05/03/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
May 3,2022 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:11:57:03
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.The hybrid meeting enables
people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and participate
during public comment items.
Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during the
meetings online through Webex or in-person in Room 326 of the City and County
Building.In-person attendees can fill out a comment card and online participants will
register through Webex in order to be added to the comment queue.
Agenda &Registration Information: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.)
Public Health Information:Masks are no longer required in City Facilities,but
are welcome for any attendees who prefer to continue using them.We will continue to
monitor the situation take any reasonable precautions for the public and staff.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in
progress.Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed),services and resources
related to people experiencing homelessness,active public engagement efforts,and projects or
staffing updates from City Departments,or other items as appropriate.
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.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.7 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Follow-
up ~2:30 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 proposed
amendment includes funding repairs at The Leonardo caused by flooding,transferring the
Housing Trust Fund to the Redevelopment Agency,rebuilding a pedestrian bridge over the
Jordan River to Cottonwood Park,and cybersecurity improvements among other items.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 and Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 3,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 17,2022
3.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Proposed Budget:Salt Lake City Public Library
System ~2:50 p.m.
40 min
The Council will be briefed about the Library Board’s recommended Operations and Capital
Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.The budget includes a proposed property tax increase,18 new
full time employees and other changes.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 17,2022 and June 7,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
4.Informational:Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Update ~3:30 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a mid-project update on the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan,
which the Department of Public Lands is preparing as a vision for repurposing the former site
of the Glendale Water Park,and a guide for the Department to implement that vision.The
planning process so far has included site analysis,conceptual planning,and extensive
ongoing public engagement.The Glendale Water Park was known previously as Raging
Waters,among other names.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
5.Parameters Resolution:Public Utilities Revenue Bonds,Series 2022 ~4:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a parameters resolution authorizing the issuance and
sale of not more than $360,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Public Utilities revenue
bonds,series 2022,related to water,sewer,and storm water capital improvements.The
Council's action includes authorizing the execution of a supplemental indenture,a bond
purchase agreement,and other documents as required.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 17,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022
6.Tentative Break ~4:15 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.Resolution:Redistricting City Council District Boundaries Follow-up ~4:35 p.m.
40 min
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing on the City's redistricting process to update the
Council Districts based on the 2020 Census results.A resident Redistricting Advisory
Commission recommended six maps to the Council.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 12,2022 and Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 5,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,April 19,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
8.Informational:Overview of Program Based Budgeting ~5:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Administration on a decision making tool they
used this year to help the City and Mayor's priorities guide budget decisions,particularly in
the Finance and Police Departments.It is the City's goal that the new Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP)system will help the City move towards using this tool for all City budget
decisions.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
9.Ordinance:Amending Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City
Owned Motor Vehicles Follow-up ~5:45 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would amend sections
2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor
Vehicles by employees.The changes include:revising personal use allowances,expanding the
distance limit from 35 miles to 60 miles from city limits;location monitoring,reporting and
enforceability;cleanups to align with state law;and allowances during emergency circumstances.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 and Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
10.Advice and Consent:Public Services Department Director –Jorge
Chamorro ~6:00 p.m.
10 min
The Council will interview Jorge Chamorro prior to considering appointment as the Salt Lake
City Public Services Department Director.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022
11.Board Appointment:Business Advisory Board –Pook Carson ~6:10 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Pook Carson prior to considering appointment to the Business
Advisory Board for a term ending December 28,2026.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022
12.Board Appointment:Cultural Core Finance Committee –Shaleane
Gee ~6:15 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Shaleane Gee prior to considering appointment to the Cultural
Core Finance Committee for a term ending May 3,2026
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022
13.Board Appointment:Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry and
Trails (PNUT)Advisory Board –Frances Ngo ~6:20 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Frances Ngo prior to considering appointment to the PNUT
Board for a term ending May 3,2025.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022
14.Board Appointment:Parks,Natural Lands,Urban Forestry and Trails
(PNUT)Advisory Board –Wisam Khudhair ~6:25 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Wisam Khudhair prior to considering appointment to the PNUT
Board for a term ending May 3,2025.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022
Standing Items
15.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
16.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;
•Agenda Packet Days;and
•Scheduling Items.
17.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.
Item G5
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:May 3, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Seven FY2022
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
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: Open Space Acquisition Public Lands ($700,000 from Parks Impact Fees)
A-2: Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild ($195,000 from Public Lands Department Vacancy Savings)
A-3: UDOT Pass-Through Funds – RAC Access Road ($1 million from UDOT)
A-4: WITHDRAWN
A-5: Road Cost Center Adjustments for Class C Funds (Rescope $611,749 from 1300 East
Reconstruction to 900 South Reconstruction)
A-6: Leonardo Flood Damage Repair ($300,000 from Fund Balance)
A-7: IMS Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion ($713,680 from Fund Balance)
D-1: Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central City Damages Payment ($37,892 from General Fund)
D-2: WITHDRAWN
D-3: UTA Sponsored Routes – Encumbrance Carryforward ($184,259 from General Fund)
D-4: Wildland Deployment Reimbursements ($653,571 from General Fund)
D-5: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements ($21,896 from General Fund)
D-6: Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding ($1,508,000 from General Fund)
D-7: 700 South Corridor Preservation Funds Reimbursement ($611,500 from CIP Fund)
D-8: Transfer to Sustainability ($440,000 from General Fund)
D-9: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds ($874,000 – Sewer and $234,000 – Water)
D-10: Police Budget Reallocation for Workers Compensation ($199,500 from General Fund)
D-11: Community Connection Center Supplies and Tenant Improvements ($482,809 from Police
Department Vacancy Savings)
D-12: Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) ($500,000 Expense Budget from Misc. Special
Services and $1,770,813 Revenue Budget)
D-13: Mobile Surveillance Trailer Cameras ($383,160 from Police Department Vacancy Savings)
D-14: Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA ($2,800,000 from Housing Fund)
E-1: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation ($2
million from CIP Fund and $2,238,000 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3
G-1: National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-
Stakeholder Team ($166,979 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
G-2: Utah State Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Program ($7,500 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
G-3: Utah Department of Health – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY22 Per
Capita Allocation (additional funding of $4,200 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
I-1: RAISE Grant Match Increase ($1.24 Million from Funding Our Future Revenues above Budget)
I-2: One-time Transfer for Affordable Housing and Traffic Calming ($10 Million from Fund Balance: $8
Million to Housing Fund Holding Account and $2 Million to CIP Holding Account)
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 Lehua Weaver
City Council Staff
DATE:May 3, 2022
RE: Budget Amendment Number Seven FY2022
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
At the April 19 briefing, the Council discussed revenue updates and items in section A of the proposed budget
amendment. The Councill will consider items in other sections at the next meeting. There are two Council-added
items are shown in section I. Responses to the Council’s follow up questions from April 19 were not available at the
time of publishing this staff report. The questions are listed below.
A-3: UDOT Pass-through Funds for RAC Access Road ($1 million from UDOT)
- What is the total project cost and is additional State funding anticipated to be available for construction? Is
a timeline available as well?
- What level of demand exists currently for this new road and projected into the future?
- Would the new road also require a new bridge over the Jordan River? If yes, is that cost included in the
total project cost question above?
A-5: Road Cost Center Adjustments for Class C Funds (Rescope $611,749 from 1300 East
Reconstruction to 900 South Reconstruction)
- Are the multiple consolidated projects along 900 South fully funded?
- Are there two separate projects on 1300 East (one completed and another coming up)? Weston mentioned
public engagement is currently happening for a project on 1300 East. It would be helpful to understand the
differences between these two projects such as the street segments and timeline.
Impact Fees Plan Updates for Fire, Parks, and Police
Could the Administration please provide a status and timeline for each of the three pending Impact Fee Plan section
updates: fire, parks, and police?
For reference, below is the list of Council-requested items to be considered for inclusion in the pending updates
(from FY2019 straw polls and Council discussions since then):
a. Adding large fire equipment over $500,000 (per state law)
Project Timeline:
Set Date: April 19, 2022
1st Briefing: April 19, 2022
2nd Briefing: May 3, 2022
Public Hearing: May 3, 2022
Potential Action: May 17, 2022
Page | 2
b. NWQ infrastructure including new roads
c. Updated police and fire impact fee prices based on 911 dispatch call volumes (2014 and 2015 call volume
data was used)
d. 7200 West road expansion, aligning IFFP with WFRC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
e. Expanding Police Crime Lab and evidence storage
f. Designating the Police Crime Lab lease/debt payments as an eligible use
g. Clarify 4900 West bridge from 500 S. to 700 S. is $18 Million not $38 Million or remove if no longer being
pursued
h. If state law changes, add in police vehicles
i. Adding categories instead of specific projects to increase spending flexibility where possible like new
parks/open space acquisitions
j. Adjust capital project cost estimates to factor in higher prices
k. Updating cost for an eastside police precinct (currently $9.8 million but closer to $30 million potentially)
and possibility of making this more flexible as a category such as smaller substations
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Budget Amendment Number Seven includes 25 proposed amendments and requested changes to eight funds. Total
expenditures coming from Fund Balance are $843,298. The Council may wish to note that the Administration is
proposing to add one ongoing IMS FTE using Fund Balance initially; although actual costs will be allocated
proportionally across all funds based on usage. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would
be $45,405,201 above the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY2020.
The increase is a result of higher-than-expected revenues and unspent funds dropping to Fund Balance at the end of
FY2021 as confirmed by the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 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.
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 those programs, services, and FTEs.
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 | 3
According to the Administration, revenues for Fiscal Year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for
Fiscal Year 2022 continue to trend above budget. The City is forecasting increases in most categories. Sales tax for
the first quarter was well above budget and the prior year. However, franchise tax is lagging below budget from a
decrease in water franchise ($704,000) and telephone ($218,000) franchise taxes. Licenses and Permits is coming
in very strong. Licenses are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes and innkeepers tax. The City
continues to see positive construction numbers leading permits to 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. Miscellaneous revenue is seeing an increase in fuel reimbursement and other utility
reimbursements. These are offset by special event revenue due to a continued decrease of in-person events in the
City. Fines and Forfeitures are below budget from a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines. Interfund
Reimbursement is below budget due to fire reimbursement from the airport which should show an increase next
fiscal year.
Fund Balance
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures.
Page | 4
If all items proposed in Budget Amendment Number 7 are adopted by the Council, then Fund Balance above the
13% minimum target is $45,405,201.
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 March 16, 2022. As a result, the City is
on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY2022 and FY2023. 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 $808,770 More than a year away -
Parks $13,256,676 More than a year away -
Police $524,230 More than a year away -
Transportation $7,147,853 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
Page | 5
(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: Open Space Acquisition – Public Lands ($700,000 from Parks Impact Fees)
Public Lands is requesting an FY2022 budget amendment for $700,000 in unallocated parks impact fees funding to
acquire property to be preserved as open space. Details on the specific property will be discussed in a Council closed
session meeting. If the Council approves this funding request, then the available to spend balance of parks impact
fees would be $12,556,676.
A-2: Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild ($195,000 from Public Lands Department Vacancy Savings –
Budget Neutral)
The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of $195,000 to transfer general funds to POL CIP
deferred maintenance fund. On November 6th, a windstorm upturned a large tree on top of the pedestrian bridge
by Cottonwood Dog Park. This bridge is the main access for the dog park for residents over the Jordan River. A
structural engineer has deemed that one side of the bridge can remain open to pedestrians to allow access. The
engineer has also determined the bridge stability has been compromised to a level that it is unsafe for Parks vehicles
to travel over this bridge, inhibiting maintenance vehicles from crossing.
One of the two supporting braces on the bridge has been crushed and so the bridge can handle light pedestrian
traffic but no vehicle use. The structural engineer determined that the cost of replacement of the brace is as much as
the replacement of the bridge. Parks staff have barricaded the damaged side of the bridge to keep pedestrians away
from the broken area for now. The bridge needs to be replaced as soon as possible as it is unclear how weather and
use of the bridge may impact the bridge stability. Public Lands will continue to monitor the bridge safety until it can
be replaced. Public Lands is proposing to use anticipated year-end savings as a source of funding for this bridge
reconstruction. The funds would be transferred from Public Lands to the CIP Maintenance Fund.
Absent this pedestrian bridge, residents living west of the river and parks maintenance crews would need to take a
detour more than a third of a mile to the nearest alternative crossing over the Jordan River.
A-3: UDOT Pass-through Funds for RAC Access Road ($1 million from UDOT)
In 2021, Utah State Legislature Senate Bill 3 allocated funds for a road connecting Rose Park Lane to Redwood
Road at 2600 North. This would be a new city-owned road. An agreement between UDOT and the City has
been executed for the City to receive the funds and to manage the project design and the funds have already been
transferred. The funding is limited to design, environmental work, and land acquisition. Additional funding would
be needed for construction.
Policy Questions:
Total Project Cost – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the total project cost and if
additional State funding is anticipated to be available for construction.
Demand for the Road – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what level of demand exists
currently for this new road and projected in the future.
New Bridge over the Jordan River – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the new road will
require a new bridge over the Jordan River.
A-4: WITHDRAWN
A-5: Road Cost Center Adjustments for Class C Funds (Rescope $611,749 from 1300 East
Reconstruction to 900 South Reconstruction)
The Administration is requesting a rescope of Class C (gas tax) funding that remains after completion of the 1300
East reconstruction project. UDOT confirmed they have sufficient funding to cover close out costs. The funding
would be rescoped for use on the 900 South corridor reconstruction project including improvements to the 9-Line
Trail. The corridor project consolidates 10 individual projects across multiple departments over a few years.
Policy Question:
Page | 6
9-Line Trail and 900 South Reconstruction Fully Funded – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
are the multiple consolidated projects along 900 South fully funded?
A-6: Leonardo Flood Damage Repair ($300,000 from Fund Balance)
A rainstorm in July last year caused flooding in the sub-basement, basement and the two elevators. Sewage
impacted both the Library and The Leonardo after the City’s main drain suffered a backup. The Administration
reports the fundamental drainage problem has been addressed. Most of the funding estimated at $200,000 would
be for cleaning, demolition, and disposal. The remaining $100,000 is for construction and replacements. Damaged
areas that would be repaired include four restrooms, a mezzanine, several offices, the elevator shafts, and the cabs.
Repairs also include lighting, plumbing, furniture, flooring and sump pumps. These repairs are the City’s
responsibility under the primary lease between the City and The Leonardo. The areas to be repaired are part of the
sub-lease to Ken Sanders Rare Books which the Council approved in December.
A-7: IMS Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion ($713,680 from Fund Balance)
Due to increased computer security risks, the Administration is requesting funding toward improved security
software, licenses, and one new FTE for staffing needs. The breakdown includes:
$500,000 for security software, called Security Incident and Event Management (SIEM)
$75,000 for security assessments, such as penetration tests and vulnerability scans
$65,800 for 1,000 additional licenses for laptop and PC devices
$47,805 for device software
$25,075 for one new staff person through the end of the fiscal year (this will make four cyber security
engineer positions)
Some of these items are initial expenses for the purchases, but the ongoing costs will include approximately
$250,000 for the SEIM ongoing expenses, and $150,445 for the fully loaded cost (salary and benefits) for the new
cyber security FTE position. These ongoing costs will be requested for inclusion in the annual budget. The initial
budget comes from the General Fund to the IMS Fund but will also be allocated to the separate enterprise funds as
usual.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central City Damages Payment ($37,892 from General Fund)
Youth and Family has partnered with Salt Lake County at the Central City Recreation Center since 2003 to provide
youth and teen programs. Salt Lake City has provided staffing and purchased program supplies and furnishings
while Salt Lake County has provided the space to operate the programs. In March 2020 all in-person Youth and
Family programming was halted. The County then contracted with the Salt Lake County Health Department to
provide a space for homeless individuals who were Covid positive but did not need hospitalization. The health
department moved out after a few months and the Center sat empty. Shortly thereafter, the Center was broken into
and as a result sustained significant damage to the building and interior contents including a good portion of the
equipment and furnishings that the City had paid for. This settlement payment of $37,892 is a reimbursement for
the damaged equipment and supplies.
D-2: WITHDRAWN
D-3: UTA Sponsored Routes – Encumbrance Carryforward ($184,259 from General Fund)
Page | 7
During encumbrance carry forwards Finance forgot to include the remaining encumbrance from FY 2021 in the
amount of $184,259 to cover the contract cost.
D-4: Wildland Deployment Reimbursements ($653,571 from General Fund)
Personnel were deployed several times during the Summer of 2021 to assist in wildland firefighting. Beginning in
July, the Fire Department sent 6 individuals to Montana. Another crew of 3 were then sent to California in August
and fulfilled a 2-week deployment. A third crew of 6 were then sent to swap them out at the end of August and
continued wildland duties into September. All costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt
Lake City and will have a matching revenue offset budget. The Administration is asking the City Council to approve
this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill. This proposal will make the Fire
Department whole as well as the General Fund.
Expenses Montana Wildfire - July 2021 $270,921
California Wildfire - August 2021 $126,693
California Wildfire - Aug/Sept 2021 $255,957
Total Expense Incurred $653,571
D-5: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements ($21,896 from General Fund)
The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including
training backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), Fire investigation overtime incurred
on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and finally cost recovery efforts from
negligent accidents/incidents. This will have a matching revenue offset budget.
Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $2,936.37
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Reimbursement $10,777.24
Cost Recovery: Incline Terrace Apartments - requested Fire Watch $6,432.00
Swift Water Rescue & Recovery on 12/11/21 $1,749.98
Total Reimbursement $21,895.59
D-6: Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding ($1,508,000 from General Fund)
To ensure compliance with federal reporting all grant related expenses will remain in the grant fund. In BA#4 the
Administration proposed transferring ARPA funds to the General Fund and the Fleet Fund. This amendment is to
remove those transfers in the General Fund.
D-7: 700 South Corridor Preservation Funds Reimbursement ($611,500 from CIP Fund)
In March 2021 an administrative transmittal was sent to Council to enter into an Interlocal agreement with Salt
Lake County for reimbursement of land purchase for the 700 South construction project. Salt Lake City Council
approved the Interlocal Agreement with Salt Lake County on April 20, 2021, to transfer the funds to the City. Funds
of $611,500 have been received and are needed to complete the project.
D-8: Transfer to Sustainability ($440,000 from General Fund)
During the FY2022 budget the Administration and Council were briefed that a transfer of $440,000 would be made
from the General Fund to the Sustainability Fund. This transfer was not included in the budget adoption; this
amendment formalizes that transfer.
D-9: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds ($874,000 – Sewer and $234,000 – Water)
In order to adequately finance the construction of the new Water Reclamation Facility and to lock in a favorable
interest rate, the Sewer and Water Utilities are planning to issue Revenue Bonds in June 2022 instead of two
separate issuances in FY 2022 and FY 2023.
D-10: Police Budget Reallocation for Workers Compensation ($199,500 from General Fund)
The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to cover the costs associated with a workers compensation
settlement. The Department will utilize attrition from vacant positions that have not been filled to fund the expense.
No additional budget is being requested.
D-11: Community Connection Center (CCC) Supplies and Tenant Improvements ($482,809 from
Police Department Vacancy Savings – Budget Neutral)
Page | 8
The Council approved $200,000 in the FY2022 annual budget that was intentionally flexible for lease payments,
repairs and/or remodeling. The funding was later rescoped in a budget amendment to also include utility payments.
A lease has been signed for a new CCC location and $167,000 is encumbered under the contract for rent and utility
payments. The remaining $33,000 is being used for building improvements but is only enough to cover 10% of the
$320,459 estimated cost. Improvements include security upgrades, wifi, network connectivity, electrical wiring as
well as moving / relocation costs.
The Administration is also requesting $90,000 to the Fleet Fund for two response vehicles, $52,800 for uniforms,
radios, and other equipment, $52,550 is also requested to IMS for computers, mobile data terminals, licensing,
trainings, and related equipment. All the funding would come out of the Police Department’s existing budget from
vacancy savings.
The CCC is currently operating out of the Public Safety Building which limits the ability to offer in-person services.
The CCC new location was expected to open in spring or summer 2022, however, supply chain delays may push
back the date to the fall.
Policy Questions:
Impact Fee Eligibility – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to evaluate this ongoing leasing
cost for impact fee eligibility as part of updating the police section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan. This could
be like the City’s crime lab lease being partially eligible under a prior version of the plan.
CCC Staffing Update – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on efforts to bring the
CCC to full staffing of 19 social worker FTEs, and what additional resources could help address the
program’s obstacles.
Public Awareness of New Location – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the
public, clients and service providers will learn about the new CCC location.
D-12: Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) ($500,000 from Misc. Special Services)
The Administration is requesting the approval of a budget to collect new CBIA-22 assessment and pay contractual
obligations to the Downtown Alliance Inc. The current assessment area CBIA-19 expires April 21, 2022. The City
Council re-established a special assessment CBIA-22 for a three-year period to continue collection of assessment
funds and allow the continuation of marketing, promotion, advocacy and other benefits to the City and downtown
property owners and businesses. The new assessment ordinance was adopted and bills to the property owners will
go out in the beginning of April 2022.
This item would create a revenue budget of $1,770,813 to accept the first-year payments from property owners
which are due May 6 and create a $500,000 expenditure budget for Special Assessment Area (SAA) initial costs and
the first payment to the contractor (Downtown Alliance).
D-13: Police Department Mobile Surveillance Trailer Cameras ($383,160 from Police Department
Vacancy Savings – Budget Neutral)
See Attachment 1 for photos of trailer cameras
The Administration is requesting approval to use vacancy savings to purchase eight additional mobile surveillance
trailer cameras for the Police Department. There are currently six trailer cameras used by the Department. This
funding would allow two trailer cameras to be placed in each Council District. The trailer cameras are placed on
public property and occasionally on private property with the owner’s permission for case-specific needs. See
Attachment 1 for images of trailer cameras the Department currently uses which are solar powered, the camera
extends vertically above the trailer and multiple cameras point in different directions.
Policy Questions:
Placement of Trailer Cameras – The Council may wish to ask the Administration where trailer cameras are
most effective and how the Department prioritizes where to locate them.
Privacy Considerations – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration privacy considerations
from placing cameras around the City and what protections exist for the resulting audio and video data.
Page | 9
Trailer Camera vs Pole Cameras – The Council may wish to ask the Administration why trailer cameras are
preferable to pole cameras which can be installed on streetlights in the public right of way.
D-14: Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA ($2,800,000 from Housing)
As requested by Council, this budget amendment transfers the Housing Trust Fund loans and associated cash to the
RDA. The $2,800,000 amount on the budget amendment is to move the cash in the current Housing Trust Fund
cost centers to the RDA. Approximately $20 million of loan receivables will also be transferred. As these are balance
sheet accounts, they do not affect budgets. Any remaining balance sheet items and cash that comes in will
subsequently be transferred to the RDA. A separate agreement between the RDA and the Community and
Neighborhoods Development Department will be completed after this budget amendment is approved by the
Council for the loans and deeds of trust to also be transferred.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation
($2 million from CIP Fund and $2,238,000 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities received $2,000,000 for the Granary District Flood Plain
Mitigation and Re-Mapping. Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping is a phased planning,
permitting, and capital improvement project to reduce the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) designated
750-acre Flood Hazard Area (FHA) concentrated in the Granary District and the adjacent stretch of the Jordan
River. There are at least 1,182 properties partially or completely within the FHA. The flood hazard risk is substantial
and limits new development. The project area is approximately 5,700 acres. The project under this Agreement will
only cover Phase 1 for planning, design, and constructing water quality and storage facilities. Future Phase 2 will
plan, study, and schedule additional capital improvements to maximize the FHA reduction as funding is secured
from federal and state grants and/or Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) capital funds. Phase 1
of the project is estimated to begin January 2023 and be completed by December 2026. This grant has a match
requirement of $2,238,000. Salt Lake City identified $2 million from the first tranche of its American Rescue Plan
Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. A public hearing was held on 12/7/21. Note that since the grant
application was submitted last fall, the $2 million required match increased by $238,000. The grant is requesting
$11.45 million of federal funding for a total project cost of $13.45 million. The increase will be covered by the Public
Utilities Department’s Capital Improvement Fund. A revised scope of work caused the increased costs and includes
project elements that are ineligible for the federal grant funding.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3
G-1: National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3
Multi-Stakeholder Team ($166,979 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
The Department of Sustainability applied for and received $166,979 in grant funding for the Solar Energy
Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team grant program from the National Renewal Energy
Laboratory. The funding will be used to increase uptake of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved
communities through involvement from trusted stakeholders, community listening sessions, three to five solar and
storage benefit case studies, and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar PV market
barriers. Funding is allocated for: Travel $3,582 Three trips to Golden, Colorado for Team Lead (Senior Energy &
Climate Program Manager) to participate in SEIN-hosted cohort peer exchange workings sessions and symposium.
Contractual $163,397 Subrecipient contract to facilitate stakeholder convenings, guide case study assessments, and
develop solar/storage resources, outreach materials, and deliverables. No match is required. A public hearing was
held on 12/7/21 for this grant application.
G-2: Utah State Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell
Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program ($7,500 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
The Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic
Services (UBFS) application for the FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s
application includes $7,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain 2022 annual accreditation fee
Page | 10
through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020:2012 requirement. The lab received
their ANAB accreditation in June 2021. With the assessment fee and annual accreditation fee being paid with
Coverdell 2020 funds, the costs for the first-year surveillance audit will be covered by this year's grant funds. A
public hearing was held on 4/5/22.
G-3: Utah Department of Health – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY22 Per
Capita Allocation ($4,200 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund)
Additional Funding of $4,200 has been awarded to this original grant bringing the total grant award amount to
$14,450. This agenda item will increase the funding budget. 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. The public hearing for the original grant was held
2/16/21.
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: RAISE Grant Match Increase ($1.24 Million from Funding Our Future Revenues above Budget)
The City is applying for a Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Planning
Grant administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The grant is funded by the recently passed
bipartisan infrastructure law. If awarded, the funds would be used to study multiple potential infrastructure
changes to improve east-west transportation and connectivity within the City. The additional funding would be used
as local matching dollars to make the application more competitive. The local match would be approximately 20%
of the $6.2 million total project funding. Funding Our Future sales tax revenues are currently projected above
budget by $4,399,999. One of the four critical need categories is public transportation. If this item is approved, then
Funding Our Future revenue would be estimated at $3,159,999 above budget for FY2022.
I-2: One-time Transfer for TBD Capital Investments ($10 Million from Fund Balance to CIP Holding
Account)
This item would transfer $10 million from Fund Balance into a holding account in the CIP Fund. The holding
account would not lapse to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year so the funding would remain available in
FY2023. The holding account approach preserves options for further discussions and information on uses.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Item D-13: Images of Mobile Surveillance Trailer Cameras
ACRONYMS
ANAB – National Accreditation Board
ANSI – American National Standard Institute
ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act
ATF – Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
CBIA – Central Business Improvement Area
CCT – Community Connection Center
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
COVID – Name for the disease caused by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Act
FHA – Flood Hazard Area
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department
IMS -- Information Management Services
NREL – National Renewal Energy Lab
PPE – Personal Protective Equipment
RAISE – Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
Page | 11
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
SEIN – Solar Energy Innovation Network
SIB – State Infrastructure Bank
SLCDPU – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
UBFS – Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation
USAR – Utah Search and Rescue
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: March 30,2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #7 - 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 $ ( 794,641.00) $ 843,298.00
SEWER FUND 157,874,000.00 874,000.00
WATER FUND 42,234,000.00 234,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 2,416,979.00 2,416,979.00
HOUSING FUND 0.00 2,800,000.00
CIP FUND 4,106,500.00 4,806,500.00
MISC, SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT FUND 500,000.00 500,000.00
IMS FUND 713,680.00 713,680.00
TOTAL $ 207,050,218.00 $ 13,188,157.00
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 1, 2022 07:09 MDT)
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. The City is forecasting increases in most categories.
Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the prior year. However, franchise tax is
lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($704,000) and telephone ($218,000)
franchise taxes.
Licenses and Permits is coming in very strong. Licenses are above budget driven by increases in
airport parking taxes and innkeepers tax. The City continues to see positive construction number
leading permits to 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. Miscellaneous revenue is seeing an increase in fuel reimbursement and other utility
reimbursements. These are offset by special event revenue due to a continued decrease in in
person events in the City.
Fines and Forfeitures are below budget from a decrease in moving violations and justice court
fines. Interfund Reimbursement is below budget due to fire reimbursement from the airport
which should show an increase next fiscal year.
FY21-22 FY21-22 Amended Variance
Annual Ammended Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 112,726,044 112,726,044 112,726,044 -
Sales and Use Tax 89,556,472 89,556,472 96,561,473 7,005,001
Franchise Tax 12,102,129 12,102,129 11,202,353 (899,776)
PILOT Taxes 1,562,041 1,562,041 1,562,041 -
TOTAL TAXES 215,946,686 215,946,686 222,051,911 6,105,225
License and Permits 29,904,360 29,904,360 35,971,991 6,067,631
Intergovernmental 4,644,018 5,134,865 4,853,182 (281,683)
Interest Income 1,271,153 1,271,153 1,271,153 -
Fines & Forfeiture 3,474,455 3,474,455 3,374,595 (99,860)
Parking Meter Collection 2,693,555 2,693,555 2,693,555 -
Charges and Services 3,934,570 3,934,570 4,568,553 633,983
Miscellaneous Revenue 3,372,272 3,772,272 4,399,436 627,164
Interfund Reimbursement 22,032,892 22,032,892 21,707,813 (325,079)
Transfers 21,079,600 22,587,644 22,337,645 (249,999)
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 308,353,561 310,752,452 323,229,834 12,477,382
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 35,600,000 35,600,000 40,000,000 4,400,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 343,953,561 346,352,452 363,229,834 16,877,382
Including proposed changes for BA#7 and projected increases to revenue fund balance would be projected as follows for FY2022:
Adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 25.67%.
