes in nearby areas of the City, and extensive public engagement. This briefing is intended to serve as a
mid-point check-in with the Council, consistent with Resolution 14 of 2020, Declaring City Council Policy and
Objectives for Preparing Master Plans (see Attachment C1).
The total cost of the improvements outlined in the conceptual design was preliminarily estimated by the
consultants as approximately $20 million, including allowances for inflation. For this reason, the
Administration has placed Your Downtown Park on the project list to be considered for a proposed bond later
this year. (Staff note: discussions with the Administration are ongoing regarding a sales tax and potential
General Obligation bond for voter consideration.) The project team reports that this projected cost—at about
$46 per square foot for a ten-acre park —is comparable to other active downtown parks of this size in cities
around the country (see Transmittal Exhibit B for comparison).
Goal of the briefing: Review the conceptual design for Pioneer Park, provide comments, and consider
options for funding.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 15, 2022
Set Date: n/a
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Rationale. The Department of Public Lands notes that over the past 20 years, there has been consistent
interest in improving Pioneer Park and enhancing it as a community asset. Over time, the City has made
incremental improvements, like the Farmers Market perimeter path and the multi-purpose field, but major
improvements to park infrastructure will require a much larger investment.
Meanwhile, the most recent City population figures show that Council District 4 added more new residents
between 2010 and 2020 than any other District, growing from nearly 27,000 to just over 33,000. This
growth is believed likely to continue given the current pace of Downtown residential construction. At the
same time, the Public Lands Needs Assessment ranked Downtown as a high need area, similar to Central
City neighborhoods in terms of scarcity of park service per capita. The area’s recent growth also has pushed
the price of vacant land to levels that have complicated the City’s goal of creating additional downtown green
spaces. It has become particularly difficult to find a large, centrally located space that can serve multiple
recreation needs.
B.Public Engagement. Stakeholder engagement began in April 2021 and consisted of discussions with the
Downtown Community Council, the Downtown Alliance, the Pioneer Park Coalition, various service
providers for unsheltered people, the Utah chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Urban
Design Committee, and relevant City staff. Broader public engagement continued through the Park’s
summer event season, with over 2,800 people responding to an in-person and on-line survey. The resulting
information and preliminary concepts received another round of feedback from the major stakeholders
mentioned above, and then were refined and presented to Salt Lake City’s Parks, Natural Lands, Urban
Forestry & Trails Advisory Board (PNUT) Board last December. Feedback collected from a public survey
open until February 18 will be used to confirm the conceptual plan with the public, and to prioritize
implementation as funding becomes available.
C.Concepts Proposed. Priorities identified in the engagement process were characterized and developed in
the concept plan as follows.
1.Natural features: shade trees, plants, gardens. Tree removal would be limited, and more new
trees would be planted than are removed.
2.Comfort amenities: seating; restrooms; a café; a park ranger station, and a plaza.
3.Improved security: increased park activation and safety for all people; decreasing opportunities
for illegal or antisocial activities through year-round programming; greater staffed presence; a
greater variety of park users; and maintaining open sight lines.
4.Active play spaces: one basketball and six pickleball courts, an all-ages playground, lawn game
rental kiosk, and an enhanced dog-park.
These ideas are summarized in the project principles titled: The Heart of the City; A Model for Urban
Ecology; Balance Neighborhood and Regional Needs; Welcoming for Everyone; A Safe and Well-Maintained
Space; and A Lasting Legacy.
D.Estimated Costs. The total cost of the improvements outlined in the conceptual design was preliminarily
estimated by the consultants as $20 million, including allowances for inflation. The project team reports
that this projected cost—at about $46 per square foot for a ten-acre park —is comparable to other active
downtown parks of this size in cities around the country (see Transmittal Exhibit B for comparison). With
the $3.4 million in parks impact fees allocated in 2019, this would leave about $16.6 million in improvement
costs. Staff is clarifying the Administration’s previous idea to shift these impact fees to the Glendale
Regional Park Project
Page | 3
It is not clear whether any changes in ongoing maintenance costs for the proposed Pioneer Park
improvements have been estimated at this time. See Policy Question 1.
E.Funding Possibilities. Potential funding sources mentioned in the transmittal include parks impact fees,
and inclusion in a potential open space bond to be proposed by the Mayor, although the Administration has
not yet finalized this. An additional potential source is currently under discussion in the Utah State
Legislature.
1.Impact Fees. In 2019, $3.4 million in impact fees were allocated specifically to Pioneer Park,
which will allow for service expansion in 2022 and 2023. Planned new downtown development was
estimated late last winter to amount to another over $2.9 million in impact fees for 1,016 projected
new units.
2.Sales Tax or General Obligation Bond. The Administration is re-evaluating the previously
proposed sales tax bond, and also is considering whether to place a General Obligation bond for
open space amenities before voters. These discussions are ongoing.
3.Request for Appropriation from the State Legislature. Independently from the City, the
Pioneer Park Coalition has requested $15 million directly from the State Legislature. Their plans are
not fully aligned with the Conceptual Plan and the projects that resulted from this City process, but
the request could help further a public private partnership for the park. See Policy Question 3.
F.Next Steps. Funding for an initial phase of construction documents and construction implementation is
available in the allocated $3.4 million, and prioritization of elements to be included will be informed by the
current public engagement. The Administration is interested in moving on to the creation of additional
technical drawings and the construction in Pioneer Park as soon as funding can be secured. The project
team began the final stage of public engagement in January to “confirm the conceptual design” and ensure it
reflects community preferences. In the meantime, the project team continues to work through prioritization
of elements and how to cluster the elements that must be installed in conjunction with one another,
recognizing that implementation may have to occur in phases based on funding availability.
The Department of Public Lands does not anticipate returning to the Council for formal adoption of this
conceptual plan because it does not consider it a Master Plan subject to Resolution 14 of 2020, or a Specific
Area Plan. Instead, it anticipates that only the forthcoming Public Lands Master Plan, and not individual
park plans, would go through a formal Council review and adoption process. See Attachments, and Policy
Question 3, below.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Would the Council like to ask the Administration how any State funding might be
integrated into Pioneer Park funding?
2.The Council may wish to inquire about when estimates of the ongoing maintenance costs
for the proposed improvements will be prepared, and whether any specific elements of
the conceptual design are likely to increase or decrease these costs substantially.
3.The Council may wish to discuss with the Attorney’s Office whether the Pioneer Park
Conceptual Plan and other individual park plans are subject to Council review and
adoption, as laid out in Resolution 14 of 2020. The Council has not consistently adopted park-
specific plans in the past, but the 2020 resolution was intended to standardize that expectation. See
Attachments for additional information.
Page | 4
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Summary of Resolution 14 of 2020: Steps in the Master Plan Process.
Attachment C2. Department of Public Lands Response to Staff Question about Resolution 14 of 2020.
Attachment C1. Summary of Resolution 14 of 2020: Steps in the Master Plan Process
i. Activities ii. Deliverables iii. Council role
a. Planning
preparation
(1)Establish needs, scope of work, and timeline;
(2)Identify stakeholders, including but not limited to, the City
Council, residents, businesses, Salt Lake City recognized
community organizations, and other special interest and public
interest groups/ organizations.
(3)Assemble working groups as necessary.
(1) Scope and work plan;
(2) Project budget;
(3) Timeline;
(4) Potential barriers that may
impact scope, budget, or
timeline.
(1) Receive briefing on
deliverables;
(2) Confirm (or modify) scope
of work through adoption
of a resolution.
b. Assess
existing
conditions
(1) Data gathering;
(2) Trend analysis;
(3) Long-term indicators;
(4) Existing policies;
(5) Frame policy questions.
(1) Existing plans and policies
report;
(2) Trend analysis report;
(3) Public engagement calendar;
(4) Framing document.
(1) Receive report and
written executive
summary of deliverables;
(2) Review calendar and
framing document.
c. Public
engagement
(1) Obtain Public Input;
(2) Review existing policies;
(3) Establish public values;
(4) Establish metrics;
(5) Establish a vision.
(1) Vision statement;
(2) Metrics.
(1) Support public
engagement process;
(2) Approve metrics.
d. Draft plan (1) Create policies;
(2) Establish metric action items;
(3) Integrate city policies;
(4) Interdepartmental review;
(5) Public review.
(1) Draft plan;
(2) Implementation steps.
(1) Receive briefing on draft
plan prior to Planning
Commission hearing and
recommendation.
e. Adoption (1) Create final draft;
(2) Planning Commission public hearing;
(3) Complete administrative process with Mayor recommendation;
(4) Transmit complete proposed master plan including all
supporting and required documentation to City Council in a
single transmittal.
(5) City Council review and adoption process
(1) Planning Commission
recommendation;
(2) Planning staff context
memorandum;
(3) Mayor recommendation
memorandum.
(1) Conduct Council adoption
process, including public
hearing and additional
public outreach.
f. Implementa
tion
(1) Identify implementation projects;
(2) Establish consistent, city-wide coordination process for all
plans.
(3) Establish consistent implementation strategies using the city
operating budget, capital improvement program, CDBG
program, and others.
(1) (Project priority list;
(2) Coordination and
implementation strategy.
(1) (Approve project priority
list;
(2) Consider related budget
actions.
Attachment C2.Department of Public Lands Response to Council Staff Question about
Resolution 14 of 2020
Council staff asked the question:
“What stage would you describe this briefing as, in terms of Resolution 14 of 2020, Declaring City
Council Policy and Objectives for Preparing Master Plans? To me, it doesn’t quite fit any of the
categories listed—which is okay—but I’d love to have your thoughts so I don’t accidentally
mischaracterize it.”
The Public Lands Division responded:
“While this Vision Plan is not a Master Plan that will be adopted by Council, in relation to Resolution 14
of 2020, the stage of current plan development falls somewhere between Public Engagement and Draft
Plan. Planning Preparation and Assessment of existing conditions have been completed, and the project
team will conclude the final window of public engagement for the vision plan with the closing of the
public survey on February 18th. Public engagement has been occurring throughout the vision plan
process, and the analysis of this final window will determine implementation steps and priorities for
future implementation. This briefing for council will inform on the background of the project, the
process goals and project significance and principles, the vision plan itself including design inspiration,
framework, proposed features and experience of the park, and finally will discuss next steps. Because
this plan does not have to go through the formal adoption process, implementation will be the next step
that this plan will undergo according to this Resolution 14.
Because this Vision Plan will not undergo the Master Planning process through formal adoption, it does
not fall into one of the three categories listed in Resolution 14 of General Plan, Element Plan, or Specific
Area Plan, though would most closely resemble a Specific Area Plan. The Public Lands Master Plan will
call for individual park plans for particular parks, that will not go through the master planning and
formal adoption process, which most closely resembles this vision plan process.”
PIONEER PARKYOURDOWNTOWNPARK
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
OUTLINEPRESENTATION
BACKGROUND OVERVIEW
WHY PIONEER PARK AND WHY NOW
PROCESS OVERVIEW
VISION PLAN ELEMENTS
NEXT STEPS
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
BACKGROUND
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKHISTORY
87Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment
High Needs Areas
HogleZoo
TempleSquare UniversityofUtah
South Temple St
1700 S 700 E1700 EF
o
o
t
h
ill DrParley's Way2100 S
1700 S
North Temple St 1200 WBeck St
600 N
2100 SRedwood Rd700 WWest Temple St1300 E11th Ave
500 S
Sunnyside Dr
1300 S
State StHi
ghl
and Dr2100 E§¨¦80
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
§¨¦215
Salt LakeRegionalAthleticComplex
LibrarySquare
LibertyPark
Sugar HousePark
Jordan Park/Peace Gardens
RiversidePark
RosewoodPark
CottonwoodPark
SunnysidePark
MemoryGrove Park CityCemetery
Glendale Park
PioneerPark
11th AvenuePark
Donner TrailPark
Ensign PeakOpen Space
H Rock
Parley's HistoricNature Park
WestpointePark
SherwoodPark
Lesser Need
Greater Need
Jordan River
High Needs Areas
East
Bench
Sugar
House
Central
Community
West
Salt Lake
Avenues
Capitol
HillNorthwest
Combining the characteristics of 1) population density, 2) household
income, 3) youth, 4) seniors, and 5) areas of potential growth results in
a composite map which shows High Needs Areas. The darkest areas of the map represent the areas of the city with the greater need for
High Needs Areas
Areas of Potential Growth
Seniors Ages 65+
Youth & Children Ages 0-17
Household Income
Population Density
a access to the Parks & Public Lands system. The Central Community
shows the greatest concentration of High Needs Areas with several
smaller areas occurring within the Northwest and West Salt Lake
planning areas.
NEEDS ASSESSMENT (2019)BACKGROUND
1-mile radius
W Temple600 S
500 S
300 W | Broadway
200 S
100 S
S Temple
700 S
800 S
300 W200 W400 W500 W400 S | University
Pioneer Park
City Library
Washington Square
I-15
I-15
CONTEXT
CITY-WIDE
DOWNTOWN
15-MIN WALK
3.5 acre
City parks per 1,000 residents
2.8 acre
Downtown parks per 1,000 resident
0.002
acres
Park Space & Natural Lands inService area per Resident
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
0
8.6
ACRES OF CITY-OWNED NATURAL LANDS
ACRES OF CITY-OWNED NATURAL LANDS
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
1,000+
Projected Number Of New Units (March 2021)
2.22%
Projected population Growth*
*COMPARE TO 1.5% for all united
states and 0.5% for Utah.
PROJECTED GROWTH
REIMAGINE NATURE (2022)BACKGROUND
s have cited the
Grid” and large
ks as originally
uses in mind from
eets that primarily
ved green space
roads. Recreation
s in the traditional
rm big ideas like
p,” which aims to
park space to the
itional green space
coverage will
g effect to counter
sland warming of
dscaped city.
eet trees and
er management,
ould creatively
nfuse recreation
ering spaces as
ake pressure off
wn parks. The
be a considerable
e city in
h City Planning and
partments.
Figure 31: Activating downtown SLC diagram.THE GREE
N L
O
O
P
THE G
R
EE
N L
O
O
P
NORT
H TE
MPLE
900 SO
UT
H
50
0
W
E
S
T
20
0
E
A
S
T
ENHANCE
EXISTING
GREENSPACE
RIO GRANDE
FESTIVAL STREET
Create shaded park
space with room for
activities that serve
Downtown residents
and daytime workers.
Use the city’s large right
of ways as flexible public
space to host events.
RECLAIMED
PUBLIC SPACES
Find opportunities to infill with greenspace in downtown Salt Lake City
FLEXIBLE STREETS
Create shaded and
adaptable street space
for city eventsCreate a shaded
experience along the
Green Loop
INCREASE TREE
CANOPY
Create bikeable and
pedestrian friendly network
for all ages and abilities
along the Green Loop
BIKE FRIENDLY
DOWNTOWN
Create future
connections
between Green
Loop and
Downtown nodes
PIONEER PARK
RIO
GRANDE
FESTIVAL STREET
FLEET
9 Line segment
construction to
begin 2022.
Chapter One: Introduction 18
Snapshot
SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC LANDS SNAPSHOT
The following snapshot captures factors that currently influence the equity, livability and sustainability of Salt
Lake City and its Public Lands. It also takes stock of the current Public Lands system including an inventory of
urban forest trees, natural areas, trails, parks and city golf courses.
By 2050 our temps could rise10°
leading to poorer air quality .
EQUITY livability STEWARDSHIP
$85,000
per year to clean up nuisance graffiti .
are anticipated to move to SLC
by 2040 which will require an
additional park space roughly
equivalent to Liberty Park.
SLC IS HOME TO OVER 199,723
people who speak 80 languages
and represent a broad range
of socioeconomic backgrounds
and cultural heritages .
45%
of metro area renters are cost burdened .
The master
plan includes
community engagement windows .
The 2019 Needs Assessment will help identify priority areas .
Accessibility gaps and trail gaps
still exist in all SLC planning
areas, and east-west connections
across the city are limited .
Salt Lake City’s proposed
trails, including expansion
of the 9-line Trail, will add
another 129 .4 miles to the
system, the equivalent of
adding another Jordan River
Parkway (the longest paved urban trail in the US) .
SLC public lands have opportunity to increase biodiversity
by adding more natural habitat like
recent efforts at Fairmont Park Pond
and the Fife Wetland Preserve .
86%
Income barriers can limit the amount of
leisure time and transportation options
people have to enjoy public lands .
of SLC population is made up of
people who identify themselves
as Native American, African
American, Hispanic, Latinx,
Asian or Pacific Islander .
3 200
community
groups
have been
invited to
participate
in this
process .
30,000+
of public lands assets are in fair to poor condition .
of SLC residents who
responded to the 2019
Needs Assessment
prioritize investments to
improve existing parks,
trails and natural areas .
35%
Nearly 17% of the population is projected to be 65 or older by 2045 .
City Golf courses
maintain over 1,000
acres of open
space . As the city
grows, how can golf
grow as a community
partner, serving more
of the city population?
Over the last 20 years SLC’s urban forests have been in decline .
63%
Our 86,500 trees, including 7,000 trees in city golf courses, provide a cooling of summer temps by 6°
SLC urban forest hosts 260 species of trees that support biodiversity and improve air quality .
94 ACRES
>50%
of all global species are at
risk of extinction leading to
rapid biodiversity loss .
Activating underutilized spaces with
activities such as outdoor education,
guided nature walks, wildflowers
and birding would increase park
service as the city grows .
EW
Sources: Salt Lake City Public Lands Division, 2019 Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment, American Community Survey 2014-2018, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, "Understanding Climate
Change from a Global Analysis of City Analogues" by Thomas Crowther et. al., "Promoting and Preserving Biodiversity in the Urban Forest" by Alexis A. Alvey, "Utah Forest Facts: Trees and Climate Change" by
Megan Dettenmaier et. al., "Salt Lake City Confronts Its Growing Pains" by Trevor Bach, U.S. Census, 2020.
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKCURRENT PARK
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKVISION PLAN
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKPUBLICINPUT
ENGAGEMENTYOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
~2848
TOTAL RESPONSES
1823
ONLINE SURVEY RESPONSES
OVER 26 DAYS
~1025
IN-PERSON CONTACTS
IN 6 POP-UP EVENTS
ENGAGEMENTYOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
How satisfied are you with Pioneer Park currently?
2% EXTREMELY SATISFIED
23% SOMEWHAT SATISFIED
25% NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED
32% SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
18% EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED
2021 PUBLIC INPUT YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
top 10 overall programming preference
2021 PUBLIC INPUT YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
top 5 per programming category
ENGAGEMENTYOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
Approx. 1,823 people responded to the online survey
from June 25-July 21
Approx. 1,025 people engaged in-person
from June 26-July 14
Approx. 2,900 people engaged to date
SITE ASSESSMENT YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
SITE AUDIT, APRIL 2020
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKSITE ASSESSMENT
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKSITE ASSESSMENT
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKCURRENT ENGAGEMENT
What is your level of satisfaction of the proposed Pioneer Park
Vision Plan overall for the Salt Lake City community?
EXTREMELY SATISFIED
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED
NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED
EXTREMELY DISSATISFIED
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
VISIONPLAN
INSPIRATION YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
• Past Improvements, Plans, Studies
• Cultural Landscape Report
• Site Assessment
• 2021 Public Input Process
• Changes and Opportunities in
Downtown Salt Lake City
• Contemporary Best Practices
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKCONTEMPORARY BEST PRACTICES
Discovery Green
Houston, TX
Constructed 2008
»Construction Cost: $38,700,000 »Size: 12 acres »Cost: $74 per sqft
Citygarden
St. Louis, MO
Constructed 2008-2009
»Construction Cost: $22,150,000 »Size: 3 acres »Cost: $170 per sqft
Klyde Warren Park
Dallas, TX
Constructed 2009-2012
»Construction Cost: $15,900,000 »Size: 5.2 acres »Cost: $70 per sqft
Festival Park
Castle Rock, CO
Constructed 2016
»Construction Cost: $5,500,000 »Size: 2 acres »Cost: $63 per sqft
Pioneer Park:
Your Downtown Park
»Construction Cost: $20,000,000 »Size: 10 acres »Cost: $46 per sqft
Margaret T. Hance Park
Phoenix, AZ
Revitalization Project
»Construction Cost: est. $100 mil. »Size: 32 acres »Cost: $71 per sqft
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKGUIDING PRINCIPLES
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK CELEBRATE WATER DESIGN
VISION PLAN - NATURE AND COMMUNITY
225
80% | 17520% | 5055537
29029%
TREES TODAY
TREES RETAINED
TREES REMOVED
SHADE TREES PROPOSED
ORNAMENTALTREES PROPOSED
TREES TO BE TRANSPLANTED
TOTAL TREES
INCREASEIN NUMBER OF TREES 80400
SCALE: 1” = 80’-00”
160
Trees to preserve
Proposed Shade Trees
Prop. Ornamental Trees
Trees to transplant
Legend
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKPROPOSEDTREES
“CLOUD ARBOR” PITTSBURGH, PA
FLUSHING MEADOWS, NYC
“EXHALE,” CHAPEL HILL, NC
TANNER FOUNTAIN, BOSTON , MA
WATERDROP GARDEN, SHENZEN, CHINA
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKMIST FEATURE
VISION PLAN - MARKET AND EVENTS
VISION PLAN - ACTIVE AND PLAY
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKOVERALL EXPERIENCE
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
NEXT STEPS
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKFUTUREOPPORTUNITIES
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARKNEXT STEPS
PROJECT DISCOVERYPROJECT DISCOVERYSUMMER ENGAGEMENT SUMMER ENGAGEMENT EVALUATE ALTERNATIVESEVALUATE ALTERNATIVESWINTER ENGAGEMENTWINTER ENGAGEMENTAFFIRM VISION PLANAFFIRM VISION PLANPHASED IMPLEMENTATIONPHASED IMPLEMENTATIONYOU ARE HERE
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
CLOSING Q&A
YOUR DOWNTOWN PARK
slc.gov/parks/parks-division/pioneer-park/
THANK YOU!
Page 1 of 7 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC LANDS
OFFICE of the DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrator Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 25, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Kristin Riker, Director, Public Lands Department
SUBJECT: Pioneer Park Improvements Project Update and Conceptual Design
STAFF CONTACT: Kristin Riker, Director, Public Lands Department kristin.riker@slcgov.com;
Katherine Maus, Public Lands Planner, Public Lands Department katherine.maus@slcgov.com;
Nancy Monteith, Senior Landscape Architect, Department of Public Services
nancy.monteith@slcgov.com
COUNCIL SPONSOR: Not Applicable
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: Review and Comment; Consider for Bond Funding
BUDGET IMPACT:
Current funding allocated: $3,400,000
Future funding impact: $17,000,000
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Pioneer Park is Salt Lake City’s only community-sized downtown park, serving immediate
downtown neighbors, Salt Lake City residents and the entire region as a green oasis in the central
city neighborhood. Community dissatisfaction with the park continues to activate discussion
about how to improve the park so that it can be a community asset. This consistent interest in
improvement over the last twenty years has resulted in community activism and several planning
efforts for improvements to the park. Funding for improvements has been modest with just over
$3,000,000 dollars of capital improvements made in the last two decades. In 2019, City Council
approved a budget amendment for $3,445,000 of development impact fee capital investments in
the park. Planning for this next round of investments is underway but more funding is needed.
The Public Lands Needs Assessment found that the Downtown and Central City planning areas
have the fastest rate of population growth with the lowest level of park service per resident.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
1965 WEST 500 SOUTH
WWW.SLCGOV.COM
TEL:801-972-7800
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 27, 2022 12:34 MST)01/27/2022
01/27/2022
Page 2 of 7
Recent census numbers show that Council District Four added far more residents than any other
district in the city, growing from 26,716 residents in 2010 to 33,153 residents in 2020. The
Downtown neighborhood has a deficit of 17.5 acres of park land and that number is increasing.
With the addition of new development and the growing population, these planning areas are
significantly contributing to the impact fees to be utilized for parks and public lands. According to
the City’s current Impact Fee Facilities Plan, each unit that becomes available in these planning
areas contributes $2,875 in impact fees to be used by Public Lands, with an increase in this dollar
amount proposed for both single-family and multi-family units. In March 2021, according to City
records, over 1,016 units are projected for development in the downtown community, resulting in
over $2,921,000 in impact fees for future development. In addition to this, the Public Lands
Master Plan, Reimagine Nature, calls for significant investment in Pioneer Park and Downtown.
Pioneer Park provides the opportunity to meet immediate needs for more recreation options
downtown right now. Salt Lake City continues to look for new park space downtown, however, it
is challenging to find centrally located large parcels that can be meet multiple needs and provide
space for recreation.
Currently this project is funded for approximately $3.445 million. With the progress made so far,
the project is ready for the creation of technical drawings and construction of select features in
the park. Due to the large scale of this project, only a small portion of the full build-out will be
able to be constructed with currently allocated impact fees. Initial cost estimates show a full-build
of the current concept coming in at $20 million. While the full project cost is one of the larger
requests for funding that Public Lands has made for a park, in comparing this request to other
downtown parks of similar size, situation and level of services in other capital cities of comparable
size, the number remains modest. With the level of service this park provides, it’s central nature
and the community desire to make this park an asset, financial investment in this project will be
essential for the success of the park, the downtown community and the City at-large.
CURRENT FUNDING: While Salt Lake City has made improvements to Pioneer Park
incrementally over time with limited funds (the Market perimeter path, multi-purpose field, etc.),
the dedication of $3,445,000 in impact fees currently allocated specifically to Pioneer Park will
allow for service expansion to happen in 2022/2023. Improvements to existing and aging park
infrastructure can only be addressed by revenue bond funding and/or general funds.
PLANNING PROCESS: The city hired a planning and design consultant to create a vision plan
for the park, Your Downtown Park. In early 2021, The planning team began with a thorough
review and analysis of past process outcomes and feedback, then incorporated data about the
changes in demographics, housing, and other information about the area within a 15-minute walk
of Pioneer Park. Stakeholder engagement started in April of 2021 with public engagement
persisting throughout the summer event season in the Park.
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY: The concept team met with past process stakeholders, current
area residents, business owners and other stakeholders like the Downtown Community Council,
Downtown Alliance, Pioneer Park Coalition and City staff to assess current needs of the
downtown community at multiple phases throughout the process.
In summer 2021, the team opened a survey asking Salt Lake City residents to weigh in digitally.
The team provided the same questions in-person to attendees of six park events including the
Downtown Farmer’s Market, Food Truck Night and Field Day/Movie Night. Nearly 2850
respondents (over 1800 online and over 1000 in-person) identified their preferences for the park
including amenity type, balance of active and passive spaces, potential layouts and other park
elements.
The feedback informed concept development, which was then workshopped with area
stakeholders and City staff. Their input was used to refine the layout, features, and proposed
locations of items. In total, the project team held nine stakeholder meetings and workshops.
Page 3 of 7
Public Engagement Events Notes Time Period
Site Audit In person event including select area
stakeholders, local businesses,
residents and selected steering committee
April 2021
Presentation to the Pioneer Park
Coalition and Downtown
Community Council
Virtual meeting to discuss project
concept and solicit feedback.
May-June 2021
Online Survey and In-Person
Public Engagement Events
Online public engagement survey
was launched and promoted at 6 in-
person events (Farmer’s Market,
Food Truck Night, Movie Night).
Over 2850 total responses were collected
June-July 2021
Steering Committee Meeting Project team provided summary of
engagement results to Steering
Committee
August 2021
Farmers Market Representatives
Meeting
Stakeholder meeting with Urban
Food Connections Executive
Director to review concept.
August 2021
Downtown Alliance (staff and
local business) and Pioneer Park
Coalition meeting
Virtual meeting with stakeholders to
share project progress.
September 2021
Unsheltered/Low Income Services
Provider Meeting
Project team provided engagement
summary so far, and held discussion
regarding considerations for the
future conceptual design and programming needs for the park
October 2021
Downtown Community Council
Presentation
Project team provided engagement
summary so far, and held discussion
regarding considerations for the
future conceptual design and programming needs for the park
October 2021
Utah AIA Urban Design
Committee
Virtual presentation by City staff to
architects, landscape architects and
related disciplines to share concept
design and solicit feedback.