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 - - (1,553,938) (1,553,938)
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - (794,641) (794,641)
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - (843,298) (843,298)
Change in Revenue 7,298,201 10,388,598 17,686,799 4,400,000 12,477,382 16,877,382
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 12,114,190 57,495,073 69,609,263 10,755,053 81,234,314 91,989,367
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 30.21%19.40%20.69%26.65%25.55%25.67%
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 $207,050,218.00 of revenue and
expense of $13,188,157.00. The amendment proposes changes in eight funds, with one new FTE
to help with cyber security. The amendment also includes the use of $843,298.00 from the
General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes 25 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
Seventh 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 Open Space Acquisition CIP - 700,000.00 One-time -
2 Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild GF - (195,000.00)One-time -
2 Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild GF - 195,000.00 One-time -
2 Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild CIP 195,000.00 195,000.00 One-time -
3 UDOT Pass-Through Funds - RAC Access
Road
CIP 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 One-time -
4 Withdrawn prior to transmittal
5 Road Cost Center Adjustments - Class C CIP - (611,749.00)One-time -
5 Road Cost Center Adjustments - Class C CIP - 611,749.00 One-time
6 Leonardo Flood Damage Repair GF - 300,000.00 One-time -
6 Leonardo Flood Damage Repair CIP 300,000.00 300,000.00 One-time -
7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time -
7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS 188,605.00 188,605.00 One-time -
7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS 25,075.00 25,075.00 Ongoing 1.00
7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion GF - 713,680.00
1 Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central
City Damages Payment
GF 37,892.00 37,892.00 One-time -
2 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
3 UTA Sponsored Routes - Encumbrance
Carryforward
GF - 184,259.00 One-time -
4 Fire - Wildland Deployment
Reimbursements
GF 653,571.00 653,571.00 One-time -
5 Fire - Other Reimbursements GF 21,896.00 21,896.00 One-time -
6 Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding GF (1,508,000.00) (1,508,000.00)One-time -
7 700S. Corridor Preservation Funds
Reimbursement
CIP 611,500.00 611,500.00 One-time -
8 Transfer to Sustainability GF - 440,000.00 One-time
9 Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Sewer 157,874,000.00 874,000.00 One-time
9 Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Water 42,234,000.00 234,000.00 One-time -
10 Police Budget Reallocation for Workers
Compensation
GF - (199,500.00)One-time -
10 Police Budget Reallocation for Workers
Compensation
GF - 199,500.00 One-time -
11 Budget Reallocation for CCT Supplies and
Lease Improvements
GF - (480,000.00)One-time -
11 Budget Reallocation for CCT Supplies and
Lease Improvements
GF - 480,000.00 One-time -
12 Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA)
2022 Budget
Misc Special Serv 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
13 Funding for Trailer Cameras Utilizing
Attrition Savings
GF - (383,160.00)One-time -
13 Funding for Trailer Cameras Utilizing
Attrition Savings
GF - 383,160.00 One-time -
14 Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA Housing - 2,800,000.00 One-time -
1 State of Utah, Governor's Office of Planning
and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain
Mitigation
CIP 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 One-time -
1 State of Utah, Governor's Office of Planning
and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain
Mitigation
Misc Grants 2,238,000.00 2,238,000.00 One-time -
-
Consent Agenda #5
1 National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar
Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3
Multi-Stakeholder Team
Misc Grants 166,979.00 166,979.00 One-time -
Consent Agenda #6
2 Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell
Forensic Science Improvement Grant
Program
Misc Grants 7,500.00 7,500.00 One-time -
3 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant,
FY22 Per Capita Allocation
Misc Grants 4,200.00 4,200.00 One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 207,050,218.00 13,188,157.00 - - 1.00
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #7:
General Fund GF (794,641.00) 843,298.00 - - -
Public Utilities: Sewer Sewer 157,874,000.00 874,000.00 - - -
Public Utilities: Water Water 42,234,000.00 234,000.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 2,416,679.00 2,416,679.00 - - -
Housing Fund Housing - 2,800,000.00 - - -
CIP Fund CIP 4,106,500.00 4,806,500.00 - - -
Misc Special Service Districts Misc Special Serv 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 713,680.00 713,680.00 - - 1.00
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 207,050,218.00 13,188,157.00 - - 1.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Administration Proposed Council Approved
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
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
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^ BA #6 Total BA #7 Total ^^ Total Through
BA#6^^
General Fund (FC 10)370,072,912.00 1,528,938.00 843,298.00 372,445,148.00
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)1,550,000.00 500,000.00 2,050,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,706,761.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,844,389.00 234,000.00 128,078,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,443,563.00 874,000.00 269,317,563.00
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)28,645,479.00 987,576.00 29,633,055.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,657,172.00 219,338.00 713,680.00 25,590,190.00
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 2,416,679.00 54,877,458.24
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 32,495.00 2,800,000.00 18,953,495.00
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 1,013,616.75 4,806,500.00 58,572,579.75
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 18,009,615.75 13,188,157.00 - - - 1,869,907,632.99
BA#4, BA#5 and BA#6 remain open with the City Council.
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
4
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Open Space Acquisition Impact Fees $700,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared B: Kat Maus
For Questions Please Include: Gregg Evans, Kristin Riker, Kat Maus, Lewis Kogan
Public Lands is requesting an FY 2022 budget amendment for $700,000 in unallocated impact fees funding to acquire
property to be preserved as open space. Details on the specific property will be discussed in a Council closed session
meeting.
A-2: Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild GF -$195,000.00
GF $195,000.00
CIP $195,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Gregg Evans, Kristin Riker, Lee Bollwinkel
The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of $195,000 to transfer general funds to POL CIP
deferred maintenance fund. On November 6th, a windstorm upturned a large tree on top of the pedestrian bridge by
Cottonwood Dog Park. This bridge is the main access for the dog park for residents over the Jordan River. A structural
engineer has deemed that one side of the bridge can remain open to pedestrians to allow access. The engineer has also
determined the bridge stability has been compromised to a level that it is unsafe for Parks vehicles to travel over this
bridge, inhibiting maintenance vehicles from crossing. One of the two supporting braces on the bridge has been crushed
and so the bridge can handle light pedestrian traffic but no vehicle use. The structural engineer determined that the cost of
replacement of the brace is as much as the replacement of the bridge. Parks staff have barricaded the damaged side of the
bridge to keep pedestrians away from the broken area for now. The bridge needs to be replaced as soon as possible as it is
unclear how weather and use of the bridge may impact the bridge stability. Public Lands will continue to monitor the
bridge safety until it can be replaced.
Public Lands is proposing to use anticipated year-end savings as a source of funding for this bridge reconstruction. The
funds would be transferred from Public Lands to the CIP Maintenance Fund.
A-3: UDOT Pass-Through Funds – RAC Access Road CIP $1,000,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For Questions Please Include: Dustin Petersen, Matt Cassell
In 2021, Utah State Legislature Senate Bill 3 allocated funds for a road connecting Rose Park Lane to Redwood Rd at 2600
North. An agreement between UDOT and the City has been executed for the City to receive the funds and to manage the
project design and the funds have already been transferred.
A-4: Withdrawn prior to transmittal
A-5: Road Cost Center Adjustments – Class C CIP -$611,749.00
CIP $611,749.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For Questions Please Include: Dustin Petersen, Matt Cassell
Public Services Engineering Division is requesting to revise the scope of Class C funds. Funds for 1300 East Projects - Cost
Centers 8317035 in the amount of $39,051.55 and 8318154 in the amount of $572,697.11. Both of these cost centers are
Class C funds. The 1300 East project was a partially federally funded project and has been completed two years ago but is
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
still not closed out by UDOT. Closeout is imminent. Staff is asking that these funds be moved from the 1300 East Class C
cost centers to a new contingency Class C cost center.
A-6: Leonardo Flood Damage Repair GF $300,000.00
CIP $300,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck
For Questions Please Include: Brent Beck, Tammy Hunsaker, Shellie Petersen
Flooding occurred at the Leonardo in July of 2021 due to a heavy rainstorm. The total anticipated cost of reconstruction is
approximately $300,000. Real Estate Service will manage the reconstruction since the Leonardo is a city-owned building
leased to a tenant. Funding will be transferred from the General Fund to a CIP Maintenance Fund cost center Real Estate
Services utilizes for leased building repairs.
A-7: Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS $500,000.00
IMS $188,605.00
IMS $25,075.00
GF $713,680.00
Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony
For Questions Please Include: Joseph Anthony, Aaron Bentley, Mary Beth Thompson
Salt Lake City is a major government organization that has a robust network with a vast array of valuable data and
processes that are reliant on the network. This is a request to get the city's endpoint management upgraded due to current
cyber security threats and a vast array of threats that are currently being seen throughout the industry.
We are requesting $500,000 to secure a contract for a SIEM (Security Incident and Event Management) security suite to
actively monitor and respond to security events ac ross the network that pose a risk to the city's network reliability. A SOC
(Security Operations Center) will be created to mitigate and monitor the active threats against the network. We are also
requesting an additional 75,000 for penetration testing and vulnerability scanning of our security posture, both internally
and externally.
Desktop/Laptop management expansion $65,800. The City’s Desktop Security solution needs additional licensing or a
“true up”. Our current system has 2350 licenses, and we need to expand that to 3350 (1000 additional licenses). This
software provides patch management to the primary devices (pcs and laptops) across the City. As Microsoft updates come
out monthly (sometimes weekly) this software enables us to patch the devices across the network without having to touch
every device individually.
Security Suite additional software for desktops/laptops $47,805. This software is an expansion of the above
desktop/laptop management software.
It will allow us to tighten the security on these devices such as disabling USB connected peripherals, change administrative
permissions for applications to install and run and allows enhanced control of the operating systems among other
functionalities.
To maintain these improvements an additional Cyber Security Engineer FTE will be needed.
Annual maintenance will vary greatly based on the SIEM solution that is chosen but may be as much as $250,000 per year
on an ongoing basis.
Costs will initially be covered through a transfer from the general fund. Actual costs will be allocated across all funds based
on usage.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central City
Damages Payment GF $37,892.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Ken Perko
For Questions Please Include: Ken Perko, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Orion Goff
Youth and Family has partnered with Salt Lake County at the Central City Recreation Center since 2003 to provide youth
and teen programs. Salt Lake City has provided staffing and purchased program supplies and furnishings while Salt Lake
County has provided the space to operate the programs. In March, 2020 all in-person Youth and Family programming was
halted. The County then contracted with the Salt Lake County Health Department to provide a space for homeless
individuals who were Covid positive but did not need hospitalization. The health department moved out after a few
months and the Center sat empty. Shortly thereafter, the Center was broken into and as a result sustained significant
damage to the building and interior contents including a good portion of the equipment and furnishings that the City had
paid for. This settlement payment of $37,892.00 is a reimbursement for the damaged equipment and supplies.
D-2: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
D-3: UTA Sponsored Routes – Encumbrance
Carryforward GF $184,259.00
Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: Sharon Mangelson
For Questions Please Include: Sharon Mangelson, Mary Beth Thompson
During encumbrance carry forwards Finance forgot to include the remaining encumbrance from FY 2021 in the amount of
$184,259 to cover the contract cost.
D-4: Wildland Deployment Reimbursements GF $653,571.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For Questions Please Include: Clint Rasmussen, Karl Lieb
Personnel were deployed several times during the Summer of 2021 to assist in wildland firefighting. Beginning in July,
SLCFD sent 6 individuals to Montana. Another crew of 3 were then sent to California in August and fulfilled a 2-week
deployment. A third crew of 6 were then sent to swap them out at the end of August and continued wildland duties into
September. All costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City and will have a matching
revenue offset budget. The Administration is asking the City Council to approve this request to offset personnel costs that
include overtime, benefits, and backfill. This proposal will make the Fire Department whole as well as the General Fund.
Expenses
Montana Wildfire - July 2021 $270,921
California Wildfire - August 2021 $126,693
California Wildifire - Aug/Sept 2021 $255,957
Total Expense Incurred $653,571
D-5: Fire – Other Reimbursements GF $21,896.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
For Questions Please Include: Clint Rasmussen, Karl Lieb
The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including training
backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), Fire investigation overtime incurred on behalf of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and finally cost recovery efforts from negligent
accidents/incidents. This will have a matching revenue offset budget.
Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $2,936.37
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Reimbursement $10,777.24
Cost Recovery:
Incline Terrace Apartments - requested Fire Watch $6,432.00
Swift Water Rescue & Recovery on 12/11/21 $1,749.98
Total Reimbursement $21,895.59
D-6: Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding GF -$1,508,000.00
Department: Multiple Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Question Please Include: John Vuyk, Mary Beth Thompson
To ensure compliance with federal reporting all grant related expenses will remain in the grant fund. In BA#4 the
Administration proposed transferring ARPA funds to the General Fund and the Fleet Fund. This amendment is to remove
those transfers in the General Fund.
D-7: 700 S. Corridor Preservation Funds
Reimbursement CIP $611,500.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen
For Questions Please Include: Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chamarro, Holly Draney, Obreeae Hardy
In March 2021 an administrative transmittal was sent to Council to enter into an Interlocal agreement with Salt Lake
County for reimbursement of land purchase for the 700 South road construction project. Salt Lake City Council approved
the Interlocal Agreement with Salt Lake County on April 20, 2021 to transfer the funds to the City. Funds of $611,500 have
been received and are needed to complete the project.
D-8: Transfer to Sustainability GF $440,000.00
Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: John Vuyk, Mary Beth Thompson
During the FY2022 budget the administration and Council were briefed that a transfer of $440,000 would be made from
the General Fund to the Sustainability Fund. This transfer was not included in the budget adoption, this amendment
formalizes that transfer.
D-9: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Sewer $874,000.00
Water $234,000.00
Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Mark Christensen
For Questions Please Include: Mark Christensen, Laura Briefer, Lisa Tarufelli, Jamey West, Tamara Prue
In order to adequately finance the construction of the new Water Reclamation Facility and to lock in a favorable interest
rate, the Sewer and Water Utilities are planning to issue Revenue Bonds in June 2022 instead of two separate issuances in
FY 2022 and FY 2023.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
D-10: Police Budget Reallocation for Workers
Compensation GF -$199,500.00
GF $199,500.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Mary Beth Thompson
The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to cover the costs associated with a workers compensation
settlement. The Department will utilize attrition from vacant positions that have not been able to fill to fund the expense.
No additional budget is being requested.
D-11: Budget Reallocation for CCT Supplies and Lease
Improvements GF -$480,000.00
GF $480,000.00
Department: Police Prepared By Shellie Dietrich
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Mary Beth Thompson
In the FY 22 budget, the Police Department was allocated budget for 12 FTE's in the Social Work Program. Budget for
uniform, equipment, supplies, IMS, Fleet was not included. Also in the Lease allocation for the Commu nity Connection
Center leasehold improvement was not included. The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to cover the
estimated costs of moving, leasehold improvements including IMS connectivity, WiFi, desks and cubicles for the new lease
space, security, social work vehicles (2 shared), computers, supplies, radios and training.
The Police Department will utilize attrition from the vacant positions that have not been able to fill to fund the needs of
this program. No additional budget is being requested.
D-12: Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA)
2022 Budget
Misc Special Serv $500,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Marina Scott / Jolynn Walz
For Questions Please Include: Marina Scott, Jolynn Walz, Lorena Riffo-Jensen, Mary Beth Thompson
The Administration is requesting the approval of a budget to collect new CBIA-22 assessment and pay contractual
obligations to the Downtown Alliance Inc. The current assessment area CBIA-19 expires April 21, 2022. The City Council
re-established a special assessment CBIA-22 for a three-year period to continue collection of assessment funds and allow
the continuation of marketing, promotion, advocacy and other benefits to the City and downtown property owners and
businesses. The new assessment ordinance was adopted and bills to the property owners will go out in the beginning of
April 2022.
D-13: Funding for Trailer Cameras Utilizing Attrition
Savings
GF -$383,160.00
GF $383,160.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to utilize attrition savings to purchase 8 trailer cameras to provide
coverage across all council districts. The Police Department will utilize attrition from vacant positions that have not been
able to fill to fund the expense. No additional budget is being requested.
D-14: Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA Housing $2,800,000.00
Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, Suzanne Swanson, Mike Burns
As requested by Council, budget amendment transfers the Housing Trust Fund loans and associated cash to the RDA. The
$2,800,000 amount on the budget amendment is to move the cash in the current Housing Trust Fund cost centers to the
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
RDA. Approximately $20 million of loan receivables will also be transferred. As these are balance sheet accounts they do
not affect budgets. Any remaining balance sheet items and cash that comes in will subsequently be transferred to the RDA.
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Planning and
Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation CIP $2,000,000.00
Misc Grants $2,238,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Elizabeth Gerhart
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilit ies received $2,000,000 for the Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and
Re-Mapping.
Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping is a phased planning, permitting, and capital improvement project
to reduce the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) designated 750 -acre Flood Hazard Area (FHA) concentrated in
the Granary District and the adjacent stretch of the Jordan River. There are at least 1,182 properties partially or completely
within the FHA. The flood hazard risk is substantial and limits new development. The project area is approximately 5,700
acres. The project under this Agreement will only cover Phase 1 for planning, design, and constructing water quality and
storage facilities. Future Phase 2 will plan, study, and schedule additional capital improvements to maximize the FHA
reduction as funding is secured from federal and state grants and/or Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
(SLCDPU) capital funds. Phase 1 of the project is estimated to begin January 2023 and be completed by December 2026.
This grant has a match requirement of $2,238,000. Salt Lake City identified $2 million from the first tranche of its
American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds.
A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 on the grant application for this award.
Section F: Donations
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #5
G-1: National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar
Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-
Stakeholder Team
Misc Grants $166,979.00
Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Christopher Thomas/Melyn Osmond
The Department of Sustainability applied for and received $166,979 in grant funding for the Solar Energy Innovation
Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team grant program from the National Renewal Energy Laboratory. The
funding will be used to increase uptake of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved communities through
involvement from trusted stakeholders, community listening sessions, three to five solar and storage benefit case studies,
and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar PV market barriers. Funding is allocated for:
Travel $3,582
Three trips to Golden, Colorado for Team Lead (Senior Energy & Climate Program Manager) to participate in SEIN -hosted
cohort peer exchange workings sessions and symposium.
Contractual $163,397
Subrecipient contract to facilitate stakeholder convenings, guide case study assessments, and develop solar/storage
resources, outreach materials, and deliverables. No match is required. A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 for this g rant
application.
Consent Agenda #6
G-2: Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Program
Misc Grants $7,500.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia
The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
(UBFS) application for the FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application
includes $7,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain 2022 annual accreditation fee through ANAB
(ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020:2012 requirement.
The lab received their ANAB accreditation in June 2021. With the assessment fee and annual accreditation fee being paid
with Coverdell 2020 funds, the costs for the first-year surveillance audit will be covered by this year's grant funds.
A match is not required for this award.
G-3: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant,
FY22 Per Capita Allocation
Misc Grants $4,200.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Brittany Blair / Melyn Osmond
***Additional Funding of $4,200 has been awarded to this original grant bringing the total grant award amount to
$14,450** This agenda item is to increase the funding budget.
The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau
of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical
supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 03/16/2022
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 524,230$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 808,770$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 13,256,676$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 7,147,853$ D
21,737,529$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
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$ FY 2023Calendar
Month
FY 2022FY 2024Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 03/16/2022 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
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Police 8484001 -$ -$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$ A
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 68,100$ 270,347.94$
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 Expenditures
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$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
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 Expenditures
Sum of Parks Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 7,798$ 7,763$ -$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 12,155$ 37,597$ -$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 875,563$ 223,201$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
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$ 148,037$ 74,564$ 1,646$
FY 9line park 8416005 21,958$ 17,010$ 2,692$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
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$ C
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381.06
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 390,056$ 21,760$ 112,073$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 40,900$ -$ 154,145$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 402,239$ 161,343$ 159,338$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 14,066$ 109,534$ 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$ 50,090$ 14,243$ 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$ 40,743$ 39,939$ 1,013,749$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 66,409$ 162,614$ 3,114,882$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 17,400$ 21,800$ 3,160,800$
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 Expenditures
Sum of Street Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ 70,000$ -$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 20,953$ 73,999$ 700$
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$
500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ -$ 73,893$ 22,744$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ D
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$
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$ 23,013$ 3,810$ 275,230$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 513,372$ 1,353,539$ 383,309$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 156,078$ 65,159$ 450$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 67,474$ 19,589$ 787,937$
Total 26,384,700$ 3,810,784$ 5,505,369$ 17,068,547$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
21,737,529$
8484002
8484003
8484005
13,256,676$
7,147,853$
$808,770
UnAllocated
Budget Amount
8484001
524,230$
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Public Policy Analyst
DATE:May 3, 2022
RE: FY2023 Library Budget
The Library’s organizational chart is on page five of the proposed budget (Attachment 1),
staffing details are on pages 8 to 9, revenue and expenditure details are on pages 10 to 13
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Board of Directors unanimously approved a motion on April 25, 2022, to approve the budget and
recommend its adoption by the Salt Lake City Council. The Library system provides in-person services at a
main library downtown, seven branch libraries around the City, and a wide variety of digital services online.
The Council’s role in the Library budget process is unique to other City enterprise funds. The Library Board
sets the policy for Library operations. The Council is tasked with reviewing and approving the overall budget
and setting the Library’s tax rate. The August truth in taxation hearing will include the Library’s proposed tax
rate, and residents will give comment to the City Council as it relates to that tax rate. Note at the time of
publishing, the Mayor was reviewing the Board’s proposed budget and could recommend adjustments.
Library Top Priorities for FY2023 Budget
The Library’s leadership shared the following top priorities that informed the Board’s FY2023 budget proposal:
1. Retain COLA, longevity, and compensation study funding (in the budget book outlined in the letter from
the Board President and Interim Executive Director) Page 6
2. Adding positions that will directly impact our community through supporting staff with frameworks within
our organization in areas of most need (Human Resources, Safety, Social Services, Assistant Managers,
Marketing to diverse communities, and additional support in purchasing, custodial, and IT) Pages 8 and 14
3. Establish a Ballpark neighborhood temporary library location
Revenues, Proposed Property Tax Increase and Temporary Library in Ballpark Neighborhood
The proposed Salt Lake City Public Library System’s total budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 is $28,598,885
which is $4,050,125 or 16.5% more than last year. Most of the increased funding comes from two sources: first, a
property tax increase of $2,782,320, and second, $375,000 from estimated new growth. The property tax
increase is estimated to be $4.73 per year, per $100,000 of valuation on a primary residence. For example, the
increase is estimated at $18.94 per year for a primary residence valued at $400,000 or $34.43 per year for a
commercial property at the same $400,000 valuation.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: May 3, 2022
Set Date: May 3, 2022
2nd Briefing: in May or June (if needed)
Public Hearings: May 17 and June 7, 2022
Potential Action: June 14, 2022
Page | 2
State law caps the amount of property tax library systems can collect at 0.001 of a city’s total assessed value. The
proposed budget would result in a tax rate of 0.000735. The last time the City approved a tax increase from the
Library system was five years ago, when the City Council approved a roughly $3.9 million property tax increase to
account for debt service for the new Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries. The budget also includes a
required $600,000 pass-through of property taxes to the Utah Inland Port Authority and Convention Center
Hotel. This budget would result in the Library's estimated Fund Balance to be 20.4%. The Library has a
minimum target of keeping Fund Balance at or above 16%.
One aspect of the proposed budget that factors into the tax increase request is to create a temporary physical
library presence in the Ballpark neighborhoods – budgeted at $697,600. There are two parts to the request:
$435,000 of full year ongoing operating expenses for 4.8 new employees (coming from the proposed property tax
increase) and $262,000 of one-time capital expenses for a temporary site (coming from the Library’s Fund
Balance). The temporary site is estimated to only be operating for half of FY2023, however, the Library Board
preferred fully funding annual operating costs since they would be ongoing and needed in future fiscal years.
Changes by Expense Category (Details on pages 12-13 of Attachment 1)
Most of the new revenues in FY2023 would pay for an increase of 18.3 new full-time employees (FTEs) as well as
annual price increases for certain benefits like insurance and retirement for new employees for a total cost increase
of $2,486,690 (16.1% more than last year). A 5% medical insurance premium increase is included in the budget.
Some employees will receive a 5% salary increase which is a mix of a 3.5% cost of living adjustment and a 1.5%
longevity adjustment. Other employees will receive a 1% cost of living adjustment because they are recommended to
receive an increase based on a salary survey which identified market-based pay increases to maintain a competitive
position. (Staff note: Benefits for Library system employees are not the same as City employees, so cost of living
adjustments are frequently different than City employee cost of living adjustments). Other changes in expense
categories include:
- A $150,830 increase (18.1% more than last year) for materials and supplies which includes greater staff trainings
and travel as well as publicity and marketing as library services return to pre-pandemic levels.
- A -$141,080 decrease (7.5% less than last year) in building, grounds and equipment which reflects changing
from a contract approach for cleaning services which would be handled by new employees. There is a $27,905
increase for equipment and furniture.
- A $132,695 increase (13% more than last year) for services particularly an increase for technology contracts
which reflects a mix of higher costs for existing services and new contracts.
- A $262,000 increase (13.2% more than last year) to the collections and other capital outlays category. This
increase would come from the Library’s Fund Balance for one-time expenses related to creating a temporary
physical presence in the Ballpark neighborhood. Expenses could include paying for a temporary site such as
leasing space or a modular pop-up structure, furniture, and materials.
- Note that the Library has some prior year funding in capital accounts that don’t lapse to Fund Balance at the end
of the fiscal year. $2 million of this funding is planned for a roof repair and redesign at the Main Library.
New Employees and Reclassifications (Details on pages 8-9 of Attachment 1)
The staffing document changes are a mix of reclassifying existing FTEs to new job titles, removing some positions
and adding a net increase of 18.3 new FTEs. If the proposed budget is approved, then the Library would have
241.45 total FTEs. The new positions that would work at the temporary Ballpark site include an assistant manager,
librarian, associate librarian and four part time library assistants. Some of the changes include:
- Reclassifying three Administrative Manager FTEs into three Assistant Directors for a total of seven.
- Adds four Assistant Manager FTEs which historically were staffed at all branch locations. One of the FTEs
would support creative digital equity work and the other two would be located at the Anderson-Foothill
Branch Library and Sprague Branch Library in Sugar House on a pilot program basis to be re-evaluated after a
Page | 3
year. These two locations were selected based on objective criteria like circulation, foot traffic and staff size.
The additional mid-level managers would increase support working with community groups and maintaining
reasonable span of control ratios for supervisors and subordinates. If successful, then future budgets could
request additional assistant mangers at other branch locations.
- Two new positions focused on equity: an Equity Coordinator FTE and an Equity & Organization Development
Associate FTE working under the coordinator. These positions would support the Library’s existing Equity,
Diversity and Inclusion Council, review hiring practices and job descriptions, conduct additional outreach to
communities and review the content of various collections. These two positions would produce internal and
public-facing changes to improve equity and elevate that value higher into the organization’s structure. It’s
worth noting the budget also includes increased Spanish language services.
- One new Licensed Clinical Social Worker FTE which would be the Library’s first in-house social worker. This
is an emerging national best practice for libraries. Hiring this position in-house would better ensure social
worker services are available when needed. They would also build rapport and familiarity with regular visitors,
oversee the Library’s existing partnerships with nonprofit service providers (Volunteers of America, Veterans
Administration, and South Valley Sanctuary), and provide training to other staff. If this position is approved,
then the Library would pursue a partnership with the University of Utah’s College of Social Work for students.
- Two more Custodians, three more Safety Associates and two new Safety Supervisors which is a total of seven
more FTEs and these positions regularly work together. This budget would move away from a contract
approach for restroom attendants. Those duties would instead be covered by these new FTEs. The safety
positions focus on relationship building, connecting patrons with social services, voluntary rule compliance
and are no longer armed except for pepper spray and handcuffs.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Property Tax Increase – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration balancing the
proposed Library property tax increase with the City’s other funding needs and the overall tax burden on
residents and businesses, considering other fee increases proposed for water/sewer/stormwater/refuse, as
well as potential future City general fund revenue needs.
2.Balancing $101 Million of Capital Needs at Existing Libraries with Potential New Ballpark
Library Services – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to balance the $101
million of capital improvements identified in the Master Facilities Plan (Attachment 2) with the costs of
potential new library services in the Ballpark neighborhood. The Master Facilities Plan identifies
temporary leased space or temporary pop-up services for the Ballpark neighborhood. The largest project
costs are $36 million for major renovations and maintenance at the Main Library over six years, $19.8
million to rebuild Anderson-Foothill and $18.9 million to rebuild Day-Riverside.
3.Temporary Library in the Ballpark Neighborhood – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration what a temporary library could look like, and if the Sugar House temporary library at the
old Fire Station #3 by Fairmont Park provided any insights that could be used.
4.$4 Million Main Library Roof Repair and Redevelopment Project – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration what the public could expect from this capital improvement project, what is the
construction timeline and what public engagement has occurred or is planned. The total project cost is
estimated at $4 million. $2 million from prior year capital funding still available and another $2 million
requested for FY2023.
5.Search for New Executive Director – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status
update on searching for a new Library Executive Director and timeline moving forward.
ADDITIONIAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Budget and Staffing History FY2016 – FY2023
Council staff prepared the below chart and corresponding data table to provide a summary of the Council
approved budgets, total staffing, and annual changes from Fiscal Year 2016-2023. The Library currently has a
Page | 4
total of 223.15 FTEs which would increase by 18.3 under the proposed budget to 241.45 FTEs. The chart shows
that the Library’s budget increased annually over eight years. The largest increases were back in 2016-2018 related
to ongoing costs for the new Glendale and Marmalade libraries. In particular, the FY2018 budget request and
property tax increase were to cover ongoing operating costs at the two new branches and the bond payments. The
increase also included $900,000 ongoing facilities maintenance and $600,000 ongoing for technology. Fund
Balance was used one year and then a property tax increase was approved to provide ongoing funding. Over the
same time, staffing levels increased annually except for a small reduction during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2022.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Salt Lake City Public Library Budget & Staffing
Fiscal Years 2016-2023
$ Amount # of FTEs
Note: FY22 is adopted and FY23 is proposed budget figures, the rest are actuals
The corresponding data table is below
$ Amount Y ear Over
Y ear % Change # of FT Es Y ear Over
Y ear % Change
201 6 1 6,434 ,4 64$ -1 91 .5 -
201 7 18,280,338$ 11 .2%1 94 .775 1.7 %
201 8 21 ,864 ,096$ 19.6%206.55 6.0%
201 9 22,286,208$ 1 .9%21 0.425 1.9%
2020 22,37 1 ,866$ 0.4%21 5.7 2.5%
2021 24,224 ,962$ 8.3%223.85 3.8%
2022 24,54 8,760$ 1 .3%223.1 5 -0.3%
2023 28,598,885$ 16.5%241.4 5 8.2%
Fiscal Y ear
Budget T otal Staffing
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed FY2023 Library Budget
2. Library Master Facilities Plan
ACRONYMS
COLA – Cost of Living Adjustment or Cost of Labor Adjustment
FTE – Full Time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
PROPOSEDBUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 2023
2 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
LOCATIONS Main Library
210 East 400 South
801-524-8200
Anderson-Foothill Branch
1135 South 2100 East
801-594-8611
Chapman Branch
577 South 900 West
801-594-8623
Day-Riverside Branch
1575 West 1000 North
801-594-8632
Glendale Branch
1375 South Concord
801-594-8660
Marmalade Branch
280 West 500 North
801-594-8680
Sprague Branch
2131 South 1100 East
801-594-8640
Sweet Branch
455 F Street
801-594-8651
Digital Navigators
Digital LibraryGhost Scavenger Hunt Booklet
Seed Library at the Glendale BranchPuzzle Exchange at the Sprague Branch
Memory Care Kits
3Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
CONTENTS
Locations ......................................................................................2
By the Numbers ............................................................................4
Organizational Chart ......................................................................5
Letter from the Interim Executive Director & Board President .........6
Staffing Profile ...............................................................................8
General Fund Revenues ..............................................................10
General Fund Expenditures ........................................................12
Personnel .............................................................................14
Materials & Supplies .............................................................14
Buildings, Grounds, & Equipment .........................................15
Services ...............................................................................15
Other Charges ......................................................................16
Collections & Other Capital Outlays .......................................16
Transfers, Grants, & Donations ..............................................16
Debt Service Fund Budget ..........................................................17
Capital Project Fund Budget ........................................................18
Storytime at the Sprague Branch
4 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
THE CITY LIBRARYBY THE NUMBERS
2021
eBooks and Audiobooks Downloaded
785,000+
New Cardholders Added
~14,700
Circulation of Physical Materials
1.5 million +
People Visited The City Library’s Website
455,000+
Children’s Books Circulated
650,000+
Virtual Storytime Views
7,200+
Movies Circulated
300,000+
5Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
Circulation Manager
Safety Manager
Technology &
Digital Equity Manager
Public Services Managers
Children’s Library
Nonfiction & AV
Fiction, Teens, & Periodicals
Anderson-Foothill
Chapman
Day-Riverside
Glendale
Marmalade
Sprague
Sweet
Manager of Tech Services
& Collection Development
Deputy Director
Assistant Director
of Finance
Assistant Director
of Human Resources
Events Manager
Service Coordinators
Children’s Services
Teen Services
Adult Services
Assistant Director
of Community Engagement
Assistant Director
of Marketing &
Communications
Assistant Director
of Equity and
Organizational Development
Assistant Director
of Customer Experience
Assistant Director
of Facilities & IT
Administrative Manager
of Public Services
Library Board
Executive Director Executive Admin
ORGANIZATIONAL
CHART
EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM (ELT)
6 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
OUR STAFF:
Over the past two years, City Library staff have impressively
weathered the pandemic and its impact. Through their creativity
and adaptability, they have shown a deep commitment and
dedication to library service. They have ensured that the Library
continues to be a critical connection point for all ages. They
provide thoughtful care to our patrons, whether in-person or online.