December 2021
PNUT Board Presentation Presentation by the project team on
project summary to-date and initial
conceptual plan for the park
December 2021
PREFERRED VISION PLAN: “Your Downtown Park” is aimed at making Pioneer Park an
active and welcoming space for those who live, work and visit the area. Since the completion of
this initial window of public engagement, the design team has reviewed public feedback and has
developed a refined vision plan (Exhibit A) that will be shared with the public in 2022. See
Attachment A: Slide deck for Preferred Concept Plan.
To date, Public Lands has engaged with nearly 3,000 individuals and stakeholders via in-person
events and an online survey to gather input on what the public thinks should be priorities for
improvements made to Pioneer Park. Last summer’s public engagement process showed that 51%
of survey respondents were either somewhat or extremely dissatisfied with the current status of
the Park, while just 2% of respondents said they were extremely satisfied and 23% somewhat
satisfied.
Page 4 of 7
The resulting concept achieves these project goals:
• The Heart of the City – a commons that connects people to our urban center
• Model for Urban Ecology – a green space that responds to our climate challenges
• Balance Neighborhood and Regional Needs – a park that supports everyday activities
and active lifestyles while being a signature park that hosts city-wide and regional events
• Welcoming for Everyone – an inviting space for all abilities, incomes, age, genders, and
cultures
• Safe and Well-Maintained Space – a park with cutting-edge solutions to address
common urban park conflicts and recognizes that stewardship and ongoing care is needed
• Lasting Legacy– a place that expresses the layered history and provides value to future
generations
Top priorities that were identified in the community engagement and are prioritized in the
concept plan include natural features (shade trees, plants, gardens), comfort amenities (seating,
restrooms), improved security and active play spaces (playground, enhanced dog park). The
design team has worked, and will continue to work, with key stakeholders, including the
Downtown Alliance, Pioneer Park Coalition, local businesses, unsheltered services providers, and
others to refine the concept plan. The plan prioritizes active play features, such as an all-ages
playground, a fitness circuit, and sport courts, public spaces, including a large plaza, café space,
pavilion space and restrooms, and finally incorporates several natural elements, as 71% of survey
respondents said these natural elements would improve the park.
AMENITIES: During our public engagement process this summer and stakeholder workshops
this fall, the project team heard that a variety of activities and balance of play and rest were
important to park users and neighbors alike.
The concept that has been developed provides opportunities for active play with a basketball and
six pickleball courts, an all-ages playground, lawn game rental kiosk, and an enhanced dog-park.
At the same time a shaded lawn, multiple seating areas, native plantings and tree groves offer a
variety of places to relax. In between as a focal point of the park, the pavilion offers the
opportunity for small to mid-sized events when utilizing the plaza or larger-scale events when
facing the great lawn.
This concept adds a state of the art restroom located adjacent to the most active area of the park –
near the café, park ranger station and plaza where the park amenities may remain most accessible
and visible to park users. Cost, maintenance, and infrastructure requirements are all important
considerations that will be addressed in more detail in the design phase.
EVENTS: The concept maintains the great lawn, which has been actively used for soccer leagues,
sporting events, movies in the park and other events, and will add a plaza and covered pavilion to
the current configuration. The pavilion is open, offering the opportunity for small to mid-sized
events when oriented north towards the plaza, or for larger-scale events when oriented to the
south towards the great lawn. Concrete paths will be vehicle-rated for event-coordinated traffic
and Parks’ maintenance use.
FARMERS MARKET: The Downtown Farmer’s Market is an event well-loved by Salt Lake City
residents and visitors alike. It is critical that successful events can continue in or near the park.
The project team consulted with the Downtown Alliance and the Farmer’s Market several times
throughout the engagement process to refine the project concept to incorporate the Market’s
needs while also achieving our goal of activating the park on a regular basis. This concept
maintains the Market path around the perimeter of the park and provides nearly the same
number of stalls as existed at the Farmer’s Market prior to COVID. It also provides restrooms and
more seating areas, making it easier for patrons who visit the market to stay in the park longer.
Page 5 of 7
ECOLOGICAL ELEMENTS: Water features were identified as important amenities by the
public throughout the planning process. The soon-to-be released Cultural Landscape Report for
Pioneer Park also notes that fresh-water springs drew Native Americans and the pioneers to this
site.
The proposed concept includes “The Source,” a sculptural feature that uses misting at key times
throughout the season to add a water experience while being mindful of the arid climate in which
we live, and the increased frequency and effects of drought. The concept increases the tree canopy
and provides increased shade, maximizes use of secondary water via The Source water feature,
and swales in the landscaping responds to the sites grading with a swale that runs from the north-
east corner to the south-east corner of the site as elevation decreases.
Planting ribbons, natural landscaping and biodiversity were also listed as passive feature
priorities by the public during engagement. Planting design will intentionally include low
water/drought tolerant, native plantings and will take advantage of the natural topography of the
site, where water flows from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. Planting groups that
favor more moisture will be placed in response to the natural slope for designed irrigation or rain
events. This strategic addition will respond to the increased hardscape and impervious surface
added to the park on this plan.
EXISTING TREES: Trees and shade are important assets to any park, but particularly to a
downtown park. The concept does impact a few trees, but limits tree removal whenever possible.
It also adds opportunities for small tree groves distributed in multiple locations around the park.
In the next phase of design, the project team will work with the Salt Lake City Urban Forestry
Division to assess the health of any trees and may remove those that are unhealthy or
approaching the end of their life. SLC Public Lands has committed to replanting more trees in the
park than are removed, which is reflected in the current concept.
SAFETY: Increased park activation and safety for all people are at the forefront of our planning
process as the concept moves to construction plan development and details related to Salt Lake
City’s recently announced Park Ranger Program are confirmed. Public Lands will work with the
community to encourage and enhance programming opportunities and use of the park year-
round.
The concept addresses safety by providing activities to engage a variety of people to be in the
park, maintaining clear sight lines around the park, adding lighting, a park ranger office,
information booth and café which significantly increase the presence of day-time staff and
patrons in multiple locations. The concept prioritizes safety in the layout of features and
amenities in the park, as well as circulation.
Fortunately, reports of illegal activities and police calls to the park have decreased in the past five
years for a variety of reasons, including increased use by area residents, dog walkers and
sports/league use of the new multipurpose field. During this process, the project team also
consulted with the Salt Lake City Police Department Parks Squad to review the concept and they
confirmed that concept features would increase a staffed presence, attract a variety of park users,
and maintain open sight lines, all of which contribute to decreased opportunities for illegal or
antisocial activities.
UNSHELTERED POPULATIONS: The team also met with a variety of area stakeholders,
including local unsheltered service providers, Salt Lake City Homeless Services, the Utah
Coalition to End Homelessness and Pioneer Park Coalition to ensure the park design encourages
social connection, positive interaction, and can be a welcoming place for all.
Historically, the land on which Pioneer Park exists was a meeting place that provided refuge and a
place for congregation. As a historically public space, different groups and uses have raised
questions about how to provide equitable opportunities for all community members to find
Page 6 of 7
sanctuary in a natural setting, relaxation, and socialization. The concept does not provide specific
amenities or services for those experiencing homelessness because Pioneer Park is near service
providers and community programs that deliver and are seeking to increase the provision of
housing, showers, personal storage, and social services to address root causes of homelessness.
NEXT STEPS: The project team is beginning the last public engagement window in January to
confirm the conceptual design with the public and ensure that the design reflects the engagement
and desires of the community. In conjunction with the public engagement, the project team is also
working through prioritization of included elements for phasing of the full build-out.
With the completion of the public engagement and development of an initial concept plan, the
project team is in a position to share the concept plan for Pioneer Park with City Council and in
turn, the broader public for comments and refinement.
COST CONSIDERATIONS: Currently this project is funded for approximately $3.445 million.
Due to the large scale of this project, only a small portion of the full build-out will be able to be
constructed with this amount of funding. Upon initial cost estimating by the consultant, a full
build of the proposed conceptual design would cost around $20 million including escalation and
inflation. The project team is continuing to work through prioritization of elements as well as
clustering of elements that must be installed in conjunction with one another, recognizing that
implementation may have to occur in phases based on funding availability.
“Your Downtown Park,” the Pioneer Park Improvement Project is on the project list for the
consideration of bond funding. With public engagement, conceptual design and cost estimates
completed, this project is ready to begin the process of technical drawing development. The
progress made so far has positioned this project favorably in the context of being able to begin
technical drawing and construction almost immediately upon funding, which would easily be
used within a three-year time frame if funded by the bond. The use of bond funding would allow
this project to move forward in a timely manner and could potentially reduce the number of
phases required for full build-out. While the full project cost of approximately $20 million is one
of the larger requests for funding that Public Lands has made, in comparing this request to other
downtown parks of similar size, situation and level of services in other capital cities of comparable
size, the number is modest. $20 million for a 10-acre park equates to approximately $46/square
foot, which is comparable to very active parks similar in size and situation to Pioneer Park around
the nation (see Exhibit B for an analysis of comparable park development costs nationwide). With
the level of service this park provides, it’s central nature and the community desire to make this
park an asset, financial investment in this project will be essential for the success of the park, the
downtown community, and the City at-large.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Winter 2022: Public Engagement Window 3: Project team will return to the public with
concept design for confirmation
Winter 2022: Review of concept design by City Council
Spring 2022: Begin technical drawings for construction of elements
2023: Construction
Page 7 of 7
Notes:
Individuals who are available to present to City Council at Work Session:
- Kat Maus, Public Lands Planner, Department of Public Lands
- Nancy Monteith, Senior Landscape Architect, Department of Public Services
- Kristin Riker, Director, Department of Public Lands
EXHIBITS:
A. Preferred Concept Plan Slide Deck
B. Nationwide Parks Comparison Costs
Preferred Concept Plan Slide Deck
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT B
Nationwide Parks Comparison Costs
Page 1 of 1
Item C1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:February 15, 2022 UPDATED 6:36 PM
RE: Budget Amendment Number Four FY22
MOTION 1 – PARTIALLY ADOPT
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 final budget of Salt Lake
City only for the item as shown on the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items below; they are listed for
reference. The Council adopted other items at the November 16 and December 14 formal meetings. The
Budget Amendment is still open, and the remaining items are held for more information and
discussions.
Item Being Adopted
-E-2: Emergency Winter Overflow Shelter Lease Payment Support ($301,456 from ARPA)
o Note that the remaining $298,544 remains available for future Council action
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards,
Allison Rowland, and Kira Luke
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:February 15, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Four FY2022
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
The Council voted on most items in this budget amendment on November 16 and December 14. For item E-2:
Emergency Winter Overflow Shelter Support, the Council took a unanimous straw poll (with Council Member Mano
absent) that the remaining $600,000 from ARPA will be considered for community activities and potentially
business assistance in the area around the temporary overflow shelter pending further discussions.
The Administration provided Attachment 6 which provides a budget breakdown and gap analysis for funding the
overflow shelter through April 15, 2022. The breakdown shows funding is split between the State (33%), County
(50%) and City (17%). However, the total available funding is $602,912 less than total estimated expenses
($2,383,381 funding subtracting $2,986,293 expenses).
At the time of publishing this staff report, the State Homelessness Council was scheduled to discuss possible
funding to Shelter the Homeless to cover half of the $602,912 funding gap. The Administration recommends that if
State funding is secured, then the City provide matching funds to cover the other half of the funding gap. In this
scenario, the State and City would each provide $300,000 from ARPA funding.
The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration:
-To what extent voluntary overtime shifts are being filled for law enforcement at and
around the shelter (hoped to be covered by multiple jurisdictions),
-Potential funding for community activities and business assistance,
-If the proposed uses have been confirmed as ARPA eligible activities under the U.S.
Treasury’s final guidance, and
-Whether additional resources may be needed at and around the overflow shelter,
including after the scheduled closing date of April 15.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the December 7 briefing, the Council discussed remaining items which were not appropriated at the November
16 formal meeting. Council staff drafted an adoption motion sheet (Attachment 4) based on the Council’s discussion
for the December 14 formal meeting. The Council may wish to review the draft motion sheet at the follow up
briefing so any requested changes can be made before a vote later that day.
Project Timeline:
Set Date: Nov. 9, 2021
1st Briefing: Nov. 9, 2021
2nd Briefing: Nov. 16, 2021
Public Hearing & Partial Adoption: Nov. 16, 2021
3rd Briefing: December 7, 2021
4th Briefing: December 14, 2021
Partial Adoption: December 14, 2021
5th Briefing & Partial Adoption: February 15, 2022
Page | 2
The Council identified three items to be held until next calendar year for more information and discussions. The
items are:
- A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study – Phase 2 Funding – ($150,000 from General Fund
Balance)
- D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing ($100,000 – Housing and $100,000 – General Fund)
- E-10: Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants ($4 million from ARPA going to a New Account in
the Grant Fund)
Straw Poll Request
The Administration is requesting the Council take a straw poll to prevent the City returning to the Federal
Government unused CARES Act funding. The Finance Department is confirming the unused amounts with external
entities that received CARES Act funding from the City. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Department
estimates approximately $47,000 for the Downtown Alliance’s Ambassador program is at risk.
The straw poll would be: does the Council support using remaining CARES Act funds for Fire Department
personnel expenses which are presumptively eligible expenses under U.S. Treasury Department guidance? It’s
worth noting that the Council used this approach in Budget Amendment #4 of FY 2021 for the third round of
CARES Act funding because at the time the City did not know an exact amount to be received and needed to
appropriate the funds by fast approaching deadline.
The Council could request that the Administration send a written report when the final amounts are confirmed for
unused CARES Act funds and from which uses.
Responses to Council Follow-up Questions
The Administration provided the below responses to the Council’s follow up questions and policy questions listed in
prior versions of this staff report. Some responses were pending at the time of publishing this staff report and the
Council may wish to ask the Administration for status updates at the briefing.
A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program
See Attachment 5 for park ranger sergeant job description. A park ranger description was pending at the time of
publishing this staff report.
Effectiveness of Civilian Rangers Addressing Criminal Issues in Parks – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration the limits of civilian park rangers addressing criminal issues in parks and when rangers
would need to rely on a police officer response. The Administration states the rangers may serve as law
enforcement officers but would not be POST-certified like police officers. The Council may also wish to ask the
Administration how park rangers would coordinate with the Police Department’s parks bike squad.
The Administration has provided the following additional information
Park rangers will not be sworn, certified peace officers. They will be civilians, similar to Compliance
Officers. If there is a desire to allow Park Rangers to write civil citations for items such as off-leash dog
and parking violations, there will likely be some ordinance code changes necessary. As this is a pilot
program, we do not intent to implement a citation component until after the program has been in
practice for six months to one year.
A collaborative partnership between Park Rangers and the Police Department’s bike squad will take a
great deal of cooperation to enhance the safety and security of our parks. The Park Ranger program is
intended to extend their efforts, by seeking voluntary compliance through education of park codes and
rules. Park rangers are an extra set of eyes in the parks who can share observations and monitor
trends. Police can communicate with the rangers about possible threats and give them photos of wanted
individuals to look for.
Page | 3
Communication and cooperation between both groups is crucial. Our hope is that the rangers can relieve
the PD of some of their service calls. The key will be to develop relationships between the rangers and the
park squad so that they help each other when needed. Once the public understands that SLCPD will
respond quickly to ranger calls, the rangers will hold more authority in the parks and can make a
significant impact on the safety and security of park visitors.
Private Security Guards in Parks – The Public Lands Department currently hires private security guards to lock
restrooms in parks and provide security patrols. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for the pros
and cons of creating a park ranger program instead of continuing the current practice of hiring private security
guards.
The Administration has provided the following additional information
Park rangers would be more welcoming than security guards. An inhouse program can allow for more
training and accountability.
People experiencing homelessness are often victims of crimes themselves and security guards are not
trained to be first responders to calls for service, provide medical care or to help connect people to
services.
Rangers will work closely with the Police Department; they’ll know the ins and outs of our parks and
have good relationships with neighbors. The intent is for them to be more approachable than security
guards.
Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer response to park
rangers or other alternative response models. The information could help measure the success and demand for
the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the 911 Department identifies calls for
service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative response options include the CHAT
program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker Program (potentially this new Park Ranger
program and police civilian responder program too).
Answer was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
Growing Structural Deficit for FY23 Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a
mid-year briefing on the estimated structural deficit for FY23 and how ARPA funding this fiscal year creates
ongoing costs that could need ARPA funding next fiscal year.
Answer was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
Request REP Commission Review – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to present the park ranger
proposal to the REP Commission and share feedback and recommendations.
The Racial Equity in Policing Commission was presented with the Park Ranger proposal at their November
3rd meeting. The Commission was supportive of the program. Their comments were primarily around
concern for ranger safety, and they were curious about training and equipment. They would like another
update in January.
Training and Equipment for Park Rangers – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what training and
equipment would be provided to park rangers. The rangers would not have firearms.
Training:
-Basic CPR, AED, and First Aid training. Possible EMT and Naloxone training for lead rangers
-Pepper Spray Training
-Radio Use training
-SLC Code Training
-Vistelar an online training course program is used by SLC Compliance.
Page | 4
-Management of Aggressive Behavior (MOAB Used by Seattle Parks Dept.)
o De-Escalation
o Conflict management
o Crisis Intervention
o Personal Safety
o Understanding bias and triggers – Implicit Bias Training
o Cultural Sensitivity & Public Relations
o Radio Training
Equipment:
-Light duty truck
-Side by side
-Mountain Bikes
-Uniform
-Cell phone, radio, laptop, flashlight, etc.
Reviewing Staffing Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how the pilot program’s
staffing level will be reviewed to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the level of
community need.
Software such as Report Exec. Is available to track incidents that can be analyzed to better understand where
incidents are happening, track daily logs and report incidents. Once created, the pilot program can be
evaluated every six months to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the level of
community need.
Calls for Service in Foothills – Could you please share the calls for service and on-views from the Foothills and
natural lands for October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021? This is the same time period analyzed for City parks.
Answer was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team
Three New FTEs Sunsetting with ARPA – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the three
new FTEs would sunset with ARPA funding availability.
These positions would be solely expensed to ARPA funding and would sunset when the funding expires.
Staffing Level and Community Need – the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if the three
additional FTEs would meet the level of need in the community and maximize the City’s partnership with the
County Health Department.
The role of this new Rapid Intervention Team would not replace or compete with the County Health
Department abatements, instead this new program will assist individuals in smaller encampments and
decrease the likelihood of smaller encampments becoming larger encampments.
CAN Supervising Sustainability Employees – The Council may wish to ask why the three new employees would
be in the Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability but be coordinated by a supervisor in CAN?
Because of the duties and responsibilities of these new proposed FTEs, they would require direct supervision
from Sustainability. CAN will coordinate the logistics for all City staff involved with the new Rapid
Intervention Team, such as the Police Department and the Waste and Recycling Division of Sustainability.
On November 16, the Council held a second briefing, public hearing, and then closed the public hearing to adopt
some items including:
Page | 5
- A-5: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Vehicles ($150,000 from $2 Million Holding
Account; $150,000 goes to Fleet Fund)
- A-6: Non-Represented Employees’ Job Salary Survey ($75,000 from General Fund Balance)
- A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Personnel Transfer (Budget Neutral)
- A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) ($1,800,000 from the Golf
Fund
- All items in Section D Housekeeping except D-1
- All items in Section G Consent Agenda for Grant Awards
- I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan
The Council is scheduled to continue deliberation of the remaining proposed items at the December 7 work session.
The Council could take a final vote on some items at the formal meeting that same day, at a future formal meeting
or decline to approve a proposed item.
Budget Amendment Number Four includes forty-one proposed amendments and requested changes to thirteen
funds. Total expenditures coming from Fund Balance are $2,884,735, and the Administration is requesting straw
polls for two items which are found in Section A (New Budget Items). Additionally, the Council may wish to note
that the Administration is proposing to add twenty-two ongoing FTE’s paid with one-time grant funding. If all the
items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $502,894 below the 13% minimum target established
by the Council in FY 20. Fund Balance would however remain $3 million above 12%.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Proposed Spending Items
There are several proposed items that would spend nearly $14.5 million of American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA
funding. This is one-time funding from the Federal Government for the City to respond to pandemic-related
impacts and address recovery needs including revenue loss replacement and employee compensation. Many of the
proposed ARPA-funded items would use one-time funding for one-time uses. However, a few items like the park
ranger pilot program and expanded Community Commitment Program would add new full-time employees (FTEs)
which create new ongoing costs. This is in addition to ongoing costs (FTEs/programs) paid for with ARPA dollars in
the F22 budget, totaling approximately $22.3 million. These would add to the General Fund’s growing structural
budget deficit in future fiscal years.
It’s important to note that approving the items as proposed would also set in motion the need to spend ARPA
dollars in FY23 (or use another funding source or identify budget cuts) to cover some of the new ongoing costs
particularly new FTEs and ongoing police overtime. The Administration’s transmittal includes a summary
spreadsheet showing how the City’s entire $85 million ARPA award has been used to-date, items proposed in this
budget amendment and potential uses in FY23 and FY24. The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how the City’s FY23 and FY24 annual budgets could be impacted by ARPA-funded
items proposed in this budget amendment plus the $22.3 million of ongoing expenses in the FY22
annual budget paid for with one-time ARPA funding.
Sales Tax Update (See Attachment 1)
This attachment shows the confirmed sales tax revenues through the end of FY21. The data table shows sales tax in
FY21 was $7.4 million higher than FY20 particularly the months of February through June. June was the highest
sales tax revenue month on record for the City. The wholesale trade increased, and the biggest decline remains
accommodation and food services. Inflation could also be a contributing factor to greater sales tax receipts.
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following chart shows a
current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022. Updated revenue projections are expected to be
available for the next budget amendment and after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is completed.
Page | 6
Fund Balance Update
The Administration is recommending to go below the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY 20.
This means the Fund Balance would be $502,894 below the target. Fund Balance would however remain $3 million
above 12%. Previously the City has been advised that downward trends in fund balance percentage could have the
potential to impact the City’s bond rating (needed to get desirable interest rates), and the previous minimum
threshold was identified at 10%. Updated Fund Balance projections are expected to be available for the next budget
amendment and after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is completed.
Page | 7
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 October 29, 2021. An update since the
information was transmitted is that the four police impact fee refunds listed for July through October in FY22 are
not needed based on the adopted annual budget.
As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY22.
The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan.
The transportation section was updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,487,183 More than a year away -
Parks $8,948,216 More than a year away -
Police $415,503 More than a year away -
Transportation $6,101,644 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Page | 8
$1,583,500 ARPA Holding Account Update
In the FY22 annual budget, the Council placed $1,583,500 into a holding account from 10 items proposed by the
Administration. The Administration indicates that the holding account items are no longer being recommended.
During deliberations in May and June the 10 items were determined to not be eligible for ARPA funding under the
U.S. Treasury’s ARPA guidance. The holding account was created to give the Administration time for exploring
whether any of the 10 items could be modified to be ARPA eligible. The Council could act in this budget
amendment to free these dollars.
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: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs ($128,888 from General Fund Balance and
$294,820 from Enterprise Funds)
The City has carried both excess liability and cyber security insurance since Fiscal Year 17 (FY17) and has not yet
had to use either. However, premiums for each rose significantly higher than budgeted in the current fiscal year.
Excess liability
The Administration shared the following definition of excess liability insurance:
Excess liability insurance covers judgments and claim settlements in excess of the City's $1,000,000 self-insured
retention. While most claims against the City are subject to judgment limitations under the Governmental
Immunity Act, federal claims, such as civil rights and employment claims, are not.
The Administration attributes the increase to claims in the past year that met thresholds the City is required to
report to the City’s insurance carrier.
Cyber security
The Administration shared the following definition of cyber security insurance:
Cyber insurance covers third-party liability resulting from security breaches. It also covers data recovery, data
breach response and crisis management, cyber-extortion, and ransomware.
In recent years, the City has funded upgraded security resources, including more advanced systems and more
cybersecurity training for City staff. The FY22 budget for the IMS Department also included $50,000 for an audit of
the City’s current network security. Requests in future budgets are likely to continue including hardware and
software upgrades that will improve security, as the City works to keep up with rapidly-advancing technology and
increasing threats. Although these investments ultimately reduce the need to use the insurance, trade publications
for the municipal information technology sector report a large increase in cyberattacks across the board, leading to
higher premiums throughout the industry.
Policy Question: The Council could confirm with the City Attorney's office whether an executive session on
deployment of security and/or pending litigation could allow the Council to learn about any current claims and
the City’s security profile.
A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange ($250,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment
exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the
Clean Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5,
UDAQ is not running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce
summertime ozone pollution, for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment. UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to
continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange varies each year depending
on the size of financial contributions from partners. UDAQ typically contributes between $300,000 and $400,000.
The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 from General Fund Balance to
partner with UDAQ in FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for
approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City residents. Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which
Page | 9
helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants
bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from
the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to participate in the City’s Call 2 Haul program to have
their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste and Recycling.
The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase
participation from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration
anticipates greater awareness and uptake of the program in the coming year due to increased familiarity with the
program, and plans to work with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021.
UDAQ anticipates the program logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower
administrative burden. In particular, they are hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up
and upload any required receipts.
UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used toward the purchase
of electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating
Wasatch Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers.
The Administration also indicates that they also hope the app will help keep the exchange open longer for Salt Lake
City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening it again while UDAQ verifies addresses.
While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability Department proposes using
$250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget
amendment would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers
through Call 2 Haul. This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those
who might not have the ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler.
Policy Questions:
Expanding Program Beyond Lawnmowers – Council Members recently expressed interest in expanding this
exchange to include other common gas-powered yard maintenance equipment like leaf blowers, chainsaws,
trimmers, etc. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what would be necessary to expand the
exchange program along these lines?
Sustainability Funding Contributions – The Council may wish to ask if the Sustainability Department’s
refuse, energy, or environment dollars could be available to contribute to this program?
Context with the Annual budget – Given that this program is proposed to be funded with General Fund
dollars, the Council could ask that it be included in the annual budget in future years.
A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements ($844,000 from General Fund Balance; $131,000 goes to
IMS Fund)
The Public Services Department identified several recommended building improvements to provide a safer
environment protecting against the spread of disease. Consultants, health officials and current employees
collaborated to identify these changes. The total cost is estimated at $844,000 and includes the following:
- $250,000 for improved indoor air quality by upgrading existing HVAC systems to better capture airborne
particles and contaminants using needlepoint devices
- $165,000 for enhanced janitorial cleaning five days a week for the rest of the fiscal year. The cleaning
schedule would adjust to COVID case counts and feedback from the public and employees
- $131,000 for teleconferencing and meeting equipment for virtual and hybrid public meetings. This
equipment and training would be available to the Mayor’s Office, Council Office and the City’s two dozen
boards and commissions
- $100,000 for reconfiguring cubicle office spaces
- $100,000 for various personal protective equipment (PPE) and cleaning supplies including facemasks,
hand sanitizer, disposable gloves, etc.
- $44,000 for new chairs, tables, reconfigurations and small digital signs in meeting rooms (potentially
including Room 138, Cannon Room and others)
- $17,000 for one seasonal employee working 40 hours/week for six months except holidays to assist with
visitors to the City & County Building
Page | 10
- $16,000 for new chairs in the Committee of the Whole room
- $10,000 for a public noticing digital sign within the ADA entrance at the City & County Building and at
Plaza 349
- $6,000 for desks and chairs to create two check-in areas: one on the first floor between elevators, a second
near the east entrance
o CBI guards would cover the check-in desk as part of the City’s existing contract
o Procedures are being developed for this new function
- $5,000 for appointment management software at the entrance of the building which allows IDing and
monitoring building occupancy
Policy Questions:
Equipment for Hybrid Meetings – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what virtual and hybrid
meeting equipment and training would be made available to the City’s two dozen boards and commissions.
The Council may also wish to ask if the Administration has looked into providing hybrid meeting training to
community councils.
Public Access to City & County Building – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if a policy is
being developed to govern public access during the pandemic to the City & County Building and how the
public would make appointments on the new management software. Currently some departments report
offering limited hours for walk-in visitors and other departments are scheduling appointments.
Public Notice Digital Signs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if public noticing digital signs
are also needed at the Main Library and the Public Safety Building so the same information is available at
multiple locations across the Civic Campus. Many notices are currently posted on doors with paper.
Other Funding Sources for this Project – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if ARPA dollars
could be used for these expenses (note: this is not recommended for ARPA dollar use by the
Administration).
A-4: Pulled prior to Submission
A-5: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Vehicles ($150,000 from $2 Million Holding
Account; $150,000 goes to Fleet Fund) *straw poll requested*
Note this item is related to items A-10 and C-1
In the FY22 annual budget, the Council created a holding account with just over $2 million from “Funding our
Future” public safety dollars, for diversifying public safety civilian response models. This item is requesting
$150,000 which would be the first use of that holding account. Note that the Council carried over into FY22 a
separate almost $2.3 million holding account originally created in FY21 for implementing recommendations from
the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, the Council’s audit of the Police Department, and the public.
The $150,000 would purchase three new hybrid Ford Explorer SUVs to accommodate increased program staffing.
Two of the vehicles will be used by CHAT staff and the third by the Medical Division in the Fire Department
supporting the program. The estimated cost per vehicle is $50,000 including fuel, upgrades, and maintenance.
The CHAT program currently has one vehicle for two paramedics responding as a team. The program is overseen by
a captain. Item A-10 proposes transferring three social worker FTEs from the Police Department to the Fire
Department. This staffing increase and corresponding vehicle increase would allow the CHAT program to operate
two separate teams. The social workers in the CHAT Program would operate out of the Public Safety Building rather
than the Community Connections Center. The Administration stated the CHAT Program would operate
independent of the Social Worker Program.
The paramedic would assess a subject’s medical condition and the social worker would assess their psychological
condition. The Fire Department responds to approximately 24,000 medical assessment calls annually. If the CHAT
program provides better response options to this frequent call type, then the Fire Department may seek to further
expand the program in the future. The Fire Department and 911 Department presented the expanded CHAT
program proposal to the REP Commission in September which was supportive of this proposal.
Page | 11
An expanded CHAT program with the added skillsets of social workers would respond to calls related to mental
health and homelessness. Some call types are ineligible for CHAT program response including when a weapon is
present or there are threats of violence. This has the potential to divert some calls away from a law enforcement
response so police officers could address other calls for service. The Administration stated the CHAT program
responds to calls for service that (1) do not meet the criteria for emergency service or (2) do not benefit from the
scope of training provided to paramedics and EMTs
Policy Questions:
Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer
response to the CHAT program or other alternative response models. The information could help measure
the success and demand for the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the
911 Department identifies calls for service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative
response options include the CHAT program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker
Program (potentially a new Park Ranger program and police civilian responder program too).
Equity in Access to Medical and Mental Health Services – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
how an expanded CHAT program could improve access to medical and mental health services, especially in
communities that historically have disproportionately less access.
Aligning Operating Hours to Mental Health Crisis Call Times – The Council’s operational audit of the Police
Department recommended social worker program and Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) hours change to
include evenings. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if an expanded CHAT program would
have operating hours in the evening. The auditors provided the below graphics showing most mental
health-related calls occur in the evening which is outside the CIT program’s operating hours.
Mental Health-related Calls for Service by Hour of the Day
Page | 12
Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a
straw poll given the significant delays in receiving vehicle orders during pandemic-related supply shortages.
A-6: Non-Represented Employees’ Job Salary Survey ($75,000 from General Fund Balance)
*straw poll requested*
This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third-party consultant or firm to
conduct a compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay
and other job elements, of Salt Lake City’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities
with whom the City competes for talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the
development and presentation of a report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources,
Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted
with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously
completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019
and 2020, respectively).
Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a
straw poll to allow additional time for selecting a consultant, allowing the CCAC to review at a special meeting in
the spring, and so that results might be available to inform the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023.
A-7: Sugar House Special Assessment Area Analysis (SAA) ($60,000 from General Fund Balance)
In June, the Sugar House Community Council wrote a letter to the Economic Development Department requesting
the City explore an SAA for economic promotion in the business district. The only existing economic promotion
SAA in the City is for the Downtown. Utah Code defines eligible economic promotion activities as “sponsoring
festivals and markets, promoting business investment or activities, helping to coordinate public and private actions,
and developing and issuing publications designed to improve the economic well-being of the commercial area.”
(Utah Code 11-42-102 Section 19)
The $60,000 of funding would allow the Department to hire consultants and bond counsel to determine specific
rates and revenue estimates, impacted parcels, cost per property owner, legal description of the boundaries and
draft the notice of intent to designate. There is a potential for the assessment to reimburse the General Fund for
those upfront costs.
Page | 13
There is some flexibility in what method is used to measure the assessment such as property frontage, property
area, taxable value or a combination of these. The Council would need to adopt a resolution designating the rates,
budgets, allowable uses and boundaries. An RFP would be issued to accept bids of interested organizations. The
Sugar House Chamber may submit a bid. A letter would also be sent to all impacted property owners notifying them
of the SAA process. An SAA requires support from at least 61% of property owners (not tenants / businesses leasing
space) and periodic approval such as every three years for the Downtown SAA.
Policy Questions:
SAA Activities – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what activities the new SAA
would provide. For example, would an ambassador program be paid for like in the Downtown, North
Temple, and Central Ninth/Ballpark areas?
SAA Reimburse General Fund Balance – The Council may wish to request the Administration include
reimbursement of the General Fund Balance for upfront costs be included in the SAA analysis.
SAA Boundaries – The Council may wish to discuss whether to support the potential boundaries or if
adjustments should be considered. For example, should the residential neighborhood north and south of
Simpson Avenue be included when the SAA is focused on commercial areas and economic promotion?
Council staff created the below map to show the potential boundaries. Note: once notices are sent it is very
expensive to change boundaries, and may cause additional delays.
Context with Annual Budget - Given that this is a new proposal to be funded with General Fund dollars, the
Council could ask that it be evaluated in the context of the annual budget rather than a budget amendment.
Approximate Potential Boundaries for Sugar House SAA
700 East; Interstate 80; 1300 East;
Hollywood Avenue with extension north on 1100 East to Ramona Ave to 1200 East
Page | 14
A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study – Phase 2 Funding – ($150,000 from General
Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $150,000 from General Fund balance to continue the contract with the Sorenson
Impact Center to work on Phase 2 of a Social Impact Investment study. A separate agenda item and staff report is
planned for the larger scope of this topic. The Council may discuss adding the following principles/conditions in
considering allocating the funding for the phase 2 work (note: this may change given the discussion during that
agenda item):
- The Council allocates $150,000 in Budget Amendment #4, for the Sorenson Impact Center to continue
work on this potential program, with the understanding that:
o The goal of the program is generational change, and in order to do that it must be ongoing beyond
the initial investment term.
o The City’s investment will not supplant existing programs and funding, and that assurances are
obtained from partner agencies that this understanding will continue for the duration of any
program created with this seed money.
o The Sorenson Impact Center engage the totality of groups that provide these services and conduct
transparent evaluation processes to determine which partners are best positioned to deliver this
long-term generational change.
o There be strict and transparent metrics to show goals are reached, particularly that the opportunity
index score is improving in areas where it currently lags.
A-9: Pulled prior to Submission
A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Personnel Transfer (Budget Neutral)
Note this item is related to items A-5 and C-1
This item would transfer three FTEs from the Police Department to the Fire Department including two social
workers and one case manager that is a licensed clinical social worker. See A-5 for the full write-up.
A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) ($1,800,000 from
the Golf Fund) *straw poll requested*
The Departments of Public Lands and Public Utilities are working together on a grant application to help fund
installation of an updated landscape irrigation system and other water conservation measures at Rose Park Golf
Course. The grant is sponsored by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and would total $1,889,371. Salt Lake City’s
match for the grant would consist of the following:
Cash
Staff
Labor
Contracted
Services
Department of Public Lands | Golf Division $1,800,000 $61,023 $0
Department of Public Utilities $0 $21,348 $7,000
Subtotal $1,800,000 $82,371 $7,000
Total City Cost-Share $1,889,371
The resulting $3,778,742 would be used to replace the existing irrigation system with new equipment, including
high-efficiency nozzles that allow the watering levels to match turf type. In addition, some areas of fairway grass,
which requires a lot of water, will be removed and re-seeded with drought-tolerant grasses, and the square footage
of out-of-bounds rough areas will increase. The Golf Division estimates that Rose Park’s total irrigated areas can be
reduced by 25% this way without impacting play, leading to significant water savings and furthering the goal of this
grant funding. Note that these changes are distinct from those begun in 2015, under a contract with Siemens, in
which a process was developed and implemented to draw secondary water from the Jordan River. That work
included a new storage vault, pump system and some existing head upgrades, while this grant and the City’s match
would fund the irrigation system itself, as well as the turf changes.
In response to a Council staff question about the potential to access Bureau of Reclamation funds for similar
projects at the City’s other courses, the Golf Division identified two limits:
Page | 15
1.the challenges the Division faces with setting aside large amounts for matching funds; and
2.the level of competition for these grants. They believe that Rose Park is a particularly attractive candidate
for these funds because of the potential to shift such a large share of fairway turf to be drought tolerant. The
three other courses the Division reports as needing irrigation system replacements are Mountain Dell,
Nibley and Forest Dale. Bonneville and Glendale were upgraded as part of the 2015 Siemens contract.
Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a
straw poll given the timing of the expected grant award and when the City would need to confirm acceptance if
the application is successful.
A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program ($1,577,291 from General Fund Balance; $195,720
goes to Fleet Fund; $69,247 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-1, E-3 and E-4
The Administration is proposing creation of a pilot program with 19 new FTEs in the Public Lands Department
including two sergeants, 16 rangers and one support position. The total annual cost for a sergeant is estimated at
$138,787 and for a ranger is estimated at $111,400. Job descriptions for the two positions were pending at the time
of publishing this staff report. The Administration stated 12 rangers would be needed at a minimum to launch this
new pilot program. The 19 FTEs are being recommended for a larger program.
The program would operate from 8am to midnight seven days a week. The Administration states the rangers may
serve as law enforcement officers. However, rangers would be unarmed and unlike police officers would not be
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified. Rangers would operate out of existing City facilities in parks
including the soon to be redeveloped Fisher Mansion Carriage House and possibly temporary trailers. Rangers
would focus on the Jordan River Trail, Pioneer Park, Liberty Park, and Fairmont Park. Rangers are not expected to
operate in the Foothills or outlying natural areas.
The total annual cost is estimated at $2,350,983. The request before the Council is for a half year funding of
$1,175,491 and $401,800 of one-time costs including three trucks and two light response vehicles. The total cost for
the remainder of FY22 is estimated at $1,577,291.
The nearly $1.6 million cost in FY22 is proposed to be paid for from General Fund Balance. This item also proposes
a reimbursement to Fund Balance for salary restorations resulting from the FY21 hiring freeze. ARPA dollars would
provide $1,508,044 to Fund Balance as flexible General Fund dollars available for any use. This is the maximum
salary restoration amount allowed under U.S. Treasury guidance. The remaining gap of $69,247 would come
directly from ARPA for eligible supplies and services such as homeless outreach.
The salary restoration using ARPA dollars in FY23 is estimated at $1,545,746 which creates a funding gap of
$805,237 compared to the program’s annual cost. Creation of this new ongoing pilot program and the limited
available use of one-time ARPA dollars means the structural deficit in the annual budget could be larger in FY23.
The Public Lands Department (formerly Parks Division within Public Services Department) previously paid for
police officer overtime in parks. The table below summarizes these costs from recent fiscal years.
Fiscal Year Police Officer Overtime Cost Notes
FY2018 $63,226 Overtime was paid over a four month period
FY2019 $226,569 Overtime was paid over a seven month period
FY2020 $23,835 Prolonged reduced staffing of police officers resulted in
significantly reduced overtime in parks
FY2021 $9,738 Prolonged reduced staffing of police officers resulted in
significantly reduced overtime in parks
FY2022 $0 Private security firm used to lock park restrooms at
night and provide park security patrols
The pilot program’s purpose and goals include:
- Serving as law enforcement officers in parks (not POST-certified like police officers)
Page | 16
- Providing services and information to park users
- Assisting with homeless outreach efforts
- Making people feel welcome and safe in parks
- Deterring inappropriate activity
- Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
- Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents and associated costs for repair/replacement
Policy Questions:
Effectiveness of Civilian Rangers Addressing Criminal Issues in Parks – The Council may wish to discuss
with the Administration the limits of civilian park rangers addressing criminal issues in parks and when
rangers would need to rely on a police officer response. The Administration states the rangers may serve as
law enforcement officers but would not be POST-certified like police officers. The Council may also wish to
ask the Administration how park rangers would coordinate with the Police Department’s parks bike squad.
Private Security Guards in Parks – The Public Lands Department currently hires private security guards to
lock restrooms in parks and provide security patrols. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for
the pros and cons of creating a park ranger program instead of continuing the current practice of hiring
private security guards.
Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer
response to park rangers or other alternative response models. The information could help measure the
success and demand for the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the 911
Department identifies calls for service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative
response options include the CHAT program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker
Program (potentially this new Park Ranger program and police civilian responder program too).
Growing Structural Deficit for FY23 Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a
mid-year briefing on the estimated structural deficit for FY23 and how ARPA funding this fiscal year creates
ongoing costs that could need ARPA funding next fiscal year.
Request REP Commission Review – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to present the park
ranger proposal to the REP Commission and share feedback and recommendations.
Training and Equipment for Park Rangers – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what training
and equipment would be provided to park rangers. The rangers would not have firearms.
Reviewing Staffing Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how the pilot
program’s staffing level will be reviewed to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the
level of community need.
A-13: WITHDRAWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger Program
($1,064,368 – Miscellaneous Grants) (See Items A-12, E-3 and E-4.)
Note: this item is related to items A-12, E-3 and E-4. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting
step for transferring funding to the General Fund.
C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team ($164,750 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items E-5, E-6 and E-8
The Administration is requesting the Council approve three new FTEs to work in the Waste & Recycling Division of
the Sustainability Department. The employees would provide a new City cleaning team working with Advantage
Page | 17
Services and the Homeless Engagement and Response Team coordinator in CAN. Sometimes employees in the
Public Services and Sustainability departments are diverted from regular duties to assist the Community
Commitment Program and Health Department.
The titles and job descriptions for the three new FTEs were pending at the time of publishing this staff report. The
total annual estimated cost per FTE is $87,600 which would be $262,800 for a full fiscal year. This item is
requesting $164,750 to provide seven and a half months of funding in FY22.
The three FTEs would be listed on the grant-funded section of the staffing document. As with the park ranger
program in earlier items, these new FTEs could add to the structural budget deficit by using one-time funding for a
new ongoing cost.
Policy Questions:
Three New FTEs Sunsetting with ARPA – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the
three new FTEs would sunset with ARPA funding availability.
Staffing Level and Community Need – the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if the three
additional FTEs would meet the level of need in the community and maximize the City’s partnership with
the County Health Department.
CAN Supervising Sustainability Employees – The Council may wish to ask why the three new employees
would be in the Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability but be coordinated by a supervisor in CAN?
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing ($100,000 – Housing and $100,000 –
General Fund)
Last March, in Budget Amendment #7 of FY21, the Administration requested, and the Council approved, a
$100,000 appropriation to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to assist restaurants and bars by
offering funding to expand outdoor dining as an aid to pandemic recovery. The Department of Economic
Development (DED) stated at that time that its intent in using the EDLF was to ensure that funding would not lapse
due to delays caused by the processes of program development and identification of recipients. As it turned out,
DED did not distribute any of these funds because “forgivable loans are not permitted under the EDLF Loan
guidelines.” Now the Department is requesting the funds be moved from EDLF to a separate account so that these
funds may be distributed as grants, rather than loans.
If the Council chooses to do so, DED would transmit a resolution for consideration to set the guidelines for the
proposed Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program. The program would provide up to $5,000 for outdoor
dining/retail costs or $10,000 for costs incurred in hosting an “Open Streets” event.
The Department noted in the BA #7 discussions that they would prioritize areas of the City using “social justice
datasets,” and reach out directly to businesses located within these areas, as well as work with the diverse Chambers
of Commerce, Community Councils, and other community partners. Since that time, the City’s Chief Equity Officer
has been named and is working on frameworks and measurements to be implemented Citywide. In the meantime,
the Chief Equity Officer provided DED the GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity) Racial Equity Toolkit,
and DED is using that framework in all new project creation, including this project.
Policy Question: Would the Council like to consider its support for this program now or after more specific
guidelines are proposed by the Department? If these funds stay in the EDLF they will not drop to fund balance.
D-2: Increase Grant Fund ($0.00 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement.
During budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense
side of the grant fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to
recognize the revenue side of the transaction in the Grant Fund. This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Page | 18
D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds (Refuse, Golf, Fleet and IMs) ($0.00 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer
into other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers.
D-4: GPS Housekeeping ($74,600 – General Fund and Fleet Fund)
For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to
move the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of
$26,797; and CAN has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet.
D-5: Signage FTE Correction ($51,847 – General Fund)
In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was
initially approved, but later reduced. However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level,
thus doubling the reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from
the Signage budget.
D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds ($23,400,000 – CIP Fund, and $200,000 – Debt
Service)
In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street
construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of
the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure
budget to pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget
to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds.
Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs
of issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 South Phase 1 & 2
(400 W to 900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave)
project. The fourth cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost
center will receive $3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds
will be deposited to the debt service cost center in Fund 81.
D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2021A ($10,665,000, $10,400,000 and $4,900,000
– Debt Service)
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North
Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were
issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying
for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the corridor.
The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A.
This budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget
to pay off the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also
be refunded by the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to
pay those off. A separate LBA budget amendment is being submitted to create budget for paying off those bonds.
D-8: Budget Carry Forward ($1,175,000 – General Fund)
In the General Fund there were several budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the
Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets
requested are listed below:
CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount
0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00
0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00
TOTAL $1,175,000.00
Page | 19
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility:
Influent Pump Station and Force Mains (Water and Sewer Infrastructure) ($2 million from ARPA)
See Attachment 2 for the grant memo and Council staff report
The Mayor‘s Administration has submitted a grant application requesting funding of $10 million from the State of
Utah to help fund the construction of the new Influent Pump Station force mains, (a sub-project of the Water
Reclamation Facility), and replace the existing pump station and force mains which are at the end of their service
life. This budget amendment item proposes to set aside $2 million in ARPA funds for the required match. The
Council may wish to note that as part of the grant application, the City has committed a $40 million dollar match
for the grant to increase the competitiveness of the application. According to the Administration, the source of the
match includes the Department of Public Utilities planned utility revenue bond issuances, and the secured loan
through the Federal Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act.
E-2: Winter Shelter Support ($1 million from ARPA)
This item would provide $1 million of flexible funding for emergency winter shelter support potentially including
shelter operations. The funding is for winter shelter anywhere in Salt Lake County. U.S. Treasury guidance allows
municipalities to spend outside of city limits and/or pool ARPA funding for regional projects and programs for
eligible activities subject to compliance with reporting requirements and showing a benefit is being received for City
residents proportionate to the ARPA funding amount.
Policy Questions
Funding Winter Shelter Outside or Inside City Limits – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if
the funding would go to a winter shelter outside or inside of city limits.
Hotel/Motel Voucher Flexibility – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the funding could be
used for hotel/motel vouchers instead of costs related to a winter shelter.
E-3: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Salary Restoration – Public Lands Park Ranger
Program (See Items A-12, C-1, and E-4) ($443,677 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items A-12, C-1, and E-4. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting
step for transferring funding to the General Fund.
E-4: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A-12, C-1 and E-3)
($69,244 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items A-12, C-1 and E-3. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting
step for using ARPA to directly fund eligible homeless outreach services and supplies in the new program.
E-5: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles ($160,500 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-6 and E-8. See the other items for additional info.
This item would purchase two F-350 pickup trucks and a trailer to be used by the three new employees in Waste
and Recycling as part of the expanded Community Commitment Program.
E-6: Community Commitment Program Additional Police Support ($1,505,920 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-6 and E-8
The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding for the Police Department to provide staffing to support the
homeless encampment cleanup and camp re-establishment stabilization as requested by the Salt Lake County
Health Department. Police officers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to ensure the cleanups can
proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending on the size,
number of cleanups and the location.
Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested
Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000
Minor Cleanups*and area stabilization 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920
Total Requested $1,505,920
*previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available
Page | 20
It’s important to note that these overtime shifts are voluntary and there is no guarantee all shifts will be filled. Prior
overtime shifts for the Community Commitment Program were approximately 75% filled.
As of the October 2, the Police Department had spent $859,460 of the $1,741,890 overtime budget which is 49% of
the available budget. If this trend continues, then the Police Department would be projected to go over the available
overtime budget around mid-fiscal year. The Council increased the ongoing overtime budget by $650,000 as part of
the FY22 annual budget.
Policy Questions:
Total Cost of the Community Commitment Program – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what is the total cost of the Community Commitment Program if Budget Amendment #4 is approved as
requested? This information was requested and was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
Area Stabilization Examples – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for examples of area
stabilization outside of immediate cleanup sites.
E-7: Pulled prior to Submission to allow for the completion of Phase 2 of the Social Impact
Investment.
E-8: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Cleaning by Advantage Services
($57,000 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-5, and E-6
This item would provide $57,000 of additional funding for Advantage Services to conduct cleaning services related
to the Community Commitment Program.
Policy Questions:
Public and/or Private Property Cleaning – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if Advantage
Services cleaning is limited to publicly owned property or if private property is ever eligible.
Quintuple Funding Next Fiscal Year – The Administration indicates the use of ARPA for cleaning by
Advantage Services is expected to increase five-fold from $57,000 to $290,000 in FY23. The Council may
wish to ask why the increase is planned and what changes to the cleaning services could the public expect.
E-9: ARPA Westside Community Initiative (Perpetual Housing Fund) ($4 million from ARPA going
to a New Holding Account in the Grant Fund)
See Attachment 3 for the September 14 transmittal with the proposed framework.
The Administration is requesting $4 million from ARPA to seed a perpetual housing fund dedicated to the Westside
of the City defined as west of Interstate 15. The dedicated housing funds from the Inland Port Authority
Jurisdictional Boundary would provide an ongoing revenue stream. The RDA Board received an initial briefing on
this concept at the September 14 meeting. RDA staff are refining the draft policy and will return to the Board for a
follow up discussion in the coming months. The Council could wait to appropriate the $4 million or place it into a
holding account until the policy is adopted by the RDA Board. The draft program goals include:
- Develop land with a long-term approach to continuously serve a community-defined purpose (could use a
ground-lease approach)
- Create opportunities for revenue generation while balancing the implementation of public benefits (revenue
would be reinvested back into the fund)
- Assist the Westside in mitigating gentrification and displacement (the City’s ongoing study to mitigate
gentrification could inform the program policy)
- Give lower income households the opportunity to build wealth through ownership (similar to a community
land trust model aka a shared-equity model)
- Engage community members in development decisions
- Leverage resources for other neighborhood development purposes (such as subsidizing deeply affordable
housing, commercial space, public infrastructure and art)
- Collaborate with other partners to broaden the pool of funding and expertise
Page | 21
- Carry out efforts with a collective impact approach (including measurable results to report back to the RDA
Board and the public)
E-10: Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants ($4 million from ARPA going to a New
Account in the Grant Fund)
The Administration is proposing $4 million for new one-time community grants split into two separate offerings:
$2 million for business assistance managed by the Economic Development Department (EDD) and $2 million for
nonprofit assistance managed by the Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) Department. The grants must be used
for eligible activities under the U.S. Treasury’s ARPA guidance and meet Federal reporting, compliance and
spending deadlines. Meeting these requirements could create a significant workload for the City’s Finance
Department and Attorney’s Office. For example, some potential categories are narrowly eligible only for evidence
based programs and practices which must have published research supporting interventions producing desired
outcomes. The Treasury is also expected to issue updated final guidance in the coming months.
An ad-hoc committee, or two (unclear at time of publishing this report), would be created to review applications,
question applicants, and have delegated final funding authority from the Council to make funding awards. The
committee(s) would include staff from the two departments managing the grants (EDD and CAN), Mayor’s Office,
Council Office, and a to be determined number of volunteers from several City boards and commissions.
The two departments report a request for proposals would be issued with a one-month window for applicants to
submit proposals. Then the committee(s) would score and rank applications over two weeks and make final
decisions. Funding would be distributed the following month.
Policy Questions:
Delegation of Authority for Deciding Funding Awards – The Council may wish to discuss whether to
delegate authority to the ad-hoc committee(s) or use another approach. For example, the Council could
elect to use the established process the City has for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), annual grants
like CDBG from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department, and one-time CARES Act
relief grants. Under the existing process, the CDCIP Board reviews applications submitted during the open
and competitive process, asks questions of applicants at public meetings, then provides funding
recommendations to the Mayor who provides a second set of funding recommendations, next the Council
deliberates the proposed recommendations, holds a public hearing and makes final funding awards.
Equity Considerations – The Council may wish to discuss whether funding should have equity
considerations built-in to the framework. For example, during the pandemic Council Members discussed
the following categories in other grant programs: businesses in and nonprofits serving the Westside,
women-owned and/or minority-owned businesses, nonprofits serving low-income residents, programs
bridging the digital divide, food insecurity, increasing access to medical services and vaccines, etc.
Applicant Assistance – The Council may wish to ask the departments what community assistance resources
will be available for interested organizations to fill out applications? For example, where will in-person
computer labs be publicly accessible, in what languages will the applications and instructions be available,
who is the single-point of contact for each of the two grant programs, how will potential applicants learn
about the opportunity, etc.
Framework for the Grants – The Council may wish to ask the departments to return with proposed details
of a grants framework such as the CIP and CDBG processes. This could include information like
recommended grant program categories, funding minimums and/or maximums, required application
information, and public engagement steps.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda
Page | 22
G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant ($1,500 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah,
Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The
SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed
the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds.
The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A
public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-2: Utah Department of Health – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY22 Per
Capita Allocation ($10,250 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health,
Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12-Lead Cardiac
Monitor and medical supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public
Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award.
G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with
Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Center Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers
grant. This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfway
houses or parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime
related to reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and
responding to mental health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services,
six overt camera units and maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program. A public
hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-23 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant ($364,162 –
Miscellaneous Grants)
The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of
Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate
Program. These funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and
all of the part-time Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog.
Additionally, there are supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate
staff. No match is required by the funding agency.
VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training requirements for
the Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options
are available - these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of
violent crime. Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death
Handbooks, cell phone costs, etc. A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and
benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by
the student interns/volunteers that participate in the Victim Advocate Program. A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21
on this grant application.
G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY22
Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program ($370,735 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding
of $370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and
guests to participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based
interventions in order to successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the
safety of those neighborhoods.
The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and
Community Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and
expand the team to include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case
Manager, and a VOA Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing
Page | 23
Downtown Ambassador program - tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth). A Public
Hearing was held on October 5, 2021.
G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety – 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant
(EMPG) ($42,500 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah,
Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of
planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce
materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness.
SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the
workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or
others. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC
staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to
fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books,
brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness
Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Management’s general fund. A public hearing will be held
for this grant application.
G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant – Love your Block – ($100,000 –
Miscellaneous Grants)
The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your
Block grant. The grant provides:
1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years.
2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants
3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant.
4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service
The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their
neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to
identify priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can
implement. The City identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and
engages them early in the project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City identified the
neighborhoods adjacent to the Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, and 1028.01) as the target
area. A public hearing was held October 5, 2021.
G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Victim
Advocate
The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of
Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund
Salt Lake City Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate. The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim
Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases move to the prosecution and adjudication
phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the case and prosecution, assistance
with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with investigators and
prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assists in post release safety planning, preparation for court appearances, and jail
release agreements.
Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases
are adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to
County prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services. The match is
$12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the grant. The match is met
with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget. A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant
application.
Page | 24
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan
The table below summarizes the reclassifications of six FTE appointed positions in the Council Office. Vacancy
savings will cover the cost difference for the current fiscal year.
Old Title / Grade New Title / Grade
Communications Director / 31x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III / 31x
Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I / 26x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist II / 28x
Public Policy Analyst II / 31x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x
Public Policy Analyst II / 31x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x
Associate Deputy Director / 37x Deputy Director / 39x
Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x Legislative & Policy Manager / 37x
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sales Tax Update and Chart
2. COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station
and Force Mains (Memo from Administration and Council staff report)
3. Westside Communities Initiative RDA Transmittal from September 14
4. Draft Motion Sheet for Adopting Some Items
5. Park Ranger Sergeant Job Description
6. Gap Funding Analysis for Emergency Winter Overflow Shelter (February 2022)
ACRONYMS
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
CCAC – Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
CCP – Community Commitment Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CHAT – Community Health Access Team
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CIT – Crisis Intervention Team
EDLF – Economic Development Loan Fund
EMPG – Emergency Management Performance Grant
EMT – Emergency Medical Technician
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
GARE – Government Alliance on Race and Equity
HRC – Homeless Resource Center
HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
PPE – Personal Protective Equipment
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
REP – Racial Equity in Policing Commission
SAA – Special Assessment Area
TBD – To Be Determined
UDAQ – Utah Department of Air Quality
VISTA – Volunteers in Service to America
VOCA – Victims of Crime Act
Homelessness Related Issues Diagram February 8, 2022
Permanent High Needs
Hotel/ Emergency
Overflow
-StH ongoing search for
location somewhere in the
county
-City/County/State discussion
about how to make it happen
-Pending request of county
council for $6m acquisition
funding (March ’22)
High Needs Motel/ Overflow
Funding Gap- $603k
-State Homelessness Council
mtg Thurs Feb 10th.
State proposal to allocate
$300k to current overflow
gap (Would deplete state
permanent overflow funds
from $3.7m to $3.4m)
-Salt Lake City allocates
$300k from remaining
Rescue Act to cover
remainder of overflow gap.
(Would leave $300k
remaining from mayor’s
original request for council’s
discretionary use)
City HRC/ Emergency
Shelter Zoning
-negative planning comm
recommendation on text
amendment
-Internal city meetings on
overlay zone concept
State Homelessness
Mitigation Fund
Expansion/ Formula
-ULCT facilitating discussions
and possible proposal
-current proposed formula
would provide $3.1M to SLC
but,
a proposed hard cap would
limit SLC portion to $2.75M.
-Rep. Eliason running bill this
session.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: February 14,2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #4 - Revised
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 1,772,794.00 $ 4,657,529.00
WATER FUND 0.00 18,118.00
SEWER FUND 0.00 7,941.00
STORM WATER FUND 0.00 2,278.00
AIRPORT FUND 0.00 39,790.00
REFUSE FUND 24,907.00 4,109.00
GOLF FUND 14,310.00 1,802,257.00
FLEET FUND 438,905.00 423,258.00
IMS FUND 161,380.00 135,492.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48
DEBT SERVICE FUND 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00
CIP FUND 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00
RISK FUND 212,897.00 212,897.00
TOTAL $ 69,688,054.48 $ 72,619,884.48
Lisa Shaffer (Feb 14, 2022 17:31 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following
chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 are coming in better than expected, more detail will be shared as
the audit progresses.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With the current use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance drops to 12.86%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 5,759,137 7,652,037 13,411,174
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 8,018,483 38,304,739 46,323,222
Final Fund Balance Percent 16.62%21.39%20.88%19.87%12.05%12.93%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 1,772,794 1,772,794
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - (4,657,529) (4,657,529)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - -
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - -
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - -
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - -
Change in Revenue 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 39,062,788 46,081,271
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.28%12.86%
Projected Revenue 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $69,688,054.48 of revenue and
expense of $72,619,884.48. The amendment proposes changes in thirteen funds, with
$2,884,735.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes forty-one initiatives
for Council review. Including the addition of 22 FTEs in the General Fund supported by grant
funding.
The revision from February 14th includes funding proposals for homeless services provided
through Shelter the Homeless. The transmittal includes three attached documents to provide
additional information for the Council. The revision from December 3rd included detail for police
spending around the homeless resource centers.
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 revision corrects numbering issues in section E of the Detail Document.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 212,897.00 212,897.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
GF 128,888.00 128,888.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Water 18,118.00 18,118.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Sewer 7,941.00 7,941.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Storm Water 2,278.00 2,278.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Airport 39,790.00 39,790.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Refuse 4,109.00 4,109.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Golf 2,257.00 2,257.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Fleet 2,938.00 2,938.00 One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
IMS 4,492.00 4,492.00 One-time -
2 Department of Air Quality Lawnmower
Exchange
GF - 250,000.00 - 250,000.00 One-time -
3 COVID Safe Building Improvements GF - 844,000.00 - 844,000.00 One-time -
3 COVID Safe Building Improvements IMS 131,000.00 131,000.00 131,000.00 131,000.00 One-time -
4 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - -
5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF - 150,000.00 - 150,000.00 One-time -
5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles Fleet 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
6 Non Represented Employee Job Salary
Survey
GF - 75,000.00 - 75,000.00 One-time -
7 Sugar House SAA GF - 60,000.00 - 60,000.00 One-time -
8 Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF - 150,000.00 - - One-time -
9 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - - -
10 Community Health Access Team (CHAT)
FTE Transfer
GF - - - - Ongoing -
11 Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy
Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds)
Golf - 1,800,000.00 - 1,800,000.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
(Continued)
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
GF 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 Ongoing 19.00
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
GF 443,676.00 443,676.00 443,676.00 443,676.00 One-time -
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
Fleet 195,720.00 195,720.00 195,720.00 195,720.00 One-time -
13 Withdrawn GF - - - - -
1 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12 & E-3 &
E4)
Misc Grants 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 Ongoing -
2 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-
13 & E-5)
Misc Grants 164,750.00 164,750.00 164,750.00 164,750.00 Ongoing 3.00
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Administration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Council Approved
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing - (100,000.00) - - One-time -
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing 100,000.00 - - One-time -
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move GF 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time -
2 Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants 1,746,646.00 - 1,746,646.00 - Ongoing -
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Refuse 24,907.00 - 24,907.00 - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Golf 14,310.00 - 14,310.00 - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Fleet 18,585.00 - 18,585.00 - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds IMS 30,380.00 - 30,380.00 - One-time
4 GPS Housekeeping GF - (74,600.00) - (74,600.00)One-time -
4 GPS Housekeeping GF - 74,600.00 - 74,600.00 One-time -
4 GPS Housekeeping Fleet 74,600.00 74,600.00 74,600.00 74,600.00 One-time -
5 Signage FTE Correction GF - 51,847.00 - 51,847.00 Ongoing -
6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 One-time -
6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds Debt Service 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 One-time -
8 Budget Carry Forward GF - 1,175,000.00 - 1,175,000.00 One-time -
Section D: Housekeeping
Administration Proposed Council Approved
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 ARPA Funding - Water and Sewer
Infrastructure Projects
Misc Grants 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 One-time -
2 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Winter Shelter Support - Police Overtime
Misc Grants 400,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 One-time -
2 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Winter Shelter Support - Shelter the
Homeless Funding
Misc Grants 301,456.00 301,456.00 One-time -
2 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Winter Shelter Support - TBD
Misc Grants 298,544.00 298,544.00 One-time -
3 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E4)
Misc Grants 443,676.00 443,676.00 443,676.00 443,676.00 Ongoing -
4 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Public Lands Park Ranger program (See
Item A-12, C-1 & E-3)
Misc Grants 69,244.00 69,244.00 69,244.00 69,244.00 Ongoing -
5 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness
– CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item
A-13 & C-2)
Misc Grants 160,500.00 160,500.00 160,500.00 160,500.00 One-time -
6 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Team (Police
Support)
Misc Grants 1,505,920.00 1,505,920.00 1,505,920.00 1,505,920.00 One-time -
7 Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the
completion of phase 2 of the Social Impact
Investment
Misc Grants - - - - -
8 ARPA Funding - Housing and
Homelessness - HEART Rapid Intervention
Team (Advantage Services)
Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 57,000.00 57,000.00 One-time -
9 ARPA Funding – Building the lifeboat with
Urban Land Fund
Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 One-time -
10 ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time -
-
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Administration Proposed Council Approved
4
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Consent Agenda #2
1 Police Department State Asset Forfeiture
Grant
Misc Grants 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 One-time -
2 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant,
FY22 Per Capita Allocation
Misc Grants 10,250.00 10,250.00 10,250.00 10,250.00 One-time -
3 State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice),
Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and
Parole Violator Centers Grant, Law
Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
Misc Grants 295,571.00 295,571.00 295,571.00 295,571.00 One-time -
4 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-
2023 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant
Misc Grants 364,162.48 364,162.48 364,162.48 364,162.48 One-time -
5 Department of Workforce Services,
Housing & Community Development
Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant Program
Misc Grants 370,735.00 370,735.00 370,735.00 370,735.00 One-time -
6 Utah State Department of Public Safety -
2021 Emergency Management Performance
Grant (EMPG)
Misc Grants 42,500.00 42,500.00 42,500.00 42,500.00 One-time -
7 Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for
the Jordan Grant, Love Your Block
Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time -
8 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime,
Violence Against Women Act, Domestic
Violence Victim Advocate
Misc Grants 101,039.00 101,039.00 101,039.00 101,039.00 One-time -
1 Council Office Reclassifications GF - - - - On-Going
Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,523,304.48 72,455,134.48 64,823,304.48 67,605,134.48 22.00
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Administration Proposed Council Approved
5
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 1,608,044.00 4,492,779.00 1,508,044.00 4,242,779.00 19.00
Water Fund Water - 18,118.00 - 18,118.00 -
Sewer Fund Sewer - 7,941.00 - 7,941.00 -
Storm Water Fund Storm Water - 2,278.00 - 2,278.00 -
Airport Fund Airport - 39,790.00 - 39,790.00 -
Refuse Fund Refuse 24,907.00 4,109.00 24,907.00 4,109.00 -
Golf Fund Golf 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 -
Fleet Fund Fleet 438,905.00 423,258.00 438,905.00 423,258.00 -
IMS Fund IMS 161,380.00 135,492.00 161,380.00 135,492.00 -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48 12,897,861.48 11,151,215.48 3.00
Housing Fund Housing - - - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 -
CIP Fund CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00
Risk Fund Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 212,897.00 212,897.00 -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,523,304.48 72,455,134.48 64,823,304.48 67,605,134.48 22.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
6
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,242,779.00 369,672,912.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 11,151,215.48 41,786,127.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 - 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 67,605,134.48 - 1,834,862,860.24
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
The Council adopted the items highlighted in yellow at the Council meeting on November 16th.
7
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Risk $212,897.00
GF $128,888.00
Water $18,118.00
Sewer $7,941.00
Storm Water $2,278.00
Airport $39,790.00
Refuse $4,109.00
Golf $2,257.00
Fleet $2,938.00
IMS $4,492.00
Department: Attorney - Risk Prepared By: Tamra Turpin
For Questions Please Include: Tamra Turpin, Sandee Moore, Katherine Lewis, Aaron Bentley
(1) The cost of excess liability insurance increased significantly for FY22 – more than a 65% increase in premium cost over
the previous policy period. The bulk of this is driven by recent claim development.
Last year’s premium was $267,278. The renewal premium cost is $443,112.54. We had projected a 15% increase and the
actual cost is more than we could cover with our allocated budget.
The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange for us to pay the premium in two installments with the second half
($221,556.27) being due by 1/1/2022 to give us time to request a budget amendment.
(2) The cost of cyber liability insurance also increased significantly for FY22 -- 320%. Last year’s premium was $45,490.
The renewal premium cost is $190,887.60. Although we had projected an increase, the actual cost is far more than we could
have anticipated. There are a number of reasons for this; particularly the fact that public agencies are becoming frequent
targets, and the number and cost of claim payouts have increased exponentially. After conferring with the City's Chief
Information Officer and City Attorney, it was agreed that allowing the City's cyber coverage to lapse would be too risky.
The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange a 45-day extension and then a 90-day premium payment deferral in
order to get a budget amendment in place. The cost will be allocated to all funds as shown in the amendment.
A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange GF $250,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas, Gregg Evans
The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment
exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the Clean
Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5, UDAQ is not
running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce summertime ozone pollution,
for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment.
UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange
varies each year depending on the size of financial contributions from partners. Typically, UDAQ contributes between
$300,000 and $400,000 per exchange.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 General Funds to partner with UDA Q in
FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City
residents
Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas -
powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is
the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to
participate in our Call 2 Haul program to have their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste
and Recycling.
The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase participation
from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration anticipates greater
awareness and uptake of the program in the comin g year due to increased familiarity with the program, and plans to work
with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021. UDAQ anticipates the program
logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower administrative burden. In particular, they are
hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up and upload any required receipts.
UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used towar d the purchase of
electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating Wasatch
Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers. We also hope the
app will help us keep the exchange open for longer for Salt Lake City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening i t
again while UDAQ verifies addresses.
While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability D epartment proposes using
$250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget amendment
would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers through Call 2 Haul.
This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those who might not have the
ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler.
A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements GF $844,000.00
IMS $131,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente
At the beginning of the year, and in anticipation of the reopening of the City and County Building, the Public Services
Department identified a series of critical improvements to minimize the spread of diseases such as COVID -19. Following
recommendations from hired consultants (see attached COVID annex) as well as health officials, changes include a multi -
level approach to keeping building occupants safe, from controlled access through a check-in desk and appointment
management software, to improved indoor air quality. The Department has been informed previously that the following list
of items are likely eligible to be covered under ARPA:
* Needlepoint Devices. When installed in the air handling system of a building, indoor air quality improves reducing
airborne contaminants $250,000 (CCB)
* Open and Public Meeting Rooms: Redesign public meeting rooms for spacing and cleaning considerations. This i ncludes
replacing chairs for disinfecting purposes. $60,000
* Lobby Appointment management software to be installed at the entrance to the building, allowing for IDing and
occupancy control. $5,000
* Entrance furniture. Desk and chairs to be installed at the entrance to the building, creating a check-in area $6,000
* Noticing Board outside of the City & County and Plaza 349 Buildings: Due to State noticing adjustments and the building
access being limited, public notices are not addressing the community in the various accessible options (walking public,
visitors to the building, etc.). Hybrid meetings and other noticing requirements are required to be completed and are
currently being posted on the doors that are frequently accessed. $10,000
* Staffing Entrance. Customer service-oriented staff, under seasonal status, to welcome and direct visitors to the building.
$17,000
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
* Enhanced Janitorial. Adjusting the cleaning schedule of all areas of the building from 3 to 5 days a week. (9 months)
$165,000
* Cubicle Pieces. To accommodate office reconfigurations. $100,000
* COVID Supplies/PPE. These supplies are being made available throughout buildings, including facemasks, hand sanitizer
and disposable gloves. $100,000
* Teleconference and Recording Meeting Equipment. Required to accommodate virtual and hybrid public meetings, and
training/orientation including those for Mayor's Board & Commissions, and City Council. $131,000
$844,000 TOTAL
A-4: Pulled Prior to Submission
A-5: Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF $150,000.00
Fleet $150,000.00
Department: Fire/Public Services Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Chris Milne, Clint Rasmussen, Lorna Vogt, Nancy Bean, Dawn
Valente
Community Health Access Team, CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially
established in 2013, comprised of one SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another
paramedic. The two Paramedics responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting
the criteria for emergency service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics
and EMTs. The CHAT initiative proposes adding two (2) social workers to increase the team’s scope and the ability of the
team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to the challenges of mental health and
homelessness.
Currently, the Community Heath team operates with one vehicle. The addition of two social workers will create the need
for two vehicles as two teams will be operating simultaneously. This budget amendment will allow the fire department to
replace the current vehicle, a larger inefficient Chevy Tahoe with a fuel-efficient hybrid Ford Explorer. Additionally, a
second vehicle of the same kind will be purchased for the additional team. The third purchased fuel -efficient hybrid Ford
Explorer will replace an additional Chevy Tahoe in the Medical Division which will be used to support the CHAT initiative
immediately and provide for the anticipated rapid expansion of the CHAT program.
The three hybrid Ford Explorers will need to be outfitted with graphics, radios, tablets, etc. The $50,000 cost pe r vehicle is
the fully loaded cost.
Cost of Vehicle 42,500 127,500
Make ready 2,500 7,500
GPS 316 948
Fuel 2,950 8,850
Maintenance 1,734 5,202
TOTAL 50,000 150,000
A-6: Non-Represented Employees' Job Salary Survey GF $75,000.00
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar
For Questions Please Include: Debra Alexander, David Salazar, John Vuyk
This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third -party consultant or firm to conduct a
compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay and other job
elements, of SLC’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities with whom the city competes for
talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the development and presentation of a
report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources, Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
(CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered
employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019 and 2020, respectively).
A-7: Sugar House SAA GF $60,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar
The City received a request from the Sugar House Community Council regarding the creation of an economic promotion
special assessment area (SAA) for the Sugar House for roughly west/east boundaries of 700 East to 1300 East and
north/south of Hollywood Avenue (possibly extending north on 1100 East to Ramona Avenue to include supporters in that
area) to I-80. The Department of Economic Development would run the Initial phases of the assessment and present
considerations to Council prior to formal action.
The funding request will provide consulting services for shape files, tax revenue estimates. The funding will also provide
bond counsel for the language in the draft notice of Intent to designate.
A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF $150,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar
The Administration would like to request $150,000 for the completion of Phase II of the Sorenson Social Impact
investment project.
A-9: Pulled Prior to Submission
A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT)
Personnel Transfer
GF $0.00
Department: Fire Development Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Clint Rasmussen
CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially established in 2013, comprised of one
SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another paramedic. The two Paramedics
responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting the criteria for emergency
service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics and EMTs. The CHAT
initiative proposes transferring two (2) social workers and one (1) case manager (LCSW) from the Police Department to
increase the team’s scope and the ability of the team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to
the challenges of mental health and homelessness.
This amendment would transfer three (3) PCNs from the Police Department to the Fire Department and adjust the staffing
document. The funding for these positions remains in Non-Departmental.
A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency
Grant (Matching Funds)
Golf $1,800,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Bryce Lindeman
Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Bryce Lindeman, Dawn Valente, Laura Briefer
The Administration is recommending recognizing $1.8 million in Golf revenue as matching funds for a potential grant. The
grant funds and cash match will be used for the installation of water conservation landscape irrigation measures for the
Rose Park Golf Course. The existing simple grid irrigation system will be replaced with a head-to-head system with high
efficiency nozzles that enable watering to match turf type. Turf removal will reduce square footage of high -water fairway
grass types and increase square footage of out of bounds rough areas re -seeded with low water grass types.
The project is a shared priority for the City's Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Lands. Department
of Public Utilities is the project lead for the grant application. Any additional match committed at the time of application
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
that is over and above $1.8 million requested in this budget amendment will be in the form of the cash value of the
dedication of effort by existing full-time position(s) in the Department of Public Utilities and/or Department of Public
Lands to the project.
A-12: ARPA Funding -Public Safety and Homelessness
Outreach - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1, E-3 & E-4)
GF $1,064,368.00
GF $443,676.00
Fleet $195,720.00
Department: Mayor’s Office & Public Lands Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Kristen Riker, John
Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city-wide responsibilities and
is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet the
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and two light response vehicles. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
A-13: Pulled Prior to Submission
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item
A-12, E-3 & E-4)
Misc Grants $1,064,368.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
•
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Range r program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current and future fiscal years.
C-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness– CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & E-5)
Misc Grants $164,750.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces safe, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partnership with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this sec ond phase, the City and our partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complai nts reported in the app in years past.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a positi on that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year.
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing -$100,000.00
Housing $100,000.00
GF $100,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz / Randy Hillier
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar, Loreno Riffo Jensen, Jolynn Walz, Randy Hillier
Under Budget Amendment #7 of FY 2021, $100,000 was appropriated to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)
within the Housing Fund (FC78) to provide funding for outdoor dining activities and events in the form o f forgivable loans.
The purpose of these loans is to assist restaurants and bars recover from the financial effects of the pandemic by offering
funding to expand outdoor dining.
After further examination of the EDLF guidelines, DED was unable to provide forgivable loans. DED has determined that a
traditional grant program is the best way to distribute these funds to businesses and is proposing the $100,000 be moved
to a separate account, allowing DED to administer the grant program.
D-2: Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement. During
budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense side of the grant
fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to recognize the revenue side
of the transaction in the Grant Fund.
This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds Refuse $0.00
Golf $0.00
Fleet $0.00
IMS $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer into
other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
D-4: GPS Housekeeping GF -$74,600.00
GF $74,600.00
Fleet $74,600.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Dawn Valente
For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to move
the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of $26,797; and CAN
has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet.
D-5: Signage FTE Correction GF $51,847.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was initially
approved, but later reduced . However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level, thus doubling the
reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from the Signage budget.
D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP $23,400,000.00
Debt Service $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott
For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street
construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of the
authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to
pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget to pay the costs of
issuance for the bonds.
Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs of
issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 Sou th Phase 1 & 2 (400 W to
900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave) project. The fourth
cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost center wi ll receive
$3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds will be deposited to the
debt service cost center in Fund 81.
D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service $10,665,000.00
Debt Service $10,400,000.00
Debt Service $4,900,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott
For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North
Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of
the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the
corridor.
The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenu e Bonds, Series 2021A. This
budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay off
the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also b e refunded by
the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to pay those off. A separate
budget amendment for the LBA is being submitted to create budget for the payoff of those bonds.
D-8: Budget Carry Forward GF $1,175,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Teresa Beckstrand
In the General Fund there were a number of budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the
Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets requested
are listed below:
CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount
0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00
0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00
TOTAL $1,175,000.00
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: ARPA Funding – Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Projects Misc Grants $2,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Laura Briefer, Mary Beth Thompson, John
Vuyk
The Mayor proposes to set aside $2 million for required matching funding as we prepare to apply for State funds for water
and sewer infrastructure projects.
E-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness –Winter
Shelter Support Misc Grants $400,000.00
Misc Grants $301,456.00
Misc Grants $298,544.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Mayor Mendenhall is proposing that the Council set aside approximately $1 million of the City’s Rescue Plan allocation for
emergency shelter needs. Such funds could be used to assist the shelter operator with operations costs or go toward other
expenses such as public safety or neighborhood mitigation.
Under the revised transmittal the Administration is recommending $400,000 for Public Safety, Police, needs associated
with homeless shelters. Two documents outlining the expenses are attached to the revised transmittal as backup
information.
The revised transmittal from February 14th includes funding proposals for homeless services provided through Shelter the
Homeless. The transmittal includes three attached documents to provide additional information for the Council. Laurie
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
Hopkins from Shelter the Homeless noted they are comfortable restricting City ARPA funding of $300k to "leasing the
non-congregant motel for emergency overflow shelter due to the need for social distancing and smaller rooms to limit
COVID transmission amongst those experiencing homelessness." This language will ensure the funding is eligible under
ARPA guidelines.
E-3: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E-4)
Misc Grants $443,677.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also att racts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personne l including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
E-4: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A12, C-1
& E3)
Misc Grants $69,244.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
11
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personne l including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be a direct charge to the ARPA grant..
E-5: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & C-2) Misc Grants $160,500.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces safe, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12 -week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partnership with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 mont hs of this second phase, the City and our partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past.
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
12
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the f irst year.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
E-6: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (Police Support) Misc Grants $1,505,920.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding, to provide funding for Clean Neighborhoods Teams for the Police
Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re -establishment stabilization as
requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police of ficers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to
ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending
on the size, number of cleanups and the location.
Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested
Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000
Minor Cleanups* 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920
And area stabilization
Total Requested $1,505,920
*previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available
E-7: Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the completion of
phase 2 of the Social Impact Investment
E-8: ARPA Funding – CCP HEART Rapid Intervention Team Misc Grants $57,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Michelle
Hoon
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employe es will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
Work will be coordinated with Advantage Services. The program will be monitored for the first six months to evaluate the
effectiveness of the service.
E-9: ARPA Funding – Westside Community Initiative Misc Grants $4,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Danny Walz, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
As a function of utilizing the tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority and allocated to the RDA for affordabl e
housing, the RDA Board has endorsed the creation of an Urban Land Fund in order to develop and secure perpetual
housing affordability on the City’s west side. Under the direction of the RDA, the fund would look to maximize
opportunities for affordability in both rental housing and home ownership as well as limited commercial uses
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
13
within mixed use developments. RDA staff is currently working on potential options for the structure of the land fund. This
process includes the evaluation of opportunities for community wealth building and cooperative housing models within a
perpetual housing fund. The allocation of this funding source is i ntended to offset the impacts on the west side from the
Inland Port development. The opportunity of this program is to strengthen the community by providing a mechanism to
help reverse the historical impacts of disinvestment and inequality on the residents in this area of the City. Mayor
Mendenhall proposes the allocation of $4 million in seed funds for implementing the policy proposals that emerge from
the current study, including the following goals:
Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-Defined Purpose
WCI will take a long-term approach to land development and community building so that the RDA may retain the
fee ownership to and a reversionary interest in the property. By ground leasing to development partners, the RD A
will provide an opportunity to receive revenue generation to serve other public benefits.
Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public
Benefits
WCI will strive to balance the development of property with the in corporation of public benefits. Benefits such as
affordable housing and below-market commercial space which generate limited or no cash flow would potentially
be subsidized with land uses that generate positive cash flow. Revenue generated by projects and received by the
RDA will then be reinvested back into the WCI with the goal of furthering shared prosperity.
Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement
WCI will acquire land with the goal of holding it for the community in perpetuity, thereby removing land from the
speculative market so that it serves low and moderate-income residents in perpetuity. Housing will remain
affordable even as neighborhood change occurs and gentrification pressures mount, which protects families f rom
displacement.
Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership
WCI will create opportunities for families to buy homes at affordable prices by focusing on a shared -equity model.
A shared equity model offers an alternative form of ownership that provides benefits traditional markets cannot,
such as long-term housing affordability and the ability for low and moderate -income families to build
equity. When families decide to sell, they will receive their portion of the appreciation but the RDA remains as the
land owner and is in the position to continue to sell the home at a below-market price, making it affordable to
another family of limited means. Keeping the home affordable, from family to family, will benefit future
generations by acting as a steppingstone for low-income families to go from renting to building wealth.
Engage Community Members in Development Decisions
The RDA will involve the community in the planning and goals regarding long term land use and housing
development. This can translate into residents actively involved in creating positive change within their
communities and projects that reflect the value of its residents. The result will be projects that incorporate a
shared mission and vision with the community.
Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes
Revenues acquired through ground leases or partnerships could contribute to other purposes, including
subsidizing deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space, infrastructure, public art, etc.
Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise
The RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and professional resources by bringing together
financial institutions, the private sector, nonprofits, public officials, other government agencies, researchers, and
practitioners to collaborate on community and economic development activities.
Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach
The RDA will continuously evaluate how projects work together to address common goals through a “collective
impact” approach that produces measurable results. These measurable results will be tracked and reported on to
promote data-driven and outcome-based decisions.
E-10: ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants $4,000,000.00
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
14
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
Community grants
Mayor Mendenhall proposes an allocation of $ 4 million toward community grants. These grants will give community
organizations and local businesses the opportunity to propose to the City what COVID -related problems they are trying to
solve City staff and volunteers from relevant City boards and commissions would select grantees at the conclusion of an
open solicitation process. The Administration proposes to split these grant funds into two categories, with half of the
allocation going to Economic Development and half to Community and Neighborhoods. These departments will scope the
challenge facing residents and businesses, and launch two solicitations seeking proposals on the COVID -related problem
that the applicant desires to address under the following broad categories:
o CAN grants -- Nonprofit support (to be further refined by CAN): This could include programs like
retraining of displaced workers, nonprofit legal services for eviction assistance, expanded educational
opportunities, resources to mitigate the digital divide, access to healthcare for underserved populations,
mental health assistance, etc.
o DED grants -- Business assistance (to be further refined by DED): This could include grants for
businesses not included in other government programs during the pandemic, especially small and local
businesses, and support for artist/artisan businesses.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #2
G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant Misc. Grants $1,500.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission
on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program
funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a
means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds.