It is the duty and responsibility of The City Library to
compensate our staff fairly and equitably. Along with many in the
Salt Lake City community, library staff are feeling the increased
pressure of finding affordable housing, the rising cost of living,
and negotiating life during pandemic times. The FY23 budget
includes a cost of living adjustment and a longevity increase,
which acknowledges staff experience and prevents salary-
compression issues. It also includes adjustments to some staff
compensation based on a compensation study completed by
Human Resources. These changes mainly impact staff in the
support services of Safety and Custodial, along with our entry-
level customer experience positions of Library Aide and Library
Assistant. This budget also focuses on adding new positions that
will provide overall organizational support in the areas of equity,
human resources, and finance.
The requested increases to personnel reflect the ways we are
addressing the growing demand on our services and facilities by
the residents of Salt Lake. Our priority of being a great place to
work is essential to recruitment and retention of employees who
are committed to public service. These requested positions will
allow us to continue to provide the high level of service that library
customers expect of their City Library.
A new budget year is an opportunity to look at our organization and assess new and old needs. In preparation for the FY23 budget,
The City Library focused on these three priorities: Our Staff; Our Community; and Our Future. We are excited about this proposed
budget, the impact on our critical needs, and the range of proposals addressing our priorities.
A LETTER FROM THE INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & BOARD PRESIDENT
APRIL 2022
Mayor Mendenhall, City Council Members, and Residents of Salt Lake City,
OUR COMMUNITY:
In December of 2021, Library Journal announced the list of Star
Libraries for 2021. The Salt Lake City Public Library System has
once again been awarded the prestigious Five-Star Library award,
the highest honor on the list. Of 5,608 qualifying public library
systems, only 85 were awarded five stars, and only one in the
state of Utah. Library Journal’s ratings are based on measurable
statistics: physical circulation, library visits, program attendance,
public computer use, database access, Wi-Fi sessions, and
electronic circulation (like eBooks and digital audiobooks). This
honor demonstrates how much the community relies upon
and values their City Library system, and how we prioritize our
commitment to our community.
Additionally, we are adding positions that will directly impact our
community. The addition of a licensed clinical social worker will
assist our most vulnerable and often marginalized communities.
To support customer experience, we are exploring a new role of
Assistant Manager at two of our busiest branches, with potential
to expand these positions in future years at additional locations.
We are expanding our accessibility and reach by adding hours to
a current position in Marketing and Communications, which will
improve the experience of our Spanish-speaking patrons.
SLCPL Staff
Reopening at the Sprague Branch
7Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
Please accept our deep appreciation for your continued support.
Sincerely,
Two big community highlights from 2021:
On May 2, 2021, the Sugar House neighborhood celebrated
the grand reopening of the beloved Sprague Branch, which
many view as the heart of that community. Invited guests were
enthusiastic to take a first glimpse of the newly renovated,
reimagined branch. It was wonderful for staff to welcome
local dignitaries, along with community members, into the
latest version of the historic 1928 building. Reopening the
Sprague Branch is just one happy and meaningful example of
a community gathering during difficult and stressful times.
In September, we launched two hours of free parking at the
Main Library’s underground parking garage. Previously, free
parking was limited to only 30 minutes. This change has
been made possible with help from Salt Lake City Mayor
Erin Mendenhall, the City Council, and the City’s Parking
Compliance Department. In just three months, over 5,000
visitors took advantage of free parking.
MISSION STATEMENT:
Your City Library: Building a foundation of equity, connection,
and limitless possibilities.
There is also funding in FY23’s budget to ensure our Libraries are ready for a full return to pre-COVID usage and can safely support all of
the ways our community members use their public library spaces. A highlight we have been early anticipating is the return to in-person
programs, festivals, study groups, business meetings, and public performances after over two years!
OUR FUTURE:
While the past two years have been a tumultuous time, The City Library is poised and ready to step into the future.
Throughout 2021, Library leadership have been reworking our Mission Statement and documenting our vision with a Vision Statement;
these define who we are at our core and how we want to continue supporting our community.
VISION STATEMENT:
We are active in our community and collaborate to address
needs and realize aspirations. We connect people to
information, resources, experiences, and each other.
Our work sustains a vibrant Salt Lake City.
The Master Facilities Plan (MFP) was completed in early 2022. It was developed through community engagement workshops with both
internal and external stakeholders. This plan addresses our physical spaces and future growth and how we can continue to support our
community’s aspirations, talents, and passions over the next ten years. It articulates how we will analyze and assess our current spaces
to meet the community’s wants and needs. It also maps a plan for expansion into Salt Lake’s growing neighborhoods to provide access
to the amenities, resources, and experiences that make Salt Lake City a wonderful place to live. The MFP indicates a gap in library service
for the Ballpark neighborhood and this year’s budget includes funding for a prototype Ballpark location.
The current budget requests solidify our commitment to equitably serving our community. Looking forward, FY23 will mark 125 years of
the Salt Lake City Public Library System, along with the 20th anniversary of the opening of the Main Library. We are excited to welcome
patrons back to in-person programming, explore expansion in Salt Lake City, and continue to be a Five-Star Library. We consider this the
most opportune time to both reflect on our rich history, and look forward to our exciting future.
Adam Weinacker, Library Board PresidentDebbie Ehrman, Interim Executive Director
8 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
POSITION FY22 FY23 DIFFERENCE
Accountant 1 1 —
Accounting Specialist 1 1 —
Administrative Assistant 0.475 0.475 —
Administrative Manager 4 1 -3
Assistant Director 4 7 3
Assistant Manager 0 4 4
Associate Librarian 21.9 21.425 -.475
Audio Visual Specialist 1 1 —
Branch Custodian 5.2 0 -5.2
Cataloger 1 1 —
Circulation Supervisor 2 2 —
Community Gardener Coordinator 0.45 0.45 —
Copy Editor & Public Relations 1 1 —
Creative Director 1 1 —
Custodial Manager 1 1 —
Custodial Supervisor 2 2 —
Custodian 11.5 18.7 7.2
Data Analyst 1 1 —
Delivery Driver 1 1 —
Deputy Director 1 1 —
Equity & Org Development Associate 0 1 1
Equity Coordinator 0 1 1
Event Associate 2 1.45 -0.55
Executive Administrative Assistant 1 1 —
Executive Director 1 1 —
Graphic Designer 1 1 —
Help Desk Tech 1 2 1
Human Resource Associate 3 3 —
Jr. Designer 0.475 1 0.525
Junior Project/Account Manager 0 0.475 0.475
Librarian 38.9 41.45 2.55
Library Aide 22.6 21.15 -1.45
Library Assistant 40.5 42.3 1.8
Licensed Clinical Social Worker 0 1 1
Literary Project Specialist 0 1 1
Logistics Coordinator 1 1 —
Maintenance Manager 1 1 —
Maintenance Technician 5 5 —
Maintenance Supervisor 1 1 —
Manager 14 14 —
Marketing & Comm Assistant 0.475 0 -0.475
Marketing & Comm Project Manager 1 1 —
The Library’s overall staffing level from FY22
to FY23 reflects an increase of 18.3 FTE.
EFFICIENT OPERATIONS
Includes pay equity for members of the ELT
and the retitling of these Administrative
Managers to Assistant Directors. Adding
staff to support services departments
including:
• Event Services
• Financial Services
• Human Resources
• Marketing & Communication
• Custodial Staff
• Safety Team
COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AND
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Adding an additional staff member to help
support this department.
COMMITMENT TO CUSTOMER SERVICE
CAREER GROWTH
Adding four new Assistant Manager
positions, including one for Ballpark.
PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN BALLPARK
In addition to an Assistant Manager, adding
a Librarian, Associate Librarian, and four
part-time Library Assistants to staff an
anticipated physical location in the Ballpark
neighborhood 40 hours weekly.
STAFFING
PROFILE
9Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
POSITION FY22 FY23 DIFFERENCE
Network & Systems Engineer 1 1 —
Passport Supervisor 1 1 —
Procurement & Contracts Manager 0 1 1
Safety Associate 6 8.9 2.9
Safety Manager 1 1 —
Safety Supervisor 0 2 2
Senior Network Support Technician 1 1 —
Senior Software Support Engineer 1 1 —
Service Coordinator 4 3 -1
Social Media Manager & Photographer 1 1 —
Staff Development Coordinator 1 1 —
Tech Services Specialists 2 2 —
Technology Assistant 2.25 2.25 —
Technology Associate 2.425 2.425 —
Technology Librarian 1 1 —
Technology Coordinator 1 1 —
Web Developer 1 1 —
TOTAL 223.15 241.45 18.3
Reopening at Main
STAFFING
PROFILE CONT.
10 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
TAX REVENUES
Current Year Property Taxes 18,715,762 19,050,770 22,335,880 3,285,110 17.2%
Personal Property Taxes 2,321,836 1,928,450 1,800,655 (127,795)-6.6%
Property Taxes – Pass Through 267,442 0 600,000 600,000 —
Delinquent Property Taxes 350,114 408,360 420,000 11,640 2.9%
Motor Vehicle Taxes 719,963 735,000 735,000 0 0.0%
Judgment Levy 108,946 83,555 100,000 16,445 19.7%
SUBTOTAL 22,484,063 22,206,135 25,991,535 3,785,400 17.0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
Grants – Federal 299,048 65,000 0 (65,000)-100.0%
Reimbursements – E-Rate 35,501 35,000 35,000 0 0.0%
Grants – State 84,335 47,000 47,000 0 0.0%
RDA Rebate 1,054,028 1,110,00 1,000,000 (110,000)-9.9%
SUBTOTAL 1,472,912 1,257,000 1,082,000 (175,000)-13.9%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Printer Revenues (327)10,000 15,000 5,000 50.0%
Passport Services 29,949 42,500 97,000 54,500 128.2%
Non-Resident Fees 4,130 4,000 14,000 10,000 250.0%
SUBTOTAL 33,752 56,500 126,000 69,500 123.0%
CHARGES FOR LOST/DAMAGED ITEMS
17,619 20,000 20,000 0 0.0%Charges for Lost/Damaged Items
SUBTOTAL 17,619 20,000 20,000 0 0.0%
MISCELLANEOUS
Interest Earnings 61,289 80,000 80,000 0 0.0%
Rents – Facilities 2,215 5,000 15,000 10,000 200.0%
Rents – Commercial Space 17 10,000 28,000 18,000 180.0%
Sundry Revenues 46,048 15,600 26,000 10,400 66.7%
SUBTOTAL 109,479 110,600 149,000 38,400 34.7%
CONTRIBUTIONS & TRANSFERS
Donations 107,137 111,000 67,000 (44,000)-39.6%
Fund Balance – Appropriated 0 787,525 1,163,350 375,825 47.7%
SUBTOTAL 107,137 898,525 1,230,350 331,825 36.9%
TOTAL REVENUES 24,224,962 24,548,760 28,598,885 4,050,125 16.5%
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
11Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
OVERVIEW
Revenue categories have been budgeted
based on historical trends, current year
projections, and economic considerations.
The following explanations compare the
FY22 and FY23 budgets.
TAX REVENUES
The Library’s primary source of funding is
property taxes. Current Year Property Tax
revenue has been budgeted at the amount
generated by the 2021 certified tax rate
plus an estimated amount for new growth
of $375,000, and a proposed increase of
just under $2.782 million. The Library’s
2021 property tax rate is 0.000649, which
is 64.9 percent of the ceiling established
by the Utah State statute. If the proposed
tax rate increase is adopted the 2022
estimated tax rate would be .000735.
The Library is also required to budget
for property tax revenues collected by
Salt Lake County that are paid directly
to other government entities without
coming directly to the Library. An offsetting
transfer from the Library equal to this
revenue is reflected in the Payments to
Other Governments. The amount of this
transfer for FY23 is estimated at $600,000.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
REVENUES
The FY23 budget for Intergovernmental
Revenues is lower because of a reduction
in the projected reimbursement from the
Redevelopment Agency and the absence
of a federal grant received in FY22 that will
not be received in FY23.
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
Revenues from Charges for Services is
anticipated to increase as the Library
opens up and offers the services that were
being offered pre-pandemic.
CHARGES FOR LOST/DAMAGED
ITEMS
Revenue from Charges for Lost/Damaged
Items is anticipated to remain consistent
with FY22.
MISCELLANEOUS
Miscellaneous revenue is budgeted to
increase as the Library resumes the rental
of meeting rooms and commercial space.
These spaces were not rented out during
the Covid pandemic.
CONTRIBUTIONS
& TRANSFERS
The Friends of The City Library have
committed to a $60,000 donation for
FY23, a reduction of $40,000 from
FY22. The FY23 budget proposes using
$1,163,350 of fund balance for one-
time expenditures, such as establishing
a Library presence in the Ballpark
neighborhood, and other capital projects.
Tax Year
2017
Tax Year
2018
Tax Year
2019
Tax Year
2020
Tax Year
2021
Tax Year
2022 est.
Certified
Tax Rate .000830 .000757 .000741 .000680 .000649 .000735
Residential
property $45.66 $41.64 $40.76 $37.40 $35.70 $40.43
Commercial
property $830.00 $757.00 $741.00 $680.00 $649.00 $735.00
This chart shows the estimated property
tax amount for each $100,000 of residential
property value and each $1,000,000 of
commercial property value.
Front Desk at the Sprague Branch
12 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
PERSONNEL
Salaries & Wages – Regular 9,983,814 10,901,800 12,383,400 1,481,600 13.6%
Overtime – Regular 1,470 0 0 0 —
Salaries & Wages – Flex 111,268 150,085 204,995 54,910 36.6%
Social Security – Regular 741,255 835,100 948,600 113,500 13.6%
Social Security – Flex 8,502 11,570 15,685 4,115 35.6%
Employee Insurance 1,416,054 1,847,900 2,405,900 558,000 30.2%
Retiree Insurance 22,900 22,800 21,600 (1,200)-5.3%
State Retirement 1,404,469 1,566,200 1,775,900 209,700 13.4%
Workers Compensation 32,974 34,350 42,420 8,070 23.5%
Unemployment Insurance 971 3,000 3,000 0 0.0%
Other Employee Benefits 48,875 54,130 111,125 56,995 105.3%
Employee Appreciation 6,952 11,960 12,960 1,000 8.4%
SUBTOTAL 13,779,504 15,438,895 17,925,585 2,486,690 16.1%
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
Subscriptions & Memberships 26,740 39,640 35,715 (3,925)-9.9%
Publicity 181,962 147,125 260,795 113,670 77.3%
Travel & Training 14,230 158,230 180,675 22,445 14.2%
Office Supplies & Expense 9,511 10,000 14,000 4,000 40.0%
Postage 14,034 23,500 25,500 2,000 8.5%
Special Department Supplies 282,884 408,840 408,480 (360)-0.1%
Copier/Printer Paper 2,666 5,000 7,000 2,000 40.0%
Copier/Printer Toner 26,172 43,000 54,000 11,000 25.6%
SUBTOTAL 558,199 835,335 986,165 150,830 18.1%
BUILDING, GROUNDS, & EQUIPMENT
Fuel 7,769 8,000 12,000 4,000 50.0%
Maintenance – Equipment & Furniture 220,882 270,715 298,620 27,905 10.3%
Maintenance – Vehicles 12,000 10,000 12,000 2,000 20.0%
Maintenance – Buildings & Grounds 496,290 691,100 521,600 (169,500)-24.5%
Utilities – Boiler Operations 47,854 75,000 75,000 0 0.0%
Utilities – Electricity 396,973 458,000 454,500 (3,500)-.8%
Utilities – Natural Gas 74,791 90,500 94,000 3,500 3.9%
Utilities – City Services 95,897 110,600 92,700 (17,900)-16.2%
Utilities – Garbage 34,758 35,380 36,795 1,415 4.0%
Utilities – Telecommunications 132,146 124,000 135,000 11,000 8.9%
SUBTOTAL 1,519,360 1,873,295 1,732,215 (141,080)-7.5%
GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES
13Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
Continued
FY20
Actual
FY21
Budget
FY21
Projected
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SERVICES
Professional & Technical Services 207,870 197,750 170,200 (27,550)-13.9%
Security Contracts 24,006 28,200 36,000 7,800 27.7%
Technology Contracts 341,991 314,145 453,330 139,185 44.3%
City Administrative Charges 24,153 35,500 35,500 0 0.0%
Cataloging Charges 97,092 102,000 102,000 0 0.0%
Staff Training & Development 27,230 37,500 50,000 12,500 33.3%
Programming 260,070 295,530 296,790 1,260 0.4%
Board Development 1,777 7,000 7,000 0 0.0%
Interlibrary Loans 112 1,000 500 (500)-50.0%
SUBTOTAL 984,301 1,018,625 1,151,320 132,695 13.0%
OTHER CHARGES
Insurance 338,873 381,810 396,400 14,590 3.8%
Rents ——90,000 90,000 —
Sundry Expense 15,581 25,600 87,500 61,900 241.8%
Executive Discretion 2,236 10,000 15,000 5,000 50.0%
Staff Innovation 492 2,500 5,000 2,500 100.0%
SUBTOTAL 357,182 419,910 593,900 173,990 41.4%
COLLECTIONS & OTHER CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Buildings 39,922 0 142,000 142,000 —
Improvements 16,715 0 0 0 —
Furnishings 5,218 0 20,000 20,000 —
Print Materials 502,929 559,000 659,000 100,000 17.9%
Audio Materials 53,983 55,000 55,000 0 0.0%
Visual Materials 260,737 350,000 350,000 0 0.0%
Databases 201,011 235,000 235,000 0 0.0%
eBooks & Audio 811,278 690,000 690,000 0 0.0%
Newspapers & Magazines 73,294 100,000 100,000 0 0.0%
SUBTOTAL 1,965,087 1,989,000 2,251,000 262,000 13.2%
TRANSFERS, GRANTS, & DONATIONS
Transfer to Capital Project Fund 3,725,200 1,813,500 2,271,500 458,000 25.3%
Transfer to Debt Service Fund 1,033,258 1,039,700 1,035,200 (4,500)-0.4%
Payments to Other Governments 267,442 0 600,000 600,000 —
Grants – Federal 192,702 65,000 0 (65,000)-100.0%
Grants – State 57,573 47,000 47,000 0 0.0%
Donations 4,280 8,500 5,000 (3,500)-41.2%
SUBTOTAL 5,280,455 2,973,700 3,958,700 985,000 33.1%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 24,444,088 24,548,760 28,598,885 4,050,125 16.5%
REVENUES OVER
EXPENDITURES (219,126)0 0 0 —
14 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
Personnel expenditures account for approximately 74
percent of the Library’s overall operating budget (General
fund less Capital Outlays, Transfers to the Capital and Debt
Service funds, and Payments to Other Governments). This
percentage was 71 percent and 70 percent in FY21 and
FY22, respectively.
The FY23 budget proposes implementation of a
comprehensive salary survey, an additional 1 percent
increase for salaries adjusted as part of the salary survey,
and a 5 percent increase for positions not impacted by
the salary survey. The 5 percent increase consists of a
3.5 percent cost of living adjustment and a 1.5 percent
longevity adjustment.
The FY23 budget also proposes staffing with 4.8 new FTE
employees a physical location in the Ballpark neighborhood.
The City Library will continue to offer a high deductible
health plan and a contribution to each employee’s health
savings account. The FY23 budget reflects a projected
5 percent increase in premiums. The Library covers 100
percent of employee coverage and 90 percent of employee
plus dependent premiums. The Library’s contributions to
health savings accounts are as follows: $1,000 for single
coverage and a proposed increase from $1,500 to $2,000
for employee plus dependent coverage.
For details on the Library’s staffing, refer to the Staffing Profile
on page 8.
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES OVERVIEW
Funding for publicity, travel and training, and printing supplies are being
restored to pre-pandemic levels to increase visibility and awareness of
library services, provide opportunities for staff to attend conferences
again, and adequately meet patron demand with the anticipated return to
pre-pandemic services.
PERSONNEL FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 13,779,504 15,438,895 17,925,585 2,486,690 16.1%
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 558,199 835,335 986,165 150,830 18.1%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESPERSONNEL
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESMATERIALS & SUPPLIES
PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
15Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
100 Books Before Graduation Log Book200 Books Before 4th Log Book1,000 Books Before Kindergarten Log Book
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, & EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW
This budget category is proposed to decrease because the contract
for restroom attendants is being reallocated to personnel for the hiring
of more custodial and safety staff. This shift will allow more oversight
and better utilization of staff.
BUILDINGS, GROUNDS, & EQUIPMENT
FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 1,519,360 1,873,295 1,732,215 (141,080)-7.5%
SERVICES
Services are budgeted to increase due to the expansion and cost of
technology hardware and software service contracts.
SERVICES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 984,301 1,018,625 1,151,320 132,695 13.0%
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESBUILDINGS, GROUNDS, & EQUIPMENT
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESSERVICES
16 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
OTHER CHARGES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 357,182 419,910 593,900 173,990 41.4%
OTHER CHARGES
Funding for the Library’s 125th anniversary, staff identity based affinity group support, and
resource closets containing basic items for unhoused populations are being proposed in
this category. In addition, funding to rent space in the Ballpark neighborhood for a physical
Library location has been included.
COLLECTIONS, & OTHER CAPITAL OUTLAYS
FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 1,965,087 1,989,000 2,251,000 262,000 13.2%
CAPITAL REPAIRS & REPLACEMENT
The FY23 increase in this category is associated with preparing a physical Library location in the
Ballpark neighborhood, furnishing the space and acquiring a circulating collection for that location.
TRANSFERS, GRANTS, & DONATIONS
FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
SUBTOTAL 5,280,455 2,973,700 3,958,700 985,000 33.1%
TRANSFERS, GRANTS, & DONATIONS
The transfer to the Capital Projects fund consists of the annual transfer of $1,500,000 for designated
facilities and technology as well as $771,500 for other capital projects. This category also includes a new
line item, Payments to Other Governments, as an offset for property taxes collected by Salt Lake County
and paid directly to other government entities without coming to the Library. The estimated amount of
these payments for FY23 is $600,000.
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESOTHER CHARGES
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESCOLLECTIONS & OTHER CAPITAL OUTLAYS
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURESTRANSFERS, GRANTS, & DONATIONS
17Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
Telescope at Main50 Books Adult Reading Challenge Log Book
EXPENDITURES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
Interest Payments 455,475 430,950 403,700 (27,250)-6.3%
Principal Payments 575,000 600,000 630,000 30,000 5.0%
Administrative Fees 2,308 6,000 5,000 (1,000)-16.7%
Fund Balance – Unappropriated 0 2,750 0 (2,750)-100.0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,032,783 1,039,700 1,038,700 (1,000)-0.1%
REVENUES OVER
EXPENDITURES 1,408 0 0 0 —
REVENUES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
Interest 933 0 0 0 —
Transfers 1,033,258 1,039,700 1,035,200 (4,500)-0.4%
Donations 0 0 0 0 —
Fund Balance – Appropriated 0 0 3,500 3,500 —
TOTAL REVENUES 1,034,191 1,039,700 1,038,700 (1,000)-0.1%
Funds necessary to meet the lease payments on the Glendale and Marmalade branches are derived
from a portion of the Library’s certified tax rate designated for such. The designated revenues are
deposited in the General fund. The amount needed to meet the lease payments is then transferred to
the Debt Service fund. The Library is funding the lease payments one year ahead of schedule — the
FY23 transfer will cover the payments for FY24.
Alt Press Fest Zines
DEBT SERVICEFUND BUDGET
DEBT SERVICES OVERVIEW
18 Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
REVENUES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
Interest 31,244 40,000 35,000 (5,000)-12.5%
Sundry Revenues 38,481 0 0 0 —
Transfer from General Fund 3,725,200 1,813,500 2,271,500 458,000 25.3%
Fund Balance – Appropriated 0 0 1,595,000 1,595,000 —
TOTAL REVENUES 3,794,925 1,853,500 3,901,500 2,048,000 110.5%
Super Summer Challenge 2021
CAPITAL PROJECT
FUND BUDGET
Funding for capital projects accounted for in the Capital Projects fund comes from three
sources: a transfer from the General fund, interest earnings on the cash balance in the
fund, and the Capital Projects fund fund balance. The fund balance is a result of unspent
money accumulated from prior years. The transfer from the General fund to the Capital
Projects fund includes the annual $900,000 of designated facilities maintenance funds
and $500,000 of designated technology-related funds.
REVENUES OVERVIEW
19Salt Lake City Public Library Proposed Budget, Fiscal Year 2023
Friends of The City Library
EXPENDITURES FY21
Actual
FY22
Budget
FY23
Budget
FY23 to FY22
Difference
Percentage
Change
Cap Outlay – Buildings 2,411,642 838,000 2,350,000 1,512,000 180.4%
Cap Outlay – Improvements 41,087 107,500 69,500 (38,000)-35.3%
Cap Outlay – Equipment 86,412 20,000 162,000 142,000 710.0%
Cap Outlay – Furnishings 63,317 104,000 137,000 33,000 31.7%
Cap Outlay – Technology 500,060 720,950 1,183,000 462,050 64.1%
Cap Outlay – Foothill Branch Restricted 10,122 5,500 0 (5,500)-100.0%
Grants 0 0 0 0 —
Transfers 0 0 0 0 —
Fund Balance – Unappropriated 0 57,550 0 (57,550)-100.0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,112,640 1,853,500 3,901,500 2,048,000 110.5%
REVENUES OVER
EXPENDITURES 682,285 0 0 0 —
Budgeted capital projects are unique from year to year based on needs and requests.
The following is a list of some of the proposed capital projects for FY23:
EXPENDITURES OVERVIEW
Checking Out Books at the Sprague Branch
• Landmark signs at branch locations
• Bilingual signage in westside branches
• Children’s active spaces
• Sensory inclusive spaces
• Additional funding for the roof
replacement at Main
• Urban room east doors
• HVAC system upgrades
• Parking lot repairs and enhanced
lighting at the Anderson-Foothill Branch
• Exterior lighting at the Marmalade
Branch
• Computers and server equipment
• Security system enhancements
• Network infrastructure upgrades
• Self check replacements
• Firewall
• HRIS software
Anderson-Foothill&Chapman&Day-Riverside&Glendale&Main&Marmalade&Sprague&Sweet.
Salt Lake City
Public Library
F Y 2 3 B u d g e t P r e s e n t a t i o n
Retain funding for
COLA, Longevity, &
Compensation
Study
P R I O R I T Y #1
A F E W O F O U R
W O N D E R F U L
S T A F F M E M B E R S
Adding positions
for support staff
that will directly
impact our
community
P R I O R I T Y 2
T O P : S A F E T Y A S S O C I A T E
W I T H P A T R O N
B O T T O M : D E D I C A T E D
J A N I T O R I A L S T A F F
Establish a
temporary
Library
presence in
the Ballpark
Neighborhood
P R I O R I T Y 3
Ballpark Feels
Like...
M F P V I S I O N
C r e a t i v e : P r o t o t y p i n g n e w i d e a s
a n d s e r v i c e s
C o n n e c t e d : A g a t h e r i n g s p a c e
t o b r i n g t h e c o m m u n i t y t o g e t h e r
E m b e d d e d : A d e p e n d a b l e
a n c h o r o f t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d
Main
Library
Roof
Renovation
3 D R E N D E R I N G S S H O W I N G
P O S S I B I I L I T I E S
Preparing for a
new Executive
Director January 2022March 2022Your City Library: Building a
foundation o f equity, connection, and
limit less possibilities.
P R O P O S E D M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T
Leadership Team's Collaborative Workdays
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:May 3, 2022
RE: INFORMATIONAL: GLENDALE REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive an update on the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan, which the Department of Public
Lands is preparing as a vision for repurposing the former site of the Glendale Water Park, and a guide for the
implementation of that vision. The planning process so far has included site analysis, conceptual planning, and
extensive public engagement. Work has been led by an internal group consisting of the Department of Public
Lands, other relevant City Departments, and the external consultant team, Design Workshop, which was also
the consultant for Reimagine Nature, the Twenty-Year Public Lands Master Plan. The Glendale Regional Park
site was known previously as Raging Waters, Seven Peaks, and other names over the years.
At this stage, the mission of the 17-acre Glendale Regional Park is defined as follows:
“With characteristics that celebrate and preserve community, culture and diversity, Glendale
Regional Park will be a neighborhood and regional attraction that makes nature and
recreation within an arm’s reach while improving the natural resources for current and
future generations of Westside residents.”
The final version of this Master Plan, which is anticipated to be ready for potential Council adoption by fall of
2022, is intended to guide the City’s future capital improvements, site programming, operations, and
maintenance recommendations. Other preliminary recommendations appear in section F, below. The full cost
estimate for implementation of the Master Plan will be included in the final version.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 3, 2022
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the progress of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan and discuss any
concerns or suggestions with the Department of Public Lands.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Background. The Glendale Water Park site was closed in 2018, after the City declined to renew its contract
with the most recent vendor. The site has remained closed but was subject to recurrent vandalism and theft
of some remaining assets, in spite of fencing and private security contracted by the Department of Public
Lands.
B.Time Constraints. An aggressive planning, design, and construction schedule is required for this site
because it was originally funded by the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
(https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm). This program requires that active recreation be publicly
accessible on-site within three years of removing existing amenities. Since the clock for this three-year
period started in April 2021, the first phase of the project must be complete by April 2024.
The project team will continue work on the redevelopment of the park through the first phase of
implementation in Spring 2024. The final Master Plan will incorporate compliance with to the Federal Land
and Water Conservation Fund regulations, limits in use, and requirements for public access timing.
C.Funding and Implementation Plan. Demolition is already underway at the site. The Glendale Regional
Park Master Plan is being developed using $225,000 which was approved by the Council in a Fiscal Year
2021 (FY21) budget amendment.