The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases.
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-2: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical
Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc. Grants $10,250.00
Department: Emergency Management Prepared By: Brittany Blair/ Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair
The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau
of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical
supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits.
A Public Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
15
G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator
Centers Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
Misc. Grants $295,571.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair
The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers grant.
This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfway houses or
parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime related to
reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and re sponding to mental
health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services, six overt camera units and
maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program.
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-2023 VOCA Victims
of Crime Act Grant Misc. Grants $364,162.48
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Wendy Isom/ Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Wendy Isom, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime
under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate Program. These
funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and all of the part-time
Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog. Additiona lly, there are
supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff.
No match is required by the funding agency.
VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training re quirements for the
Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options are available
- these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of violent crime.
Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death Handbooks, cell phone costs,
etc.
A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the
Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by the student interns/volunteers that participate in the
Victim Advocate Program.
A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21 on this grant application.
G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community
Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant Program
Misc. Grants $370,735.00
Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Michelle Hoon / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Michelle Hoon, Brent Beck
The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding of
$370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and guests to
participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based interventions in order to
successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the safety of those
neighborhoods.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
16
The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and Community
Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and expand the team to
include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case Manager, and a VOA
Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing Downtown Ambassador program -
tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth).
A Public Hearing will be scheduled for the application on this grant.
G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2021 Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $42,500.00
Department: Emergency Management Services Prepared By: Audrey Pierce / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Audrey Pierce, Clint Rasmussen
The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah,
Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and
updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other
media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedn ess.
SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the
workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others.
These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with
emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community
preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc.
The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and
budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund.
A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant,
Love Your Block Misc. Grants $100,000.00
Department: Office of the Mayor Prepared By: Hailey Leek / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Hailey Leek
The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your Block
grant.
The grant provides:
1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years.
2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants
3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant.
4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service
The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their
neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to identify
priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can implement. The City
identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and engages them early in the
project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City i dentified the neighborhoods adjacent to the
Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, & 1028.01) as the target area.
A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
17
G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women
Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Misc. Grants $101,039.00
Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Scott Fisher / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Katherine Lewis, Scott Fisher
The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime
under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund Salt Lake City
Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate.
The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases
move to the prosecution and adjudication phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the
case and prosecution, assistance with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with
investigators and prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assist in post release safety planning, preparation for court
appearances, and jail release agreements.
Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases are
adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to County
prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services.
The match is $12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the
grant. The match is met with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget.
A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant application
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 415,503$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,487,183$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,948,216$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,101,644$ D
16,952,545$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 (0)$ -$ -$ -$ (0)$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ FY 2023Calendar
Month
Fiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 60,722$ 277,727$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ A
Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,959,195$ 281,315$
Fire
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B
Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 9,402$ 24,821$ 1,060,208$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ C
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 6,000$ 37,597$ 6,155$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 6,378$ -$ 9,183$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 169,077$ 59,946$ 3,114,882$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 92,174$ 30,958$ 265,346$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ 1,905$ -$ 56,109$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 287,290$ 8,852$ 227,746$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 173,467$ 34,134$ 16,646$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ -$ -$ 3,200,000$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,534,534$ 288,033$ 13,871,881$
Streets
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ 22,744$ 73,893$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$ D
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 44,088$ 50,864$ 700$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 10,244$ 7,033$ 204,411$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 888,511$ 1,392,421$ 3,686,472$
Total 25,400,567$ 3,718,120$ 3,641,511$ 18,040,936$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,948,216$
6,101,644$
16,952,545$
8484002
8484003
8484005
415,503$
$1,487,183
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
February 8, 2022
Dear City Council Chair Dugan,
This letter is to follow up on the City Council discussions from December 2021, within Budget
amendment #4, regarding Mayor Mendenhall’s request of $1 million in American Rescue Act
funding be allocated to emergency homeless overflow, located at North Temple and Redwood
Road, this winter.
Subsequently, the City Council allocated $400,000 of those funds to pay for overtime police
officers shifts for safety and security needs in that neighborhood.
Shelter the Homeless requested, from the city, the remaining $600,000 to cover most of their
current operations funding gap (they report the total gap is: $602,912).
The City Council did not allocate those funds at that time but held them for further evaluation
and discussion.
The administration has worked with The State Office of Homelessness regarding their funding
options for overflow operations. State office staff have recommended that the State
Homelessness Council fund $301,456 from their state funds to cover a portion of the needed
operations funds.
The administration requests that the City Council appropriate $301,456 from remaining
American Rescue Act funds to match the state funds to fulfill the overflow operations request.
This would leave just under $300,000 remaining from the Rescue Act funds for use by the City
Council at their discretion.
We have included a diagram of current city-related homelessness system issues and needs, as
well as an emergency homeless overflow budget from Shelter the Homeless for your review.
Thank you for your consideration.
ANDREW JOHNSTON
Director of Homeless Policy & Outreach
BUDGET ANALYSIS for 2021/2022 High Needs Temp Housing Program/Winter Overflow
High Needs Temp Housing Program Funding
Salt Lake County Funding 779,988.00
State of Utah Funding 787,393.00
1,567,381.00$
High Needs Law Enforcement Plan Funding
Salt Lake County Funding 400,000.00
Salt Lake City Funding 416,000.00
816,000.00$
Total Current Funding 2,383,381.00$
Lease and Security Expenses - STH
Lease Costs 1,105,912.50
Security 189,000.00
Meals 35,700.00
Transportation 35,000.00
Staffing and administration 117,775.50
1,483,388.00$
Operational and Services Expenses - TRH
Staffing and administration - case mgmt, ops staff 479,808
Supplies, cleaning, insurance, communications 207,097
686,905.00$
High Needs Law Enforcement Plan Costs 816,000.00$
Total Projected Expenses 2,986,293.00$
Funding for each organization
STH Funding committed 880,476.00
TRH Funding committed 686,905.00
SLC Police Funding committed 816,000.00
2,383,381.00$
STH Funding Gap (602,912.00)$
Funding by Type
Total SLCo Funding 1,179,988.00
Total State Funding 787,393.00
Total SLC Funding (up to $1M to be allocated)416,000.00
Total Overflow Allocation 2,383,381.00$
Funding Gap (602,912.00)$
Homelessness Related Issues Diagram February 8, 2022
Permanent High Needs
Hotel/ Emergency
Overflow
-StH ongoing search for
location somewhere in the
county
-City/County/State discussion
about how to make it happen
-Pending request of county
council for $6m acquisition
funding (March ’22)
High Needs Motel/ Overflow
Funding Gap- $603k
-State Homelessness Council
mtg Thurs Feb 10th.
State proposal to allocate
$300k to current overflow
gap (Would deplete state
permanent overflow funds
from $3.7m to $3.4m)
-Salt Lake City allocates
$300k from remaining
Rescue Act to cover
remainder of overflow gap.
(Would leave $300k
remaining from mayor’s
original request for council’s
discretionary use)
City HRC/ Emergency
Shelter Zoning
-negative planning comm
recommendation on text
amendment
-Internal city meetings on
overlay zone concept
State Homelessness
Mitigation Fund
Expansion/ Formula
-ULCT facilitating discussions
and possible proposal
-current proposed formula
would provide $3.1M to SLC
but,
a proposed hard cap would
limit SLC portion to $2.75M.
-Rep. Eliason running bill this
session.
1
Weisberg, Brent
From:Brown, Mike
Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 03:56 PM
To:'rruso@ch.utah.gov'; 'j.eining@draper.ut.us'; Troy D. Carr; 'cburnett@murray.utah.gov';
'dhutson@rivertonpd.org'; 'gseverso@sandy.ut.gov'; 'Jeff Carr';
'dcarruth@southsaltlakecity.com'; 'btcottam@taylorsvilleut.gov'; 'fross@rideuta.com';
Ken Wallentine; 'colleen.jacobs@wvc-ut.gov'; Sheriff Rosie Rivera; 'dcarruth@sslc.com';
'ken.wallentine@westjordan.utah.gov'
Cc:Brown, Mike; VanDongen, Lance; Zayas, Yvette; Weisberg, Brent; Ewell, Lamar; Purvis,
Brian
Subject:Winter Shelter Outside Agencies
Chiefs and Sheriff:
As you may know, after many months of effort to find a location for a temporary winter emergency homeless
shelter, the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness has requested the use of a motel within Salt Lake
City for winter overflow shelter. The intent of this facility is to allow access to indoor beds through this winter
to adults in the county experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City has agreed to allow this use. However, the
city needs support to ensure the safety and security of those accessing shelter, as well as for the surrounding
neighborhood.
I understand that all of our departments are experiencing staffing shortages. SLCPD is not immune to this
reality as well. Hosting this county-wide service requires all of us to share some level of responsibility for its
support to allow all to benefit from the services. Below is a proposed plan and a request of each of you, as our
partner agencies, to assist in making this winter service available as soon as possible.
SLCPD will contribute four officers and a supervisor. The city would be responsible for coordinating the
schedule.
Our ask is that at least three other agencies, or a combination of agencies, contribute four officers (on
overtime) to fill the four, five-hour shifts each day.
The hourly rate is $80 with $15 going back to the agency for vehicle, fuel, and maintenance
reimbursement.
The remaining $65 is paid in overtime to the officer.
Shifts will be scheduled starting as soon as the program can open in December and will last until the
end of the winter program in April.
As this is both a county and state involved program, Unified PD and the State Department of Public Safety
have been contacted and invited to provide support as well.
Please review this draft and let me know how your department will be able to contribute to this multi-
jurisdictional approach.
I will be reaching out to all of you by phone in the very near future to have additional conversations.
2
Thank you,
Mike
MIKE BROWN
Chief of Police
Salt Lake City Police Department
801.799.3801 | mike.brown@slcgov.com
www.slcpd.com | @slcpdPAGE 1
UTAH EMERGENCY WINTER HOUSING SHELTER
dATE RANGE FOR OPERATION: DECEMBER 15, 2021 - APRIL 15, 2022 (120 d AYS)
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGET AND STAFFING
4 OFFICERS A DAY 5 HOUR SHIFTS $80 AN HOUR
$15 goes to
the agency as
a vehicle, fuel,
maintenance
reimbursement.
$65 goes to
the officer as
overtime pay.
= $1600 DAILY RATE X 120 DAYS (Estimated shelter operating period.) = $192,000
SHIFT 1
SHIFT 3
SHIFT 4
SHIFT 2
AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY
SLCPD A B C
SLCPD WILL PROVIDE 1 SUPERVISOR PER DAY
SUPERVISOR 5 HOUR SHIFTS
= $400 DAILY RATE X 120 DAYS = $48,000
THE TOTAL OVERTIME COST FOR THE SAFETY PLAN IS $816,000.
FUNDING SOURCES FOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ARE
STILL BEING IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME
AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE.
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL
Taking Care of the City:
Revenue Loss (Based on Calendar Year Calculations)11,432,646$ 34,372,399$ -$ 45,805,045$ 1
Salary: Bonus 1,193,000$ 1,193,000$
Salary: Police Retention and Recruitment 7,798,233$ 7,798,233$
Council Adopted ARP Allocation
- Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)93,829$ 93,829$
- Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)90,633$ 90,633$
- Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)711,350$ 711,350$
- Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)50,000$ 50,000$
- Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)290,000$ 290,000$
- Grant Administrator (Finance)101,020$ 101,020$
- Grant Manager (Finance)95,000$ 95,000$
- Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
- MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)136,762$ 136,762$
- MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700$ 46,700$
Water and Sewer Infrastructure 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Council Added BA2 - Annex Building Renovation for Odyssey House 500,000$ 500,000$
Homelessness and Public Safety: the City's Greatest Current Need
Clean Neighborhoods teams 1,505,920$ 1,505,920$
Public Lands Park Rangers (from Salary Restoration)1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$ 3,845,985$ 2
Public Lands Park Rangers (One-time directly from ARPA funding)69,247$
CCP clean-up 325,250$ 329,500$ 164,750$ 819,500$
HEART 57,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 637,000$
Advantage Services Contract -$
Emergency Shelter Set Aside 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Building Community Resilience
Social Impact Investment 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 3
Urban Land Fund 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
Community Grants
Community Grants 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
TOTAL 1,193,000$ 36,811,634$ 46,537,645$ 1,246,945$ 85,719,977$
Amount of Distibution 85,411,572$
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
Items listed in Blue are new proposals.
1 Projected Amount. This funding is not allocated to projects, creates flexible spending dollars.
Revenue Loss Dollars can potentially cover all or a portion of these expenses in FY2023 and FY2024
Police Retention and Recruitment (Salary Enhancements)7,993,189$ 4,096,509$ 12,089,698$
Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)96,175$ 49,290$ 145,464$
Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)92,899$ 47,611$ 140,509$
Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)729,134$ 373,681$ 1,102,815$
Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)51,250$ 26,266$ 77,516$
Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)297,250$ 152,341$ 449,591$
Grant Administrator (Finance)103,546$ 53,067$ 156,613$
Grant Manager (Finance)97,375$ 49,905$ 147,280$
Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,025,000$ 525,313$ 1,550,313$
MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)140,181$ 71,843$ 212,024$
Park Ranger Program 805,237$ 383,297$ 1,188,534$
Fiscal Year 2022 One-Time Revenues
ARPA Revenue Loss 11,432,646$ 11,432,646$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance 15,335,334$ 15,335,334$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance (FOF)2,129,483$ 2,129,483$
46,157,818$
2 Park Ranger Program
Annual Costs 1,175,491$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$
One-Time Costs 401,800$
TOTAL 1,577,291$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$
Available Salary Restoration Funding 1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$
Difference (Another Funding Source is needed, possibly revenue loss)(805,237)$ (383,297)$
3 Social Impact Investment
Focus will be on two specific interventions -- early childhood education and workforce training -- that will increase residents’ access to opportunity and
economic mobility.
Request to hold allocation of approximately $10 mil until the completion of Phase 2. Can be adjusted based on actual spending.
Item B1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:February 15, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY22
MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the FY 2021-22 final
budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the
motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference.
A-1: Suazo Membership ($25,000 from General Fund Balance)
A-2: Move Grants Manager from ARPA to General Fund ($66,000 from General Fund Balance)
A-3: Healthcare Innovation – Biohive ($50,000 from General Fund Balance)
A-4: Fix the Bricks Grant – Transfer Grant Funded FTE from Fire Department to Department of
Community & Neighborhoods – Budget Neutral
A-5: Additional Sergeant FTE for Special Victims Unit ($81,671 and $54,300 from General Fund
Balance)
A-6: Police Access Control Update and Support ($214,538 from General Fund Balance)
A-7: Fireworks Budget ($25,000 from General Fund Balance)
A-9: Arts Council Staff Increase of 3 FTEs ($175,000 from General Fund Balance)
A-10: Allen Park Plan CIP Project Rescope (Budget Neutral)
A-11: Additional FTE - Executive Assistant in the Mayor’s Office ($39,792 from General Fund Balance)
A-12: Citywide Equity Study ($90,000 from General Fund Balance)
A-13: Fleet Fuel Cost Increases ($498,887 from General Fund Balance and $938,076 from Fleet Fund)
A-14: COVID Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) ($200,000 from General Fund Balance)
B-1: ARPA HOME Admin and Planning Funds ($176,660 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
D-1: Interest Income on Bonding ($64,140 and $80,977 from CIP Fund)
D-2: Housing Program Construction Costs ($1,100,000 from Housing Fund)
D-3: Reimburse Miscellaneous Grants for Unreimbursed HUD HOPWA Funds ($32,495 from Housing
Fund and $ -0- from Misc. Grant Fund)
D-4: Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds ($3 million from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
D-5: Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds ($2,880,366 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
D-6: Annex Building Renovation – Moving Funds from Misc. Grants to CIP Fund ($500,000 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
D-7: State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan ($7 million from Debt Service Fund)
E-1: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant ($86,750 from CIP Fund)
E-2: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 ($93,750 from CIP Fund)
E-3: Utah Department of Transportation, 600/700 N Frequent Transit Network Improvement Grant
($228,000 from CIP Fund)
E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3
G-1: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving Prevention Program Grant
($13,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Grant
($9,690 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-3: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-Escalation
Training Solicitation Grant ($92,230 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-4: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 Law Enforcement
Mental Health and Wellness Grant ($59,360 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-5: US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Grant ($340,246 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-6: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG)
($10,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 4
G-1: Utah State Office of Education, Child and Adult Care Food Program - Youth After School Programs
Grant ($46,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Thriving Communities Grant Program, Marathon Petroleum Foundation
Grant ($100,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
G-3: Mental Health First Responders, Utah Department of Human Services Grant ($80,010 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
I-1: Additional Funding for Planning Division Mailings ($90,000 from General Fund Balance)
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, and Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:February 15, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY2022
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
At the February 8 briefing, the Council finished reviewing remaining items that weren’t discussed during the
February 1 briefing. The discussion included potentially adding requests for new fulltime employees to the
upcoming FY2023 annual budget deliberations so all the City’s competing needs could be considered in context
together. Summarized below are Administration responses to the Council’s follow up questions.
A-1: Suazo Business Center
The Council asked when the City’s current membership expires, how much funding would be needed to continue
the membership until the annual budget (to align the membership and annual funding cycles), and if other
membership levels are available. The Administration indicated the City’s membership expired in September 2021.
The Department reports services have been voluntarily continued while the funding request goes through the City’s
budget process. Funding nine months at a cost of $18,750 would cover October 2021 through June 2022. Then, the
full annual cost of $25,000 would need to be included in the next annual budget to continue membership.
There is no higher or lower-level membership for governments. However, the State and County have chosen to
provide funding above the $25,000 membership level. The County provides $130,000 annually towards the
Center’s work supporting minority-owned businesses located within county limits, and the State through the
Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) provides $267,500 annually for services offered statewide.
A-3: Healthcare Innovation Branding aka Biohive
The Council asked when the City’s current membership expires, how much funding would be needed to continue
the membership until the annual budget (to align the membership and annual funding cycles), if this is an ongoing
or one-time expense, and how the first $50,000 appropriation was spent. The Administration indicated the City’s
membership expired in September 2021. The Department reports services have been voluntarily continued while
the funding request goes through the City’s budget process. Funding nine months at a cost of $37,500 would cover
October 2021 through June 2022.
This expense was originally identified as one-time. However, the Department states the expense should be
considered ongoing and would need to be included in the next annual budget. The first $50,000 appropriation was
used for the Utah Life Science Summit pandemic recovery information and services. The funds also contributed to a
Biohive newsletter, branding and marketing.
Project Timeline:
Set Date: February 1, 2022
1st Briefing: February 1, 2022
2nd Briefing: February 8, 2022
3rd Briefing: February 15, 2022
Public Hearing: February 15, 2022
4th Briefing: TBD
Potential Action: March 1, 2022
Page | 2
A-4: Fix the Bricks
The Council asked what additional resources and program changes could decrease wait times for residents, if FEMA
has any timeliness requirements or expectations for use of grant funding information on the program’s geographic
equity. The Administration responded greater involvement of existing employees in the Housing Stability Division
may be able to decrease wait times for program participants. In addition, the City is applying for State funding to
increase the number of single-family homes participating in the program and potentially expand the program to
multifamily and commercial properties. The City requested and received grant agreement extensions related to the
pandemic and the March 2020 earthquake. Applications will be submitted for additional rounds of Fix the Bricks
grant funding from FEMA.
The Administration is exploring funding options to assist low- and moderate-income homeowners with covering the
25% match requirement but has not identified preferred funding options at this time. Other federal funds such as
CDBG dollars are ineligible for covering the 25% match. The IMS Department is working with the Housing Stability
Division to map program recipients and those on the waiting list. This information would allow the City to see
relative participation rates between neighborhoods. A 2019 analysis showed most program applicants on the
waiting list were from high- and middle-income areas.
A-6: Public Safety Building Access Control Upgrade and Support
The Council asked if there is a State or Federal deadline for meeting security compliance rules and whether there
are any other time sensitivities the Council should know. The Administration responded there is no specific
deadline date, but the risk of a security failure increases the longer the original system is used. The City is
experiencing four to six month delays in server and network infrastructure orders which are needed for the system
upgrade. Similar delays are expected for parts needed to repair the current system in case of failure.
A-7: Restore July Fireworks Shows Funding
The Council asked for any data showing that personal fireworks use increases when large public fireworks shows are
unavailable. No such data currently exists to identify the impact, if any, of large public fireworks shows on personal
fireworks usage. The Fire Department suggests community level risks may anecdotally be lower when large public
fireworks shows are available.
The Administration reiterated that the fireworks shows would be cancelled if the Air Quality Index or AQI exceeds
100 or if the U.S. Drought Monitor exceeds level 1.2. The City would receive a full refund if the show is cancelled
more than 10 days in advance.
A-9: Arts Council Staff Increase of 3 FTES
The Council asked for clarification about to what extent, if any, the three additional FTEs requested would perform
work for the nonprofit vs. the City. At the time of publishing this staff report, a small group meeting was being
scheduled with the Administration to discuss this request.
A-12: Citywide Equity Study
The Council asked for a status update on the equity study. The study is expected to be completed August 2022
assuming additional funding is approved as requested in this budget amendment. The additional study tasks are
focused on outreach to and findings related to the City’s Westside. The best place for the public to learn more as the
study proceeds is the project webpage: www.keenindependent.com/saltlakecityequity2021/ Note that the webpage
is currently being updated to show completed work and tasks in progress.
The Administration provided the follow status update:
“In 2021, Keen Independent Research Team administered equity surveys to employees, community
members, residents, focus groups with strong ties to SLC, and HRC/REP/AAC commissions. They have
analyzed all virtual workshop responses from external and internal participants. Also, Keen created and
collected completed equity matrices that track the equity, inclusion, and belonging efforts of all City
departments. They received all of this information at the end of 2021 and are currently collaborating with
the Chief Equity Officer to meet with departments and analyze completed matrices. The findings from
these matrices and analysis will be included in the final equity report. Drafting of the EI&B plan is still in
progress but at least 90% complete.”
Page | 3
B-1: ARPA Authorized HUD HOME Grant Funding for Admin and Planning Funds
The Council asked is the 5% requested the maximum allowed by HUD for administration of the grant, will new
employees be hired, will the funds pay for existing employees and additional info on the consultant contract.
Council staff met with Housing Stability Division staff who shared the following details.
- The HOME-ARPA grant has a 15% maximum for the costs of administering it. HUD is allowing early access
to 5% (the amount of funding requested in this budget amendment) for staff to create the community
assessment and allocation plan. The remainder of the grant funds may not be used until HUD approves the
plan and the Council authorizes the budget.
- The Division is not hiring new employees to administer the HOME-ARPA grant.
- Most of the $176,660 will be used to pay existing employees for time working on administration of the
HOME-ARPA grant this fiscal year and over the next few years. Staff have attended trainings, webinars, and
weekly meetings with consultants to work on developing the HUD required community assessment and
allocation plan. Some positions in the Division are funded by multiple grants proportional to the amount of
work spent on eligible activities administering each grant and are not entirely covered by General Fund
budget.
- The Division has an existing contract with Zions Public Finance which runs concurrently with the 2020-
2024 Consolidated Plan. HUD requires the City have the plan and update it to reflect allowable reuses,
Council-identified spending priorities, grant funds received and many other details. $25,000 was
encumbered under the contract from last fiscal year and is being used this fiscal year for developing the
community assessment and allocation plan. The County and City are partnering on the effort to split these
costs and streamline engagement with community stakeholders. HUD does not allow the use of HOME-
ARPA grant funds on consultants until the community assessment and allocation plan are approved. The
Division decided to use encumbered funds for the consultant to speed up development of those documents
instead of adding to existing staff’s workload. Approximately $15,000 of the $176,660 could be used to
reimburse the Division for use of the encumbered City funds.
E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant
The Council asked the Parks and Public Lands Department how this project relates to the pause in work from the
FY2022 annual budget contingency for implementing the Foothills Trails Plan. At the time of publishing this staff
report a response from the Department was pending.
Potential Council-added item: I-2: Rescope $1.3 Million of Parks Impact Fees as Match to State
Grant for Five New Foothills Trailheads (Budget Neutral)
At the February 8 briefing, the Council discussed the potential need to rescope funding approved as part of FY2022
CIP for two new trailheads in the Foothills. Item E-4 in this budget amendment is a $1.3 million State grant for five
new trailheads in the Foothills. The Public Lands Department wants to use the CIP funding as a match to the State
grant funding. This would require rescoping the CIP funding to be allowed to use on the five trailhead locations
identified in the State grant application instead of the two specifically approved by the Council. The two trailheads
using the CIP funding are also included in the five trailheads receiving the grant funding.
10 New Police Officers and Diversifying Public Safety Response Options
The below item has not been discussed at earlier budget amendment briefings. This is part of a larger discussion
about the City’s efforts to diversify public safety response options to better match the variety of situations
experienced by people contacting the City for help.
A-8: Violent Crimes Unit COPS Hiring Grant City Match ($1,181,460 from General Fund Balance)
(Staff Note: The Council has requested additional information about other staffing and response model changes
that the Police Department has put into place so that this request can be evaluated in the context of overall
Department services and public safety. A briefing on this broader conversation will be scheduled once the
information is available. The Council has requested that this budget amendment item be held until after that
briefing, but this information is included for the purposes of the public hearing.)
In 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) awarded a $1.25 million COPS Hiring Grant to the City for 10 new
police officers. The grant requires the City to match funding and maintain employment of the new officers for three
years. Over the grant period, the federal funding covers approximately 25% of the total cost and the City pays the
Page | 4
other 75%. This funding request covers the FY2022 City match including new vehicles, computers and other
equipment. The City match for ongoing personnel costs would be included in the FY2023 and FY2024 annual
budgets and is estimated at $1.1 million.
The 10 new patrol officers would form a new Violent Crimes Unit. Note that this would be in addition to Project Safe
Neighborhoods which is a partnership between local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to reduce gun
violence. The new officers would also participate in investigations and patrols.
The Police Department is requesting DOJ approval for one of the 10 new officers to be a sergeant overseeing the
Violent Crimes Unit. The City received COPS hiring grants several times before. The new police officers partially
funded by the grant were retained and moved to be fully funded by the General Fund when the grant period ended.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration was preparing information about how this request fits
into the City’s efforts to diversity public safety response options. In addition, Council staff is working with the
Administration on creating a Council-requested infographic summarizing the several alternative response options.
Policy Questions:
29 New Police Officers from Three Requests – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to brief the
Council about plans to hire 29 new police officers which is composed of three separate requests listed
below. The briefing could also include civilian staffing updates and efforts to diversify civilian-led public
safety responses such as social workers, old police reports and traffic enforcement.
o 10 patrol police officers for Violent Crimes Unit using DOJ COPS Grant funding (this item A-8)
o 15 patrol officers and three sergeants for issues at and around the two homeless resource centers in
the City using the State FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant funding (pending
Legislature decision on grant award amount and Council approval)
o One additional sergeant for the Special Victims Unit using General Fund dollars (item A-5 above)
Consider Request in Annual Budget Context – The Council may wish to consider if the new FTEs would be
better evaluated in context of the annual budget and all the City’s competing needs.
REP Commission Review – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the additional staffing
proposals have been presented to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission for review and feedback.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Budget Amendment Number Six includes thirty-five proposed amendments and requested changes to seven funds.
Total expenditures coming from fund balance are $2,701,648. The Council may wish to note that the
Administration is proposing to add sixteen ongoing FTE’s using Fund Balance, and those positions would need to
be added to the upcoming annual budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be
$29,721,935 or 21.29% above the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY2020.