1. Phase I improvements, including construction documents and actual construction, are designed
to satisfy the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund requirement (see above) for public
outdoor recreation amenities by April 2024. They are funded by $3.2 million dollars in parks-
specific impact fees, which were allocated in FY22. These amenities with be typical of a
neighborhood park and reflect the priorities expressed through engagement with the Glendale
community.
2. Future phases and prioritization of projects will be determined by the project team and guided
by robust public engagement. The final version of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan,
which is anticipated to be ready for potential Council adoption by fall of 2022, will guide the
City’s future capital improvements, site programming, operations, and maintenance
recommendations.
3. The full cost estimate for implementation of the Master Plan will be included in the final
version. It will likely require phasing over several years, unless a large upfront investment can
be secured. Construction may also need to be phased from a logistics perspective.
4. Funding allocations will influence the timeline for implementing the full plan for Glendale
Regional Park. The Department of Public Lands plans to request funding to develop its first
Five-Year Strategic Plan, as laid out in the Public Lands Master Plan, which is scheduled for a
Council vote on May 3. Phasing for the project may be included in that document if timing
permits.
5. Additional funds for subsequent phases will be requested through the proposed 2022 General
Obligation (GO) bond, which was transmitted to the Council on April 26, and will be discussed
in conjunction with the annual budget. The Council will decide by mid-August whether to list
Page | 3
the GO Bond on the November ballot for consideration by voters. The Department of Public
Lands is working to identify additional funding opportunities, as well.
D.Internal Leadership Group. Due to the site’s size, location along the Jordan River, and complexity, the
Department of Public Lands formed an internal City leadership group, which includes representatives of
Public Lands, Engineering, Public Services, Transportation and Sustainability. The City’s consultant on this
project, Design Workshop, also collaborates with this group.
E.Public Engagement. A primary City goal was that Glendale Regional Park reflect and celebrate the
Glendale community. The planning and design team prioritized neighborhood and stakeholder engagement
from the outset to ensure the community established the direction of the project.
1. Stakeholder engagement with the Glendale neighborhood community began in October 2021
with outreach to neighborhood leaders and students in nearby schools.
2. The Department formed a Community Advisory Committee with community leaders and
stakeholders who represent both residents and organizations that live, work, and play in
Glendale. to play a key role in the formation of the vision plan.
F.Preliminary recommendations. Based on work completed to-date, the Department has developed some
preliminary recommendations and directions for future work.
1. The families in the neighborhoods surrounding the site are, on average, larger and younger than
the City as a whole. This means park facilities should tailor amenities to those favored by
families and youth.
2. The “wealth index” (a combined measure of household income and financial assets) of
surrounding neighborhoods tends to be lower than the City average. This suggests that
recreational programs in the park should be offered at low- or no-cost rates to accommodate
this population. The programs should also provide outdoor opportunities for those that may not
have access to them otherwise.
3. Connections to nearby public lands should be improved to foster joint programming options
among these sites. They include Glendale Neighborhood Park, 1700 South River Park, the
Jordan River Trail, and Glendale Golf Course.
POLICY QUESTIONS
A. The Council may wish to discuss with the Department of Public Lands its planned Next Steps, as described
in the transmittal. The Department indicates that it intends to present a final version of the Master Plan to
the City’s Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. The Council could request
additional information on the choice of the Planning Commission for review of this
document, and/or suggest that the City’s Parks, Trails, Natural Lands and Urban Forestry
Advisory Board (PNUT) also be considered an option, either in addition or instead of the
Planning Commission.
B. The transmittal also states that a memorandum from Planning Division staff, as well as a Mayoral
recommendation memorandum will be included in the transmittal of the final version of the Glendale
Regional Park Master Plan. Given the compressed timeframe for action on the first phase of this
project, the Council may wish to ask for more information on these memos to help assess
their added value to the process.
Page | 4
C.The Council may wish to request additional information on the role of the Community
Advisory Committee once the final version of the Master Plan is adopted. Does the
Administration foresee a continuing role for this group of local community leaders and
organizations based in Glendale? Would the Council like to suggest some potential roles to
explore?
D. Completion of the Glendale Regional Park Master Plan, including the robust public engagement and
analyses that the Department of Public Lands wishes to bring to this site, will extend past the date scheduled
for the start of the Phase 1 construction timeline, which will allow the Department to meet the April 2024
deadline imposed by the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund. Because of the need to develop
construction documents, contract a construction firm, and prepare the site and the public for construction,
Phase 1 elements must be determined by Spring-Summer 2022. The Department suggests that the project
team may have to determine a Phase 1 implementation plan based on amenities and Master Plan elements
as quickly as they can be determined by the public through the ongoing engagement process and analysis by
the project team. Still, due to the scale and visibility of this project, the Department of Public Lands requests
that the City Council review and approve Phase 1 amenities prior to the development of construction
documents. Does the Council have any objections to this non-traditional schedule?
E.The Council may wish to ask the Department how the new Glendale Regional Park will
complement the existing Glendale Neighborhood Park.
City Council Presentation
May 3, 2022
BACKGROUND
This site has been closed to the public since 2018. With
demolition underway, Public Lands has initiated a planning
and public engagement process to create a master plan for
the site.
PURPOSE
Create a master plan for the 17-acre site to guide capital
improvements, programming, operations and maintenance.
The future of the site will reflect the desires of the
neighborhood and incorporate amenities to create a regional
attraction.
FUNDING
•Master Plan: $225,000
•Current implementation funding: $3.2 million
SCOPE OF WORK
•TASK 1: Project Startup [COMPLETE]
•TASK 2: Due Diligence-precedent plan review and existing conditions
analysis [COMPLETE]
•TASK 3a: Programming and O&M Research [COMPLETE]
•TASK 3b: Market Understanding [COMPLETE]
•TASK 4: Site Plan Alternatives [COMPLETE]
•TASK 5: Public Engagement [IN PROCESS]
•TASK 6: Final Preferred Alternative [ANTICIPATED]
•TASK 7: Final Master Plan Report [ANTICIPATED]
Precedent Plans and Existing Conditions
Reimagine Nature:
•Put Environment First
•Reimagine Neighborhood Parks
•Coming Soon to a Park Near You
•Revive our River
•Sustaining our Stories
Salt Lake County Master Plan:
•Develop a new class one regional park in Salt Lake City
west of I-15, to include sports fields, trails, a water
playground/ swimming pool, passive recreation etc.
•Salt Lake County operates all of Salt Lake City’s aquatics
and ice facilities as well as all the city’s recreation sports
programs
Regional Context
Programming and O & M Research
Agora Partners:
•Determine Future Maintenance and staffing
•Identify Programming Partners
•Regional Park Precedent projects
•SWOT analysis
Top Programming Elements
•River-related/Environmental Programming
•Art Groups
•Food Truck
•Pool
DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Primary Market Area
Secondary Market Area
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WINDOW 1
Neighborhood and Community Stakeholder Engagement
•Glendale neighborhood community events
•3 in-person events (110 participants)
•Youth Engagement
•Glendale Middle School and Mountain View Elementary design
charrettes (128 student participants)
•Community Advisory Committee Meetings #1 and #2 (14 CAC Members)
Development of concept alternatives
MISSION STATEMENT: Glendale Regional park will be an iconic neighborhood park
that celebrates and preserves community, culture and diversity. It will also be a regional
destination connecting the Jordan River and Salt Lake City’s park network. Making nature
and recreation within an arm’s reach, the park will improve the natural resources and
quality of lives for current and future generations of Westside residents.
PROJECT GOALS:
•Community-Led
•Access to Nature
•Community Services and Programming
•Environmental Quality
•Park Activation and Safety
•Environmental Justice
•Regional Connection
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WINDOW 2
Broader Public Engagement:
•“Plan Your Park” in person Open House at the Community Learning
Center
•~ 100 attendees
•Public on-line Survey
•Community Advisory Committee Meeting #3
Final Concept Vision
Future Engagement:
•Community Advisory Committee Meeting #4
•Share final concept vision with the public
PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS
•Play features
•Community Gathering Space
•Parking
•Associated Amenities: Walking path, plantings, lighting and river access
SCHEDULE
•MAY 2022: Issue RFQ for design
•JUNE 2022: Consultant selected
•JULY 2022 –FEBRUARY 2023: Design
•MARCH 2023–APRIL 2023: Bidding
•MAY 2023 –APRIL 2024: Construction
•APRIL 2024 –Park opening!
•Glendale Park Master Plan will be finalized through community feedback
•Phase 1 site improvements will be consistent with community priorities
and logistically feasible to be constructed by April 2024
•Final master plan will go through formal adoption process with review by
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
•Future Glendale Park improvements will be delivered in phases as funding
becomes available
NEXT STEPS
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Kristin Riker, Director, Public Lands
SUBJECT: Glendale Regional Park Master Plan Update
STAFF CONTACTS: 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
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: Review documentation and briefing provided
Confirm or modify scope of work through adoption of a resolution
Approve public engagement metrics
BUDGET IMPACT: Vision Plan: $225,000
Current funding allocated: $3,200,000 impact fees
Future funding impact: TBD
BACKGROUND
Since 2018, the Glendale Water Park site has been closed to the public. Demolition is underway and the
City has hired a consultant to repurpose the site into a regional park. Redevelopment of the site for public
outdoor recreation must be complete by April 2024 to meet the requirements of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.html).
Public Lands Department has initiated a planning and public engagement process to create The Glendale
Regional Park Vision Plan. The City’s consultant, Design Workshop, is collaborating with an internal
leadership group consisting of representatives from Public Lands, Engineering, Public Services,
Transportation and Sustainability. The consultant team has conducted site analysis, stakeholder
engagement and conceptual planning. Public involvement is ongoing and will inform the final Vision
Plan.
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 30, 2022 13:55 MDT)03/30/2022
03/30/2022
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this project is to create a Master Plan for the development of the former 17-acre Glendale
Water Park, to guide capital improvements, site programming, operations, and maintenance
recommendations. Recommendations will include proposed connections to nearby public lands, including
Glendale Neighborhood Park, 1700 South River Park, the Jordan River Trail, and Glendale Golf Course,
along with considerations for synergistic programming for these sites. The Vision Plan will adhere to the
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund regulations, limits in use, and requirements for public access
timing.
The consultant and the project team members from the Department of Public Lands and the Engineering
Division in the Department of Public Services will complete the following tasks to satisfy the scope of
work:
Task 1: Project Startup [COMPLETE]
Task 2: Due Diligence including precedent plan review and existing conditions analysis
[COMPLETE]
• Review precedent plans and civic engagement reports
• Inventory of desired future program elements
• Create a regional connections map
• Site Analysis
Task 3a: Programming and O&M Research: Research initiated early in the planning process and
concluded in concurrence with Task 6 Final Preferred Alternative [COMPLETE]
• Identify future maintenance needs for staffing and operations
• Identify potential programming partners and requirements
• Identify regional park precedent projects
• Operations and maintenance SWOT analysis
Task 3b: Market Understanding [COMPLETE]
• Primary (neighborhood) and secondary (citywide/regional) market analysis
• Demographic and existing conditions analysis of primary and secondary markets
• Analysis of recreational spending trends of primary and secondary markets
• Conceptual review of potential revenue generating elements
Task 4: Site Plan Alternatives [COMPLETE]
• Plan view schematic drawings to illustrate programming and usage
• Character Boards with inspirational images to visualize site amenities, landscape
character and materials
Task 5: Public Engagement
• Engagement Window 1: Project Launch – Glendale Community and Stakeholders
[COMPLETE]
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
• Engagement Window 2: Alternative Development Input – Glendale Community and
Stakeholders [COMPLETE]
• Engagement Window 3: Alternative Evaluation – Public Engagement [IN PROCESS]
• Engagement Window 4: Preferred Alternative/ Vision Sharing – Public Sharing
Task 6: Final Preferred Alternative
• Site development Phasing
• Final site master plan
• Implementation Strategy and phasing plan for the Master Plan
• Sustainable Sites or Envision analysis for the park to identify sustainability potential for
the city
Task 7: Final Master Plan Report
Final Report Table of Contents:
• Site Analysis and Existing Conditions Report
• Needs Assessment
• Project mission, goals, and principles
• Selected Performance metrics
• Community Engagement Summary
• Recommendations/Options for Programming and O&M
• Final Illustrative Master Plan, associated graphics, and narrative
• Implementation Recommendations
PROJECT BUDGET
The project site is currently undergoing demolition of the old, failed amenities and features with a funding
source that has been allocated for $855,000. Parallel to the demolition, the Vision Plan is being developed
by the project team with $225,000 in funding, awarded through a FY21 budget amendment. $3.2 million
dollars in impact fees was awarded by City Council in FY 22. Impact fees will be used to develop
construction documents and construct Phase I improvements, to be complete by spring 2024. Public
Lands is working to identify additional funding opportunities.
TIMELINE
The project team kicked off this project in Fall of 2021 and will continue work on the redevelopment of
the park through the first phase of implementation in Spring 2024. The site was funded by the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund which has implications for the site. This funding source requires that
that active recreation be publicly accessible on site within three years of removal of existing amenities.
The clock for this three-year time period started in April of 2021 so the first phase of the project must be
complete by April 2024. This requires an aggressive schedule for planning, design, and construction.
Approval of Phase I is needed by April 2022 for technical design to start and construction to be completed
to meet this requirement.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
With this timeline expectation, at least implementation of one recreational amenity must be complete and
open to the public by April 2024. With that in mind, the following schedule was developed.
Implementation of future phases will continue as funding becomes available.
a. Fall 2021: Project launch
b. Winter 2021: Conceptual design alternatives development
c. Early Winter 2022: Alternative evaluation and engagement
d. Spring 2022: Concept plan sharing
e. April 2022: Determine Phase I improvements
f. Summer /Fall: Continue with Master Plan Adoption process
g. Spring 2022-2023: Construction Documents for Phase I Improvements
h. 2023: Construction
i. Spring 2024: Glendale Regional Park Phase I opening
EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES
• Reimagine Nature, Public Lands Master Plan, plan adoption in progress:
https://www.reimaginenatureslc.com/
• Public Lands Comprehensive Needs Assessment:
https://www.slcdocs.com/parks/SLCPLNeedsAssessment.pdf
• Raging Waters Site Community Visioning Report:
http://www.glendaleutah.org/uploads/1/2/4/5/124570449/raging_waters_community_event_repor
t_2021.pdf
• West Side Master Plan: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf
• Plan Salt Lake: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Projects/PlanSaltLake/final.pdf
• Salt Lake City 2021 Plan: https://www.slc.gov/2021plan/
• Salt Lake City public survey: https://www.slc.gov/can/cares/waterpark/
• One Glendale Plan: http://www.glendaleutah.org/uploads/1/2/4/5/124570449/ogp_main_final.pdf
• Riparian Corridor Overlay District Ordinance:
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=672&chapter_id=49078#s92858
7
TREND/ DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The primary market area, the Glendale neighborhood depicted in Figure 1, is where 60 to 80 percent of all
park users are anticipated to be drawn from and includes users who will frequent the Park on a near
weekly basis. The secondary market area, illustrated in Figure 2, is where 20 to 40 percent of all park
users are anticipated to be drawn from and includes users who treat the Park as a destination, going there
for a specific purpose or activities. Salt Lake City at large was identified as the secondary market area and
was analyzed as a buffer zone to encompass a broader reach of the region and capture residents who may
visit the Park less frequently than those in the primary market area. The area north of 2100 South Freeway
within the primary market area lies within the Salt Lake City boundary. As a result, data extracted for the
secondary market area also includes data within the section of the primary market area north of 2100
South Freeway. The primary and secondary markets were compared to Salt Lake County to better
understand the relative demographic differences of the market area in the context of the region.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
Figure 1: Primary Market Area. Source: ESRI Business Analyst
Figure 2: Secondary Market Area. Source ESRI Business Analyst
Demographics: The Glendale neighborhood (primary Market area) has an average household size of 3.54
persons with larger family households as well as a higher number of family households than the City or
the County averages. The median age is 29 with this area significantly younger than the city at large with
residents 19 and under comprising 36.52% of the population and 19.78% of the population being between
the ages of 0 and 9. The Glendale neighborhood’s high concentration of families has several implications
the future of Glendale Regional Park, including ensuring that park programming, both physical and
special event, is appropriate for children of varying ages.
In addition, the future park should reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the primary market
community. While members of the community who identify as white make up 48.2% of the population in
the primary market area, the diversity within the primary market area is significantly greater than the
secondary market area. The next highest representation of race is from individuals who identify as being
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
from a race not included in the available survey options, representing 28.45% of the primary market area,
followed by individuals who identify as Pacific Islander at 6.34%. Members of the Latinx community
may identify as being from a multitude of races which may be reflected in the distribution of the survey
results. The Hispanic population makes up 53.44% of the primary market area population and 24.3% of
the second market area population.
Disposable Income: Median household income in this area is $50,508, lower than the City median of
$63,364 and the County median of $80,897, indicating less disposable income for the primary market
area. The Park must serve the primary market through low or no cost activities for both adults and
children. There is a need for the implementation of programming such as free fitness classes or facilities
that can supplement recreational demands of the community for little to no cost. If concessions are
implemented, then they should be priced appropriately.
Implications for programming: The data collected indicates that in terms of income and personal assets,
the primary market area holds the lowest level of wealth out of the three areas studied. Given this wealth
index of the primary market area, it is more likely that the majority of the population in this region have
less access recreational facilities involving higher costs that may be available to those communities and
members of a higher wealth index. For this reason, programs should be priced at a level suitable to this
primary market region. Low cost or free programs should be offered so that those with lower incomes
have access to desired recreational facilities and programs.
Conclusion: With a population of 29,525 in the primary market area and 204,380 in the secondary market
area, Glendale Regional Park services an urban community which requires outdoor space and recreational
opportunities for all residents. The population in the surrounding region is also growing at a rapid rate,
which furthers the need for additional park and recreation opportunities. The primary market household
family size is larger and younger than much of the surrounding area which provides an opportunity for the
facilities in the park to tailor to the types of activities that families and youth desire. Additionally, with the
wealth index of this market area being lower than surrounding areas, recreational programs in the park
should be offered free of charge or at low- or no-cost rates to accommodate the primary market’s
population, and to provide outdoor opportunities for those that may not have access to those opportunities
elsewhere.
The full Glendale Regional Park Demographic Summary is available upon request.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
1. Stakeholders
A primary goal of the Glendale Regional Park is to first and foremost reflect and
celebrate the Glendale community. With this goal in mind, the planning and design team
prioritized neighborhood and stakeholder engagement early in process to ensure the
community voice established the direction of the project.
Stakeholder engagement with the Glendale neighborhood community began in October
2021 with outreach to neighborhood leaders and design charrettes with Glendale Middle
School and Mountain View Elementary students. Public Lands has formed a Community
Advisory Committee comprised of community leaders and stakeholders to play a key role
in the formation of the vision plan.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
One of the ways the project team is engaging the community is through a Community
Advisory Committee, a group of local stakeholders representing both residents and
organizations that live, work, and play in Glendale. Members of the CAC were ultimately
selected from engagement lists generated by David Evans and Associates, the public
engagement consultant working on the project team, the stakeholder list utilized for the
development of the Re-Imagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan, and finally community
networks built by Public Lands staff. The project team desired a breadth of
representation, and final selection includes members from these groups:
• Adaptive Sports
• Business
• Community
• Environment
• Glendale Community
Council
• Higher Education
• Indigenous/Native
American
• K-12 Education
• Pacific Islander
• Recreation
• Refugee Community
• Resident
• Youth
• Parks, Natural Lands,
Urban Forestry and
Trails Advisory
Board
The selection of these specific groups was made based on preliminary community
research, as well as internal expertise on issues related to equity.
Engagement with the greater public began on March 16 with a public open house/
workshop, digital survey, and partner outreach. The public survey will be open for one
month. Results from the stakeholder and public engagement will inform the final plan
and phasing of project.
2. Public Engagement Calendar
Please see following page.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
Public Engagement Events Notes Time Period
Community and Neighborhood
Department Survey
3,500 Respondents-- Public Survey
through the department of Community
and Neighborhoods to gauge public
interest in the future of the park
https://www.slc.gov/can/cares/waterpark/
2020
SLC Waterpark Commemoration
Survey Report
3841 Respondents—Public Survey to
gauge interest in demolition and re-
development of the park.
https://www.slc.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/01/Water-Park-
Survey-Report-Nov-2020.pdf
2020
Glendale Community Council
Visioning Exercise
11 Participants and 3 Community
Council Members visioning a potential
future for the site
2021
Initiation of Formal Planning
Process by Public Lands department
Public Lands takes over public
engagement and planning for the
Glendale Regional Park Vision Plan and
Design Workshop begins as project
consultant.
Spring/ Summer 2021
External Stakeholder Engagement:
Community Events
Parents and students were asked at three
community events which elements from
past surveys should be included in the
park. Events included: Morning Coffee
with 20 respondents; Glendale ScareFair
with around 50 respondents; Hartland 4
Youth and Family Event with 40
respondents
Fall 2021
External Stakeholder Engagement:
Glendale Middle School and
Mountain View Elementary
Design exercises were led with 88
middle school and 40 fifth grade students
to gather feedback and input on the
future design of the site. The process
included on-site meetings with 88
Glendale Middle School, “Place-It”
activity with University Neighborhood
Partners, and collage creation.
https://multicultural.utah.gov/glendale-
youth-as-placemakers/
Fall 2021
Community Advisory Committee
Meeting 1
A CAC was created to ensure
neighborhood representation in the
vision plan. These stakeholder meetings
ensured engagement with westside
communities. The first meeting oriented
participants to the project and asked for
general impressions on the project.
January 2022
Community Advisory Committee
Engagement Meeting 2
This meeting presented two conceptual
ideas for the park and sought specific
February 2022
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
PLAN FRAMEWORK
The framing document outlines the mission statement, goal statements for both the community and
environmental elements of the project, as well as metrics to evaluate the success of the project.
1. Mission
With characteristics that celebrate and preserve community, culture and diversity,
Glendale Regional Park will be a neighborhood and regional attraction that makes nature
and recreation within an arm’s reach while improving the natural resources for current
and future generations of Westside.
2. Project Goal Statements
The following are community and environmental related goals developed for the Vision
Plan based on the above mission statement and public engagement. Metrics for
measuring success of these goals are included in the draft plan.
i. Community-led / Neighborhood Services:
1. Community-led: Glendale Regional Park is a community-led park which creates
a sense of belonging and ownership, providing social connections, features and
services that interest the Westside community. The Park reflects the
neighborhood bonds formed by Glendale’s culture, history, buildings and public
spaces.
2. Community Services & Programming: Glendale Regional Park is the
neighborhood’s green community center, providing tangible benefits and
feedback on the ideas and amenities for
the future site.
“Plan Your Park” in-person Open
House and engagement event at
Community Learning Center
Project team worked with Glendale
Community Council to host an event
with over 100 attendees to share with the
community the concepts that have been
generated so far and to launch a public
survey.
March 16, 2022
Online Survey Public survey to gather broader feedback
on amenities and concept vision
alternatives.
March 16, 2022- April 16, 2022
FUTURE ENGAGEMENT:
Community Advisory Committee
Engagement Meeting 3
This meeting will share the results of the
broader survey with the Committee and
solicit feedback and impressions on the
data.
April 12, 2022
FUTURE ENGAGEMENT:
Community Advisory Committee
Engagement Meeting 4
Final concept vision sharing and
feedback.
May 2022
FUTURE ENGAGEMENT: Concept
Confirmation/ Master/Vision Plan
Confirm final concept vision and share
with the public.
May 2022
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
services such as access to nature, outdoor recreation, healthy lifestyle options,
and affordable classes, events and entertainment.
3. Community Activation & Park Safety: The Park is a dynamic destination which
is activated by the community, creating a safe and welcoming environment.
Park programming is an organic expression of Westside culture, emerging from
community organizations and engaging local businesses.
4. Regional Attraction: Glendale Regional Park is a community node, a focal point
along the Jordan River Parkway and surrounding regional park system that
provides connectivity to nearby public lands, trails and river recreation. It hosts
regional attractions that offer unique experiences in the city, inviting the larger
community to experience the culture of the Glendale neighborhood.
ii. Environment:
1. Access to nature: Glendale Regional Park is an ecological park that celebrates
the Jordan River Parkway as one of the city’s greatest environmental treasures.
The Park creates spaces for meaningful interactions with nature in the
neighborhood’s backyard, addressing “nature deficit disorder” by providing
opportunities for free recreational activities that are nearby and accessible to all.
2. Environmental quality: With its proximity to the river, the park builds upon
existing natural assets, creating an ecological park of vegetation, increased
urban forest and green infrastructure that mitigates local pollutants and
improves water quality in the Jordan River. The Park is an oasis in an arid urban
environment, absorbing carbon, mitigating Salt Lake City’s challenging air
pollution, and reducing the effects of urban heat.
3. Environmental Justice: The Park will enhance local environmental quality,
simultaneously increasing environmental justice, health, and quality of life for
local residents.
The full framing document is available upon request.
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Implementation of the capital improvements in the Vision Plan will likely be phased due to funding
availability. With the current $3.2 allocated for site improvements, the project team is developing the park
vision and determine a fist phase of construction so that the City can meet its obligation to deliver a
public outdoor recreation amenity by April 2024 to satisfy the requirements of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund requirements. Phase I will be consistent with amenities typical of a neighborhood park
and prioritized by the Glendale community.
Phases and prioritization will be determined through by the project team and influenced by robust public
engagement. The full build of the Glendale Water Park has not been determined but will likely require
construction phasing over several years to achieve vision plan build out.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
The project team is requesting to brief City Council at the work session on April 12, 2022. City Council
Action that will be required will be:
a. Review documentation and briefing provided
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
b. Confirm or modify scope of work through adoption of a resolution
c. Approve public engagement metrics
Next Steps:
a. Project team will transmit final Master Plan documentation and will present to Planning
Commission for public hearing and recommendation, and complete administrative
process to receive Mayoral recommendation. Council will receive a recommendation
from Planning Commission related to adoption of the Master Plan, as well as a
memorandum from Planning Staff and a Mayoral recommendation memorandum.
b. Council will conduct adoption process, which will include a public hearing and additional
public outreach
c. Project Team will identify implementation projects and phases and deliver project
priority list to Council with an implementation strategy, which will be approved by
Council.
We would welcome any collaboration on those efforts as a City.
Attachment A: Master Planning progress exhibits
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
Attachment A: Master Planning Progress Exhibits
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
Item K4
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
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 3, 2022
RE:Resolution: Bond Parameters Resolution
MOTION 1
I move the Council adopt the series 2022 bond parameters resolution, and recognize the date is set for a public
hearing on the bond issuance for May 17, 2022.
MOTION 2
I move the Council not adopt the resolution.
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:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 3, 2022
RE:Salt Lake City Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2022
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Department of Public Utilities intends to issue another round of bonds to pay for large sewer and water fund
capital projects. The Wastewater Reclamation Facility project is driven by federal and state wastewater
treatment requirements, and is one of the largest capital infrastructure projects the Department has managed.
As discussed during the annual budget briefing, due to the size and scope of the project, revenue increases are
planned in both the Water and Sewer Utilities to afford the debt service payments on the bonds.
The Council already set a date for the bond hearing, to be held May 17th. The Council’s potential action during
the formal meeting May 3rd, 2022 would consider adoption of the bond parameters resolution, which begins a
public protest period where residents can raise concerns.
KEY POINTS
Bonds are proposed to be issued, generating revenue for the water and wastewater funds in Public
Utilities. The total amount is proposed at $349,222,643. The bonds are secured entirely and only by
revenue to the utility as defined in the agreement.
$298,040,000 of the issuance would fund the current and ongoing Wastewater Reclamation Facility
construction project.
$51,182,643 of the issuance would fund capital projects in the water utility.
Over the life of this bond, $583,825,122 is the estimated present-value cost of the debt, until 2052 for
this bond series (thirty year amortization).
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 3, 2022
Public Hearing: May 17, 2022
Potential Action: May 17, 2022
Page | 2
Assumptions in the bond financial models include cumulative utility revenue growth of between ten and
thirty percent each year through 2029. The revenue growth at this pace is created through rate increases
over the same period of years and potentially well beyond.
Generational capital projects initiated in recent years create the need for the cash on hand resulting
from the bonds. Full completion of projects using bond money is a requirement of the bond agreements.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.The Department conducted a “Financial Capability Assessment” to evaluate the affordability of water
and sewer rates, known as a community capacity-to-pay study. (See “Additional Information” section
below.) The study indicates that based on median income, there is community capacity among utility
customers with regard to the current and ongoing cost of the bonded debt. The study also discusses the
demographic reality of potentially more severe impacts resulting from these cost increases for residents
of the city based on income and location, among other factors, which will be studied in the next phase.
See attachment 2.
Would Council Members like to coordinate with the Department on demographic or other factors to be
emphasized and analyzed in later phases of its community capacity to pay study?
2.Council Members regularly emphasize the value and importance of relief resources for customers who
cannot afford the new increases, and those beyond. Would the Council like to discuss options for
increasing support and relief resources?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Page | 3
From the community study discussed above, this map represents locations of populations in SLC corresponding
to an Environmental Protection Agency standard that measures income and other demographic factors. The
yellow, orange and red colors are areas with populations estimated to be the most vulnerable to negative impacts
from rate increases, as well as vulnerable in terms of environmental justice generally.
The bar graph below shows the escalating debt service of the utilities collectively as bond issuances continue and
annual payment obligations come online. Debt service is estimated to outpace revenue growth for a time,
resulting in acceptable but correspondingly lower coverage ratios for the total debt.
The table below shows indicators the bond consultants use in their financial models. The recent valuation of
construction activity in the city is strong.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transmittal
2. Financial Capability Assessment
3. Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Bonding Analysis, April 6, 2022
Page | 1
SLCDPU Financial
Capability Assessment
Study
Background
The Salt Lake City Department of Public
Utilities (SLCDPU) is committed to providing
affordable services to its customers.
Accordingly, SLCDPU conducted the first part
of a multi-phase Financial Capability
Assessment study to better understand how
combined water and sewer rates and charges
affect its customers, address hardships caused
by income limitations, and identify potential
environmental justice and social equity issues.
The Phase I study incorporated new metrics
and approaches identified in recent water-
wastewater industry association studies and
new pre-publication guidance on financial
capability released by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
SLCDPU intends to use the study findings to
support a variety of activities, including project
scheduling, rate setting and customer
assistance programs, customer outreach and
engagement, and environmental justice and
social value initiatives.
Key Findings
For the most part, for the service area as a
whole, impacts to residential customers fall
within the low impact category, with a few
metrics falling in the mid-range.
The residential indicator (Figure 1) represents
the burden that SLCDPU’s wastewater charges
impose on households with median incomes.
Charges fall within the low impact range.
The lowest quintile residential indicator
(Figure 2) represents the burden that
wastewater charges impose on households
with incomes that fall within the lowest 20%.
Charges fall within the mid-range of impacts for
this group.
Financial capability metrics, for measures
such as bond rating, unemployment rate,
and tax collection rates, indicate a strong
overall financial position for SLCDPU’s
community and service area.
The cumulative burden of full SLCDPU
program and service costs on customers
will increase over time, likely affecting
service affordability.
There were difficulties in collecting data for
special categories of customers (e.g.,
re-entry citizens and multigeneration
households) who may experience
environmental justice-related challenges.
The utility should consider environmental
factors, including use impairment, public
health, and discharges to sensitive areas,
when prioritizing the timing for capital
investments.
Figure 1. Residential Indicator Results for SLCDPU
Figure 2. Lowest Quintile Residential Indicator
Results for SLCDPU
Page | 2
There are sub-geographies within the
SLCDPU service area with certain
demographic or physical characteristics (or
both), where residents may experience
greater financial, environmental justice,
and social equity hardship. Neighborhoods
with both demographic and physical
characteristics that create possible
enhanced environmental justice burdens
could experience cumulative impacts and
effects.
The demographic index (Figure 3) is the
average of two demographic indicators:
percentage low-income and percentage
minority. The map was developed in
EJSCREEN, a tool developed by EPA to
identify areas where environmental justice
considerations may warrant special attention.
Census block groups in the SLCDPU service
area are shown in relation to State of Utah
percentiles; EPA suggests that census block
groups greater than the 80th percentile may
warrant further consideration There are a
number of neighborhoods in the service area
above 80th percentile, including Rose Park,
Fairpark and Poplar Grove; a number of these
neighborhoods have elevated levels of both
demographic and physical characteristics that
create the possibility of enhanced
environmental justice burdens, potentially
leading to cumulative impacts and effects.
Next Steps and Recommendations
The study findings may be useful for policy and
program development related to affordability
and environmental justice, particularly in the
context of other City programs and tax and fee
burdens that affect service area residents.
SLCDPU intends to follow up the research and
analysis developed for the Phase I study with
additional work. Planned Phase II efforts
include the following:
Follow up with more detailed studies for
metrics covered in Phase I, including
collecting more data on special categories
of customers and conducting further
financial impact analysis for the
neighborhoods that were identified as
potential areas of environmental justice
concern.
Develop other metrics identified as relevant
for SLCDPU that were excluded during
Phase I because of schedule and resource
constraints.
Incorporate additional information, as
appropriate, based on further guidance
published by EPA in February 2022.
Figure 3. Demographic Index for SLCDPU Service Area
Salt Lake City Public Finance Office
15 West South Temple, Suite 1090, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
385-799-7231
Salt Lake City, Utah
PUBLIC UTILITIES REVENUE BONDS
BONDING ANALYSIS
April 6, 2022
WRF PROJECT
ESTIMATED MONTHLY CONSTRUCTION DRAWS
2
Prepared by:
WRF Estimated Financing Targets (Construction Draws)
Prepared by:
3
SUMMARY OF FINACING
CAPITAL PROJECT BONDING
Series
4
Prepared by:
Anticipated Plan of Finance (System)
5
Existing and Estimated Debt Service
•Assumes two additional long-term financings for WRF project and five water project financings beginning FY2022
Prepared by:
Estimated Bonding
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
2019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040204120422043204420452046204720482049205020512052205320542055205620572058MillionsDebt ServiceMillionsFiscal Year Ending June 30,
Existing D/S Series 2020 WIFIA Loan Series 2022 Series 2023
Series 2024 Series 2025 Series 2027 Revenue
Fiscal Ye ar
FINAL
Series 2020
Est. Draws
WIFIA Loan Series 2022 Series 2023 Series 2024 Series 2025 Series 2027 TOTAL NEEDS WRF Project Other Projects Fiscal Ye ar
Previous
Funding 40,031,432 40,031,432 40,031,432 -
2021 197,500,000 - - - - - - 197,554,482 106,054,482 91,500,000 2021
2022 - 13,000,000 279,864,195 - - - - 360,864,195 292,864,195 68,000,000 2022
2023 - 125,965,000 68,000,000 - - - - 125,965,000 125,965,000 - 2023
2024 - 158,517,000 - 146,324,783 - - - 304,841,783 186,841,783 118,000,000 2024
2025 - 48,456,000 - - 86,000,000 - - 134,456,000 48,456,000 86,000,000 2025
2026 - 2,697,000 - - - 77,250,000 - 79,197,000 2,697,000 76,500,000 2026
2027 - - - - - - 23,000,000 23,000,000 - 23,000,000 2027
2028 - - - - - - - - - - 2028
Tota l 197,500,000 348,635,000 347,864,195 146,324,783 86,000,000 77,250,000 23,000,000 1,265,909,892 802,909,892 463,000,000 Tota l
Capit al Pro je ct s
Es t im at e d Bo nding (Fis cal Ye ar)
(Includes Estimated WIFIA FY Draws)
Note: Assumes current market rates as of 4/6.2022.
Anticipated Coverage
6
Prepared by:
Exis t ing And Pro po s e d Re ve nue Bo nds , including WIFIA Lo ans
FY 2021 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027
Fisca l Yr. Ending Exi st i n g D/ S
FINAL
Se rie s 2020
Est . Draw s
WIFIA Loan Se rie s 2022 Se rie s 2023 Se rie s 2024 Se rie s 2025 Se rie s 2027
To t al D/ S
Re quire me nt
Re ve nue
Growth
Net Revenues
Ava ila b le (1 )
Debt Service
Cove ra ge
6/30/2019 8,327,917 - - - - - - - 8,327,917 52,750,353 6.33
6/30/2020 8,333,697 - - - - - - - 8,333,697 17.08%61,761,386 7.41
6/30/2021 10,941,426 3,417,814 - - - - - - 14,359,239 7.82%66,592,715 4.64
6/30/2022 10,952,016 7,280,550 - - - - - - 18,232,566 -30.26%46,439,033 2.55
6/30/2023 10,958,049 7,280,550 - 8,779,008 - - - - 27,017,607 42.37%66,113,045 2.45
6/30/2024 10,953,157 7,280,550 - 14,907,750 5,487,179 - - - 38,628,636 27.88%84,548,201 2.19
6/30/2025 7,962,308 10,455,550 - 20,017,750 5,487,179 3,225,000 - - 47,147,787 26.98%107,363,445 2.28
6/30/2026 7,962,644 10,456,800 - 20,012,250 5,487,179 3,225,000 - - 47,143,873 20.29%129,143,567 2.74
6/30/2027 7,953,993 10,455,050 - 20,014,250 8,711,216 3,225,000 2,896,875 - 53,256,383 13.94%147,145,162 2.76
6/30/2028 6,761,272 10,455,050 - 20,012,750 8,711,216 5,119,875 2,896,875 - 53,957,037 10.79%163,026,608 3.02
6/30/2029 6,767,008 10,456,300 15,200,409 20,017,250 8,711,216 5,119,875 2,896,875 862,500 70,031,431 10.07%179,436,926 2.56
6/30/2030 6,759,235 10,453,300 15,200,409 20,011,750 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 862,500 71,717,241 -0.21%179,056,902 2.50
6/30/2031 6,762,716 10,455,800 15,200,409 20,011,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 862,500 71,722,472 1.74%182,177,642 2.54
6/30/2032 5,689,250 10,453,050 15,200,409 20,014,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 71,156,025 1.75%185,370,646 2.61
6/30/2033 5,692,000 10,454,800 15,200,409 20,014,750 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 71,161,275 1.77%188,646,573 2.65
6/30/2034 5,694,000 10,455,300 15,200,409 20,012,500 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 71,161,525 1.78%192,000,248 2.70
6/30/2035 5,689,750 10,454,050 15,200,409 20,011,500 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 71,155,025 1.79%195,432,660 2.75
6/30/2036 5,689,000 10,455,550 15,200,409 20,010,750 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 71,155,025 1.80%198,945,739 2.80
6/30/2037 5,691,000 10,454,050 15,200,409 20,009,250 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 71,154,025 1.81%202,541,629 2.85
6/30/2038 10,454,050 15,200,409 20,011,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,464,775 1.82%206,222,280 3.15
6/30/2039 10,454,650 15,200,409 20,014,750 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,469,125 1.86%210,059,886 3.21
6/30/2040 10,455,650 15,200,409 20,014,250 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,469,625 1.87%213,987,293 3.27
6/30/2041 10,451,650 15,200,409 20,008,500 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,459,875 1.88%218,004,747 3.33
6/30/2042 10,455,150 15,200,409 20,011,500 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,466,375 1.89%222,115,598 3.39
6/30/2043 10,456,650 15,200,409 20,011,500 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,467,875 1.89%226,320,927 3.46
6/30/2044 10,454,650 15,200,409 20,012,250 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,466,625 1.90%230,623,120 3.52
6/30/2045 10,455,850 15,200,409 20,012,250 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,467,825 1.91%235,025,584 3.59
6/30/2046 10,454,650 15,200,409 20,015,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,469,375 1.92%239,528,728 3.66
6/30/2047 10,455,650 15,200,409 20,013,750 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,469,125 1.92%244,135,017 3.73
6/30/2048 10,453,250 15,200,409 20,012,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,464,975 1.93%248,846,997 3.80
6/30/2049 10,451,750 15,200,409 20,008,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,459,475 1.94%253,667,298 3.88
6/30/2050 10,452,750 15,200,409 20,015,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 65,467,475 1.94%258,597,573 3.95
6/30/2051 15,200,409 20,010,500 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 55,010,225 1.83%263,327,839 4.79
6/30/2052 15,200,409 20,013,000 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 55,012,725 1.89%268,293,997 4.88
6/30/2053 15,200,409 8,711,216 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 34,999,725 1.89%273,369,487 7.81
6/30/2054 15,200,409 5,119,875 4,598,957 1,369,269 26,288,509 1.99%278,805,131 10.61
6/30/2055 15,200,409 4,598,957 1,369,269 21,168,635 2.03%284,467,447 13.44
6/30/2056 15,200,409 4,598,957 1,369,269 21,168,635 2.06%290,313,689 13.71
6/30/2057 15,200,409 1,369,269 16,569,677 2.06%296,283,498 17.88
6/30/2058 15,200,409 1,369,269 16,569,677 2.08%302,436,271 18.25
Tot a l 145,540,434 297,080,464 456,012,260 584,039,758 251,664,360 147,911,615 132,862,468 39,557,758 2,054,669,116
Co ve rage Analysis
Note: Assumes current market rates as of 4/6.2022.
Proposed Series 2022
7
•Assume remaining WRF project will be financed in Fall 2023 (FY2024)
Prepared by:
Series 2022-Estimated Debt Service
•Assumes $279,864,195 WRF project financing and $68MM water project
•WRF Draws 8/31/2022 thru 10/31/2023
•Closing in Fiscal Year 2022
•30-year level amortization (principal beginning in FY2025)
WRF Project Water Project Co mbine d
Draws 8/ 31/ 2022
thru 10/31/2023
Delivery Date:6/29/2022 6/29/2023 -
Final Maturity:2/1/2052 2/1/2053 -
Sources
Par Amount:$239,780,000 $58,260,000 $298,040,000
Premium:$41,177,648 $10,004,995 $51,182,643
Total $280,957,648 $68,264,995 $349,222,643
Uses
De posit to Const. Fund:$279,864,195 $68,000,000 $347,864,195
Costs of Issuance $1,091,557 $260,926 $1,352,482
Continge ncy $1,896 $4,070 $5,966
Total $280,957,648 $68,264,995 $349,222,643
Bond Statistics
True Interest Cost (TIC):3.702%3.702%3.702%
Avg Annual D/S (beg. 2025):$16,094,830 $3,910,438 $20,005,268
Total Net Debt Service:$469,704,439 $114,120,683 $583,825,122
SERIES 2022 - ESTIMATED FINANCING RESULTS
Note: Assumes current market rates as of 4/6.2022.
4870-5556-1238, v. 4
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 3, 2022
The City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), met in
regular session at the regular meeting place of the Council in Salt Lake City, Utah, at 7:00
p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, with the following members present:
Present:
Dan Dugan Chair
Darin Mano Vice Chair
Amy Fowler Council Member
Victoria Petro-Eschler Council Member
Alejandro Puy Council Member
Ana Valdemoros Council Member
Chris Wharton Council Member
There were also present:
Erin Mendenhall Mayor
Katherine N. Lewis City Attorney
Absent:
After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent
to this Resolution had been discussed, a Certificate of Compliance with Open Meeting Law
with respect to this May 3, 2022 meeting was presented to the Council, a copy of which is
attached hereto.
The following resolution was then introduced in written form, was fully discussed,
and pursuant to motion duly made by Council Member ______________ and seconded by
Council Member _________________, was adopted by the following vote:
AYE:
NAY:
The resolution is as follows:
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH (THE “ISSUER”), AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF NOT MORE THAN $360,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2022;
FIXING THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
THE BONDS, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS OVER WHICH
THE BONDS MAY MATURE, THE MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE
WHICH THE BONDS MAY BEAR, AND THE MAXIMUM DISCOUNT
FROM PAR AT WHICH THE BONDS MAY BE SOLD; PROVIDING
FOR THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
BONDS TO BE ISSUED; PROVIDING FOR THE RUNNING OF A
CONTEST PERIOD; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE
ISSUER OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, A BOND PURCHASE
CONTRACT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; APPROVING AN OFFICIAL
STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; AND
RELATED MATTERS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Bond Act”), Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “Issuer”), is authorized to issue public utilities revenue bonds (to be issued
in one or more series and with such other series or title designation(s) as may be determined
by the Issuer) payable from the net revenues of its existing water, sewer, storm drain and
street lighting systems (collectively, the “System”) for the municipal purposes set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City Council of the Issuer
(the “Council”) desires to authorize the issuance of the Issuer’s Public Utilities Revenue
Bonds, Series 2022 (the “Series 2022 Bonds”) to (a) finance water and sewer
improvements to the System (the “Project”) and (b) pay costs of issuance of the Series
2022 Bonds, pursuant to this Resolution, the Bond Act, a Master Trust Indenture, dated as
of January 1, 2004, as heretofore amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”),
between the Issuer and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (formerly known
as U.S. Bank National Association), as trustee (the “Trustee”), and a Supplemental
Indenture to be entered into between the Issuer and the Trustee (the “Supplemental
Indenture” and collectively with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”), in substantially
the form presented to the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted and which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Act provides that prior to issuing bonds, an issuing entity
must (a) give notice of its intent to issue such bonds and (b) hold a public hearing to receive
input from the public with respect to (i) the issuance of the bonds and (ii) the potential
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 3
economic impact that the improvement, facility or property for which the bonds pay all or
part of the cost will have on the private sector; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to call a public hearing for this purpose and to
publish a notice of such hearing with respect to the Series 2022 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to approve and authorize the execution of a Bond
Purchase Contract (the “Bond Purchase Contract”), to be entered into between the Issuer
and the underwriter(s) or the purchaser(s) selected by the Issuer for the Series 2022 Bonds
(the “Underwriter/Purchaser”), in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, in the event that the Designated Officers (defined below) determine
that it is in the best interests of the Issuer to publicly offer the Series 2022 Bonds, the Issuer
desires to authorize the use and distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement (the
“Preliminary Official Statement”), and to approve a final Official Statement (the “Official
Statement”) in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, and other documents
relating thereto; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow the Issuer, in consultation with the Issuer’s Municipal
Advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (the “Municipal Advisor”) flexibility
in determining the method of sale and in setting the pricing date of the Series 2022 Bonds,
the Council desires to grant to (a) the (i) Mayor of the Issuer; or (ii) in the event of the
absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the
absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer;
or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff
and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the Issuer and (b) (i) the Chair of the
Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair of the Council, the
Vice Chair of the Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Chair
and Vice Chair of the Council, any other member of the Council (collectively, the
“Designated Officers”), the authority to select the Underwriter/Purchaser, to approve the
final interest rates, principal amounts, terms, maturities, redemption features, and purchase
price at which the Series 2022 Bonds shall be sold, to determine whether the Series 2022
Bonds should be sold and the method of sale, and to make any changes with respect thereto
from those terms which were before the Council at the time of adoption of this Resolution,
provided such terms do not exceed the parameters set forth for such terms in this Resolution
(the “Parameters”);
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah, as follows:
Section 1. For the purpose of financing the Project and paying costs of issuance
of the Series 2022 Bonds, the Council hereby authorizes the issuance of the Issuer’s Series
2022 Bonds which shall be designated “Salt Lake City, Utah Public Utilities Revenue
Bonds, Series 2022” (to be issued from time to time as one or more series and with such
other series or title designation(s) as may be determined by the Issuer) in the initial
aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $360,000,000. The Series 2022 Bonds shall
mature in not more than thirty-one (31) years from their date or dates, shall be sold at a
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 4
price not less than ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total principal amount thereof, shall
bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed six percent (6%) per annum, and may be non-
callable or subject to redemption, all as shall be approved by the Designated Officers in
consultation with the Issuer’s Municipal Advisor, all within the Parameters set forth herein.
Section 2. The Supplemental Indenture and the Bond Purchase Contract, in
substantially the forms presented at this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibits B and C
respectively, are hereby authorized, approved, and confirmed. The Mayor or the Mayor’s
Chief of Staff as the Mayor’s designee (collectively referred to herein as the “Mayor”) are
hereby authorized to execute and deliver and the City Recorder or Deputy City Recorder
(the “City Recorder”) to attest or countersign, the Supplemental Indenture and the Bond
Purchase Contract, in substantially the forms and with substantially the content as the forms
presented at this meeting for and on behalf of the Issuer, with final terms as may be
established by the Designated Officers, in consultation with the Municipal Advisor, within
the Parameters set forth herein, and with such alterations, changes or additions as may be
necessary or as may be authorized by Section 4 hereof. The Designated Officers are each
hereby authorized to select the Underwriter/Purchaser, to specify and agree as to the final
principal amounts, terms, discounts, maturities, interest rates, redemption features, and
purchase price with respect to the Series 2022 Bonds for and on behalf of the Issuer,
provided that such terms are within the Parameters set by this Resolution. The execution
of the Bond Purchase Contract by the Mayor and the approval of the Designated Officers
of the terms included therein shall demonstrate the approval of the Designated Officers.
Section 3. The Council hereby approves and authorizes the utilization of the
Preliminary Official Statement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D in the
marketing of the Series 2022 Bonds (as appropriate) and hereby approves the Official
Statement in substantially the same form as the Preliminary Official Statement, with any
necessary revisions and insertions to complete the same with the terms established for the
Series 2022 Bonds. The Mayor is hereby authorized to cause the Official Statement to be
delivered to the Underwriter/Purchaser evidencing its approval by the Issuer.
Section 4. The appropriate officials of the Issuer are authorized to make any
alterations, changes, deletions or additions to the Indenture, the Series 2022 Bonds, the
Bond Purchase Contract, the Preliminary Official Statement, the Official Statement, or any
other document herein authorized and approved which may be necessary to conform the
same to the final terms of the Series 2022 Bonds (within the Parameters set by this
Resolution), to conform to any applicable insurance or to remove the same, to correct errors
or omissions therein, to complete the same, to remove ambiguities therefrom, or to conform
the same to other provisions of said instruments, to the provisions of this Resolution or any
resolution adopted by the Council or the provisions of the laws of the State of Utah or the
United States. The execution thereof by the Mayor on behalf of the Issuer shall
conclusively establish such necessity, appropriateness, and approval with respect to all
such additions, modifications, deletions, and changes incorporated therein.
Section 5. The form, terms, and provisions of the Series 2022 Bonds and the
provisions for the signatures, authentication, payment, registration, transfer, exchange,
redemption, and number shall be as set forth in the Indenture. The Mayor and City
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 5
Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and seal the Series 2022 Bonds and
to deliver said Series 2022 Bonds to the Trustee for authentication. The signatures of the
Mayor and the City Recorder may be by facsimile or manual execution.
Section 6. The appropriate officials of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver to the Trustee the written order of the Issuer for
authentication and delivery of the Series 2022 Bonds in accordance with the provisions of
the Indenture.
Section 7. Upon their issuance, the Series 2022 Bonds will constitute special
limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from and to the extent of the sources set
forth in the Series 2022 Bonds and the Indenture. No provision of this Resolution, the
Indenture, the Series 2022 Bonds, the Bond Purchase Contract, the Preliminary Official
Statement, or any other instrument, shall be construed as creating a general obligation of
the Issuer, or of creating a general obligation of the State of Utah or any political
subdivision thereof, or as incurring or creating a charge upon the general credit of the Issuer
or its taxing powers.
Section 8. The appropriate officials of the Issuer, and each of them, are hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the Issuer any or all
additional certificates, documents and other papers (including, without limitation, any
reserve instrument guaranty agreements permitted by the Indenture) and to perform all
other acts they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to implement and carry out the
matters authorized in this Resolution and the documents authorized and approved herein.
Section 9. Pursuant to Section 11-14-318 of the Bond Act, the Issuer shall hold
a public hearing on May 17, 2022, to receive input from the public with respect to (a) the
issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds, and (b) the potential economic impact that the
improvements to be financed with the proceeds of the Series 2022 Bonds will have on the
private sector. The Issuer has previously directed its officers and staff to post notice of
such hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-16-601 Utah
Code Annotated 1953, as amended, not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, in
substantially the following form and the Issuer hereby ratifies the posting of such notice:
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Bond
Act”), that on May 3, 2022, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“Issuer”), is scheduled to consider the adoption of a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which
it will authorize the issuance of the Issuer’s Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2022
(the “Series 2022 Bonds”) (to be issued in one or more series and with such other name,
series or title designation(s) as may be determined by the Issuer) and call a public hearing.
PURPOSE, TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Issuer shall hold a public hearing on May 17, 2022, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. at
451 South State Street, Room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose of the hearing is to
receive input from the public with respect to (a) the issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds and
(b) any potential economic impact that the project to be financed with the proceeds of the
Series 2022 Bonds may have on the private sector. All members of the public are invited
to attend and participate.
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING THE SERIES 2022 BONDS
The Series 2022 Bonds will be issued for the purpose of financing water and sewer
improvements to the Issuer’s water, sewer, storm drain and street lighting systems
(collectively, the “System”) and paying costs of issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds.
DATED this May 2, 2022.
/s/ Cindy Lou Trishman
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 7
Section 10. Pursuant to Section 11-14-316 of the Bond Act, the Issuer shall
publish a notice of bonds to be issued (i) once in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of
general circulation in the Issuer, (ii) on the Utah Public Notice Website created under
Section 63A-16-601 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and (iii) on the Utah Legal
Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Section 45-1-101, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended. The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this Resolution
(together with all exhibits hereto) to be kept on file in the Salt Lake City offices, or in the
event such offices are closed for any reason, at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah,
for public examination during the regular business hours of the Issuer until at least thirty
(30) days from and after the date of publication thereof. The Issuer directs its officers and
staff to publish a “Notice of Bonds to be Issued” in substantially the following form:
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 8
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Bond
Act”) that on May 3, 2022, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“Issuer”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized the issuance of the
Issuer’s Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 (the “Series 2022 Bonds”) (to be
issued in one or more series and with such other name, series or title designation(s) as may
be determined by the Issuer).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING THE SERIES 2022 BONDS
The Series 2022 Bonds will be issued for the purpose of financing water and sewer
improvements to the Issuer’s water, sewer, storm drain and street lighting systems
(collectively, the “System”) and paying costs of issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds.
REVENUES TO BE PLEDGED
The Series 2022 Bonds are special limited obligations of the Issuer payable from
the revenues of the System (the “Revenues”).
PARAMETERS OF THE SERIES 2022 BONDS
The Issuer intends to issue the Series 2022 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount
of not more than Three Hundred Sixty Million Dollars ($360,000,000), to mature in not
more than thirty-one (31) years from their date or dates, to be sold at a price not less than
ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total principal amount thereof and bearing interest at a
rate or rates not to exceed six percent (6%) per annum. The Series 2022 Bonds are to be
issued and sold by the Issuer pursuant to the Resolution, including as part of said
Resolution, a Master Trust Indenture (the “Master Indenture”) and a Supplemental
Indenture of Trust (the “Supplemental Indenture” and collectively, the “Indenture”) which
Indenture was before the Council in substantially final form at the time of the adoption of
the Resolution and said Supplemental Indenture is to be executed by the Issuer in such
form and with such changes thereto as shall be approved by the Issuer; provided that the
principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity, and discount of the Series 2022 Bonds
will not exceed the maximums set forth above.
OUTSTANDING BONDS SECURED BY REVENUES
Other than the proposed Series 2022 Bonds, the Issuer currently has $586,575,000
(includes $348,635,000 WIFIA Loan) of bonds outstanding (the “Outstanding Bonds”)
secured by the Revenues (as more fully described in the Indenture).
OTHER OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE ISSUER
Additional information regarding the Issuer’s Outstanding Bonds may be found in
the Issuer’s financial report (the “Financial Report”) at:
https://reporting.auditor.utah.gov/searchreport. For additional information, including any
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 9
information more recent than as of the date of the Financial Report, please contact Marina
Scott, City Treasurer, at (801) 535-6565.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Based on the Issuer’s current plan of finance and a current estimate of interest rates,
the total principal and interest cost of the Series 2022 Bonds to be issued under the Bond
Act if held until maturity is $584,039,758.
A copy of the Resolution and the Indenture are on file in the office of the Salt Lake
City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, or, in the event such office is
closed for any reason, at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, where they may be
examined during regular business hours of the City Recorder from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication of this notice.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a period of thirty (30) days from and after the
date of the publication of this notice is provided by law during which any person in interest
shall have the right to contest the legality of the Resolution, the Indenture (only as it
pertains to the Series 2022 Bonds), or the Series 2022 Bonds, or any provision made for
the security and payment of the Series 2022 Bonds, and that after such time, no one shall
have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any
cause whatsoever.
DATED this May 3, 2022.
/s/ Cindy Lou Trishman
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 10
Section 11. The Issuer hereby declares its intention and reasonable expectation
to use proceeds of tax-exempt bonds to reimburse itself for initial expenditures for costs of
the Project. The Series 2022 Bonds are to be issued, and the reimbursements made, by the
later of 18 months after the payment of the costs or after the Project is placed in service,
but in any event, no later than three years after the date the original expenditure was paid.
The maximum principal amount of the Series 2022 Bonds which will be issued to finance
the reimbursed costs of the Project is not expected to exceed $360,000,000.
Section 12. The Issuer hereby reserves the right to opt not to issue the Series
2022 Bonds for any reason, including without limitation, consideration of the opinions
expressed at the public hearing.
Section 13. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent
of such conflict, hereby repealed and this Resolution shall be in full force and effect
immediately upon its approval and adoption.
Section 14. Upon the issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds, this Resolution shall
be and remain irrepealable until the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series
2022 Bonds are deemed to have been duly discharged in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the Indenture.
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 11
ADOPTED this May 3, 2022.
Chair
( S E A L )
Attest and Countersign:
__________________________________
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Boyd Ferguson
Senior City Attorney
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 12
PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR
The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for her approval or
disapproval on May 3, 2022.
By:
Chair
MAYOR’S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved on this May 3, 2022.
By:
Mayor
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 13
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the duly appointed and qualified City Recorder of Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”), do hereby certify according to the records of the City Council of
the City (the “City Council”) in my official possession that the foregoing constitutes a true
and correct excerpt of the minutes of the meeting of the City Council held on May 3, 2022,
including a resolution (the “Resolution”) adopted at said meeting as said minutes and
Resolution are officially of record in my possession.
I further certify that the Resolution, with all exhibits attached, was deposited in my
office on May 3, 2022, and pursuant to the Resolution,
(i) a Notice of Public Hearing was posted no less than fourteen (14) days before
the public hearing date on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-16-
601, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; and
(ii) a Notice of Bonds to be Issued will be published (a) one time in The Salt
Lake Tribune, a newspaper having general circulation within the City; (b) on the Utah
Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-16-601, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended; and (c) on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under
Section 45-1-101, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my signature and impressed
hereon the official seal of said City, this May 3, 2022.
(SEAL)
By:
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-1
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
OPEN MEETING LAW
I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“City”), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession,
and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of
Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-
four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the May 3, 2022, public
meeting held by the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) as follows:
(a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to
be posted at the principal offices of the City at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to
the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted
and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting;
(b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as
Schedule 1, to be delivered to The Salt Lake Tribune, either directly or through the
newspaper’s subscription to the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov)
at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and
(c) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as
Schedule 1, to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov)
at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting.
In addition, the Notice of 2022 Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council
(attached hereto as Schedule 2) was given specifying the date, time, and place of the regular
meetings of the City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (a)
posted on December ___, 2021 at the principal office of the City Council, (b) provided to
at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City on January __, 2022 and (c)
published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current
calendar year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this
May 3, 2022.
(SEAL)
By:
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-2
SCHEDULE 1
NOTICE OF MEETING
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-3
SCHEDULE 2
ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-4
(attach Proof of Publications of
Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Bonds to be Issued)
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 B-1
EXHIBIT B
INDENTURE
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 C-1
EXHIBIT C
FORM OF BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 D-1
EXHIBIT D
FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
LAURA BRIEFER, DIRECTOR
Department of Public Utilities
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: 05/02/2022
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 05/02/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 29, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Laura Briefer, Public Utilities Director Laura Briefer
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2022, Parameters
Resolution in preparation for Authorizing a Public Hearing.
STAFF CONTACT: Lisa M. Tarufelli, Finance Administrator, 801-483-6755
lisa.tarufelli@slcgov.com;
Laura Briefer, Director, 801-483-6741
laura.briefer@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: UPDATED DOCUMENT - Bond Parameters Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider adopting a Bond Parameters
Resolution for the issuance and sale of up to $360,000,000 principal amount of Salt Lake
City Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Series 2022. This includes a recommendation to 1)
adopt a Bond Parameters Resolution on May 3, 2022 approving the issuance and sale of up
to $360,000,000 principal amount of Salt Lake City Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series
2022 and give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and
confirm the sale of the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond
Parameters Resolution; and 2) affirm publication of a notice of public hearing on the Utah
Public Notice Website; 3) approve publication of notice of bonds to be issued; and 4) hold
a public hearing on May 17, 2022.
BUDGET IMPACT: The FY22 and FY23 budgets anticipated bond issuances for sewer
and water. Based on current conditions in the bond market and construction, the amount of
this planned issue is approximately $81 million more than originally anticipated for the
two-year period. An amendment request reflecting this has been transmitted in Budget
Amendment Seven. The current documents show no principal or interest due or payable
Lisa Shaffer (May 2, 2022 13:49 MDT)
during the current fiscal year, thus the budgetary impact is limited to additional revenue
sources and bond issuance costs.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In accordance with provisions of the Local
Government Bonding Act, the City is required to hold a public a hearing to receive input
from the public for all new money bond issues with respect to: a) the issuance of the Series
2022 revenue bonds; and b) the potential economic impact that the water and sewer
infrastructure improvements will have on the private sector. The financing team is
requesting that the City Council approve a motion (this resolution) on May 3, 2022, setting
Tuesday, May 17, 2022, as the date to hold the public hearing. A Notice of Bonds to be
Issued will be published in accordance with the Local Government Bonding Act.
The Bond Parameters Resolution for the above referenced bond issue contemplates the
issuance of up to $360 million principal amount of bonds bearing interest at an interest rate
not to exceed 6% per annum with a bond period not to exceed 31 years.
The bond proceeds will finance a portion of the capital improvements for water and sewer.