State law was updated and set a maximum General Fund Balance limit of 35%. The increase is a result of higher-
than-expected revenues and unspent funds dropping to Fund Balance at the end of FY2021. The Finance
Department will be available at the briefing to provide a more detailed revenues update as summarized in the table
later in this report.
Inflation Impacts for Upcoming FY2023 Annual Budget
Although there are positive revenue and fund balance reports, staff wanted to mention that there will likely be
several inflationary impacts that may offset that positive news. Some departments have mentioned they expect
significant cost increases for existing services and contract renewals as part of the upcoming FY2023 annual budget.
For example, item A-13 in this budget amendment represents a 36% budget increase for fuel purchases. In addition,
the CIP Cost Overrun Account is less able to offset project cost increases in response to pandemic-related
construction supplies inflation so either project scopes are reduced, or additional funding may be needed. The
FY2022 annual budget included significant use of one-time funding for ongoing expenses which will need to have
ongoing revenue identified in future fiscal years to continue. The Council may wish to consider if some
Page | 5
proposed items in this budget amendment would be better evaluated during the annual budget
with the full context of the City’s competing needs.
Revenue for FY2022 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for Fiscal Year 2022. The Finance
Department will be available at the briefing to review individual revenue line-item changes.
Page | 6
According to the Administration, projections for fiscal year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for
fiscal year 2022 continue to trend above budget. Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the prior
year. Franchise tax is lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($250,000) and telephone
($150,000) franchise taxes.
Other notable increases include licenses which are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes and
innkeepers’ tax. Permits remain very strong with increases in plan check fees and building permits. Field
reservations, land leases and building leases are leading to an increase in Charges, Fees and Rentals. Notable
decreases include a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines. Fire reimbursement from the airport is
also below budget.
Fund Balance
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) has confirmed amounts that lapsed to General Fund Balance
at the end of Fiscal Year 2021. If all items are approved as proposed by the Administration, then combined General
Fund Balance would be 21.29% or $29,721,935 above the 13% minimum target.
Impact Fees Update
Page | 7
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 13, 2021. As a result, the
City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY2022. The Administration reports work
is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section was
updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,644,113 More than a year away -
Parks $11,709,246 More than a year away -
Police $471,211 More than a year away -
Transportation $6,585,173 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: Suazo Business Center Membership ($25,000 from General Fund Balance)
This $25,000 would fund an annual membership for the Suazo Business Center, resulting in an ongoing
partnership with an organization that provides technical support for businesses owned by Latinx residents and
members of other underrepresented groups. The Center's location on the West Side facilitates access for area
residents, and it was able to expand its services last year because of $25,000 that the Council approved in FY2021
Budget Amendment #2. At the time, one-time federal CARES Act funding was available to cover this amount for
one year, but this request is for ongoing City general fund support.
Policy Questions:
Membership Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration is there are other membership levels
available for the City.
Evaluate During Upcoming Annual Budget – The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration
whether this item could be addressed in the upcoming annual budget rather than in a budget
amendment. Would the Council prefer to address this in the annual budget?
A-2: Move Grants Manager from ARPA to General Fund ($66,000 from General Fund Balance)
In the FY2022 annual budget the Council approved one Grants Manager FTE in the Finance Department using
ARPA funding assuming the final guidance from the U.S. Treasury allowed such a use. The Finance Department has
determined the position is not a qualified use and requests the Council shift the position to the General Fund. The
position will continue to assist with tracking, reporting and compliance of ARPA funding as well as other grants.
The City has seen an increase in grant applications to approximately 100 in the last two fiscal years. The City is on
track for a similar number of grants in FY2022. The bipartisan infrastructure bill recently passed in Congress and
signed by the President increases funding opportunities over the next several years and could also result in more
grant applications.
A-3: Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive ($50,000 from General Fund Balance)
Council staff asked DED why another $50,000 was needed after the same amount, also identified as one-time, was
approved in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2021, and what deliverables would result from this amount of spending.
The Department’s response did not address this specific question about the additional funding. The Department has
provided general information about the goals of the program (see Attachment 1).
Policy Questions:
Ongoing or One-time Need – The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration if this is in fact more
of an ongoing need, and if so whether it should be addressed in the upcoming annual budget rather than as
sequential budget amendment requests.
Page | 8
Status of Earlier $50,000 – The Council may wish to ask the Department if funds from FY2021 are fully
spent or encumbered, and what data was collected because of the previous expenditure.
A-4: Fix the Bricks Program and FTE Transfer from Fire Department to Community and
Neighborhoods Department (Budget Neutral)
This item would transfer an Office Technician II FTE and an hourly Office Technician from the Emergency Division
within the Fire Department to the Housing Stability Division within the CAN Department. No budget impact would
be incurred as the positions already exist. Note that both positions are currently vacant. Ongoing administration of
the FEMA grant which funds Fix the Bricks and the two positions would also transfer to the CAN Department.
The Housing Stability Division administers several other ongoing Federal grants, many from the U.S. HUD
Department, and could apply those existing skillsets to this FEMA grant. The Division’s housing rehabilitation
employees have also assisted Fix the Bricks operations in the past such as environmental reviews, floodplains,
historic preservation, noise abatement and control, etc. There may be benefits of combining Fix the Bricks with the
housing rehabilitation programs that offer small and medium sized repairs to qualified low- and moderate-income
homeowners. The two Fix the Bricks employees would be supervised by the Housing Project Manager that also
oversees the housing rehabilitation program.
Demand has exceeded program capacity since launching several years ago. Last year an engineering firm was
contracted with for home inspection and repair approvals which is speeding up that step of the process. Contractors
must be on the approved list to submit seismic improvement project bids. A training program for contractors is
being developed to try and get more added to the approved list. Issues related to supply chains and job vacancies
are also reported to be slowing the pace of contractor’s work.
The multiple emergencies of the past two years and ongoing pandemic have reduced Emergency Management
staff’s ability to work on Fix the Bricks.
Policy Questions:
Resources to Increase Pace of Seismic Improvements – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what additional resources, staffing and/or program changes could decrease wait times for residents.
FEMA’s Use of Funding Timeliness Expectations – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if
FEMA has any timeliness requirements or expectations about the use of grant funds awarded to the City.
The program recently completed using funding from 2017.
Geographic Equity – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration potential changes to improve
geographic equity of program participants such as helping low- and moderate-income residents cover the
25% cost share, using a sliding scale based on income, and assistance navigating funding options (historic
tax credits, grants, local community organizations, etc.). The Council may also wish to ask if information is
available on the current distribution of participants for completed projects and those on the waiting list.
A-5: Additional Police Sergeant for Special Victims Unit ($135,971 from General Fund Balance)
This request would create a second sergeant for the Special Victims Units (SVU) in the Police Department and
provide funding for a vehicle, computer, and other equipment. The current sergeant supervises 12 detectives which
is more than best practice and raises span of control issues. The SVU caseload has increased in recent years. A
major driver of the growing caseload is sexual assault evidence kit DNA matches in the national database. A DNA
match can provide suspect identification and other new information for investigation. In 2014 and 2015 over 700
sexual assault evidence kits from cold cases were submitted to the State Crime Lab for processing. The Police
Department reports over 400 DNA matches have been identified which provides new leads to investigate.
If the second sergeant is approved, then the SVU would designate a team focused on sex crimes investigations
including the new DNA leads from the older sexual assault evidence kits. This is expected to improve case
investigations and the Department’s ability to process the cold cases.
The Department reports similar workload and span of control issues are being experienced for victim advocates
working with the SVU. A grant funded advocate was embedded in the SVU to directly work with detectives
Page | 9
investigating cold cases. However, the grant funding ends September 2022. Continuing the position by using
General Fund dollars could be a request in the FY2023 annual budget. The Department reports one or two more
SVU detectives may also be requested given the high number of DNA matches from sexual assault evidence kits.
Policy Question:
Resources to Increase Pace of Cold Case Investigations – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what resources in addition to SVU police officers could improve the pace of cold case investigations. For
example, are there upstream or downstream resources that could help crime lab evidence processing,
victim advocates, the justice court or prosecutor’s office?
Evaluate During Upcoming Annual Budget – The Council may wish to ask if this position should be
considered in the context of the annual budget, or if the need is more immediate/urgent because of the
caseload?
A-6: Police Access Control Upgrade and Support ($214,538 from General Fund Balance)
This request would replace the original security access control system at the Public Safety Building which was
installed nine years ago. The funding includes $113,198 for hardware (controllers, readers, and server), $56,340 for
installation and ongoing maintenance and support estimated at $45,000 annually. The new system allows the
building to continue meeting Federal and State security compliance rules.
The hardware includes a new server that could act as the backbone for a new standard security system across all city
facilities. The approach was developed by IMS, Facilities and Engineering. The Police Department would be the first
to move to the new system. Additional funding may be needed to transfer other departments and facilities into the
new system
A-7: Fireworks Budget ($25,000 from General Fund Balance)
This request would fund two fireworks shows in July 2022: one at Jordan Park on Independence Day, July 4th, and
another at Liberty Park on Pioneer Day, July 24th. Funding and contracts for the two shows are typically needed in
the spring to ensure vendor availability. The Administration states the shows could be cancelled based on certain
conditions such as an air quality index of 100+ and severe drought. The Council removed funding for the shows in
the FY2022 annual budget because of the ongoing drought. At the time some Council Members expressed concern
about fireworks in general, that they are always bad for air quality. Some current Council Members have expressed
similar concerns.
Policy Question:
Alternative Celebration Options – The Council may wish to discuss alternative options to celebrate the two
July holidays such as festivals, laser & light shows, drone shows, etc.
A-8: This item will be held as a future briefing about the City’s efforts to diversify public safety
response options
A-9: Arts Council Staff Increase of 3 FTEs ($175,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Administration indicates that the Arts Council needs additional staff support to handle current workload as
well as the duties/role of the Mayor’s Advisor on Arts and Culture which was shifted from the Mayor’s Office to the
Arts Council. A total of three (3) FTEs are being requested: two (2) Arts Council Program Coordinators and one (1)
Arts Council Program Manager. The Council may wish to note that these same positions were initially proposed in
the last annual budget process requesting the use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies to fund the
positions, however, these positions did not qualify for ARPA funds, and the Council did not prioritize them for
funding with General Fund dollars when balancing the budget before adoption. The Administration is requesting
that these positions be funded now using fund balance – six months each for two program coordinators and six
months for one program manager.
The job descriptions are as follows:
Arts Council Program Coordinators (Annual salary and benefits $94,383 – Six months is $47,192)
The incumbents would coordinate, organize, and implement Arts Council & Economic Development-related
programs and services; implement marketing efforts, collaborate on grant writing and reporting; provide
Page | 10
information and technical assistance as needed to artists, arts organizations, and the public; and track income and
expenses.
Arts Council Program Manager (Annual salary and benefits $121,116 – Six months is $60,558)
The incumbent would direct one or more major program and initiative(s) within the City’s Department of Economic
Development, including arts and culture programming, small business and entrepreneurship support, and
recruitment and retention activities. Activities would include being responsible for the department programs,
working with community members, advisory boards, and project management with the end goal to support the
City’s arts, economic and equity master plan goals.
Policy Questions:
Work for the Non-profit and/or the City – The Council may wish to ask whether the new staff members will
perform work that relates to the non-profit organization, or whether the work will be directly for Salt Lake
City.
Evaluate During Upcoming Annual Budget – The Council may wish to discuss if this proposal would be
better evaluated during the annual budget with the full context of the City’s competing needs. The FY2022
annual budget tentatively included using ARPA funding for three new Arts Council FTEs, but U.S. Treasury
guidance determined those positions were an ineligible use. The Administration shared the following
context regarding this policy question:
1. “ZAP Grant Funding: Since 2016, the Arts Council’s award from Salt Lake County Zoo, Arts, and Parks
(ZAP) Tier I grant funding has averaged $360,000 annually, based on qualifying programming and
operating expenses. This prestigious grant, of which the Arts Council is the only local Arts Agency within
among only 22 organizations countywide, is a continuing opportunity to leverage funds outside the City.
Due to strategic shifts in programming in 2018, the Arts Council no longer incurs the $1.5 to 2 million
dollars cost of in-house expenses to the Twilight Concert Series. A natural consequence of this shift is that
the annual ZAP award is calculated based on three years of qualifying expenditures; thus, the
organization’s qualifying expenditures have been significantly decreasing with compounding effects. The
Arts Council projects over $175,000 in losses by 2022. The additional staffing costs will qualify as
expenditures to begin to mitigate and stabilize this award in the next three years (although it will not
reach its previous levels due to lower expenditures). So, less expenditures lead to a lesser grant award. It
should be noted that the ZAP grant revenue losses will still occur and compound despite new staffing
expenditures mitigating the stabilization of this critical funding. In preparation for FY23 the staff and
board are currently considering tiered approaches and scenarios to programmatic cuts while mitigating
service losses to the arts community during one of the hardest hit industries through the COVID-19
pandemic.
2. Programmatic & Mayoral goal execution and staffing capacity: Since 2013, the Arts Council has been
a staff of six full-time City employees (5 in 2011). Since that time significant changes to programming
scope, budget, and priorities/values-and a rapidly growing city-have occurred with no increases to full-
time support. Over the years, there have been increases to program funds and the grants budget without
additional staffing support. Major impacts include our ability to deliver program services namely in
Public Art and the new maintenance fund, all public programs such as Living Traditions Presents, City
Arts Grants; and new initiatives of the City, and the Mayor’s Plan-all outside the scope of baseline
programs and functions of our Local Arts Agency designation.
Additionally, in 2020 the full-time policy role of Mayor’s Advisor on Arts & Culture was eliminated from
the Mayor’s Office and that role condensed to the Arts Division Executive Director. This has resulted in
expanded Citywide and external communications, projects, policy, and consultation (internal and
external) asked of the Executive Director as a result, and the incorporation of the management of the
Cultural Core project into the Arts Council. For the Arts Council to continue its development efforts (which
have shown measurable increases in recent years) to begin to mitigate the ZAP losses, and leverage value
to the City, capacity needs to exist to staff the above efforts.
[If the Council were to wait to fund the positions during the annual budget process], the above
considerations would just be further postponed and continue the strains mentioned. The Arts Council has
Page | 11
requested staffing at the Department since FY21 to mitigate these challenges. It has been in the Mayors
Plan to “Stabilize the Structure and Funding of the Arts Council” in Plans 2020-2022. While our team is
passionate and committed, we have experienced staff retention and morale issues related to high volumes
of work. Retaining the incredible talent that we currently have is of the utmost importance for service
continuity to the arts community.”
A-10: Allen Park CIP Rescope (Budget Neutral to Swap Funding Sources)
In FY2021 CIP, the Council approved $450,000 of recaptured bond funds to create an Adaptive Reuse and
Activation Plan for Allen Park. In FY2022 CIP, the Council approved $420,000 of parks impact fees for historic
preservation and renovation work at 11 structures in the park and capital improvements like pedestrian stairway
connections and new amenities. The funding includes analysis, cost estimates and construction ready designs.
Additional funding requests for construction would come to the Council in future budget openings.
This request is to rescope the FY2022 CIP funding of $420,000 to be used on the Adaptive Reuse and Activation
Plan instead of the pre-construction work for structure renovations and capital improvements. This change
accommodates legal limitations that bond funds may not be spent on the plan. The FY2021 CIP funding of
$450,000 would be used for the pre-construction work instead of developing the Reuse Plan. The total funding
available for Allen Park would not change.
The Parks and Public Lands Department provided the below breakdown of how the bond funds have been spent so
far. $284,253 of bond funds remain and need to be spent quickly to comply with spending deadlines. The remaining
bond funds are anticipated to be fully spent on waterline replacements, water meter replacements and roof
upgrades. Construction schedules estimate the work could be completed over the coming summer months.
-$75,000 for Assets & Structures Inventory & Documentation/Assessments of Historic Features
-$33,993 for Roof Stabilization & Leak Repair, George Allen Home
-$31,433 for Construction Documents for Water Line / Water Meter Replacement & Irrigation Upgrade
-$11,560 for Installation of Power Boxes for Site Power / Event Infrastructure
-$11,505 for Waste and Hazardous Materials Removal from Historic Residences
-$2,256 for Engineering fees charged for review of construction documents
A-11: Executive Assistant in the Mayor’s Office ($39,792 from General Fund Balance)
This item would add one executive assistant FTE to the Mayor’s Office. The requested funding is for five months.
The fully loaded annual cost is estimated at $95,501 and would be added to the FY2023 annual budget.
A-12: Citywide Equity Study ($90,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Council approved $100,000 for this study in Budget Amendment #4 of FY2020. This additional funding adds
several tasks to the study scope:
-Task 1. Additional project coordination and management for 2022.
-Task 2. Documentation and mapping of current community engagement processes at the City, including
those spearheaded by the Civic Engagement Team and those led by departments.
-Task 3. Review of current City data on how/whether constituents receive information or provide feedback.
-Task 4. Review of representation of different constituencies on City advisory boards and other groups.
-Task 4. Interviews, virtual workshops, focus groups and other discussions with City staff and community
leaders.
-Task 5. Review of the literature concerning good practices for public sector communication and
engagement with hard-to-reach populations.
-Task 6. Case studies of good practices employed by state or local governments.
-Task 7. Recommendations for solidifying and strengthening current efforts and creating new avenues for
outreach and engagement.
-Task 8. Piloting new community engagement strategies.
-Task 9. Report and three presentations.
A-13: Fuel Cost Increases ($938,076 to Fleet Fund from Several Sources)
Page | 12
Fuel inflation in the market has caused costs to exceed the FY2022 Fleet Fund budget for fuel. This item will
increase the fuel budget to be enough to reach the end of the fiscal year. The FY2022 budget has $2.6 for fuel
purchases which would be increased 36% to $3.5 million. Council staff requested a funding source breakdown for
the additional budget. The information was not available at the time of publishing this staff report.
A-14: COVID Personal Protective Equipment ($200,000 from General Fund Balance)
The City’s supply of masks and other PPE to combat COVID is depleting. This request is for an additional $200,000
to purchase additional supplies to keep citizens, visitors, and employees safe in City owned buildings. The new
masks will be medical grade and tests will also be procured.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
B-1: ARPA Authorized HUD HOME Grant Funding for Admin and Planning Funds ($176,660 from
HOME-ARPA Grant)
HUD has authorized the City to access 5% ($176,659.75) of admin and planning funds of the City's 2021 HUD
HOME-ARPA award (total award, $3,533.195). HOME-ARPA funds are designated for housing opportunities for
individuals experiencing homelessness. These admin and planning funds will facilitate existing City staff and
expenses related to the HUD-required HOME-ARPA Community Assessment. The Community Assessment will
identify needs and opportunities to help direct the HOME-ARPA funds.
It’s important to note that the total award is one-time additional grant funding from HUD. This is separate from the
annual HOME grant funding the City receives. After HUD reviews and approves the Community Assessment, the
Council would need to adopt a substantial amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan for the City to accept
and be able to use the funding.
Housing Stability staff will provide the Council with a quick overview of this one-time funding, the process and
timeline.
Policy Question:
Community Needs for this Funding – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what
community needs should be prioritized for this funding and any recommendations for stakeholders to be
included in developing the Community Assessment.
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Interest Income on Bonding ($64,140 and $80,977 from CIP Fund)
The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in October 2019 for the purpose of funding the
reconstruction of City streets. The total par amount of the bonds issued were $17,540,000. At the time the bonds
were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been
earning interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect the actual proceeds available including
accumulated interest from October 2020 through August 2021. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, were
issued in September 2020 for the purpose of funding the reconstruction of City streets. The total par amount of the
bonds issued were $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds were deposited with the Trustee.
Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment will adjust the budget to reflect
the actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from February 2021 through August 2021.
D-2: WITHDRAWN
D-3: Reimburse Misc. Grants for Unreimbursed HUD HOPWA Funds ($32,495 from Bank Pool
Clearing Account)
Finance discovered that $32,494.55 was paid out to a subgrantee in 2017, but never reimbursed from HUD for
HOPWA Cost Center 7261611. The HUD reimbursement deadline of three years has passed for these funds. Housing
Page | 13
Stability has identified unrestricted funds from 7800404 Bank Pool Clearing to make the City whole. This budget
amendment will facilitate the transfer of funds from a 78 Fund Class to a 72 Fund Class.
The Bank Pool Clearing account is used for housing related expenses like credit and title reports, mortgage
insurance premiums, and loan fees. The Finance Department worked with the Housing Stability Division to change
policies, procedures and staff training to avoid the City losing out on missed reimbursements in the future.
D-4: Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds ($3 million from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Treasury has reallocated unspent Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1 funds set-aside for the State of
Utah by low-performing cities and made these funds available to apply for by high-performing cities, such as Salt
Lake City. These reallocated funds are for direct client assistance only. To administer Salt Lake City’s initial ERAP 1
award, the City contracted with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent
Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. Coordinating with DWS, Housing Stability staff have
determined that Salt Lake City could apply for $3,000,000 in reallocated ERAP 1. These funds will further assist
Salt Lake City residents with deposit, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears, again utilizing the Utah Rent
Relief application portal. Note: This new request is separate from, and does not affect, the City’s other Treasury
ERAP 1 ($6,067,033) and ERAP 2 ($4,800,559.40) awards. See attached funding agreement. (Note: 7262150-
Treasury ERA Direct Financial Assistance, is the current Cost Center for ERAP 1 Direct Client Assistance)
Nearly all of the $6 million from ERAP 1 has been spent with some outstanding invoices pending processing. The
deadline to spend ERAP 1 funds is September 30, 2022. The deadline to spend ERAP 2 funds is September 30,
2025. If D-4 and D-5 are approved as requested, then the City’s total funding from ERAP would be $13,867,632.
D-5: Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds ($2,880,366 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's second allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury
Emergency Rent Assistance (ERAP) 2 funds, in the amount of $2,880,335.64, for the purpose of addressing
housing stability for Salt Lake City residents. See attached funding agreement. The City approved the first allocation
of the ERAP 2 funds in BA1 of FY 21-22, in the amount of $1,920,233.76. The City's total ERAP 2 award is
$4,800,599.40. BA1 included the following budget items for those funds: Direct Client Assistance $1,632,199, and
Community Partner Admin $288,034.76. To administer Salt Lake City’s first and second allocations of ERAP 2, the
City will contract with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief
application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/.
The City has previously and successfully contracted with DWS for the City’s ERAP 1 funds. This budget amendment
aligns with Treasury guidance on eligible activities and allowable percentage amounts for ERPA 2. In addition to
further supporting Direct Client Assistance (deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears), and the
associated Community Partner Admin to facilitate the proper distribution of these funds, Housing Stability is
requesting City Admin to support one (1) FTE, and funds to support Housing Stability services. Re: the one (1) FTE:
Currently, the City’s ERAP 1 and 2 funds are being administered by 1 PTE. This position is necessary to facilitate the
City administration, coordination, and compliance monitoring. This position was pervious approved by Council
with ERAP 1 funding. Since then, the administration of these funds has demonstrated that a FTE is required. This
one (1) requested position would be Grade 26, Community Development Grant Specialist, fully loaded for 39
months. (April 2022 - Jun 2025, at $34.50 an hour [$215,280], plus benefits [$53,820]. Total $269,100.) This
position would be fully funded by ERAP funding and would sunset when funding expires. Re: Housing Stability
services: According to the Treasury, eligible “Housing Stability” services include: Case management, Eviction
prevention, Eviction diversion programs, Mediation between landlords and tenants, Housing counseling, Fair
housing counseling, Housing navigators or promotors that help households access ERA programs or find housing,
Housing-related services for survivors of domestic abuse or human trafficking, Legal services or attorney’s fees
related to eviction proceedings and maintaining housing stability, Specialized services for individuals with
disabilities or seniors that support their ability to access or maintain housing. A public competitive process would
receive applications from providers for eligible Housing Stability services.
Staff note: after transmittal updated numbers confirmed the total amount should actually be $41 less than the
originally requested budget. This will be adjusted for the Council’s final adoption vote.
D-6: Annex Building Renovation – Moving Funds from Misc. Grants to CIP Fund ($500,000 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
Page | 14
In Budget Amendment #2, the Council added an item totaling $500,000 in grant funding to be used for Annex
Building Renovations. This amount was approved within the Miscellaneous Grants Fund. Since the associated
annex building renovation should be done through CIP, the budget needs to be moved.
D-7: State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan ($7 million from Debt Service Fund)
On December 6, 2021, the City and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) entered into a loan agreement
which will be used to finance a portion of a neighborhood parking structure between 400 West and 500 West and
600 South and 700 South. The loan is expected to be repaid with funds allocated to the City by H.B. 244 (2021). The
City has received funds for the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan. This amendment creates the revenue budget
for the receipt of loan proceeds and the expenditure budget to disburse the proceeds for the project.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant ($86,750 from CIP Fund)
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $86,750 for the Utah
Railroad Safety Grant 2021 (round 1) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing
signals. The funding plan is to request an additional $260,250 in the Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2
competition to complete the funding package for the project. A Public hearing was held 7/5/21.
E-2: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 ($93,750 from CIP Fund)
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $93,750 for the Utah
Railroad Safety Grant 2021 (round 2) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing
signals. This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 12/7/21.
E-3: Utah Department of Transportation, 600/700 N Frequent Transit Network Improvement Grant
($228,000 from CIP Fund)
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $93,750 for the Utah
Railroad Safety Grant 2021 (round 2) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing
signals. This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 12/7/21 for the original grant application
for this award.
E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands received $1,300,000 for the Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville
Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements. The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads
along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration
Canyon and Davis County. Proposed trailhead locations are: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and
Utah State Capitol, 2) Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the
University of Utah, 4) 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah
State Capitol. This grant has a match requirement of $1,300,000. Parks & Public Lands has committed matching
funds is from parks impact fees adopted in FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead
Development Phase II.
The $2.6 million total project funding will fully cover construction costs at all five locations based on current plans
and estimates. Note: This funding is not subject to the FY2022 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on
all Foothill trails funding because this project is constructing trailhead infrastructure.
Policy Question:
Pausing Trail Construction and Building Trailhead Infrastructure – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how this relates to the pause in work relating to the Foothills Trails Plan.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Page | 15
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3
G-1: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving Prevention Program Grant
($13,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $13,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022
Distracted Driving Prevention Program. The grant funding is for overtime to conduct distracted driving
enforcement/education shifts. A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Grant
($9,690 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $9,690 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022
Salt Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. This award is to fund crosswalk enforcement/education
overtime and Youth bicycle rodeo overtime. A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21.
G-3: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-Escalation
Training Solicitation Grant ($92,230 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $92,320 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development De-Escalation Training Program.
The grant will fund the Apex Officer Interactive Crisis Intervention, De-Escalation and Force Options Virtual
Reality Training Simulator. It will also provide funding for up to 20 officers to attend an ICAT (Integrating
Communications, Assessment, and Tactics) de-escalation train-the-trainer course as well as training staff
overtime/supplies to implement the ICAT and virtual reality curriculums. The Apex Officer Virtual Reality Training
System is a comprehensive solution that is designed to allow trainers the ability to give presentations and classes,
conduct interactive testing and assessment, and provide immersive, hands-on scenario-based exercises with
detailed debriefing and after-action review. ICAT is a training program that provides first responding police officers
with the tools, skills, and options they need to successfully and safely defuse a range of critical incidents. The only
costs being funded are for per diem. Remaining travel costs will be covered by other funding sources. A Public
Hearing was held on 10/5/21.
G-4: U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 Law
Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Grant ($59,360 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a $59,360 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development Law Enforcement Mental Health
and Wellness Act. The grant will fund training for Employee Wellness and Peer Support Teams, Wellness Initiative,
chaplain uniforms, program education and marketing materials, supplies, program evaluation, instructor fees for
Family Wellness Workshops, and overtime. A Public Hearing was held on 9/7/21.
G-5: US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Grant ($340,246
from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2021
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $340,246. Of that total
the City will subaward $57,055 to the Unified Police Department and $57,054 to Salt Lake County (Sheriff's Office).
The subaward amounts are determined by a federal funding allocation formula. The Police Department will use its
award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, to support directed community policing overtime, and
to purchase the following: a tactical robot, less lethal shotguns and ammo, tactical operation center throw phone
capability enhancements, a laptop for Crime Lab FARO software, vest carriers and plates for Crime Lab personnel,
LEAPS (Law Enforcement Automated Personnel Software), and camera systems for the Internal Affairs Unit and
the HOP physical training facility. No Match is required. A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21.
G-6: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant
(SAFG) ($10,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for additional grant funding and was awarded $10,000 from the State
of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG)
program. The State is combining these new funds with the previously funded amount of $1,500. The funds will be
used for an overt pole camera kit, Narcan nasal spray, and drug prevention resource cards. A public hearing was
held 9/7/21.
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 4
Page | 16
G-1: Utah State Office of Education, Child and Adult Care Food Program - Youth After School
Programs Grant ($46,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Youth & Family Division of Public Services applied for and received a continuation grant offered annually by
the Utah State Office of Education, under the Child and Adult Care Food Program. These funds are available to
youth service providers as part of the At-Risk Snack Program to reimburse the costs of snacks served to children
participating in the after-school programs. Central City Rec. Center, Fairmont Park, Glendale Library, Liberty Park,
Northwest Rec. Center, Ottinger Hall, the Youth and Family Division Office, and Sorenson Campus will receive
reimbursement directly through the State Office of Education and will receive up to $46,000, based on qualified
snack expenses. SLC is reimbursed on a monthly basis and only qualified healthy snacks and meals served to
children participating in the after-school enrichment/education activities during the afterschool program hours are
eligible for reimbursement. A public hearing was held 10/5/21.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Thriving Communities Grant Program, Marathon Petroleum Foundation
Grant ($100,000 from Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Division of Youth & Family Services applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Marathon
Petroleum Thriving Communities Program. The funding will be used to purchase two 14-passenger vans that will be
used by program staff to transport youth participants from neighborhood elementary schools to the YouthCity
Northwest Recreation center site for afterschool programming. No match is required. A public hearing was held
1/18/22.
G-3: Mental Health First Responders, Utah Department of Human Services Grant ($80,010 from
Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
The Human Resource Dept. applied for and received $80,010 in grant funding for the Mental Health First
Responders grant program from Utah Dept. of Human Services. The funding will be used to increase the capacity of
the City's existing EAP (Employee Assistance Program), targeting first responders. The two clinicians currently
under contract with ComPsych will increase their hours of availability to provide onsite, in person, telephone, and
virtual counselling particularly emergency services for individuals who may be in crisis. The total hours will
increase by 815 over the course of the pilot projecting. No match is required. A public hearing was held 1/18/22.
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: PLACEHOLDER: Additional Funding for Planning Division Mailings ($90,000 – General Fund
Balance)
The Planning Division needs additional funding to complete mailings for several projects between now and the end
of the fiscal year. The Council Chair has suggested using fund balance to supplement the cost of Planning Division
mailings as detailed below. The additional $3,980 would be flexible funding in case the number of land use
applications and/or the citywide mailing costs come in higher than expected.
-$78,120 for two citywide mailings
-$1,600 for land use application mailings
-$6,300 for Ballpark Station Area Plan and Downtown Building Height code amendments mailings
-$86,020 Total
ATTACHMENTS
1.Item A-3: Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive
Response from Department of Economic Development to Council Staff’s Questions
ACRONYMS
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
COPS – Community Oriented Policing Services
COVID – Name for the disease caused by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
ERAP – Emergency Rental Assistance Program
Page | 17
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities For People With Aids
HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department
JAG – Justice Assistance Grant
PPE – Personal Protective Equipment
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
SAFG – Utah State Asset Forfeiture Grant Program
SIB – State Infrastructure Bank
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
Attachment 1. Department of Economic Development’s "Response" to Council Staff
Questions about Item A-3, Healthcare Innovation Branding Biohive
Council Staff Questions:
The Council approved $50,000 in Budget Amendment #4 of FY21 for this same use and it was
identified as one-time. Could you please discuss why additional funding is needed and what
deliverables are expected?
Department of Economic Development Response:
In 2020, the Mayor convened stakeholders in the life science industry to help shape the City’s
economic development approach around health care innovation. The goal of this was to
harness the impact and growth of this industry and to connect companies and organizations to
workforce development, STEM education, and other programs and policies that will help
provide economic opportunity to underserved communities in the City. The partnerships
created between Salt Lake City, GoUtah, WTC Utah, BioUtah, EDC Utah, University of Utah, as
well as companies representing various sub-sectors of health care innovation are focused on
elevating the awareness of this industry with a focus on branding and marketing it through the
new entity known as Biohive.
This partnership is in alignment to not duplicate efforts, but to harness the collective goals of
key organizations and the City to retain and help grow this industry together for the benefit of
City residents. This will be accomplished through the following deliverables and activities:
i.Marketing and branding of the industry that has the City at the central hub of activity
to connect residents to an industry that creates high wage jobs (multiple entry points
for careers and jobs), pipeline of new talent through new technologies being created
at the University of Utah, and an already strong yet not well-known history of
diagnostic and medical device companies.
ii.Workforce development programing in partnership with the Salt Lake School District,
Salt Lake Community College, and higher education by providing new opportunities
for communities who have not participated before in the life science industry.
Page | 18
iii.Programming and activities to ensure the momentum of this industry continues to be
retention and growth.
iv.A report that updates on these fronts within Salt Lake City.
Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT)
Chief Mike Brown
Summary
•SLCPD has received a grant award from the COPS Hiring program to fund 10 new police
officers.
•If approved and funded, SLCPD will create the Violent Criminal Apprehension Team
(V-CAT).
•This team will specifically address emerging violent crime patterns and repeat violent crime
offenders in Salt Lake City.
•It is known that a small number of repeat violent individuals are responsible for a
disproportionate number of crimes in our city.
•Identifying and apprehending the most violent offenders can have a significant impact on
crime trends.
Funding
•Funding agency: U.S. DOJ Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office
•Grant program: 2020 COPS Hiring Program
•Length of award: The performance period is 36 months -available for 60 months to
facilitate hiring etc., which would allow the grant to run until 06/30/2025
•Amount awarded: $1,250,000
•FY 22 Budget Request: $ 1,181,460
•12-month retention requirement for each officer position funded.
Personnel $364,030
Officer Equipment and Supplies $287,430
Fleet $495,000
IMS $35,000
Total $1,181,460
Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT)
•V-CAT will be comprised of nine detectives and one sergeant.
•Funds will be used to create two Intelligence -led Policing (ILP) squads to specifically address
emerging violent crime patterns and repeat violent crime offenders in Salt Lake City.
•The team will be housed within the Investigations Unit and will use intelligence led policing
strategies and performance measures.
•V-CAT will work directly with Patrol, Homicide Squad, Robbery Unit, Special Victims Unit
and other Investigation Divisions to dedicate resources to lead the effort to address
emerging violent crime patterns and increase accountability for repeat offenders of violent
crime.
Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT)
•V-CAT will seek to locate and safely apprehend violent offenders and those who commit crimes using
weapons. Case examples include homicide suspects, aggravated assault suspects, domestic violence suspects,
child abuse suspects, suspects in sex-crimes cases.
•Updates on V-CAT will be provided to community members through updates to the Mayor’s Office and City
Council.
•V-CAT will obtain data on violent crime statistics from SLCPD CompStat.
•V-CAT will work with AP&P, the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office and the United States Attorney’s
Office.
Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT)
•V-CAT is intended to leverage existing department-wide resources for more effective
problem solving and to enhance the department’s ability to proactively locate and safely
arrest violent crime offenders and to address the immediate conditions that give rise to
violent crime issues.
•Patrol officers and detectives are not able to dedicate the staff hours required to locate and
apprehend these offenders.
•Having a team of officers available to focus on that task would be a force multiplier in
solving crimes and holding offenders accountable.
•This is not a team that would be used for low level enforcement or for the enforcement of
minor infractions.
Citywide Approach to Public Safety
•V-CAT will supplement the already existing –and future –programs within the city to
expand public safety.
•SLCPD will continue utilizing Social Workers to provide a safe environment for people
to access individualized care, support, and appropriate community resources.
•SLCPD will continue utilizing its Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Program, which includes
specially trained law enforcement officers to effectively deal with a situation involving
a person experiencing a mental health crisis. All sworn officers will be CIT -certified by
December 2022.
•SLCPD will develop its Police Civilian Response Team (PCRT) and expand its Call
Diversion Program to process lower priority calls for service that can be handled by
phone.
SLC Public Lands Park Rangers
Salt Lake City’s Park Ranger program will provide educational
services and safety in City parks, trails and natural areas through
quality customer service to all park users and visitors.
Salt Lake City’s Park Rangers will:
•Serve as a friendly representative for the City, build
relationships, create community, and assist park visitors.
•Support positive use of the downtown parks and natural areas,
aid in constructive activation efforts and maintenance.
•Support the outreach efforts of human services organizations
to assist people who are in need of support.
•Promote voluntary compliance by educating the public about
the Parks Code and Parks rules.
Community Health Access Team
What is CHAT?
Teams a social worker with a firefighter to respond as a 2-
person unit to specific, low-acuity call types
Responds to individuals in need of assistance beyond that
which can be provided by emergency services
Connects individuals to answers, information, and service
providers
Helps to establish a treatment plan for a wide array of
patients with various needs
CHAT is not designed to respond to violent situations or
life-threatening emergencies.
February 2022
Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams [MCOT]
What is MCOT?
•MCOT teams have both licensed clinicians who are highly trained and peer support specialists (also
certified). Have personal experience with past mental health or substance use challenges.
•The team arrives in unmarked vehicles to support privacy, they strive to keep those that they serve in their
communities and out of hospitals and detention facilities.
•SLC911 works closely with the leadership of MCOT to develop a seamless call flow to ensure that we can
meet the needs of our callers and provide mental health options where appropriate as an alternative
response to the call for help.
•Since Feb 2021 Dispatch has referred 516 calls to MCOT.
•Out of the 516 calls only 39 were later determined to need law enforcement .
•234 Calls were able to be resolved just over the phone with a cris is support professional.
•232 Calls were handled by contacting the caller in person.
Community Health Access Team
What is CHAT?
Teams a social worker with a firefighter to respond as a 2-
person unit to specific, low-acuity call types
Responds to individuals in need of assistance beyond that
which can be provided by emergency services
Connects individuals to answers, information, and service
providers
Helps to establish a treatment plan for a wide array of
patients with various needs
CHAT is not designed to respond to violent situations or
life-threatening emergencies.
February 2022
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: January 14,2022
Dan Dugan, 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 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 0.00 $ 2,701,648.00
FLEET FUND 1,482,576.00 1,482,576.00
IMS FUND 259,338.00 259,338.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 6,840,147.00 7,227652.00
HOUSING FUND 1,100,000.00 1,132,495.00
DEBT SERVICE FUND 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00
CIP FUND 3,658,298.75 3,658,298.75
TOTAL $ 20,340,359.75 $ 23,462,007.75
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 14, 2022 12:34 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for fiscal year 2022
continue to trend above budget. Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the
prior year. Franchise tax is lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($250,000)
and telephone ($150,000) franchise taxes.
Other notable increases are licenses are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes
and innkeepers tax. Permits remain very strong with increases in plan check fees and building
permits. Field reservations, land leases and building leases are leading to an increase in Charges,
Fees and Rentals.
Notable decreases include a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines and fire
reimbursement from the airport is also below budget.
FY21-22 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 112,726,044 112,726,044 -
Sales and Use Tax 89,556,472 93,436,473 3,880,001
Franchise Tax 12,102,129 11,700,054 (402,075)
PILOT Taxes 1,562,041 1,562,041 -
TOTAL TAXES 215,946,686 219,424,612 3,477,926
License and Permits 29,904,360 34,561,893 4,657,533
Intergovernmental 4,644,018 5,166,761 522,743
Interest Income 1,271,153 1,271,153 -
Fines & Forfeiture 3,474,455 3,425,328 (49,127)
Parking Meter Collection 2,693,555 2,693,555 -
Charges and Services 3,934,570 4,252,996 318,426
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,372,272 3,329,733 (42,539)
Interfund Reimbursement 22,032,892 21,523,465 (509,427)
Transfers 21,079,600 21,079,601 1
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 308,353,561 316,729,097 8,375,536
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 35,600,001 38,000,000 2,399,999
Sales and Use Tax - County Option - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 343,953,562 354,729,097 10,775,535
With the completion of the CAFR fund balance would be projected as follows for FY2021 and FY2022:
With the use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance is projected to be at 21.29%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 12,114,190 104,171,780 116,285,970
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (2,879,483) (15,335,334) (18,214,817)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 7,355,053 78,576,657 85,931,710
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.51%23.16%22.13%18.22%24.71%23.98%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) - (7,535,897) (7,535,897)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 7,355,053 71,040,760 78,395,813
Final Fund Balance Percent 14.51%21.24%20.44%18.22%22.34%21.88%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,000,000) (15,858,313) (16,858,313)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - 1,508,044 1,508,044
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (4,242,779) (4,242,779)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - 400,000 400,000
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - - (400,000) (400,000)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - - (1,997,761) (1,997,761)
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - - -
Change in Revenue 7,298,201 10,388,598 17,686,799 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 12,114,190 57,495,073 69,609,263 6,355,053 69,951,048 76,306,101
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 30.21%19.40%20.69%15.75%22.00%21.29%
Projected Revenue 40,095,707 296,422,894 336,518,601 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $20,340,359.75 of revenue and
expense of $23,462,007.75. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, including the
addition of 16 new FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $2,701,648.00 from the
General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes 35 initiatives for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2022
Sixth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2022.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Suazo Membership GF - 25,000.00 - - Ongoing -
2 Move Grants Manager from ARPA to GF
Funding
GF - 66,000.00 - - Ongoing 1.00
2 Move Grants Manager from ARPA to GF
Funding
Misc Grants - (80,000.00) - - Ongoing (1.00)
3 Healthcare Innovation - Biohive GF - 50,000.00 - - One-time -
4 Fix the Bricks Grant - Transfer Grant
Funded PCN
GF - - - - Ongoing -
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
GF - 81,671.00 - - Ongoing 1.00
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
GF - 54,300.00 - - One-time -
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
Fleet 49,500.00 49,500.00 - - One-time -
5 Additional Sergeant for Special Victims
Unit
IMS 4,800.00 4,800.00 - - One-time -
6 Police Access Control Upgrade and Support GF - 214,538.00 - - One-time -
6 Police Access Control Upgrade and Support IMS 214,538.00 214,538.00 - - One-time -
7 Fireworks Budget GF - 25,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
GF - 364,030.00 - - Ongoing 10.00
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
GF - 282,430.00 - - Ongoing -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
GF - 535,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
Fleet 495,000.00 495,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City
Match
IMS 40,000.00 40,000.00 - - One-time -
9 Arts Council Staff GF - 175,000.00 - - Ongoing 3.00
10 Allen Part Plan CIP [Project Rescope]CIP - - One-time -
11 Executive Assistant in Mayors Office GF - 39,792.00 Ongoing 1.00
12 Citywide Equity Study GF - 90,000.00 One-time -
13 Fuel Cost Increases GF - 498,887.00 Ongoing -
13 Fuel Cost Increases Fleet 938,076.00 938,076.00 Ongoing -
14 COVID PPE GF - 200,000.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 ARPA HOME Admin and Planning Funds Misc Grants 176,660.00 176,660.00 - - One-time -
1 Interest Income on Bonding CIP 64,139.78 64,139.78 - - One-time -
1 Interest Income on Bonding CIP 80,976.97 80,976.97 - - One-time -
2 Housing Program Construction Costs Housing 1,100,000.00 1,100,000.00 - - One-time -
3 Reimburse Misc Grants for Unreimbursed
HUD HOPWA Funds
Misc Grants 32,495.00 - - - One-time -
3 Reimburse Misc Grants for Unreimbursed
HUD HOPWA Funds
Housing - 32,495.00 - - One-time -
4 Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - One-time -
5 Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants 2,880,366.00 2,880,366.00 - - One-time
6 Annex Building Renovation - Moving Funds
from Misc Grants to CIP
Misc Grants - 500,000.00 - - One-time -
6 Annex Building Renovation - Moving Funds
from Misc Grants to CIP
CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - One-time -
7 State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan Debt Service 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 - - One-time -
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 UDOT Railroad Safety Grant CIP 86,750.00 86,750.00 - - One-time -
2 UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 CIP 93,750.00 93,750.00 - - One-time -
3 Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK IMP
CIP 228,000.00 228,000.00 - - One-time -
3 Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK IMP
CIP (152,000.00) (152,000.00) - - One-time -
3 Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/700 N
FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK IMP
CIP 152,000.00 152,000.00 - - One-time -
4 State of Utah, Governor's Office of
Economic Opportunity, Bonneville
Shoreline Trail
CIP 1,300,000.00 1,300,000.00 - - One-time -
4 State of Utah, Governor's Office of
Economic Opportunity, Bonneville
Shoreline Trail
CIP 1,304,682.00 1,304,682.00 - - One-time -
-
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Administration Proposed
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Consent Agenda #3
1 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety
Office, Distracted Driving Prevention
Program
Misc Grants 13,000.00 13,000.00 - - One-time -
2 State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety
Office, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Program
Misc Grants 9,690.00 9,690.00 - - One-time -
3 US Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21 De-
Escalation Training Solicitation
Misc Grants 92,320.00 92,320.00 - - One-time -
4 US Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), FY21
Law Enforcement Mental Health and
Wellness
Misc Grants 59,360.00 59,360.00 - - One-time -
5 US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Misc Grants 340,246.00 340,246.00 - - One-time -
6 Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice (CCJJ) , State Asset Forfeiture
Grant (SAFG)
Misc Grants 10,000.00 10,000.00 - - One-time -
1 Utah State Office of Education, Child and
Adult Care Food Program - Youth After
School Programs
Misc Grants 46,000.00 46,000.00 - - One-time -
2 Marathon Petroleum Thriving
Communities Grant Program, Marathon
Petroleum Foundation
Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time -
3 Mental Health First Responders, Utah
Department of Human
Services
Misc Grants 80,010.00 80,010.00 - - One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 20,340,359.75 23,462,007.75 - - 15.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Consent Agenda #4
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #6:
General Fund GF - 2,701,648.00 - - 16.00
Fleet Fund Fleet 1,482,576.00 1,482,576.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 259,338.00 259,338.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 6,840,147.00 7,227,652.00 - - (1.00)
Housing Fund Housing 1,100,000.00 1,132,495.00 - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 - - -
CIP Fund CIP 3,658,298.75 3,658,298.75 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 20,340,359.75 23,462,007.75 - - 15.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
4
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,242,779.00 400,000.00 370,072,912.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 11,151,215.48 3,447,000.00 45,233,127.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 67,605,134.48 3,847,000.00 1,838,709,860.24
5
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^ BA #6 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#6^^
General Fund (FC 10)370,072,912.00 2,701,648.00 372,774,560.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000.00 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573.00 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000.00 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,706,761.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,844,389.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,443,563.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,222,996.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)708,183,239.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,754,152.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)11,608,072.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856.00 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,645,479.00 1,482,576.00 30,128,055.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,657,172.00 259,338.00 24,916,510.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for 5,307,142.00 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332.00 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)45,233,127.24 7,227,652.00 52,460,779.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797.00 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565.00 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000.00 1,132,495.00 17,253,495.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)58,015,423.00 7,000,000.00 65,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)52,752,463.00 3,658,298.75 56,410,761.75
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,958,756.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)53,172,091.00 53,172,091.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,838,709,860.24 23,462,007.75 - - - - 1,862,171,867.99
BA#4 and BA#5 remain open with the City Council.
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
6
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Suazo Membership GF $25,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar, Randy Hillier
This funding would continue to allow Salt Lake City to be represented on the Suazo Board. According to the organization’s
website, “The Suazo Business Center is a business Resource committed to the development and empowerment of the
Latino/Hispanic and other underserved communities. We provide assistance to help existing and potential minority
entrepreneurs succeed and build wealth.” The Administration stated Economic Development would identify a staff person
to serve on the Board.
A-2: Move Grants Manager from ARPA to GF Funding GF $66,000.00
Misc Grants -$80,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson , John Vuyk
The position associated with this move will be managing all grants, including ARPA. Since ARPA funds need to be
specifically dedicated, this position doesn’t qualify for ARPA funding and will need to be moved to and funded by the
General Fund.
A-3: Healthcare Innovation - Biohive GF $50,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar, Randy Hillier
Salt Lake City has focused a substantial amount of economic recovery efforts on the healthcare innovation industry as a
part of the Tech Lake City initiative. This industry has a strong presence in the City and has high growth potential. This
industry is particularly strategic for the City as these jobs are anchor ed with research and development and have high
potential for upward mobility. This funding will go towards a collaborative effort alongside industry partners to brand the
industry, highlight opportunities within it for underserved communities, and elevate apprenticeships, internships, and
upward career mobility.
A-4: Fix the Bricks Grant – Transfer Grant Funded
PCN GF $0.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For Questions Please Include: Clint Rasmussen, Randy Hillier
Emergency Management recently integrated into the Fire Department. Its existing programs have improved, and new
projects are in the works. Emergency Management has several federal grants that it manages including "Fix the Bricks".
Part of this specific grant funds the salary/benefits of one FTE to help administer the program. It was determined that the
'Fix the Bricks' grant would be more appropriately administered in the Department of Community and Neighborhood's
Housing Stability.
This budget amendment would amend the staffing document to reflect the move of 1 PCN/FTE from Fire to Community
and Neighborhoods. As the FTE is funded through the grant, no transfer of budget needs to occur.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
A-5: Additional Sergeant for Special Victims Unit GF $81,671.00
GF $54,300.00
Fleet $49,500.00
IMS $4,800.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith, Sandee Moore
Currently, the SVU Sergeant is supervising 12 detectives which is not manageable. SVU caseloads have continued to
increase and additional detectives have been assigned to the squad over the past few years in an effort to manage the
caseload. Also, over 700 Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) kits were submitted a few years ago and the state lab has been
making good progress, now returning Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) hits at an increasingly rapid rate. Due to the
response of the State lab, we currently have over 400 CODIS hits from the SAKI kits producing cold case leads. These cases
need follow up and investigation in a timely manner which we cannot facilitate without additional resources.
The benefit of an additional Sergeant, outside rectifying the immense span of control currently handled by a single
Sergeant, is the ability to focus efforts on the SAKI and cold case queue. Separating the functions of the squad, overseen by
a second Sergeant, to investigate sex crimes committed against adults and children from cold cases, SAK cases, and lesser,
but still serious sex crimes (voyeurism, sexual battery, gross lewdness, etc.) would reduce individual caseloads and allow
for better case investigation of these crimes as well as increase our ability to make progress on the SAKI cases with CODIS
hits.
This request for an additional Sgt includes funding for fleet and IMS.
This request facilitates an immediate need and future budget requests may be considered for two additional SAKI cold case
detectives, overtime, or other resources to facilitate investigation of these cases in a timely manner.
A-6: Police Access Control Upgrade and Support GF $214,538.00
IMS $214,538.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Captain Teerlink
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Captain Teerlink, Sandee Moore, Aaron Bentley
Budget request for an update of the security access control system at PSB and ancillary PD facilities. The current system
needs to be replaced to prevent a critical failure of building security required for state compliance. PD has worked with
facilities to identify a state contracted vendor that will provide the hardware, software and support for access control. The
server that is specified in this system has capacity to add other city access control systems as the city system expands.
Ongoing cost for support is $45,000 per year and is included in the initial cost for the first yea r.
The Police Department has coordinated on this request with Facilities IMS and public works to ensure functionality for all
departments as the system is expanded throughout the city. This request is for the first phase of the implementation that
covers the police department system.
A-7: Fireworks Budget GF $25,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Gregg Evans, Kristin Riker, John Vuyk
The Public Lands Department Community Events group is requesting $25,000 from General Funds to cover the annual
July firework shows that would occur during calendar year 2022. Due to the severe drought, we experienced this past
summer the City Council cut the firework funding "one -time" from the FY22 budget. Due to the firework show contract
requirements the FY22 show was already prepaid in March of FY21 to reserve the fireworks show in July of FY22. Cutting
the funding in FY22 actually impacts the FY23 firework shows.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
This budget amendment request would reinstate those funds and provide spending authority to purchase the firework
display in advance for the following fiscal year.
A-8: Violent Crimes Cops Hiring Grant City Match GF $364,030.00
GF $282,430.00
GF $535,000.00
Fleet $495,000.00
IMS $40,000.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Jordan Smith, Sandee Moore
The COPS Hiring Grant was funded by DOJ in 2019 and accepted by the City and approved by City Council. A condition o f
the grant is that the 3-year project must be completed within a 5-year project period as extensions allow. This will require
hiring in January or February of 2022 to facilitate the 3-year project period within the 5 years allowed. The requested
budget would be the city portion of the hiring costs for FY 22. Funding would also be required in FY 23 and FY 24 . In FY
25, 6 months of funding would be the city portion and then the city would take on full budget for these 10 positions. The
total grant funding is $1,250,000 which will equate to approximately 25% of the cost over 3 years. The 10 officer positions
were identified to create a squad dedicated to addressing Violent Crime in the community. These positions, in conjunction
with the cooperative Project Safe Neighborhoods program, will have a major impact on the ability to proactively work to
reduce violent crime in the city by enforcement and prosecution.
A-9: Arts Council Staff GF $175,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz, Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar, Lorena Riffo Jensen, Jolynn Walz, Randy Hillier
The Arts Council is in need of additional staffing support to accommodate duties shifted from the Mayor’s Advisor on Arts
& Culture role. In addition, challenges remain to keep up with current workload, fundraising needs due to ZAP loss of
qualifying expenditures, and new initiatives requested of the Arts Council. Attrition has been a challenge at the Arts
Council due to workload. The request is for 3.0 FTEs which is approximately $350,000 in ongoing expenses and
approximately $175,000 in FY22 if funded mid-year. The Arts Council currently has 6.5 FTE to run the full operations of a
non-profit, the City’s growing public art program (including maintenance), the city’s arts grants program, programming
such as Living Traditions and the Twilight Concert Series and serve as an ombudsman to the arts community.
A-10: Allen Park Plan CIP Project Rescope CIP $0.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Kristin Riker, Lewis Kogan, Katherine Maus, Gregg Evans
Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to revise the scope of submitted CIP application for FY 2021 -2022. The
original scope for Historic Structure Renovation and Activation at Allen Park included funding for structural and
occupancy analysis of historic structures; drawings, plans and cost estimates for reconstruction of the George Allen Home,
the "Rooster House," septic system removal, sewer line construction, water infrastructure, stabilization of exterior art
pieces, and pedestrian stairway connections; and reconstruction of lighting and driveways. The current scope also lists
reconstruction of the George Allen Home and "Rooster House" to serve as a small cafe with dining opportunities. Due to
initial public engagement and feedback, Public Lands is requesting a scope change to engage in robust community and
stakeholder engagement to create an Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan for Allen Park which will determine the future
use of the structures. In order to preserve the strong community investment in the site, Public Lands believes it would be
necessary to engage in extensive public engagement to inform a plan that will guide future management decisions and
capital improvement projects in the Park. Public Lands is currently engaging with a consultant to complete a Cultural
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
Landscape Report, which will also influence the Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan and be completed in a timely manner,
in conjunction with public engagement for the plan.
Funding for an Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan for Allen Park was awarded in 2020 with reallocated emergency bond
funding. However, it was ultimately discovered that it was not legally permit ted for bond funding to be utilized for a non-
capital expense. Public Lands is currently utilizing the emergency bond funding for emergency repairs to minimize damage
to the structures and the property, including but not limited to roof repair, restoring e xternal power to select structures,
investigation and construction documentation for sewer and water line installation, failing appliance removal, septic
infrastructure removal, etc.