The sewer proceeds will serve as the match for the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan for construction of the water reclamation facility to meet
regulatory requirements. Water improvements include treatment plants, distribution mains,
and master plan projects. Water includes work being performed in conjunction with the
City’s General Fund bonded street repair projects.
A copy of the updated Bond Parameters Resolution is attached. Draft copies of the
Eleventh Supplemental Trust Indenture, Bond Purchase Contract, Preliminary Official
Statement, preliminary calendar of events, and estimated debt service schedule were
included with the April 12, 2022 bond parameters resolution transmittal.
Attachments: Bond Parameters Resolution - Updated
Cc Lisa Tarufelli, Boyd Ferguson, Rusty Vetter, Marina Scott
4870-5556-1238, v. 4
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 3, 2022
The City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), met in
regular session at the regular meeting place of the Council in Salt Lake City, Utah, at 7:00
p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, with the following members present:
Present:
Dan Dugan Chair
Darin Mano Vice Chair
Amy Fowler Council Member
Victoria Petro-Eschler Council Member
Alejandro Puy Council Member
Ana Valdemoros Council Member
Chris Wharton Council Member
There were also present:
Erin Mendenhall Mayor
Katherine N. Lewis City Attorney
Absent:
After the meeting had been duly called to order and after other matters not pertinent
to this Resolution had been discussed, a Certificate of Compliance with Open Meeting Law
with respect to this May 3, 2022 meeting was presented to the Council, a copy of which is
attached hereto.
The following resolution was then introduced in written form, was fully discussed,
and pursuant to motion duly made by Council Member ______________ and seconded by
Council Member _________________, was adopted by the following vote:
AYE:
NAY:
The resolution is as follows:
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY,
UTAH (THE “ISSUER”), AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF NOT MORE THAN $360,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2022;
FIXING THE MAXIMUM AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
THE BONDS, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS OVER WHICH
THE BONDS MAY MATURE, THE MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE
WHICH THE BONDS MAY BEAR, AND THE MAXIMUM DISCOUNT
FROM PAR AT WHICH THE BONDS MAY BE SOLD; PROVIDING
FOR THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND
BONDS TO BE ISSUED; PROVIDING FOR THE RUNNING OF A
CONTEST PERIOD; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE
ISSUER OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, A BOND PURCHASE
CONTRACT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH; APPROVING AN OFFICIAL
STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF ALL OTHER
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO THE CONSUMMATION OF THE
TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS RESOLUTION; AND
RELATED MATTERS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Bond Act”), Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “Issuer”), is authorized to issue public utilities revenue bonds (to be issued
in one or more series and with such other series or title designation(s) as may be determined
by the Issuer) payable from the net revenues of its existing water, sewer, storm drain and
street lighting systems (collectively, the “System”) for the municipal purposes set forth
therein; and
WHEREAS, subject to the limitations set forth herein, the City Council of the Issuer
(the “Council”) desires to authorize the issuance of the Issuer’s Public Utilities Revenue
Bonds, Series 2022 (the “Series 2022 Bonds”) to (a) finance water and sewer
improvements to the System (the “Project”) and (b) pay costs of issuance of the Series
2022 Bonds, pursuant to this Resolution, the Bond Act, a Master Trust Indenture, dated as
of January 1, 2004, as heretofore amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”),
between the Issuer and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (formerly known
as U.S. Bank National Association), as trustee (the “Trustee”), and a Supplemental
Indenture to be entered into between the Issuer and the Trustee (the “Supplemental
Indenture” and collectively with the Master Indenture, the “Indenture”), in substantially
the form presented to the meeting at which this Resolution was adopted and which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Act provides that prior to issuing bonds, an issuing entity
must (a) give notice of its intent to issue such bonds and (b) hold a public hearing to receive
input from the public with respect to (i) the issuance of the bonds and (ii) the potential
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 3
economic impact that the improvement, facility or property for which the bonds pay all or
part of the cost will have on the private sector; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to call a public hearing for this purpose and to
publish a notice of such hearing with respect to the Series 2022 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to approve and authorize the execution of a Bond
Purchase Contract (the “Bond Purchase Contract”), to be entered into between the Issuer
and the underwriter(s) or the purchaser(s) selected by the Issuer for the Series 2022 Bonds
(the “Underwriter/Purchaser”), in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, in the event that the Designated Officers (defined below) determine
that it is in the best interests of the Issuer to publicly offer the Series 2022 Bonds, the Issuer
desires to authorize the use and distribution of a Preliminary Official Statement (the
“Preliminary Official Statement”), and to approve a final Official Statement (the “Official
Statement”) in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, and other documents
relating thereto; and
WHEREAS, in order to allow the Issuer, in consultation with the Issuer’s Municipal
Advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (the “Municipal Advisor”) flexibility
in determining the method of sale and in setting the pricing date of the Series 2022 Bonds,
the Council desires to grant to (a) the (i) Mayor of the Issuer; or (ii) in the event of the
absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the
absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer;
or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff
and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the Issuer and (b) (i) the Chair of the
Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair of the Council, the
Vice Chair of the Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Chair
and Vice Chair of the Council, any other member of the Council (collectively, the
“Designated Officers”), the authority to select the Underwriter/Purchaser, to approve the
final interest rates, principal amounts, terms, maturities, redemption features, and purchase
price at which the Series 2022 Bonds shall be sold, to determine whether the Series 2022
Bonds should be sold and the method of sale, and to make any changes with respect thereto
from those terms which were before the Council at the time of adoption of this Resolution,
provided such terms do not exceed the parameters set forth for such terms in this Resolution
(the “Parameters”);
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah, as follows:
Section 1. For the purpose of financing the Project and paying costs of issuance
of the Series 2022 Bonds, the Council hereby authorizes the issuance of the Issuer’s Series
2022 Bonds which shall be designated “Salt Lake City, Utah Public Utilities Revenue
Bonds, Series 2022” (to be issued from time to time as one or more series and with such
other series or title designation(s) as may be determined by the Issuer) in the initial
aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $360,000,000. The Series 2022 Bonds shall
mature in not more than thirty-one (31) years from their date or dates, shall be sold at a
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 4
price not less than ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total principal amount thereof, shall
bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed six percent (6%) per annum, and may be non-
callable or subject to redemption, all as shall be approved by the Designated Officers in
consultation with the Issuer’s Municipal Advisor, all within the Parameters set forth herein.
Section 2. The Supplemental Indenture and the Bond Purchase Contract, in
substantially the forms presented at this meeting and attached hereto as Exhibits B and C
respectively, are hereby authorized, approved, and confirmed. The Mayor or the Mayor’s
Chief of Staff as the Mayor’s designee (collectively referred to herein as the “Mayor”) are
hereby authorized to execute and deliver and the City Recorder or Deputy City Recorder
(the “City Recorder”) to attest or countersign, the Supplemental Indenture and the Bond
Purchase Contract, in substantially the forms and with substantially the content as the forms
presented at this meeting for and on behalf of the Issuer, with final terms as may be
established by the Designated Officers, in consultation with the Municipal Advisor, within
the Parameters set forth herein, and with such alterations, changes or additions as may be
necessary or as may be authorized by Section 4 hereof. The Designated Officers are each
hereby authorized to select the Underwriter/Purchaser, to specify and agree as to the final
principal amounts, terms, discounts, maturities, interest rates, redemption features, and
purchase price with respect to the Series 2022 Bonds for and on behalf of the Issuer,
provided that such terms are within the Parameters set by this Resolution. The execution
of the Bond Purchase Contract by the Mayor and the approval of the Designated Officers
of the terms included therein shall demonstrate the approval of the Designated Officers.
Section 3. The Council hereby approves and authorizes the utilization of the
Preliminary Official Statement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D in the
marketing of the Series 2022 Bonds (as appropriate) and hereby approves the Official
Statement in substantially the same form as the Preliminary Official Statement, with any
necessary revisions and insertions to complete the same with the terms established for the
Series 2022 Bonds. The Mayor is hereby authorized to cause the Official Statement to be
delivered to the Underwriter/Purchaser evidencing its approval by the Issuer.
Section 4. The appropriate officials of the Issuer are authorized to make any
alterations, changes, deletions or additions to the Indenture, the Series 2022 Bonds, the
Bond Purchase Contract, the Preliminary Official Statement, the Official Statement, or any
other document herein authorized and approved which may be necessary to conform the
same to the final terms of the Series 2022 Bonds (within the Parameters set by this
Resolution), to conform to any applicable insurance or to remove the same, to correct errors
or omissions therein, to complete the same, to remove ambiguities therefrom, or to conform
the same to other provisions of said instruments, to the provisions of this Resolution or any
resolution adopted by the Council or the provisions of the laws of the State of Utah or the
United States. The execution thereof by the Mayor on behalf of the Issuer shall
conclusively establish such necessity, appropriateness, and approval with respect to all
such additions, modifications, deletions, and changes incorporated therein.
Section 5. The form, terms, and provisions of the Series 2022 Bonds and the
provisions for the signatures, authentication, payment, registration, transfer, exchange,
redemption, and number shall be as set forth in the Indenture. The Mayor and City
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 5
Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to execute and seal the Series 2022 Bonds and
to deliver said Series 2022 Bonds to the Trustee for authentication. The signatures of the
Mayor and the City Recorder may be by facsimile or manual execution.
Section 6. The appropriate officials of the Issuer are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver to the Trustee the written order of the Issuer for
authentication and delivery of the Series 2022 Bonds in accordance with the provisions of
the Indenture.
Section 7. Upon their issuance, the Series 2022 Bonds will constitute special
limited obligations of the Issuer payable solely from and to the extent of the sources set
forth in the Series 2022 Bonds and the Indenture. No provision of this Resolution, the
Indenture, the Series 2022 Bonds, the Bond Purchase Contract, the Preliminary Official
Statement, or any other instrument, shall be construed as creating a general obligation of
the Issuer, or of creating a general obligation of the State of Utah or any political
subdivision thereof, or as incurring or creating a charge upon the general credit of the Issuer
or its taxing powers.
Section 8. The appropriate officials of the Issuer, and each of them, are hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the Issuer any or all
additional certificates, documents and other papers (including, without limitation, any
reserve instrument guaranty agreements permitted by the Indenture) and to perform all
other acts they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to implement and carry out the
matters authorized in this Resolution and the documents authorized and approved herein.
Section 9. Pursuant to Section 11-14-318 of the Bond Act, the Issuer shall hold
a public hearing on May 17, 2022, to receive input from the public with respect to (a) the
issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds, and (b) the potential economic impact that the
improvements to be financed with the proceeds of the Series 2022 Bonds will have on the
private sector. The Issuer has previously directed its officers and staff to post notice of
such hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-16-601 Utah
Code Annotated 1953, as amended, not less than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, in
substantially the following form and the Issuer hereby ratifies the posting of such notice:
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 6
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Bond
Act”), that on May 3, 2022, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“Issuer”), is scheduled to consider the adoption of a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which
it will authorize the issuance of the Issuer’s Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2022
(the “Series 2022 Bonds”) (to be issued in one or more series and with such other name,
series or title designation(s) as may be determined by the Issuer) and call a public hearing.
PURPOSE, TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Issuer shall hold a public hearing on May 17, 2022, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. at
451 South State Street, Room 315, Salt Lake City, Utah. The purpose of the hearing is to
receive input from the public with respect to (a) the issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds and
(b)any potential economic impact that the project to be financed with the proceeds of the
Series 2022 Bonds may have on the private sector. All members of the public are invited
to attend and participate.
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING THE SERIES 2022 BONDS
The Series 2022 Bonds will be issued for the purpose of financing water and sewer
improvements to the Issuer’s water, sewer, storm drain and street lighting systems
(collectively, the “System”) and paying costs of issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds.
DATED this May 2, 2022.
/s/ Cindy Lou Trishman
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 7
Section 10. Pursuant to Section 11-14-316 of the Bond Act, the Issuer shall
publish a notice of bonds to be issued (i) once in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of
general circulation in the Issuer, (ii) on the Utah Public Notice Website created under
Section 63A-16-601 Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and (iii) on the Utah Legal
Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under Section 45-1-101, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended. The City Recorder shall cause a copy of this Resolution
(together with all exhibits hereto) to be kept on file in the Salt Lake City offices, or in the
event such offices are closed for any reason, at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah,
for public examination during the regular business hours of the Issuer until at least thirty
(30) days from and after the date of publication thereof. The Issuer directs its officers and
staff to publish a “Notice of Bonds to be Issued” in substantially the following form:
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 8
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government
Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Bond
Act”) that on May 3, 2022, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“Issuer”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized the issuance of the
Issuer’s Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2022 (the “Series 2022 Bonds”) (to be
issued in one or more series and with such other name, series or title designation(s) as may
be determined by the Issuer).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING THE SERIES 2022 BONDS
The Series 2022 Bonds will be issued for the purpose of financing water and sewer
improvements to the Issuer’s water, sewer, storm drain and street lighting systems
(collectively, the “System”) and paying costs of issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds.
REVENUES TO BE PLEDGED
The Series 2022 Bonds are special limited obligations of the Issuer payable from
the revenues of the System (the “Revenues”).
PARAMETERS OF THE SERIES 2022 BONDS
The Issuer intends to issue the Series 2022 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount
of not more than Three Hundred Sixty Million Dollars ($360,000,000), to mature in not
more than thirty-one (31) years from their date or dates, to be sold at a price not less than
ninety-eight percent (98%) of the total principal amount thereof and bearing interest at a
rate or rates not to exceed six percent (6%) per annum. The Series 2022 Bonds are to be
issued and sold by the Issuer pursuant to the Resolution, including as part of said
Resolution, a Master Trust Indenture (the “Master Indenture”) and a Supplemental
Indenture of Trust (the “Supplemental Indenture” and collectively, the “Indenture”) which
Indenture was before the Council in substantially final form at the time of the adoption of
the Resolution and said Supplemental Indenture is to be executed by the Issuer in such
form and with such changes thereto as shall be approved by the Issuer; provided that the
principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity, and discount of the Series 2022 Bonds
will not exceed the maximums set forth above.
OUTSTANDING BONDS SECURED BY REVENUES
Other than the proposed Series 2022 Bonds, the Issuer currently has $586,575,000
(includes $348,635,000 WIFIA Loan) of bonds outstanding (the “Outstanding Bonds”)
secured by the Revenues (as more fully described in the Indenture).
OTHER OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE ISSUER
Additional information regarding the Issuer’s Outstanding Bonds may be found in
the Issuer’s financial report (the “Financial Report”) at:
https://reporting.auditor.utah.gov/searchreport. For additional information, including any
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 9
information more recent than as of the date of the Financial Report, please contact Marina
Scott, City Treasurer, at (801) 535-6565.
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Based on the Issuer’s current plan of finance and a current estimate of interest rates,
the total principal and interest cost of the Series 2022 Bonds to be issued under the Bond
Act if held until maturity is $584,039,758.
A copy of the Resolution and the Indenture are on file in the office of the Salt Lake
City Recorder, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, or, in the event such office is
closed for any reason, at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, where they may be
examined during regular business hours of the City Recorder from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication of this notice.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a period of thirty (30) days from and after the
date of the publication of this notice is provided by law during which any person in interest
shall have the right to contest the legality of the Resolution, the Indenture (only as it
pertains to the Series 2022 Bonds), or the Series 2022 Bonds, or any provision made for
the security and payment of the Series 2022 Bonds, and that after such time, no one shall
have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality, or legality thereof for any
cause whatsoever.
DATED this May 3, 2022.
/s/ Cindy Lou Trishman
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 10
Section 11. The Issuer hereby declares its intention and reasonable expectation
to use proceeds of tax-exempt bonds to reimburse itself for initial expenditures for costs of
the Project. The Series 2022 Bonds are to be issued, and the reimbursements made, by the
later of 18 months after the payment of the costs or after the Project is placed in service,
but in any event, no later than three years after the date the original expenditure was paid.
The maximum principal amount of the Series 2022 Bonds which will be issued to finance
the reimbursed costs of the Project is not expected to exceed $360,000,000.
Section 12. The Issuer hereby reserves the right to opt not to issue the Series
2022 Bonds for any reason, including without limitation, consideration of the opinions
expressed at the public hearing.
Section 13. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent
of such conflict, hereby repealed and this Resolution shall be in full force and effect
immediately upon its approval and adoption.
Section 14. Upon the issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds, this Resolution shall
be and remain irrepealable until the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Series
2022 Bonds are deemed to have been duly discharged in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the Indenture.
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 11
ADOPTED this May 3, 2022.
Chair
( S E A L )
Attest and Countersign:
__________________________________
City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Boyd Ferguson
Senior City Attorney
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 12
PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR
The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for her approval or
disapproval on May 3, 2022.
By:
Chair
MAYOR’S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved on this May 3, 2022.
By:
Mayor
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 13
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the duly appointed and qualified City Recorder of Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”), do hereby certify according to the records of the City Council of
the City (the “City Council”) in my official possession that the foregoing constitutes a true
and correct excerpt of the minutes of the meeting of the City Council held on May 3, 2022,
including a resolution (the “Resolution”) adopted at said meeting as said minutes and
Resolution are officially of record in my possession.
I further certify that the Resolution, with all exhibits attached, was deposited in my
office on May 3, 2022, and pursuant to the Resolution,
(i) a Notice of Public Hearing was posted no less than fourteen (14) days before
the public hearing date on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-16-
601, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended; and
(ii) a Notice of Bonds to be Issued will be published (a) one time in The Salt
Lake Tribune, a newspaper having general circulation within the City; (b) on the Utah
Public Notice Website created under Section 63A-16-601, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended; and (c) on the Utah Legal Notices website (www.utahlegals.com) created under
Section 45-1-101, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my signature and impressed
hereon the official seal of said City, this May 3, 2022.
(SEAL)
By:
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-1
EXHIBIT A
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH
OPEN MEETING LAW
I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the
“City”), do hereby certify, according to the records of the City in my official possession,
and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of
Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-
four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the May 3, 2022, public
meeting held by the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) as follows:
(a) By causing a Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to
be posted at the principal offices of the City at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to
the convening of the meeting, said Notice having continuously remained so posted
and available for public inspection until the completion of the meeting;
(b) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as
Schedule 1, to be delivered to The Salt Lake Tribune, either directly or through the
newspaper’s subscription to the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov)
at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and
(c) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as
Schedule 1, to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov)
at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting.
In addition, the Notice of 2022 Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council
(attached hereto as Schedule 2) was given specifying the date, time, and place of the regular
meetings of the City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (a)
posted on December ___, 2021 at the principal office of the City Council, (b) provided to
at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City on January __, 2022 and (c)
published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current
calendar year.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this
May 3, 2022.
(SEAL)
By:
City Recorder
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-2
SCHEDULE 1
NOTICE OF MEETING
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-3
SCHEDULE 2
ANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 A-4
(attach Proof of Publications of
Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Bonds to be Issued)
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 B-1
EXHIBIT B
INDENTURE
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 C-1
EXHIBIT C
FORM OF BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT
4870-5556-1238, v. 4 D-1
EXHIBIT D
FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT
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:May 3, 2022
RE: City Council Redistricting Update
NEW INFORMATION
At the April 12 briefing, the Chair and Vice Chair of the resident Redistricting Advisory Commission presented
the six recommended maps to the Council. The maps were each presented and discussed in turn. Links to the
maps in the District Builder software are in the table on page two of this staff report. The color-coded table
below is staff’s summary of Council Member feedback gathered on an individual basis. These represent
individual Council Member preferences at a point in time to help with the briefing discussion scheduled for May
3, 2022. Council Members may identify a preferred map as a group at the next briefing discussion and could
adjust boundaries on the Commission’s recommended maps.
In the table below, the name of each map is listed in the top row and Council Member’s last names in the left
most column. Top preferences are listed as “1” and color coded green. The least preferred map is listed as “6”
and color-coded red. Second, third, fourth and fifth preference maps are listed with the numerical number and
color coded yellow and orange. If a Council Member did not prefer a map, then “N/A” is listed and color-coded
purple.
C o u n c il
M e m be r
Po lit e l y C o m pac t
w it h M in im al
C h an ge s
RD2 0 2 2 -0 3
Co m m u n it y
C o u n c il
Bo u n darie s
RD2 0 2 2 -0 4 RD2 0 2 2 -0 2 Som e t h in g
T o t ally Differe n t
Pe t r o -Esc hle r 1 N/A 2 N/A N/A N/A
Puy 1 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Whar to n 1 2 3 N/A N/A 4
V ald e mo ro s 1 3 4 5 2 6
Mano 2 3 1 5 4 6
Dugan 1 2 4 3 5 6
Fo wle r 1 2 N/A 3 N/A N/A
I ndividual Council Member Map Preferences as Gathered by Staff as of April 28, 2022*
*Wo rk se ss io n disc ussio n sc h e d ule d fo r May 3 , 2 0 2 2
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
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: April 12, 2022
Public Hearing: April 19, 2022
7th Briefing: May 3, 2022
8th Briefing: May 10, 2022 (if needed)
Potential Action: May 10, 2022
Page | 2
Six Maps Recommended by Redistricting Advisory Commission (Attachments 8 through 13)
The Commission met six times between February 24 and April 7 at public meetings which were recorded and
posted on the City’s YouTube channel. At the last meeting, the Commission voted to recommend six maps to the
Council for consideration. The maps represent a spectrum of potential adjustments from minimal, to moderate
to a major set of changes. Attachments 8 through 13 are generally ordered from least changes (#8) to most
changes (#13). The maps are best evaluated by viewing them in the District Builder mapping tool because one
can zoom into specific areas to see streets and place names, toggle on and off the current Council District
boundaries and community council boundaries reference layers in the lower left corner, see district specific
populations and deviations from the ideal 28,532 and copy the map to one’s account to make edits. All the maps
meet the substantially equal population and contiguousness requirements and preserves two minority-majority
districts. The six recommended maps are summarized in the table below from least to most changes:
Map Name Population
Deviation Compactness District Builder Link Attachment
Politely Compact
with Minimal
Changes
1,400
4.9%41%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/2c974423-a9d9-45be-
bda9-f2eb09e1ab6e/
8
RD2022-03 1,044
3.7%41%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/6ab50d94-3be1-4330-
906d-eaa9db817c9c/
9
Community
Council
Boundaries
2,331
8.2%36%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/62cf0dc7-09e4-43f0-
8ac6-d7c0c67df385/
10
RD2022-04 549
1.9%40%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/2e32d9b1-abc9-4708-
abd8-06327fe3daa0/
11
RD2022-02 1,266
4.4%39%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/a53a01e0-5129-4d34-
be80-de57dc8fde9c/
12
Something Totally
Different
2,120
7.4%42%
https://app.districtbuilder.org/
projects/b86cbddd-d73f-4298-
80be-cc8686b288cc
13
Note: “compactness” is a math term to reflect how tight a shape is based on the ratio of the district’s area to
perimeter. For example, a circle is 100% compact.
Effective Date of New Boundaries and Adoption Resolution (Attachment 7)
The Attorney’s Office provided the adoption resolution for the Council to officially approve the new district
boundaries. The new boundaries will go into effect “upon execution” of the adoption resolution. This means the
boundaries go into effect once all parties have signed the resolution and it’s recorded in the public record.
Resolutions do not need to be published like ordinances to go into effect per state law.
Community Councils Letter to Redistricting Advisory Commission (Attachment 14)
Eight recognized community organizations, which are registered with the City, signed and sent a letter to the
Redistricting Advisory Commission. The letter asked the Commission to respect and maintain existing, self-
identified boundaries for community organizations. The Commission’s recommended map, “Community
Council Boundaries,” was drawn with a focus on keep community organizations within a single Council District
to the extent possible. While this approach prioritizes community organizations the tradeoff is a higher
population deviation, less compactness and more complicated boundaries for some Council Districts.
Public Outreach Update
- Two Press Releases: One for the selection of the commission members and it was also sent to all district
subscribers as an email blast, and another will be going out for the six recommended maps and public
hearing date. These are in addition to the earlier press release (Attachment 6) about the commission
application window.
- 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. At the time of
publishing this staff report the hub had over 1,600+ views overall of which 682 views since the end of
February and another 272 since the citywide redistricting mailer was sent. The hub was regularly
Page | 3
updated over the past two months with information on how to attend commission meetings, submit
comments and subscribe to receive updates.
- 33 Social Media Posts: 5 Instagram timeline posts, 5 Instagram stories posts promoting the timeline
posts with the info, 6 Nextdoor posts, 6 tweets, 6 Facebook timeline posts, and 5 Facebook stories posts
promoting the timeline info
- Video: SLCTV Capital City News produced a redistricting segment. A tutorial video was created to help
constituents draw their own maps and a public service announcement was released
- Citywide Mailer: A citywide postcard was sent to all households (92,000+ addresses) notifying them
about redistricting, important dates, the web hub and District Builder mapping tool.
- 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: Four 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
applications with next steps. A section on redistricting was added to the monthly district
email newsletters for January, February, March, April and will continue to be added until the end of the
redistricting process. A section on Redistricting was included in the public utilities statements for
Council District Four.
Policy Question
1. Council Support for Map(s) – The Council may wish to review the six maps, discuss how each map
balances different priorities, and identify which map(s) have majority support. The Council is not bound
by the Redistricting Advisory Commission’s six recommended maps. If elements of different maps have
majority support, then they could be combined into a new map if requested.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
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
Page | 4
- 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.
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.
Page | 5
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
- 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.
Page | 6
- 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
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
7. Redistricting Adoption Resolution
8. Politely Compact with Minimal Changes Map
9. RD2022-03 Map
10. Community Council Boundaries Map
11. RD2022-04 Map
12. RD2022-02 Map
13. Something Totally Different Map
14. Community Councils Letter to Redistricting Advisory Commission
2010 2020 # %#%One 27,505 28,032 527 2%-500-2%Two 27,306 26,395 (911) -3% -2,137-7%Three 26,302 28,572 2,270 9%+400%Four 26,716 33,153 6,437 24% +4,62116%Five 25,904 26,936 1,032 4%-1,596-6%Six 26,546 28,767 2,221 8%+2351%Seven 26,132 27,868 1,736 7%-664-2%TOTALS186,411 199,723 13,312 7%Council DistrictCensus PopulationDeviation from Optimal District Population (28,532)Change from 2010 to 20202020 Census Results by Council Districts Summary Table
2020 Census Redistricting Data
Insights for the Salt Lake City Council
January 4, 2022
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What we get from the 2020 Census data (so far)
•Total populations for states, counties,
cities, and other statistical
geographies
•Detailed race and ethnicity (Hispanic
or Latino origin)
•Two age groups –over and under 18
years
•Housing units –occupied or vacant
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What we don’t get from 2020 Census data (so far)
•Full details from Census questionnaire,
including:
•Relationship in households
•Tenure
•Ancestry
•Sex
•Full age detail
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
What is not included in the decennial census
•Characteristics of the population,
including:
•Educational attainment
•Household income
•Employment
•Veteran status
•Disability status
•Housing unit characteristics
Are available from the American Community Survey
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City is still the largest city in Utah
Top 10 Largest Cities in Utah, 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 Census Redistricting File
199,723
140,230
116,961 115,162
98,129 96,904 95,342 87,321 81,773 77,487
Salt Lake
City
West Valley
City
West Jordan Provo Orem Sandy St. George Ogden Layton South
Jordan
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Salt Lake City is the largest it has ever been
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census
189,454 186,438199,723
68.9%
18.1%16.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Share of Salt Lake County PopulationTotal PopulationSalt Lake City Population Share of County
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Selected Cities in Salt Lake County by Rate of Growth, 2010 to 2020
153%
124%
54%
29%
21%21%17%13%
13%11%
10%8%
8%7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Rate of GrowthTotal Population2010 Census 2020 Census Percent Change, 2010 to 2020
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Total Population by City Council District, 2020
33,153
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Districts east of I-15 added more new residents than those west of I-15
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
2,270
2,221
1,736
2010*2020
One 27,505 28,032
Two 27,306 26,395
Three 26,302 28,572
Four 26,716 33,153
Five 25,904 26,936
Six 26,546 28,767
Seven 26,132 27,868
Salt Lake City 186,411 199,723
Census PopulationCouncil District
Note: 2010 Reflects City Council Estimates used in
subcounty estimates found in Salt Lake City Data Book
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census
Four Census Tract Changes
Two areas were split from
one tract each into two.
•Former Tract 1014
•University of Utah
•Former Tract 1025
•South Temple to 400 South, I-
15 to West Temple
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Tracts west of State Street experienced the most absolute change in population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
+1,694
+1,736
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Citywide, the under 18 population declined by 4,993 between 2010 and 2020
2010 2020
One 9,110 7,458
Two 9,058 7,493
Three 4,319 3,948
Four 2,926 2,869
Five 5,255 4,677
Six 5,955 5,730
Seven 5,411 4,926
Salt Lake City 42,034 37,101
Council District
Census Population
Under Age 18
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Over 75% of tracts had declines in under 18 population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
-78
117
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
While only three tracts had declines in the 18 and over population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File
+1,619
+1,772
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Increasing racial and ethnic diversity
Between 2010 and 2020, the
following populations
increased as a share of
citywide population
•Black or African American
•Asian
•Two or More Races and
Some Other Race (two
groups combined)
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
2020 Racial and Ethnic Composition of
Salt Lake City Council Districts
Area
Hispanic
or Latino NH White
NH Black
or African
American
NH
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native NH Asian
NH Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
NH Some
Other
Race
NH Two or
More
Council District 1 45.3%36.5%4.1%1.0%4.7%4.4%0.5%3.5%
Council District 2 47.4%32.4%3.8%1.1%4.9%7.0%0.4%3.1%
Council District 3 12.5%73.2%2.6%0.6%4.6%0.9%0.7%4.9%
Council District 4 13.1%68.2%3.1%1.1%8.2%0.8%0.7%4.7%
Council District 5 15.4%71.0%3.1%0.9%3.2%0.9%0.6%4.8%
Council District 6 6.5%78.1%1.4%0.3%8.4%0.4%0.7%4.2%
Council District 7 8.4%81.7%1.0%0.4%3.4%0.5%0.3%4.3%
Salt Lake City 20.8%63.4%2.7%0.8%5.4%2.0%0.6%4.2%
Note: NH means not Hispanic or Latino
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary File. City Council Analysis by Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Hispanic or Latino origin
Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
White alone
Both Hispanic and non-Hispanic Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Asian
Both Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, Percent by Census Tract
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Some Other Race
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Redistricting Data Mapper
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Non-Hispanic White Alone
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
65
35
387
3,361
211
589
-294
2010 2020
One 10,154 10,219
Two 8,506 8,541
Three 20,531 20,918
Four 19,261 22,622
Five 18,924 19,135
Six 22,762 22,468
Seven 22,186 22,775
Salt Lake City 122,324 126,678
Council
District
Census Population Non-
Hispanic White Alone
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Non-Hispanic White
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Hispanic or Latino Origin Population
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
2010 2020
One 13,234 12,694
Two 14,272 12,514
Three 3,107 3,577
Four 3,678 4,357
Five 4,326 4,145
Six 922 1,882
Seven 2,028 2,335
Salt Lake City 41,637 41,504
Council
District
Census Population
Hispanic or Latino-540
-1,758
470
307
960-181
679
Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Absolute Change, Hispanic or Latino Origin Population
Note –The Census Bureau advises
caution when comparing race and
ethnicity between 2010 and 2020
due to technical changes in data
processing
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2020 Redistricting Data (PL 94-171) Summary Files
1
January 3, 2022
Memo to City Council Staff – Legal Considerations Regarding Redistricting
Redistricting of city council and school board district boundaries is governed by
the United States Constitution, federal statutes, Utah statutes, and Salt Lake City
Code provisions.