Project tasks within the new scope may include but are not limited to:
- Robust community engagement with key stakeholders, the Sugarhouse community, and the broader public
- Development of an Adaptive Reuse and Activation Plan, informed by the Cultural Landscape Report and public
engagement, to guide future management of the site including over-arching goals, specific projects, objectives and
prioritization
- Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
- Development of conceptual and construction documents, and cost estimates for adaptive reuse and activation
projects listed in the Plan
- Investigation into the feasibility of Allen Park becoming a Historic Landmark Site
A-11: Executive Assistant in the Mayor’s Office GF $39,792.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The budget proposes to increase staffing in the Mayor’s Office by one additional executive assistant. The budget is for five
month’s salary and costs for computers and other supplies.
A-12: Citywide Equity Study GF $90,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Kaletta Lynch, Mary Beth Thompson, John
Vuyk
The City has been working with Keen Independent Research to review equity practices in the City. The Administration is
seeking funding to continue to work with Keen in developing plans to bring equity to Salt Lake City. Funding will allow the
City to work with the vendor through this fiscal year to complete the plans.
A-13: Fuel Cost Increases GF $498,887.00
Fleet $938,076.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente, Nancy Bean, Denise Sorensen, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
The City has seen an increase in fuel cost. The budget will provide Fleet funding to purchase the required fuel for the
remainder of the fiscal year. The budget also proposes to transfer funding from personnel within the Police [$300,000]
and CAN [$12,622] Department to cover fuel increases. The budget also proposes additional funding from Non-
Departmental to cover the costs not covered by general fund department budgets.
The fuel increase has also impacted the Public Utilities, Sustainability, and Golf funds.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
A-14: COVID PPE GF $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Lorna Vogt
The City’s supply of masks and other PPE to combat COVID is depleting. This request is for an additional $200,000 to
purchase additional supplies to keep citizens, visitors and employees safe in City owned buildings.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
B-1: ARPA HOME Admin and Planning Funds Misc Grants $176,660.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Melyn Osmond
HUD has authorized the City to access 5% ($176,659.75) of admin and planning funds of the City's 2021 HUD HOME -
ARPA award (total award, $3,533.195). HOME-ARPA funds are designated for housing opportunities for individuals
experiencing homelessness. These admin and planning funds will facilitate admin for existing City staff and expenses
related to the HUD-required HOME-ARPA Community Assessment. The Community Assessment will identify needs and
opportunities to help direct the HOME-ARPA funds. Please see attached funding agreement.
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Interest Income on Bonding CIP $64,139.78
CIP $80,976.97
Department: Finance Prepared By: Jared Jenkins
For Questions Please Include: Jared Jenkins, Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson
The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in October 2019 for the purpose of funding the reconstruction of
City streets. The total par amount of the bonds issued were $17,540,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds
were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment will
adjust the budget to reflect the actual proceeds available including accumulated interest from October 2020 through
August 2021.
The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020, were issued in September 2020 for the purpose of funding the reconstruction
of City streets. The total par amount of the bonds issued were $17,745,000. At the time the bonds were issued the proceeds
were deposited with the Trustee. Since then, the unspent bond proceeds have been earning interest. This amendment will
adjust the budget to reflect the actual proceeds available including accumulat ed interest from February 2021 through
August 2021.
D-2: Housing Program Construction Costs Housing $1,100,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
Recognize $1,100,000 in unbudgeted revenue for the purpose of offsetting increases in constructions costs for three
affordable single-family homes currently in development. This revenue was not included in the initial budget due to the
timing of other home sales in the Housing Program that generated the revenue.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
D-3: Reimburse Misc Grants for Unreimbursed HUD
HOPWA Funds Misc Grants $0.00
Housing $32,495.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
Finance discovered that $32,494.55 was paid out to a subgrantee in 2017, but never reimbursed from HUD for HOPWA
Cost Center 7261611. The HUD reimbursement deadline of three years has passed for these funds. Housing Stability has
identified unrestricted funds from 7800404 Bank Pool Clearing to make the City whole. This budget amendment will
facilitate the transfer of funds from a 78 Fund Class to a 72 Fund Class.
D-4: Treasury ERAP 1 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants $3,000,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
The Treasury has reallocated unspent Emergency Rent Assistance Program (ERAP) 1 funds set -aside for the State of Utah
by low-performing cities and made these funds available to apply for by high-performing cities, such as Salt Lake City.
These reallocated funds are for direct client assistance only.
To administer Salt Lake City’s initial ERAP 1 award, the City contracted with the State of Utah, Department of Workforce
Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/.
Coordinating with DWS, Housing Stability staff have determined that Salt Lake City could apply for $3,000,000 in
reallocated ERAP 1. These funds will further assist Salt Lake City residents with deposit, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and
utility arrears, again utilizing the Utah Rent Relief application portal.
Note: This new request is separate from, and does not affect, the City’s other Treasury ERAP 1 ($6,067,033) and ERAP 2
($4,800,559.40) awards.
See attached funding agreement.
(Note: 7262150-Treasury ERA Direct Financial Assistance, is the current Cost Center for ERAP 1 Direct Client Assistance)
D-5: Treasury ERAP 2 Reallocated Funds Misc Grants $2,880,366.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For Questions Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Randy Hillier, Suzanne Swanson
This budget amendment is to recognize the City's second allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act, Treasury Emergency
Rent Assistance (ERAP) 2 funds, in the amount of $2,880,335.64, for the purpose of addressing housing stability for Salt
Lake City residents. See attached funding agreement. The City approved the first allocatio n of the ERAP 2 funds in BA1 of
FY 21-22, in the amount of $1,920,233.76. The City's total ERAP 2 award is $4,800,599.40.
BA1 included the following budget items for those funds: Direct Client Assistance $1,632,199, and Community Partner
Admin $288,034.76.
To administer Salt Lake City’s first and second allocations of ERAP 2, the City will contract with the State of Utah,
Department of Workforce Services’ (DWS) online Utah Rent Relief application portal, https://rentrelief.utah.gov/. The
City has previously and successfully contracted with DWS for the City’s ERAP 1 funds.
This budget amendment aligns with Treasury guidance on eligible activities and allowable percentage amounts for ERPA 2.
In addition to further supporting Direct Client Assistance (deposits, rent, utilities, rent arrears, and utility arrears), an d the
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
associated Community Partner Admin to facilitate the prop er distribution of these funds, Housing Stability is requesting
City Admin to support one (1) FTE, and funds to support Housing Stability services.
Re: the one (1) FTE: Currently, the City’s ERAP 1 and 2 funds are being administered by 1 PTE. This positio n is necessary
to facilitate the City administration, coordination, and compliance monitoring. This position was pervious approved by
Council with ERAP 1 funding. Since then, the administration of these funds has demonstrated that a FTE is required. This
one (1) requested position would be Grade 26, Community Development Grant Specialist, fully loaded for 39 months.
(April 2022 - Jun 2025, at $34.50 an hour [$215,280], plus benefits [$53,820].Total $269,100.) This position would be
fully funded by ERAP funding and would sunset when funding expires.
Re: Housing Stability services: According to the Treasury, eligible “Housing Stability” services include: Case management,
Eviction prevention, Eviction diversion programs, Mediation between landlords and tenants , Housing counseling, Fair
housing counseling, Housing navigators or promotors that help households access ERA programs or find housing,
Housing-related services for survivors of domestic abuse or human trafficking, Legal services or attorney’s fees related to
eviction proceedings and maintaining housing stability, Specialized services for individuals with disabilities or seniors tha t
support their ability to access or maintain housing. A public competitive process would receive applications from providers
for eligible Housing Stability services.
D-6: Annex Building Renovation – Moving Funds
from Misc Grants to CIP Misc Grants $500,000.00
CIP $500,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For Questions Please Include: Teresa Beckstrand, John Vuyk, Randy Hillier
In Budget Amendment #2, the Council added an item totaling $500,000 in grant funding to be used for Annex Building
Renovations. This amount was approved within the Miscellaneous Grants Fund. Since the associated annex building
renovation should be done through CIP, the budget needs to be moved.
D-7: State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan Debt Service $7,000,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley
For Questions Please Include: Marina Scott, Brandon Bagley, Jared Jenkins, Mary Beth Thompson
On December 6, 2021, the City and the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) entered into a loan agreement which
will be used to finance a portion of a neighborhood parking structure between 400 West and 500 West and 600 South and
700 South. The loan is expected to be repaid with funds allocated to the City by H.B. 244 (2021). The City has received
funds for the State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loan. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of loan
proceeds and the expenditure budget to disburse the proceeds for the project.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant CIP $86,750.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Jon Larsen, Orion Goff
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $86,750 for the Utah Railroad
Safety Grant 2021 (round 1) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing signals .
The funding plan is to request an additional $260,250 in the Utah Railroad Safety Grant 2021 Round 2 competition to
complete the funding package for the project.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 4/6/21 for the original grant application for this award.
E-2: UDOT Railroad Safety Grant, Round 2 CIP $93,750.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Jon Larsen, Orion Goff
The Dept. of Community & Neighborhood, Division of Engineering applied for and received $93,750 for the Utah Railroad
Safety Grant 2021 (round 2) for safety improvements to the railroad crossing at 4900 West 700 South.
Planned safety improvements include widening the roadway, improving sight distance by raising the street grade
approach, adding sidewalk on the south side of the crossing, adding bike lanes, and replacing the railroad crossing signals.
This grant has no match requirement. A public hearing was held 12/7/21 for the original grant application for this award.
E-3: Utah Department of Transportation, 600/700 N
Frequent Transit Network Improvement CIP $228,000.00
CIP -$152,000.00
CIP $152,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Jon Larsen, Orion Goff
Salt Lake City Division of Transportation nominated 600/700 North Frequent Transit Network Improvements (Near
Term) for $228,000 from the TTIF: Transit Projects funding.
The project installs approximately 20 new Level III transit shelters along 600/700 North from 2200 West to 300 West.
This grant has a match requirement of $152,000 coming from the Funding Our Futures sales tax transit funding. A public
hearing was held 4/7/20 for the original grant application for this award.
E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic
Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail CIP $1,300,000.00
Impact Fee $1,304,682.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Mary Beth Thompson, Kristin Riker
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands received $1,300,000 for the Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville Shoreline
Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements.
The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs
through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration Canyon and Davis County.
Proposed trailhead locations are: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and U tah State Capitol, 2) Emigration
Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the University of Utah, 4) 18th Avenue in the upper
Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol.
This grant has a match requirement of $1,300,000. Parks & Public Lands has committed matching funds is from parks
impact fees adopted in FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 on the grant appl ication for this award.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #3
G-1: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Distracted Driving
Prevention Program
Misc.
Grants $13,000.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $13,000 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022
Distracted Driving Prevention Program.
The grant funding for overtime to conduct distracted driving enforcement/education shifts.
A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-2: State of Utah, The Utah Highway Safety Office, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Safety Program
Misc.
Grants $9,690.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/ Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $9,690 grant from the Utah Highway Safety Office for the 2022 Salt
Lake City Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program.
This award is to fund Crosswalk enforcement/education overtime and Youth bicycle rodeo overtime.
A Public Hearing was held on 4/20/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-3: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), FY21 De-Escalation Training Solicitation
Misc.
Grants $92,320.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $92,320 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development De-Escalation Training Program.
The grant will fund the Apex Officer Interactive Crisis Intervention, De-Escalation and Force Options Virtual Reality
Training Simulator. It will also provide funding for up to 20 officers to attend an ICAT (Integrating Communications,
Assessment, and Tactics) de-escalation train-the-trainer course as well as training staff overtime/supplies to implement
the ICAT and virtual reality curriculums.
The Apex Officer Virtual Reality Training System is a comprehensive solution that is designed to allow trainers the ability
to give presentations and classes, conduct interactive testing and assessment, and provide immersive, hands -on scenario-
based exercises with detailed debriefing and after-action review.
ICAT is a training program that provides first responding police officers with the tools, skills, and options they need to
successfully and safely defuse a range of critical incidents. The only costs b eing funded are for per diem, remaining travel
costs will be covered by other funding sources.
A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-4: U S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS), FY21 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness
Misc.
Grants $59,360.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/ Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a $59,360 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Community
Oriented Policing Services through the FY21 Community Policing Development Law Enforcement Mental Health and
Wellness Act.
The grant will fund: Training for Employee Wellness and Peer Support Teams, Wellness Initiative and Chaplain Program
Uniforms, Program Education and Marketing Materials, Class Supplies, Program Evaluation, Instructor Fees for Family
Wellness Workshops, and Overtime.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
A Public Hearing was held on 9/7/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-5: US Department of Justice, 2021 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG)
Misc.
Grants $340,246.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Police Department applied for and received a grant award from the U.S. Department of Justice under the 2021 Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. The total grant award is $340,246. Of that total the City will
subaward $57,054.50 to the Unified Police Department and $57,054.50 to Salt Lake County (Sheriff's Office). The
subaward amounts are determined by a federal funding allocation formula.
The Police Department will use its award to provide training for sworn and civilian personnel, to support directed
community policing overtime, and to purchase the following: a tactical robot, less lethal shotguns and ammo, tactical
operation center throw phone capability enhancements, a laptop for Crime Lab FARO software, vest carriers and plates for
Crime Lab personnel, LEAPS (Law Enforcement Automated Personnel Software), and camera systems for the Internal
Affairs Unit and the HOP physical training facility.
No Match is required.
A Public Hearing was held on 10/5/21 for the grant application on this award.
G-6: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State
Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG)
Misc.
Grants $10,000.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for additional grant funding and was awarded $10,000 from the State of
Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The
State is combining these new funds with the previously funded amount of $1,500.
The funds will be used for an overt pole camera kit, Narcan nasal spray, and drug prevention/resource cards
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
Consent Agenda #4
G-1: Utah State Office of Education, Child and Adult Care Food
Program - Youth After School Programs
Misc
Grants $46,000.00
Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas / Melyn Osmond
The Youth & Family Division of Public Services applied for and received a continuation grant offered annually by the Utah
State Office of Education, under the Child and Adult Care Food Program. These funds are available to youth service
providers as part of the At-Risk Snack Program to reimburse for the costs of snacks served to children participating in the
after-school programs. Central City Rec. Center, Fairmont Park, Glendale Library, Liberty Park, Northwest Rec. Center,
Ottinger Hall, the Youth and Family Division Office, and Sorenson Campus will receive reimbursement directly through
the State Office of Education and will receive up to $46,000, based on qualified snack expenses. SLC is reimbursed on a
monthly basis and only qualified healthy snacks and meals served to children participating in the after-school
enrichment/education activities during the afterschool program hours are eligible for reimbursement. A public hearing will
be held for the grant application.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Thriving Communities Grant Program,
Marathon Petroleum Foundation
Misc
Grants $100,000.00
Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Ken Perko / Melyn Osmond
The Division of Youth & Family Services applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Marathon Petroleum
Thriving Communities Program. The funding will be used to purchase two 14 -passenger vans that will be used by program
staff to transport youth participants from a variety of neighborhood elementary schools to the YouthCity Northwest
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #6
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
11
Recreation center site for afterschool programming. No match is required. A public hearing will be held for this grant
application.
G-3: Mental Health First Responders, Utah Department of Human
Services
Misc
Grants $80,010.00
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: Trent Steele / Melyn Osmond
The Human Resource Dept. applied for and received $80,010 in grant funding for the Mental Health First Responders
grant program from Utah Dept. of Human Services. The funding will be used to increase the capacity of the City's existing
EAP (Employee Assistance Program), targeting first responders. The two clinicians currently under contract with
ComPsych will increase their hours of availability to provide onsite, in person, telephone, and virtual counselling
particularly emergency services for individuals who may be in crisis. The total hours will increase by 815 over the course of
the pilot projecting. No match is required. A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 12/13/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 471,211$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,644,113$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 11,709,246$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,585,173$ D
20,409,744$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
FY 2023Calendar
Month
FY 2022FY 2024
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 12/13/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances
YTD
Expenditures
Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD
Sum of Police Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$ A
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588.33$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 68,100$ 270,348$
Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,966,574$ 273,937$
Fire Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Fire Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Fire Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD E
Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,830.52$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568.09$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B
Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$
Parks Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Parks Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Parks Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD
Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ 7,500$ -$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 12,155$ 37,597$ -$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$
FY Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 146$ -$ -$ 146$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 188,467$ 34,134$ 1,646$ C
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ -$ 7,763$ 7,798$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796.28$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ -$ 1,905$ 56,109$
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381.06
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 284,846$ 11,297$ 227,746$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 59,106$ 64,495$ 264,877$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 8,302$ 25,921$ 1,060,208$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 107,850$ 121,172$ 3,114,882$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 21,800$ -$ 3,178,200$
Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,471,367$ 403,507$ 13,819,573$
Streets Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Street Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Street Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD
Sum of Street Allocation Remaining
Appropriation
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 20,953$ 73,999$ 700$ D
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 213,483$ 8,205$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 87,063$ -$ 787,937$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 1,155,677$ 1,416,728$ 3,394,999$
Total 25,400,567$ 3,922,119$ 3,788,672$ 17,689,776$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
8484001
471,211$
$1,644,113
20,409,744$
8484002
8484003
8484005
11,709,246$
6,585,173$
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.tinyurl.com/slcredistricting
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Budget & Policy Analyst, and
Hassan Abdi, Public Engagement Coordinator
DATE:February 15, 2022
RE: City Council Redistricting Update
NEW INFORMATION
Recommended Applicants
The Subcommittee met a second time to finish reviewing the 46 applications. Nine applicants are recommended
for selection to the Redistricting Advisory Commission which include one representative for each of the seven
Council Districts and two at-large members as listed below. The Council could consider a straw poll to approve
or reject this set of recommended applicants (a vote at a formal meeting is not required).
-Erik Lopez for District One
-Marti Woolford for District Two
-Mallory Bateman for District Three
-Neil Vander Most for District Four
-Eric Kenney for District Five
-Anne Cannon for District Six
-Elisabeth Morrey for District Seven
-Diya Oommen for at-large
-Daniel Cairo for at-large
The Subcommittee’s goal is to have a Commission that represents diversity across multiple factors. This group of
applicants represent a diverse mix of City residents. Some characteristics to note:
- Five women and four men
- Represent generations that span over six decades from youngest to oldest
- Homeowners and renters are included
- Represent multiple ethnicities
- Several are either currently or previously involved in local community councils
- Professional and academic backgrounds from various areas such as business and technology systems,
Census workers, demographics, geography, healthcare, student, community activists
- Includes members of the LGBT community
- Some applicants live in neighborhoods that are likely to experience boundary changes such as Wasatch
Hollow, Central 9th Business District, Euclid, Fairpark, and Guadalupe neighborhoods
The Subcommittee determined it was important to recommend one at-large member from the Westside to
balance historic inequities and recognizing District Two is likely to have boundary changes as the only district
that lost population over the last decade. The other at-large member is from District Four because it had the
largest population change and as a result the boundaries will need to significantly adjust.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: January 4, 2022
2nd Briefing: January 11, 2022
3rd Briefing: February 1, 2022
4th Briefing: February 8, 2022
5th Briefing: February 15, 2022
6th Briefing: TBD
Public Hearings: April 5 and/or 19, 2022
Potential Action: May 3, 2022
Page | 2
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
At the February 1 meeting, the Council took a straw poll to accept and consider applications submitted after the
deadline last Thursday. The Commission is envisioned to have at least seven members – one from each Council
District – and potentially more. A subcommittee of three Council Members (Petro-Eschler, Puy and Fowler)
volunteered to review the applications and recommend applicants to the full Council for selection.
Five additional applications were identified after the February 1 meeting which brings the total number to 45.
One application was mistakenly submitted to the wrong office and four others were caught in a spam filter. All
five of the applications were submitted before the deadline. An updated district breakdown is below.
District One – Five applications District Two – Seven applications
District Three – Nine applications District Four – Three applications
District Five – 11 applications District Six – Four applications
District Seven – Five applications
The draft guiding principles in the Additional info section was updated since the last staff report.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
An advisory commission was used for the last redistricting ten years ago and the Council decided to use that
approach again. The Commission is envisioned to have at least one member from each Council District and may
have more. The two-week application period was open from Thursday, January 13 to Thursday, January 27 to
serve on the Council’s Redistricting Advisory Commission. Multiple communication channels were used to
notify the public of this opportunity. (See the Additional Info section for a summary of that public outreach.)
In February and March, the Commission is expected to meet approximately four times. A citywide postcard is
being developed to notify residents of redistricting and how to get involved. The Commission will recommend a
map (or maps) to adjust Council District boundaries based on the 2020 Census results. This is necessary to
ensure district populations are substantially similar for fair representation. In April, the Council hold a public
hearing(s), review the recommend map(s) and is tentatively scheduled to vote on a final map at the May 3 formal
meeting. The legal deadline to adopt a map is May 10.
A summary breakdown of applicants by Council District is listed below. A total of 40 applications were received.
Note that one application was received for a District Two property owner that does not have a primary residence
in Salt Lake City. Eight applications were received after the submission deadline, which was allowed in order to
ensure that each District had adequate options.
District One – Four applications District Two – Six applications District Three – Eight applications
District Four – Three applications District Five – 10 applications District Six – Four applications
District Seven – Four applications
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Guidance for Commission – The Council may wish to review what guiding principles to give the
Redistricting Advisory Commission. A draft of guiding principles is in the Additional Info section below
based on the 2011 redistricting. The Council may wish to hold a discuss on the guiding principles at a
future meeting.
2. Selection of Commission Members – The Council may wish to discuss how members of the
Commission will be selected.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Guiding Principles for the Commission
Below is a list of guiding principles based on the Council’s direction to the 2011 Commission.
- Limit the number of maps recommended to the Council (limit was two in 2011)
- Allow residents time to review maps, ask questions and provide comment before voting on final map
recommendations
- Provide materials in multiple languages so more residents can participate
Page | 3
- Substantially equal population means a deviation between districts of no more than a certain percentage
such as 10%, 5%, 3%, etc.
- Evaluate maps based on the guiding principles and how competing values are balanced (e.g., one may
score higher on compactness while another better maintains communities of interest)
- Districts should strive to be compact and contiguous and avoid odd shapes (see Attachment 4 for legal
considerations of these terms)
- Protect minority communities by preserving the unique cultural and ethnic diversity of the residential
Westside
- Minimize the division of communities and consider social, cultural, geographic, and historical identities
- Exclude partisan data from being considered; shall not unduly favor or disfavor any political party (the
City Council is a nonpartisan legislative body)
- Housing patterns should be considered when extending a district to avoid splitting a residential area;
extending a boundary around a residential area to reach another residential area should be avoided
- Should current residences of Council Members be considered by the Commission?
- To the extent practicable, City neighborhoods and business districts should not be split between districts
- Cores of prior districts should be preserved within new district boundaries
- Follow geographic boundaries (natural or man made such as ravines, rivers, major streets, and large
institutional campuses like universities) when drawing district boundaries
o An alternative approach uses the concept of border vacuums where major geographic
boundaries should be entirely placed within one political district. The challenges and
opportunities created by the geographic boundary could be more readily addressed when
aligned with political representation rather than being split between political districts which
could create additional barriers.
o A counter response to the border vacuums approach could be that having multiple political
representatives is beneficial in some instances because greater awareness exists of the
challenges and opportunities created by the geographic boundaries.
Commission Application Public Outreach See Attachment 2 for the Application Form
Public involvement and participation are crucial to the City's redistricting process which directly impacts the
various communities across the City. The Redistricting Advisory Commission will serve in an advisory role to
recommend Council District maps that reflect Salt Lake City's values and communities and ensure each area is
fairly represented. To create awareness about the opportunity to serve on the Advisory Commission and inform
the public of the Commission’s role, the following engagement strategies were used:
- Press Release: A press release (Attachment 6) informing the media and the public about the Advisory
Commission and their responsibilities, how to apply, and other opportunities for the public
- Web Hub at www.tinyurl.com/slcredistricting: This is a central library for briefing videos, timeline,
summaries of steps in the process, documents, mapping files and more information. The hub includes a
redistricting 101 to help residents familiarize themselves with the topic. It also includes recaps of
the Council discussions and presentations from the Gardner Policy Institute (Attachment 3) and
the City’s Attorney Office (Attachment 4). The hub provides information on the Commission, the
expectation of those selected, and information on how to apply.
- Social Media Posts: Over the application period, 12 posts were posted on four platforms (Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, and NextDoor). Every post had an English and Spanish caption and included a link
to the application and the web hub for the public to learn more. Also, Council Member’s District Next
Door pages were used to send posts encouraging residents to apply.
- Letter to All Recognized Community Organizations, and Salt Lake City’s Equity Office: Two emails were
sent to all recognized community organizations (often called community councils) within the city, and
other community organizations such as the Pride Center and League of Women Voters. The email
included a letter from Council Chair Dan Dugan (Attachment 5) and the application. Two emails were
also sent to the City’s Office of Equity and Inclusion. They shared the application with their email
distribution list of over 200 diverse communities and asked them to share it with their networks. The
Human Rights Commission and Racial Equity in Policing Commission were also notified.
- Email Campaigns: Three citywide email campaigns in both English and Spanish were sent. First, an
initial call for applications, then changes to the in-person requirement, and a last call for
Page | 4
applications with next steps. A section on redistricting was added to the monthly district
email newsletters for January and will continue to be added until the end of the redistricting process.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2020 Census Population by Council Districts Summary Table
2. Redistricting Advisory Commission Application Form
3. Gardner Policy Institute 2020 Census Results Presentation to the Council on January 4, 2022
4. Redistricting Legal Requirements and Considerations Memo
5. Council Chair Letter to Recognized Community Organizations
6. Press Release for Redistricting Advisory Commission Applications
DRAFT Guiding Principles for the Redistricting Advisory Commission
Below is a list of guiding principles based on the Council’s direction to the 2011 Commission.
A. Limit the number of maps recommended to the Council (limit was two in 2011)
B. Allow residents time to review maps, ask questions and provide comment before voting on final
map recommendations
C. Provide materials in multiple languages so more residents can participate
D. Substantially equal population means a deviation between districts of no more than a certain
percentage such as 10%, 5%, 3%, etc.
E. Evaluate maps based on the guiding principles and how competing values are balanced (e.g., one
may score higher on compactness while another better maintains communities of interest)
F. Districts should strive to be compact and contiguous and avoid odd shapes (see Attachment 4 for
legal considerations of these terms)
G. Protect minority communities by preserving the unique cultural and ethnic diversity of the
residential Westside
H. Minimize the division of communities and consider social, cultural, geographic , and historical
identities
I. Exclude partisan data from being considered; shall not unduly favor or disfavor any political party
(the City Council is a nonpartisan legislative body)
J. Housing patterns should be considered when extending a district to avoid splitting a reside ntial
area; extending a boundary around a residential area to reach another residential area should be
avoided
K. Should current residences of Council Members be considered by the Commission?
L. To the extent practicable, City neighborhoods and business districts should not be split between
districts
M. Cores of prior districts should be preserved within new district boundaries
N. Follow geographic boundaries (natural or human-made such as ravines, rivers, major streets, and
large institutional campuses like universities) when drawing district boundaries
a. An alternative approach uses the concept of border vacuums where major geographic
boundaries should be entirely placed within one political district. The challenges and
opportunities created by the geographic boundary could be more readily addressed when
aligned with political representation rather than being split between political districts
which could create additional barriers.
b. A counter response to the border vacuums approach could be that havin g multiple
political representatives is beneficial in some instances because greater awareness exists
of the challenges and opportunities created by the geographic boundaries.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 1/26/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 1/26/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 1/26/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Public Utilities Advisory Committee
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Public Utilities Advisory DOCUMENT TYPE:
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Alexander Lovell as a
member of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
/
( )
,,,,,,,11111 ,,.,,,'
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
January 26, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Public Utilities Advisory
Committee.
Alexander Lovell - to be appointed for a four year term ending January 19, 2026, starting from the
date of City Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
.. Ji. ..
'•
/ ;\
trfj
\ .. l
,,,,, u111 ,v·'
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 1/26/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 1/26/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 1/26/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Public Utilities Advisory
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Kathryn Floor as a member of
the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
January 26, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Public Utilities Advisory
Committee.
Kathryn Floor - to be appointed for a four year term ending January 19, 2026, starting from the
date of City Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File