Even though the City Council will not be redistricting the Salt Lake City School
District board this year, we have left in the discussion about school board
redistricting for future use.
U.S. Constitution
Equal Protection of the Laws
The “one person, one vote” rule is based on the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the City Council and school board districts.
It requires substantial equality of population among the districts. Reynolds v.
Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Sometimes there is a push for districts based on number of registered voters,
actual voters, persons of voting age, or citizens of voting age. However,
most courts have ruled that “population” means “total population.” A
reason for that is that basing district size on number of voters fails to protect
the interests of the many people who reside in a place but don’t vote.
Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment provides that “the right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude.”
2
Federal Statutes
Discrimination in voting against racial or language minorities is prohibited by the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2 (52 U.S.C.A. § 10301).
If race is a motive in the redistricting, the courts will probably subject a
plan to strict scrutiny, which is very hard to survive.
Utah Statutes
City Council
Each City Council district must be of substantially equal population as the other
districts. Utah Code § 10-3-205.5(2)(b)(i). In the redistricting process the Council
must make any adjustments in the boundaries of the districts as may be required to
maintain districts of substantially equal population. The Council must do that
within six months after the Legislature completes its redistricting process. Utah
Code § 10-3-205.5(2)(b)(ii).
Utah Constitution Art. IX § 1 says: “No later than the annual general session
next following the Legislature’s receipt of the results of an enumeration
made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall divide the
state into congressional, legislative, and other districts accordingly.
School Board
School board districts must be:
(1) substantially equal in population,
(2) as contiguous as practicable, and
(3) as compact as practicable. UCA § 20A-14-201(1)(b).
Contiguous
3
“Contiguous” means that no portion of a district is not connected to another portion
of the district.
Utah Code § 10-1-104(2) defines “contiguous” to mean:
(a) if used to describe an area, continuous, uninterrupted, and without an island of
territory not included as part of the area; and
(b) if used to describe an area's relationship to another area, sharing a common
boundary.
A court probably would consider that statutory definition to be valid.
Compact
According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981), “compact” means
“having parts or units closely packed or joined.”
Courts in some states define “compact” in terms of physical shape or size, such as
having a small perimeter in relation to the area composed, and avoiding bizarre
designs, or even in terms of a circle containing the least land area outside the
district. 114 ALR 5th 311 § 3[a].
Courts in other states define compactness as referring to closely-united territory,
which is conducive to constituent-representative communication. Id. at 3[b].
The following ideas were in a redistricting case in Colorado.
The compactness requirement specifies that the boundaries of each district shall be
as short as possible. One of the most accurate ways to measure compactness is to
determine the smallest circle into which the district can be circumscribed and to
compare the ratio of the area of the district inside the circle to the area of the circle
itself. The closer these figures come to a 1 to 1 ratio, the more compact the district
will be.
Although there is no federal constitutional standard requiring compact districts,
more than half of the states include compactness as a constitutional or statutory
criteria for state legislative districting.
4
A second method of measuring compactness is to compare the aggregate linear
distance of the boundaries of each district.
In a practical sense, the compactness of a district will be directly affected by the
density and distribution of a state's population. Since population requirements have
priority, compactness must often be sacrificed in order to achieve an acceptable
range of population deviation. See Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68, 87 (D.
Colo. 1982)
Salt Lake City Code
The City Council districts must be of substantially equal population. The districts
must be reapportioned after each federal census to maintain substantially equal
populations. City Code § 2.06.010.
The City Council could amend this, but it could not do so in a way that was
inconsistent with state statutes or that violated constitutional requirements.
Constitutional Requirements and Guiding Principles
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires election
districts or voting units for local governmental offices to be as equal in
population as possible. This requirement is known as the "one person, one
vote" rule and applies to all political subdivisions, including cities, counties,
towns, and villages. . . .
Whether a particular manner of apportionment runs afoul of the federal
Constitution, is . . . determined on a case-by-case basis. Since the one
person, one vote rule applies whenever the governing body to which a
challenged districting plan pertains exercises general governmental powers
over the entire geographical area that the governing body serves, one
consideration in determining the question of population equality is to
examine the geographic area to which the election or voting district pertains,
as well as the nature of the office or position involved. . . .
5
On the municipal or city level, whether districts for the election of
councilmen . . . have been based on population equality has depended on the
circumstances presented. . . .
The federal courts currently measure "population equality" according to the
total population in each district, but that method is not required. Thus, while
population equality could be determined on the basis of voting-age
population, a violation of equal protection does not occur because a
legislative body chooses not to use that method, or chooses not to base
equality on the number of registered voters in each district. . . .
The Equal Protection Clause . . . requires that, where districts exist, their
populations be equal so as to give equal weight to each vote cast.
That begs the question: "How equal is equal?" In other words, to what
degree may districts deviate from the population equality standard yet satisfy
the Equal Protection Clause? There is no fixed percentage that separates the
de minimis from the unconstitutional. A useful guideline is that a districting
plan with a maximum deviation from population equality (the sum of the
percentages by which the most overrepresented district and the most
underrepresented district, respectively, deviate from the equality ideal) of
less than 10% is likely to pass constitutional muster as a de minimis
departure from the one person, one vote rule. Nevertheless, there is no
guarantee that any figure, even the reasonably reliable 10%, will ensure
constitutionality; courts can require justifications even for deviations of less
than 10%, and can reject plans based on those deviations.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the deviation from population
equality is substantial. Once the plaintiff meets that burden, the defendant
must show either that the deviation is unavoidable, or that it is justified by an
effort to effectuate a rational state policy. Courts will tolerate slightly larger
deviations for local districting plans than for state or congressional plans
because: (1) municipalities need flexibility to meet changing needs; (2) it is
desirable to preserve the integrity of political subdivisions; and (3) local
districts often have small populations and relatively few officeholders. . . .
The decennial census is the established basis for redrawing district
boundaries in order to account for growth and shifts in population. The
Equal Protection Clause does not require that states or political subdivisions
6
redistrict more frequently than once every 10 years, even when population
changes are evident. . . .”
143 A.L.R. Fed. 631 §§ 2[a][b] (1998)
[“[T]he “one person, one vote” rule requires substantial equality of population in
districts. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579 (1964); Board of Estimate of City of
New York v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 692-93 (1989).
However, while the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to make an honest and
good faith effort to construct legislative districts as nearly of equal population as is
practicable, but it doesn’t demand mathematical perfection. The Constitution
permits deviation when it is justified by legitimate considerations incident to the
effectuation of a rational state policy, such as compactness, continuity, maintaining
the integrity of political subdivisions, or competitive balance among political
parties. Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. 253,
258 (2016)
“The supreme court has developed a measure called the "maximum
population deviation" to measure disparities in population per legislator in
state legislative apportionment cases. The maximum population deviation is
calculated by the following steps:
First, the apportionment base, usually the state’s population, is divided
by the number of legislators in the legislative house under
consideration, to arrive at the norm if absolute population equality
were achieved.
Second, if a district has more persons than the ideal district, the ideal
district population is subtracted from the actual district population; the
resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get
the percentage of under-representation.
Third, if a district has fewer persons than the ideal district, its
population is subtracted from the population of the ideal district; the
7
resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get
the percentage of over-representation.
Finally, when the percentages of under-representation or over-
representation have been calculated for all districts (or all legislators
in multimember districts), the district that is most over-represented is
identified and the district that is most under-represented is identified;
these two percentages are then added together to obtain the maximum
population deviation.”
25 Am Jur 2d Elections § 25 (2021).
For example, suppose that a city’s population is 100,000 and it has seven city
council districts. 100,000 divided by seven is 14,286. That is the “ideal district”
population, in that each district would have exactly equal population. Suppose
further that one district is reapportioned to have only 14,000 people, and another is
reapportioned to have 15,000 people. The first district’s deviation from the ideal is
-286, which is a 2.0 percent deviation. The second district’s deviation is 714,
which is a 5.0 percent deviation. The 2.0 percent and 5.0 percent deviations are
added together to get a maximum population deviation, which in this case is 7.0
percent.
Though the description above refers to state legislative districts, the principles
apply to local government districts.
A rule of thumb is that if a maximum population deviation is under ten percent,
the redistricting will be presumed to be valid. On the other hand, if the maximum
population deviation exceeds ten percent, the governmental entity must bear the
burden of establishing that the deviation is not discriminatory.
There are many sources that attempt to describe guiding principles or factors that
may or may not be taken into account in redistricting. One source is the Utah
Independent Redistricting Commission. In 2021 the Commission adopted the
following “Threshold Criteria and Redistricting Standards”:
8
Contiguous
No part of a district can be entirely separated from the remainder of the
district.
Reasonably Compact
To the extent practicable, the Commission will submit maps with
districts that are reasonably compact. Districts shall avoid odd shapes or
contortions that cannot be explained by other legitimate redistricting
criteria.
Communities of Interest
The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, preserve communities
of interest. A “community of interest” is defined as a group of people in
a contiguous geographic area that share common policy interests,
whether cultural, religious, social, economic, or others that do not
necessarily coincide with the boundaries of a political subdivision. A
community of interest cannot be based on a relationship with a political
party, incumbent, or political candidate.
Geographic Boundaries
The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, follow natural,
geographic, or man-made features, boundaries, or barriers when drawing
district boundaries. A “geographic boundary” means natural barriers,
such as mountain ranges, significant rivers or large lakes, and other
bodies of water. A “man-made” feature refers to prominent aspects of the
built or human-designed environment, including streets and freeways.
Cores of Prior Districts
The Commission shall, to the extent practicable, preserve cores of prior
districts. In doing so, the Commission will consider district lines as
previously drawn. If possible, the Commission will utilize empirical
methods of measuring congruence in prior and proposed district
boundaries.
9
Municipalities and Counties
The Commission will, to the extent practicable, submit maps which
minimize the division of municipalities and counties across multiple
districts. The term “municipality” is defined in Utah Code § 10-1-
104(5). The Commission will, to the extent practicable, rely on
quantitative measurements of division.
Boundary Agreement
The Commission will, to the extent practicable, seek boundary
agreement among the map types submitted. Specifically, the Commission
will consider the alignment among the boundaries of the districts for the
Utah House of Representatives, the Utah State Senate, the Utah State
School Board, and the United States Congress.
Purposeful or Undue Favoring
The Commission will, to the extent practicable, prohibit the purposeful
or undue favoring or disfavoring of an incumbent elected official, a
candidate or prospective candidate for elected office, or a political party.
In so doing, the Commission will consider direct or indirect evidence of
intent and, where practicable, quantitative measures. The Commission
will not use residential addresses of incumbents, candidates, or
prospective candidates in creating its proposed maps.
Issues
Meaning of “Population.”
Reliance on the decennial federal census is a constitutionally permissible basis for
the apportionment of a legislative body, but it is not the required standard by which
substantial population equivalency is to be measured. The Fourteenth Amendment
allows apportionment plans to use bases other than population, but only when
population figures are unavailable and the figures employed substantially
approximate those that would have been derived from a census of the entire
population. Accordingly, registered voter figures may be used as the basis for the
apportionment of election districts, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause,
10
only if the results substantially reflect results obtainable by the use of another
permissible basis, such as total population. See CJS Const. Law § 1438 (2021).
Parents of School-aged Children?
It has been suggested that the City Council consider measuring “equal population”
by the number of parents of children in the public schools, rather than the general
population. However, because that is a restriction on voting other than residence,
age, or citizenship, courts would apply strict scrutiny in analyzing the restriction.
Strict scrutiny is extremely difficult to satisfy.
The purpose of the one person, one vote rule is to guarantee that “the vote of any
citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen.” Board of
Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 701 (1989). Therefore, the rule is intended to
protect voters and citizens, not just parents.
Courts have struck down attempts to use something other than general population,
such as property owners. See City of Herriman v. Bell, 590 F.3d 1176, 1186 (10 th
Cir. 2010). The court cited examples, including what it described as the “law
restricting voting in a school district election to those owning or leasing taxable
property or having children enrolled in that school district.” (Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court, in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621
(1969), ruled that a law that restricted voting in a school district election to people
owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school
district was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection.
More recently, the Illinois supreme court struck down a law that denied the vote in
school council elections to voters who did not, at the time of the election, have
children attending the public schools. Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education,
566 N.E.2d 1283, 1300 (Ill. 1990). The court applied strict scrutiny and said that
there had been no evidence that voters who do not have children attending the
public school have less interest in the candidates to be elected, or that parents with
children attending public schools have a special ability to choose school council
members. It said it was unreasonable to deny an equal voice to citizens who do
not, at the time, have children in the public schools.
11
Hypothetical Situation
Suppose that a school district with a population of 70,000 contained seven
existing voting districts, each containing 10,000 people. Suppose further that
there are 35,000 school-aged children in the entire district.
Suppose that District No. 1 contains 2,000 parents of school-aged children and
District No. 2 contains 5,000 parents of school-aged children. If it were proposed
to redistrict based on number of parents with school-aged children, then District
No. 2 would be right at the ideal number. However, the number of parents with
such children in No. 1 would have to be increased to get closer to the 5,000 ideal.
That would require taking population from other voting districts in order to
obtain more such parents for District No. 1.
The result might be that District No. 2 might need only 10,000 in overall
population to contain 5,000 parents of school-aged children, whereas District
No. 1 might have to grow to 20,000 people in order to contain 5,000 such
parents. The elected representation from District No. 2 would be 10,000 to 1, but
in District No. 1 would be 20,000 to 1. Such a plan would result in the dilution of
the votes of the people in District No. 1.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to protect an
individual's right to equal voting participation in at least two ways: through
rejecting overly restrictive voter qualifications (“vote denial”), and through
rejecting disproportionate voting districts (“vote dilution”).
* * *
With respect to voter apportionment, the Supreme Court has held that the Equal
Protection Clause requires state and local entities to divide electoral districts on the
basis of population, so that each person's vote is equally effective. . . . These cases
all recognize that the collective dilution of many individuals' votes can result in a
form of unconstitutional disenfranchisement, even when no one individual is
turned away at the ballot box. This principle is best recognized by the catch-
phrase “one person, one vote.” Kirk v. Carpeneti, 623 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2010)
(Emphasis added.)
12
In summarizing Kramer, the Supreme Court later said: “The fact that the school
district was supported by a property tax did not mean that only those subject to
direct assessment felt the effects of the tax burden, and the inclusion of parents
would not exhaust the class of persons interested in the conduct of local school
affairs. Hill v. Stone, 421 US 289, 295 (1975) (emphasis added).
Therefore, the City Council, in redistricting, should not interpret “population” to
mean only parents of school-aged children.
Effect of Boundary Changes on Incumbent Officers
School Board
With respect to school boards, statutory guidance exists.
Section 20A-14-201(3)(a) provides that “[r]eapportionment does not affect the
right of any school board member to complete the term for which the member was
elected.
Section 20A-14-201(3)(b) contains the following rules regarding school board
representation following reapportionment:
1. If only one board member whose term extends beyond reapportionment
lives within a reapportioned district, that board member shall represent that
district.
2. (a) If two or more members whose terms extend beyond reapportionment
live within a reapportioned district, the members involved shall select one
member by lot to represent the district.
(b) The other members shall serve at-large for the remainder of their terms.
(c) The at-large board members shall serve in addition to the designated
number of board members for the board for the remainder of their terms.
13
3. If no board member lives within a district whose term extends beyond
reapportionment, the seat shall be treated as vacant and shall filled as
provided by law.
City Council
In contrast to the school district scenario, Utah lacks a statute that expressly
addresses the effect of a redistricting boundary change on incumbent city council
members. However, some Utah Code sections indirectly provide guidance.
For example, § 10-3-201(1) says that the officers elected in a city general election
shall continue in office for four years except in case of death, resignation,
removal, or disqualification from office.
A redistricting change is none of those.
Furthermore, § 10-3-202 provides that each elected officer of a city shall hold
office for the term for which he or she is elected unless the office becomes vacant
under § 10-3-301. Section 10-3-301(5) says that a city elected officer must
maintain a principal place of residence within the district that the officer
represents.
In addition, Subsection 10-3-301(5) provides that an elected officer’s office
becomes automatically vacant if the officer, during the officer’s term of office,
establishes a principal place of residence outside the district that the officer
represents. This happens only if the officer acts affirmatively to move from the
state or precinct in the state and has the intent to remain in another state or
precinct. See § 20A-2-105(4)(j)(i).
Because a change of district boundaries does not involve the affirmative
act of a council member to move from the district, it seems unlikely that
his or her residence would change and thus there would be no automatic
vacancy.
Because no Utah statutes clearly address the issue, it is likely that the common law
would apply. Under the common law, the qualifications of candidates for office are
14
determined at the time they begin their term of office. Redistricting that changes
the residence of an incumbent member does not affect that member’s current
term of office. Candidates carry their residence with them throughout the entire
term of office to which they were elected. Kendra Carberry, Redistricting: A
Municipal Perspective, Colorado Lawyer 49, February 2002.
That view is supported by Olsen v. Merrill, 5 P.2d 226 (Utah 1931). In that case a
redistricting affected members of the Provo Board of Education. Mr. Olsen and
Mr. Startup were school board members. Before the redistricting, Mr. Olsen
resided in municipal ward No. 3, and Mr. Startup resided in ward No. 2.
After a redistricting, Mr. Olsen ended up living in ward No. 2 and Mr. Startup
resided in ward No. 1. The board of education met to select two new board
members to replace Mr. Olsen and Mr. Startup, on the premise that the positions of
those men had become vacant.
The Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled that the men were entitled to continue to
act as members of the board for the remainder of their terms. The redistricting
did not render them ineligible to continue as board members .1
Therefore, an incumbent City Council member will not lose his or her office due
to redistricting. That necessarily means that, temporarily, more than one Council
Member might live in a single district, and that during that time a district might
endure with no Council Member residing within it.
Boyd Ferguson
Senior City Attorney
1 The court distinguished situations in which the elected officials served only as representatives of the municipal
wards from which they were elected. In contrast, the Provo board members did not serve in a municipal ward office.
Instead, each board member, though elected from municipal wards, participated in the management and control of
the entire school system without regard to municipal wards.
January 12, 2022
Greetings Community and Neighborhood Leaders,
The Salt Lake City Council is preparing to redistrict the seven Council District boundaries based
on the 2020 Census results. We have a shared goal to use a fair and transparent process that invites trust
and public participation. A key part of this process is forming a Redistricting Advisory Commission of
residents, as was done in 2011.
The Commission will hear public input, deliberate potential boundary changes, and recommend
maps for the City Council’s final approval. While we know there is no perfect map to meet everyone’s
preferences, we believe an inclusive process that channels feedback from all residents will result in a
better map. And we want your help to refer interested residents to apply for membership on the
Redistricting Advisory Commission.
Attached to this letter is a copy of the application form. Please share this application with any
resident you feel has the competency, impartiality, and integrity to serve the City’s best interests and
meets the eligibility criteria.
Under state law, the Council must adopt a new map by May 10, 2022. The commission members
will be selected in the coming weeks and will meet several times. There will also be opportunities for
additional public input once the commission recommends maps to the City Council .
The Council had a public briefing by the Gardner Policy Institute on the results of the 2020
Census for the City overall and each Council District. The City Attorney’s Office also provided a briefing on
the legal requirements and considerations of redistricting. I encourage you to watch these briefings and
help spread the word to your neighbors. The more residents are aware of the redistricting process and
how it can affect their lives, the more I hope they will participate and ensure the final map ref lects our
communities.
Sincerely,
Dan Dugan
Chair, Salt Lake City Council
AF/bl
CC: Mayor Erin Mendenhall; Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer;
Kaletta Lynch, Chief Equity Officer; Moana Uluave-Hafoka, Equity Manager; Cindy Lou Trishman, City
Recorder
DAN DUGAN | DISTRICT 6 | COUNCIL CHAIR || DARIN MANO | DISTRICT 5 | COUNCIL VICE CHAIR ||
VICTORIA PETRO-ESCHLER|DISTRICT 1 ||ALEJANDRO PUY| DISTRICT 2 ||CHRIS WHARTON| DISTRICT 3||
ANA VALDEMOROS|DISTRICT 4 || AMY FOWLER | DISTRICT 7
News from SLC Council: Redistricting Advisory Commission Application
1/3
View this email in your browser
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Jan. 13, 2022
Redistricting Advisory Commission Call for Applications
Working to ensure fairly represented, non-partisan voices help shape Salt Lake
City’s Districts.
SALT LAKE CITY – The City Council is organizing an independent commission
of residents to serve in an advisory role during the City's redistricting process.
The Council received an informational briefing from the Kem C. Gardner Policy
Institute about the 2020 Census results for Salt Lake City and individual results
for the seven Council Districts. This information will be used as part of the City's
Council redistricting process over the coming months.
Council Chair, Dan Dugan invites the community to apply and welcomes those
interested, "I encourage community members to apply for their district, it takes
a whole community to make this work fair and equitable, we need everyone to
care and get involved."
Subscribe Past Issues Translate
News from SLC Council: Redistricting Advisory Commission Application
2/3
Selected members will be expected to:
1)meet at least twice a month from February until the Council adopts new
boundaries,
2)attend meetings to gather concerns, ideas, and input, and
3)present a list of guiding values for District maps
4)present suggested maps for Council District boundaries for the City Council’s
consideration.
"Salt Lake City aims to be as transparent and apolitical as possible." said
Council Vice Chair Darin Mano, "We've decided this year to accept applications
for any invested Salt Lakers regardless of eligibility to vote. We encourage all
residents, including young people and those from traditionally marginalized
communities, to apply."
Redistricting is a process that occurs every ten years, where states use the
most recent census data to designate electoral boundaries within the state. The
process is necessary because it may create political inequities that, over time,
undermine democratic representation.
Local redistricting determines which neighborhoods and communities in the
City are grouped together into districts that elect City Council members. By
ensuring each district has approximately the same number of people,
redistricting provides fairer representation on the City Council.
The specific composition of the Commission will depend on the number and
quality of the applicants. The City Council will select at least one representative
from each district and may select at-large representatives as well.
It's Your city, Your Business! We encourage all Salt lake City residents to apply!
###
📞
To learn more about the commission and how to apply, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/SLCRedistricting. Applications are due January 27 by
close of business day 5pm.
News from SLC Council: Redistricting Advisory Commission Application
3/3
Beatrix Sieger
CCccommunicationsgroup@slcgov.com
beatrix.sieger@slcgov.com
801-535-7623
Council Website Meeting Times & Agendas
update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list
📞 ContactSubscribePast Issues Translate
1
RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, Section 10-3-205.5 of the Utah Code Annotated provides that within
six months after the Utah Legislature completes its redistricting process, the City Council
must make any adjustments in the boundaries of the City Council districts as may be
required to maintain districts of substantially equal population; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.06.010B of the Salt Lake City Code provides that the City
Council must reapportion City Council districts following each federal decennial census
to maintain substantially equal populations; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has completed its redistricting process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given, the City Council held public hearings
on ________, 2022 and on _________ , 2022, which latter hearing was continued on
_________, 2022, _________, 2022, and _________, 2022, to consider the attached
adjustments to the City Council districts; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearings, all interested parties for and against the
proposed adjustments to the City Council districts were heard and all comments were
duly considered by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Salt Lake City Council as follows:
1. Designation of City Council District Boundaries. The boundaries of the
seven Salt Lake City Council districts shall be comprised of the areas designated for each
council district as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
2
2. Effective date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its execution.
Passed by the City Council this ______ day of April, 2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Recorder
3
EXHIBIT A
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
Politely Compact with Minimal Changes Attachment 8
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
RD2022-03 Attachment 9
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
Community Council Boundaries Attachment 10
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA,
USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
RD2022-04 Attachment 11
Current City Council Districts
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
RD2022-02 Attachment 12
Current City Councils
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
Council
District 3
Council
District 7
Council
District 1
Council
District 5
Council
District 4
Council
District 6Council
District 2
Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, County of Salt Lake, Utah AGRC, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/
NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA
/
Drawn By: K. Bell
Salt Lake City Corporation
Information Management Services
March 2022
Something Totally Different Attachment 13
Current City Councils
Click here to visit the District Builder web page
SALT LAKE CITY
PROGRAM
BUDGETING
Start with Why:There are huge societal problems that need to be addressed (think homelessness, equity,
climate action, safer communities, healthy people, thriving local economies).
Why Government?For so many of these challenges, it's really up to government, and often local
government, to take action and try to orchestrate solutions. Take homelessness, if local government doesn't attempt
solutions, it's not like there are a bunch of eager private sector companies dying to get into the homelessness
business. Therefore, if local governments don't at least attempt to tackle these problems, the likelihood grows that
they'll go unaddressed -that is unacceptable to the founders of ResourceX. On top of this, pretty much everywhere
there are people, there are local governments created to serve them -so in terms of massive impact, if we can help
local governments, we stand the greatest chance to help the most amount of people.
What does government need to attempt to solve these problems?Resources! (truth
is we need a lot of things, like cultures of innovation, evolved business models, great leaders at all levels of the
organization, and more...). But if there's one common tie that binds all local governments, it's the need for the
resources to fund solutions (either solving these problems directly, or funding partners to orchestrate solutions).
So what's the problem?The problem is most governments don't feel like they have enough to "keep the
lights on" and do the basics, let alone channel resources toward these future focused ambitions like climate change.
The problem is local governments may not pursue grand solutions to society level problems because they don't feel
they have the resources to adequately go after them...
Hence the purpose of ResourceX:we have consistently demonstrated that resources can be made
readily available. That's our piece of the puzzle -creating readily available resources (so that local government
doesn't succumb to the excuse of resource scarcity).
How will we succeed?Through Priority Based Budgeting, communities are able to consistently identify
opportunities at the program level for massive resource reallocation, and entrepreneurial revenue generation.
Among our top practitioners of PBB are those who reallocate 10% or more of their budgets to free up resources to
fund the results of tomorrow. We enable change agents to tackle their community's most ambitious goals,
unencumbered by resource scarcity. That's why we're here.
Thesis of
Programs are the Vehicle for Change
Why?
As The Leader in 21st Century Budgeting,
We're Doing Budgeting Differently
The company: ResourceX has supported > 300 organizations across North America
create frameworks for better decision-making and recenter budgets to achieve outcomes.
The solution: Fund programs and services rather than line items, and evaluate each against priorities.
Here’s the challenge with traditional, line-item budgeting..
(line-item budget requests are ”all or nothing”)
+ $5,000
+ $25,000
-$1,000
+ $29,000
While easy on the departments, it’s unclear what
outcomes are being impacted
What if you doubled this spending –would it improve
our ability to achieve our results?
What if we reduced this line item, what impact would
it have on our results?
Is this increase associated with a mandate, is there a
partner who we could share the costs with, is there
an increase in demand driving this, etc etc?
Will it (the increase in professional services)
improve our ability to achieve our results?
City & County of Denver, ColoradoBudgeting for
Equity
Perceived Disconnect
Clear Definition
of Equity Objective
Unclear How Budget
Supported Equity Objective
Key to Solution: Train Staff how to Recenter Budget and
Equity Recommendations at Program Level (not line-item)
More intuitive to identify
initiatives to increase equity
at the program/service
level
Goal: Better budget recommendations, truly aligned with Equity objective
Path to Action: 1.) define programs and costs, 2.) program insights for equity
Skills and Capacity: create better budget proposals and fund them
PROGRAM INVENTORY
Big Picture:
Data is the Foundation for Insights and
Action
COSTING
SCORING
DATA CREATION INSIGHTS AND ACTION
DATA INSIGHT ACTION
Create Data:
•Program Inventory
•Program Costs
•Program Scores
•Program Performance
Metrics
•...and more
Identify Opportunity:
•Program Future / Fate
•Increase Service Levels
•Repurpose Resources
•Efficiency,
Sourcing, Service
Levels
•Generate Revenue
Take Action:
•Budget and approve of
new program launches
•Budget for reallocation of
resources
•Budget for revenue
generation
•Execution
Program Inventory
Line-item (resource) data
Basic Program Attributes
Impact on Outcomes
Program’s Future Direction
Program/Service
Business Intelligence
•Imperative data to answer:
o What programs need more
resources?
o What programs can we do less
of?
o What programs can we change
how we deliver?
o Where can we partner?
•Programs are a vehicle for analyzing,
communicating change, and a platform
for insight and action
Line-item
Business Intelligence
•Good for informing broad decisions
that impact cost types (personnel,
capital, training, etc)
•Especially useful for decisions of
non-personnel nature (defer capital,
suspend travel, reduce fuel and
supplies)
•Lacks connection to impacts on
services, service-levels, and
outcomes
Building Business Intelligence
(Layering Data)
Salt Lake
City Insights
Purchasing
Deputy Director
◦$126,380 for 10 months
◦$8,000 in one-time costs
◦Increasing demand on contracts and purchase orders
◦Position will allow the Purchasing division to better meet demand in a timely manner
◦Contract requests and contract spending are trending upward
◦Transitioning to a new Contract Development Software
Program Insight #1 -1.0 FTE SVU Victim Advocate
Victim Advocate Program
INSIGHT DESCRIPTION INSIGHT BUDGET IMPACT
1.0 FTE SVU Victim Advocate Fund a victim advocate position that is currently awarded through a federal
OVC grant and that ends in August 2022.
Complexity Timeline On Going Exp One Time Exp On Going Rev One Time Rev
Low Short Term $83,801 $3,000 (IMS)
20
City of Pittsburgh PA: Institutionalize Equity Lens
(and Climate) into Budget Development Process
Program Alignment with Results
The City of Salt Lake City
Program Budgeting
Next Steps:
May –December 2022
•Migrate to next generation ResourceX Program Budgeting platform (includes Budgeter module)
•Expand Program Budgeting to 6 -8 additional departments
•Perform Insights with new departments
•Pilot Budgeter module
•Fully apply Program Budgeting across the organization for FY23-24 budget cycle
Item K3
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
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 3, 2022
RE: Ordinance Amendment: Use of City Owned Vehicles by Employees
MOTION 1 – ADOPT
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending Salt Lake City Code Chapter 2.54 pertaining to
use of city owned vehicles.
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
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 3, 2022
RE: Ordinance Amendment: Use of City Owned Vehicles by Employees
NEW INFORMATION
At the April 19 briefing, Council Members discussed several policy issues and goals related to the proposed
ordinance amendment. The Council also requested additional information from the Administration and
responses to the four policy questions which are copied below. The Police Department shared an infographic
(Attachment 1) about the proposed take home vehicle changes. It lists six intended benefits, the primary changes
between current and proposed policy and additional considerations.
The Administration also provided Attachment 2 with a comparison of fuel and maintenance costs for an
employee using a city owned vehicle vs. a personal vehicle. An officer living at the expanded maximum distance
of 60 miles from city limits would pay the City $180 bi-weekly, which is less than the $279.73 estimated
biweekly fuel and maintenance cost for using a personal vehicle over the same distance. (The comparison is not
exact, for example, one caveat is that the analysis assumes eight-hour shifts five days a week, however, many
police officers work 10-hour shifts four days a week. Another example is that while employees do need a
secondary insurance coverage on City-owned vehicles, they would also have a level of insurance on personal
vehicles. Thirdly, the vehicle replacement cost for City-owned vehicles is covered by the City but an employee
would pay the full cost of a personal vehicle.) Attachment 2 also includes three real world examples of police
officers in different positions and how the ordinance amendment could positively impact the department’s
operational readiness and some response times.
Responses to Policy Questions
1.Balancing Hiring & Operational Readiness Goals with Budget Constraints – The Council
may wish to discuss with the Administration to what extent the proposed ordinance achieves the City’s
competing goals of reaching full staffing of police officers with whether it becomes prohibitive due to the
cost of increased funding for maintenance and replacements to ensure vehicles are safe and available
when employees need them.
Administration’s response: “With additional time, the Department could provide the Council and
Administration with the current number of officers who are unable to take their assigned city-vehicle
home because they live outside the current 35 mile limit. The Department is aware take home vehicles is
a significant recruitment and retention issue for future and current employees. First time officers were
now living further away from Salt Lake County – primarily due to the higher cost of living currently
within the city, county and the area encompassing the 35 miles radius around the city. Today, officers
are trying to find housing further away that is more affordable and conducive to their growing families.
If officers are not allowed to take home a vehicle, this will remain a deterrent for them, and they will
likely seek out employment at another agency. Expanding the take-home car policy to 60 miles allows
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: April 19, 2022
2nd Briefing: May 3, 2022
Potential Action: May 3 or 17, 2022
Page | 2
the department to serve its current members while also recruiting additional members to join the
SLCPD who wish to be a part of the best law enforcement agency in Utah.” Staff note: see pages two and
three of Attachment 2 for three real world examples shared by the Police Department.
2.Increase Vehicle Funding in FY2023 Annual Budget – The Council may wish to request that
increased funding be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023 to account for
shortened vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules that may occur under the proposed
ordinance amendments.
Administration’s response: “The current projections for vehicle replacement account for all miles driven,
regardless of the purpose (on the clock vs commuting). If increased funding is made available to Fleet,
the increased maintenance on take home vehicles would be covered, freeing up proportionally the
replacement fund.”
3.Who should Evaluate Personal Use Fee and How Often – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration whether to keep the current ordinance language assigning annual fee evaluation
responsibilities with the Council or if that would better fit with another part of the City such as the Fleet
Division and/or the Finance Department? Historically, the Council has not consistently re-evaluated the
fee annually. The evaluation could be part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget like other city fees
many of which are adjusted annually by the CPI.
Administration’s response: “Fleet would be able to provide projected costs per mile driven on City
vehicles as part of their annual budget preparation. We are proposing that a reasonable cost split
(between employee and the City) is stablished to then calculate the dollar amount for this fee and
present it for approval.”
4.Coordinating Citywide Fleet Policy and Departmental Policy – The Council may wish to ask
the Administration how the pending citywide policy for personal use of city owned vehicles will be
coordinated with each department creating a personal use policy. The ordinance amendments would
require employees to follow both sets of policies.
Administration’s response: “The City-wide policy will include definitions for personal use and incidental
use, providing guidelines for best practices. Each Department with a take-home vehicle program, will
define is policy surrounding off-duty personal use of such vehicle.”
5.Policy Comparison – Is there an updated comparison of how other municipalities and law
enforcement agencies do take home vehicle policies? We understand an “apples-to-apples” comparison
may be difficult because of the many nuances between the compensation packages, policies and rules.
Administration’s response: “We haven’t received responses from other agencies consulted.”
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration recommended an ordinance amendment that makes several changes to how employees may
take-home and use city owned vehicles. The ordinance mostly impacts public safety employees. While the take-
home vehicles are not part of the City’s compensation package, the changes could put the City in a more
competitive position for the recruitment of police officers, since take-home vehicles are a standard feature for
many other police departments. Greater use of city owned vehicles is likely to occur based on the changes. This
would result in a greater General Fund subsidy including some departments paying more in fuel and the Fleet
Division incurring maintenance costs and vehicle replacement costs sooner than would otherwise be the case.
The amendment also makes housekeeping changes to bring City Code in line with State law and some general
language clean up.
Expand Distance Limit from 35 Miles to 60 Miles; Increasing Costs to Fleet and Departments
The ordinance amendment increases the maximum distance from 35 miles to 60 miles from city limits. An
employee living more than 60 miles away could be allowed to use a city vehicle if the relevant department
director and mayor both waive the distance limit. The longer distance limit is believed to be inclusive of all
current City police officer’s primary residences.
Page | 3
Departments pay the Fleet Division for fuel and the increased distance limit may result in a greater amount of
total miles travels and therefore higher fuel billings for some departments to pay. The greater amount of mileage
on city owned vehicles means faster wear and tear which would require the Fleet Division to provide
maintenance at a faster pace. Vehicle replacements would also need to be done faster. Increased funding to the
Fleet Division may be needed to account for these shortened maintenance and replacement schedules. Specific
estimates on increase milage, maintenance, and replacement funding needs based on the ordinance changes
could be requested from the Administration.
Revise Personal Use of City Vehicles as determined by each Department
The ordinance amendments restrict personal use from within Salt Lake County and an employee’s home county
(current ordinance) to be limited within the employee’s standard commute. The shortest route from an
employee’s home to their primary place of employment determines their standard commute. Each department
would be tasked with setting allowable personal use distances beyond an employee’s residence and the standard
commute. There are also allowances for personal use by public safety employees subject to callback duty which
could improve operational readiness and response times. Another change allows employees to take-home a city
vehicle when emergencies or inclement weather cause dangerous circumstances. Employees are required to
obtain supplemental insurance coverage for personal vehicle use.
Payments to City for Personal Use Not Updated in over a Decade
Per the current ordinance, an employee that lives outside of city limits makes biweekly payments for personal
use of the city owned vehicle. The cost as set in ordinance is $3 per mile. No payment is required for employees
that live within the City. A $6 per mile fee is required for use of a city owned vehicle to and from secondary
employment. Neither the $3 per mile fee for personal use nor the $6 per mile fee for secondary employee use
have been updated in over a decade. The two fees are not subject to the annual consumer price index (CPI)
inflation adjustment so the City subsidy has been increasing as purchasing power declines. In 2019, the Fleet
Advisory Committee estimated the following two subsidy scenarios:
a. If only counting fuel and maintenance costs, then the cost is currently split 50% City / 50% public safety
employee.
b. If also counting insurance, wear and tear caused by longer distance travel and vehicle replacement costs,
then the cost is currently split 80% City / 20% public safety employee.
Vehicle Location (GPS) Data and Compliance Monitoring
The Fleet Division will provide department directors with reports on how employees use a vehicle including GPS
data. The geofencing technology can send alerts when a vehicle leaves an employee’s predetermined personal
use area which each department would identify based on an employee’s standard commute and radius from
their home. Prior to use, an employee must acknowledge they have no expectation of privacy when using a city
owned vehicle. The Fleet Division has implemented the software platform to generate usage reports and alerts
based on location data. Supervisors in each department would need to be trained on how to setup, use, and
understand the reports. Some trainings have already occurred.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Balancing Hiring & Operational Readiness Goals with Budget Constraints – The Council
may wish to discuss with the Administration to what extent the proposed ordinance achieves the City’s
competing goals of reaching full staffing of police officers with whether it becomes prohibitive due to the
cost of increased funding for maintenance and replacement to ensure vehicles are safe and available
when employees need them.
2.Increase Vehicle Funding in FY2023 Annual Budget – The Council may wish to request that
increased funding be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023 to account for
shortened vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules that may occur under the proposed
ordinance amendments.
3.Who should Evaluate Personal Use Fee and How Often – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration whether to keep the current ordinance language assigning annual fee evaluation
responsibilities with the Council or if that would better fit with another part of the City such as the Fleet
Division and/or the Finance Department? Historically, the Council has not consistently re-evaluated the
fee annually. The evaluation could be part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget like other city fees
many of which are adjusted annually by the CPI.
Page | 4
4.Coordinating Citywide Fleet Policy and Departmental Policy – The Council may wish to ask
the Administration how the pending citywide policy for personal use of city owned vehicles will be
coordinated with each department creating a personal use policy. The ordinance amendments would
require employees to follow both sets of policies.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Comparison with other Law Enforcement Agencies
A few years ago, the City’s HR Department and the Fleet Division did an informal comparison to other law
enforcement agencies in the metropolitan area. They concluded the City’s take-home vehicle ordinance and
policies were about average with some municipalities more generous and others less so. However, the different
nuances of each agency’s take-home vehicle policies and the variation of compensation and benefit packages
prevented a direct “apples to apples” comparison.
Intangible Benefits
Intangible benefits are difficult to quantify such as perceptions of increased safety, deterrence effect of putting
more police vehicles in neighborhoods, improved operational readiness, and the convenience/time savings for
officers. Outside work hours most take-home vehicles are used outside Salt Lake City because most employees
live in other municipalities so the intangible benefits may be to residents in other cities.
$179,600 for Vehicle Telematics in FY2022 Annual Budget
The FY2022 annual budget includes $179,600 to purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware for
General Fund vehicles. A few hundred vehicles in the City’s fleet have onboard sensors that allow the collection
of data such as speed, engine idling time, location, intensity of braking, fuel consumption and more. The data
provides insight into a vehicle’s health and driver’s behavior. The Fleet Division stated vehicle telematics can
improve safety, “minimize long-term equipment damage, reduce operational costs, such as fuel consumption,
and extend the maintenance intervals of heavy-wear parts like brakes and tires.” At last count, 762 General Fund
vehicles were equipped with the hardware and a few hundred more need it. This ongoing funding is sufficient to
cover the hardware costs for the remaining vehicles, upgrade to existing hardware to be compatible with 5G data
networks and ongoing maintenance.
Vehicle Storage at another Municipality’s Fire or Police Facility
The ordinance amendment includes the option for a take home vehicle for a public safety employee to be
securely parked at another municipality’s fire or police facility. This could be done daily if an employee lives
outside the 60-mile distance limit. The intention is for the employee to save time by not needing to drive to the
Public Safety Building or Pioneer Police Precinct to transfer from their personal vehicle to a city owned vehicle.
Liability Insurance
The ordinance amendment would remove the $200,000 minimum liability insurance the City provides and
instead use the amount required by Utah Code 63G-7-802 Liability Insurance – Government vehicles operated
by employees outside scope of employment. The City would cover liability up to the minimums set in state law.
Employees are required to obtain supplemental insurance coverage for personal use including passengers if any.
Misc. Info: Council Members may wish to note the following points:
- At last count, the City has 618 police vehicles with a replacement value of $28.4 million which is 43% of
all General Fund vehicles. The City also has 113 fire vehicles with a replacement value of $33.3 million
which is 8% of all General Fund vehicles. The fire vehicles are more expensive because they include large
engines and other specialty response vehicles.
- Public safety employees are required to keep an article of clothing and/or equipment in a city owned
vehicles used for personal use that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City. This
preparation helps when an employee must respond to emergency situations or off duty deployments.
- Department heads are exempt from the fee and distance restrictions on city owned vehicles.
- The Fleet Division estimates the emergency proclamation suspending take-home fees for City vehicles
reduced revenue for fuel reimbursements by $453,704 in FY2021. This represented 16% of the fuel
revenue in the FY2021 adopted budget.
Page | 5
ACRONYMS
CPI – Consumer Price Index
FY – Fiscal Year
GPS – Global Positioning System
ATTACHMENTS
1. SLCPD Take Home Vehicle Infographic
2. City Take Home Vehicle Analysis
Salt Lake City
Police Department
Expand the 35 mile limit to 60 miles to be inclusive of
all current City police officers' primary residences.
Limit the distance a take-home car can be driven for
reasonable personal use while outside Salt Lake
County.
PROPOSED POLICY
BENEFIT #3
Improved staffing
abilities and response
times
BENEFIT #5
Operational readiness and
24 hour response for critical
incidents
Take-Home-Car Policy and
Request to Expand Distance
Limit
BENEFIT #1
Cleaner environments with
fuel efficient SLCPD vehicles
BENEFIT #2
Improved recruitment and
retention
BENEFIT #4
Improved
accountability for
vehicle maintenance
BENEFIT #6
Peace of mind with more
police officers traveling in
our communities
CURRENT POLICY
No police car may be taken home if an employee lives
more than 35 miles from the nearest city limit.
Employees who live within 35 miles from the nearest
city limit can use their vehicle anywhere in the county
they reside for reasonable personal use.
$$$$Mile calculation
examples
Officer A lives 5 miles from the nearest SLC city-limit.
This officer pays $15 to the City each paycheck for a
total of $30 a month.
Officer B lives 30 miles from the nearest SLC city-limit.
This officer pays $90 to the City each paycheck for a
total of $180 a month.
Officer C lives 37 miles from the nearest SLC city-limit.
This officer is currently not allowed to take their
vehicle home.
Additional considerations:
When operating a police vehicle,
employees must be dressed in a manner
to reflect the department positively, have a
police identification (such as a uniform or
police jacket) and a duty handgun.
Officers must have their two-way
communications radio on and set to an
audible volume when the vehicle is in
operation.
Officers must set good driving examples at
all times.
Once vehicles are assigned to an
employee, that person is responsible for
the maintenance schedule.
An officer who lives in SLC does not have to pay the $3 mileage fee.
Salt Lake City Public Safety Take-Home Vehicle Policy
Currently, as stated in City ordinance 2.54.030, a vehicle assigned to a sworn and certified law
enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City Police Department, or an employee of the Salt Lake City Fire
Department, pursuant to their department's take home car program requirements, may be authorized
to take home their assigned, city-owned vehicle. This ordinance limits the eligibility of this benefit to
public safety officers who live within 35 miles of the City limits, except for vehicles provided to
Department Directors. Lastly, a three dollar ($3.00) per mile payment shall be made biweekly by an
employee who lives outside of the City and takes their vehicle home. (i.e., 35 miles X 3.00, one-way,
billed bi-weekly at $105.)
Vehicle Maintenance and Upkeep
It shall be the duty and responsibility of the driver or operator of a city vehicle to see that it is properly
serviced, maintained, and cleaned. This includes, but is not limited to, having the appropriate servicing
performed on the vehicle at all designated intervals as set forth by the public services department. If the
driver or operator of the city vehicle fails to have the vehicle properly serviced or maintained as
prescribed by the public services department within ten (10) working days or two hundred (200) miles of
the required service or maintenance time, such failure may result in loss of use of the vehicle to the user
or department as well as possible disciplinary action.
Biweekly Cost Calculation1
Below is a comparison between distance intervals and the fuel and maintenance cost associated. The
biweekly cost calculation accounts for the total milage driven, round trip, every workday in a pay period
(10). The employee payment is obtained by multiplying the distance by the three-dollar fee. The annual
subsidy accounts for 26 pay periods in a year.
Shortest
distance to
home from
City (miles)
Biweekly cost of
Depreciation, Fuel
and Maintenance
Employee pays
biweekly
City's
subsidies
biweekly
Annual City subsidy per
employee
15 $161.09 $45.00 $116.09 $3,018.34
25 $212.64 $75.00 $137.64 $3,578.64
35 $264.20 $105.00 $159.20 $4,139.20
45*$315.75 $135.00 $180.75 $4,699.50
50*$341.53 $150.00 $191.53 $4,979.78
60*$393.08 $180.00 $213.08 $5,540.08
*Distance not currently covered in the take-home program
It is important to mention that, whereas the fuel cost is absorbed by the employee’s Department,
mainly with general fund dollars, the additional maintenance and accelerated replacement cost is left to
be covered by Fleet.
Personal Cost Comparison (Does not include cost of depreciation)2
1 Prepared by Jorge Chamorro, Compliance Division, Deputy Director of Public Service
2 Prepared by Jorge Chamorro, Compliance Division, Deputy Director of Public Service
Shortest
distance to
home from
City (miles)
Annual Est. Personal
Cost per employee Fuel
and Maintenance
Biweekly
cost of
personal
fuel
Biweekly
cost of
personal
maint.
Biweekly
Personal
cost
total
Assumed
Maint.,
Insurance,
Registration
Assumed
Annual
Fuel
15/30 $3,149.40 $51.90 $72.13 $124.03 $1,800.00 $1,349.40
25/50 $3,959.04 $83.04 $72.13 $155.17 $1,800.00 $2,159.04
35/70 $4,633.74 $108.99 $72.13 $181.12 $1,800.00 $2,833.74
45/90 $5,848.20 $155.70 $72.13 $227.83 $1,800.00 $4,048.20
50/100 $6,118.08 $166.08 $72.13 $238.21 $1,800.00 $4,318.08
60/120 $7,197.60 $207.60 $72.13 $279.73 $1,800.00 $5,397.60
Real-world Examples
Person Crimes Detective
A detective assigned to the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Investigations Division, specifically a
Person Crimes detective, is unable to take home their department issued vehicle because this employee
lives approximately 2.5 miles outside the 35 mile radius. Part of this detective’s responsibilities include
being on call during specific weeks throughout the year and also responding to an average of 2-3 call
outs a week. Because this detective is unable to take a department vehicle home, this employee must
first drive to the Public Safety Building and transfer any materials into their city-issued vehicle and then
head to the crime scene. This detective is responsible for investigating crimes against children. A timely
response by a trained detective is imperative so that the child can be properly taken care of and that a
forensic interview and examination can be done to preserve evidence. This detective’s response time is
extended by 30-45 minutes on average per call out because they are unable to use a take home vehicle.
In this detective’s position, they are a member of the state’s Child Abduction Response Team. This
requires them to respond to scenes across Utah. In one such case, the detective’s response time was
delayed by more than 60 minutes. This did not include the drivetime to the scene in northern Utah. To
be a survivor of sexual assault (no matter what age) is a traumatic and life changing event and our
survivors need all of the assistance we can provide. It is of the upmost importance that these
investigations are carried out in a timely manner and our victims are cared for of as quickly as possible.
Patrol Sergeant
An officer assigned to the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Patrol Division is currently unable to take
home their department issued vehicle because this employee lives one mile outside the 35 mile limit. In
2020, as a member of the Department’s Public Order Unit, this employee was called out to a large riot in
downtown Salt Lake City. Fortunately, this officer’s post, where their department issued gear is stored,
was at the Department’s Pioneer Precinct. Had the employee’s post been at the Public Safety Building,
this employee would not have been able to access the Public Safety Building due to the road closures
and the fact that the employee was driving a privately owned vehicle with no police siren or lights
equipped. In the event of a full-squad callout for the Department’s Public Order Unit, this employee,
depending on the incident location, estimates an additional 30-60 minutes of readiness time before
being able to go in-service to assist operationally.
Police K-9 Member
An officer assigned to the Salt Lake City Police Department’s K-9 Unit is currently unable to take home
their department issued vehicle because this employee lives three miles outside the 35 mile radius. This
employee must use a personally owned vehicle to commute an average 45 minutes to the Public Safety
Building. Because the employee is subject to call-outs, the employee estimates that if direct reporting
from their residence, it will take about 30 minutes of additional readiness time. If the employee is not
direct reporting from their residence and needs to travel back to their residence and then to the Public
Safety Building, it will take about 60 minutes of additional readiness time. As this employee is a member
of the Department’s K-9 Unit, the employee will be assigned a canine. All members of the department’s
K-9 Unit are assigned specially equipped vehicles to ensure the safe transport of the canine. These
vehicles ensure canine has an emergency escape should the vehicle’s interior temperature increase to
unsafe levels. Without the milage being extended for the city’s take-home vehicle policy, this employee
will have to transport the department’s canine in a personally owned vehicle, which is not equipped for
animal transport, to the Public Safety Building and then to the scene. Response time could be delayed
up to 60 minutes for a call-out. The city may incur additional costs for the officer to clean and sanitize
any canine bodily fluids expelled during transport in the officer’s personal vehicle.
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:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council:
TO: DATE: December 21, 2021
FROM:
Salt Lake City Council Amy Fowler, Chair
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code
Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles
STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Office
Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT: Anticipated to be negligible. May result in some increased costs, but
will also decrease costs as a result of tighter “personal use” allowance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In the face of increasing competition for qualified law enforcement officers across the state, as well
as feedback from the Police Department that the City’s current take-home vehicle ordinance was a
detractor from recruitment, the Mayor’s Office determined earlier this year to examine whether to
amend this ordinance. The proposed revision was created in conjunction with the Police
Department and Public Services. Below is a brief synopsis of the changes:
Limitations on personal use of vehicles: Previously, the ordinance permitted employees
to use city-owned vehicles for “reasonable personal use” within Salt Lake County and the
employee’s home county. The proposed changes have limited personal use to “reasonable
personal use within . . . the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety
officer’s use of the vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty.” The purpose of this
change is to better tailor the policy to the intended benefits of taking home a vehicle,
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 27, 2021 14:25 MST)
12/27/2021
12/27/2021
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
including the benefit to the City of having public safety officers available for immediate
response when on callback duty, without accumulating excessive mileage or permitting
excessive personal use of the vehicles. The proposed ordinance includes procedures for
establishing the employee’s “standard commute,” and requires employees to first agree, in
writing, to comply with the ordinance, limit personal use, maintain the vehicle, and
acknowledge that there is no expectation of privacy their use of city vehicles. “Reasonable
personal use” will be further defined as per Fleet and Departmental policy.
Expanded eligibility radius for permitted take home use: The proposed ordinance
expands authorized take home use to any employee residing 60 miles or less from the city
limits, an increase from the current ordinance’s limit of 35 miles or less.. Additionally, the
proposed change permits exceptions to this radius requirement on a case-by-case basis, with
permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor. The primary purpose of
this change is to enable the City to recruit new public safety officers, as an increasing number
of recruits reside in communities surrounding the City, and public safety agencies in other
communities often have robust take home vehicle policies. The previous 35-mile limitation
seemed to arbitrarily cut employees living furthest from the city out of the policy (arguably
those most benefited from commuting in a city-owned vehicle). Additionally, this change
encourages more equity in the take home policy, as the previous ordinance permitted very
broad personal use for employees within Salt Lake County and their home county, while
other employees residing just a few miles outside of the limit were not permitted to even
commute in a city vehicle, even without personal use.
Reporting and enforceability: The proposed ordinance calls for Fleet to maintain a take
home vehicle policy and to provide department directors with access to geofencing
technology and telemetrics reports, allowing them to audit employees’ vehicle use. The Fleet
policy must also set forth procedures to address unauthorized use. These provisions are
intended to allow the City to monitor and enforce the terms of the ordinance.
Liability Insurance: Utah Code sets forth the insurance coverage a government entity must
carry to cover circumstances where a city employee is using a city vehicle outside the scope
of employment, with the express or implied consent of the city. The proposed amendments
bring the ordinance in line with the State Code minimum insurance requirements.
Cleanup: The proposed new ordinance re-structures the authorization provision and
removes some categories of authorization for simplification.
Emergency circumstances: The changes include new language permitting employees to
take home a vehicle when emergency circumstances make it difficult or unsafe for an
employee to return a vehicle at the end of their shift. This is intended to address
circumstances such as the protests in summer 2020 when public safety officers had to get
through demonstrators to gain access to the public safety building to pick up or return their
vehicles. This could also address inclement weather situations, such as snow storms, etc.
Attachments:
A. Legislative Draft
B. Oridinance
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2022 2
3
(An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code 4
Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles) 5
6
An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city 7
owned motor vehicles. 8
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the 9
permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and 10
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are 11
necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake 12
City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and 13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to 14
require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles 15
to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and 16
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 17
SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code 18
shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 19
A.Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nNo motor vehicle owned by the city20
may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances:21
22
1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time23
employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of24
staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken 25
home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the 26
following criteria:; or 27
28
a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified29
law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee 30
of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer") 31
pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall 32
at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that 33
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the 34
event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or 35
36
b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency 37
situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or 38
emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's 39
personal vehicle. 40
41
2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other 42
peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city 43
custody at the end of a duty shift;. 44
45
3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary 46
location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to 47
reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The 48
employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department 49
director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to 50
take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the 51
temporary authorization; or 52
53
4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department. 54
55
B. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle pursuant to subsection A1 is 56
subject to the following requirementsmay be granted to a full time employee for a 57
“demonstrated need” based on at least one of the following criteria : 58
59
1. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department. 60
2. The vehicle is assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake 61
City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either 62
case, a “public safety officer”) pursuant to their department’s take home car program 63
requirements. Public safety officers shall at all times maintain in their vehicle an article 64
of clothing or equipment that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake 65
City to be used in the event of unexpected or off duty deployment. 66
3. The employee must respond to at least five (5) emergency situations or callbacks to work 67
per month. 68
4. The nature of the employee’s work requires immediate response to emergency situations, 69
regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment 70
that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee’s personal vehicle. 71
72
5. For vehicles provided pursuant to subsections B2 through B4 of this section, reasonable 73
personal use of the take home vehicle is allowed within Salt Lake County and the county 74
in which the employee resides. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of 75
these limits. The amount and nature of personal use shall be established by department 76
policy, and shall be a reasonable amount and nature that, as described in that policy, shall 77
not accumulate excessive miles on the vehicle. 78
1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute 79
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
mileage by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of 80
employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet 81
program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard 82
commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard 83
commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed 84
within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the 85
vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall 86
be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit 87
from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on 88
city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to 89
receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of 90
this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and 91
use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the 92
employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle. 93
94
2.Fleet management shall provide to the department director a monthlyaccess to reports95
detailing usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to 96
geofencing monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor 97
vehicle usage and to determine what constitutes a reasonable accumulation of miles on 98
vehicleswhether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined herein and 99
in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take home 100
vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the fleet 101
management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures for 102
addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard 103
commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of 104
authorization for take home use and disciplinary action. 105
106
3.Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with107
respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a108
fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer.109
110
C. 111
1. Employees who have a demonstrated need as set forth inauthorized for take home use112
pursuant to subsection B of this sectionA1 may use city owned motor vehicles on a113
voluntary basis with the knowledge and consent of the appropriate department head, and114
only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use according to the115
following fee schedule:116
117
a.Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of118
the vehicle.119
120
b.For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a121
biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based122
upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City123
limits to the employee's homeresidence. Such distance shall be calculated using124
the shortest possible driving distance from the city limits to the residence as125
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
evidenced by a commonly available internet or computer software program that 126
estimates distances using driving directions. The distance calculated by such 127
program shall be rounded to the nearest whole mile by calculating the mileage to 128
the hundredth of a mile and then applying standard rounding practices. An 129
employee who disagrees with the determination of the city regarding that distance 130
calculation may appeal that determination to the employee's department head or 131
the department head's designee, pursuant to a process established by departmental 132
policy. Any department's policy shall require the employee to: 1) provide 133
documentation supporting any disagreement with the distance determination of 134
the city, and 2) describe any action taken by the department regarding the matter. 135
The department shall maintain records regarding the appeal and shall make those 136
records available for audit purposes. 137
138
2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its139
adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,140
department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire141
department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C.142
143
3.The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability insurance coverage to such144
employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars145
($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death, and property damage and146
shall be in addition to that required by Utah code sections 31A-22-304 and 63G-7-802.147
Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty148
use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-149
802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of150
the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or151
off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use152
passengers, if applicable, under this subsection.153
154
D.Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection B1 of this155
section, under no circumstances shall a city owned vehicle be authorized for take home156
use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the city limits, as157
calculated pursuant to subsection C of this section, regardless of the department in which158
the employee is employed159
Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this160
section, any employee whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city161
limits may only be authorized for take home use of a city owned vehicle with the express162
permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee.163
With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this164
section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at165
a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city166
limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable .167
168
E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any169
purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by170
the mayor or the mayor’s designee.171
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
172
SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall 173
be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 174
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal 175
from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense , except as set forth in Utah Code 176
Ann. § 76-8-402. 177
178
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 179
publication. 180
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. 181
182
183
CHAIRPERSON 184
ATTEST: 185
186
187
______________________________ 188
CITY RECORDER 189
190
191
Transmitted to Mayor on . 192
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 193
194
195
196
MAYOR 197
198
199
______________________________ 200
CITY RECORDER 201
202
(SEAL) 203
204
205
Bill No. ________ of 2022. 206
Published: ______________. 207
208 209
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code
Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles)
An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city
owned motor vehicles.
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the
permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are
necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake
City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to
require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles
to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
A. No motor vehicle owned by the city may be taken home by any city employee except
under the following circumstances:
1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time
employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of
staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken
home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the
following criteria:
a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified
law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee
of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer")
pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall
at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that
clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the
event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or
b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency
situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or
emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's
personal vehicle.
2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other
peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city
custody at the end of a duty shift;
3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary
location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to
reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The
employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department
director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to
take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the
temporary authorization; or
4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department.
B. Authorization to take home a city owned vehicle subject to subsection A1 is subject to the
following requirements:
1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute mileage
by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of
employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet
program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard
commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard
commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed
within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the
vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall
be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit
from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on
city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to
receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of
this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and
use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the
employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle.
2. Fleet management shall provide to the department director access to reports detailing
usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to geofencing
monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor vehicle usage
and to determine whether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined
herein and in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take
home vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the
fleet management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures
for addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard
commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of
authorization for take home use and disciplinary action.
3. Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with
respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a
fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer.
C.
1. Employees authorized for take home use pursuant to subsection A1 may use city owned
motor vehicles only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use
according to the following fee schedule:
a. Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of
the vehicle.
b. For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a
biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based
upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City
limits to the employee's residence.
2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its
adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,
department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire
department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C.
3. Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty
use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-
802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of
the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or
off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use
passengers, if applicable, under this subsection.
D. Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this
section, a city owned vehicle may only be authorized for take home use for an employee
whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city limits with the express
permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee.
With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this
section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at
a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city
limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable.
E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any
purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by
the mayor or the mayor’s designee.
SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall
be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal
from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense, except as set forth in Utah Code
Ann. § 76-8-402.
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 ____________, 2020.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________
By:__________________________
Senior City Attorney
12/21/2021
Sara Montoya
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:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council:
TO: DATE: December 21, 2021
FROM:
Salt Lake City Council Amy Fowler, Chair
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code
Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles
STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Office
Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT: Anticipated to be negligible. May result in some increased costs, but
will also decrease costs as a result of tighter “personal use” allowance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In the face of increasing competition for qualified law enforcement officers across the state, as well
as feedback from the Police Department that the City’s current take-home vehicle ordinance was a
detractor from recruitment, the Mayor’s Office determined earlier this year to examine whether to
amend this ordinance. The proposed revision was created in conjunction with the Police
Department and Public Services. Below is a brief synopsis of the changes:
Limitations on personal use of vehicles: Previously, the ordinance permitted employees
to use city-owned vehicles for “reasonable personal use” within Salt Lake County and the
employee’s home county. The proposed changes have limited personal use to “reasonable
personal use within . . . the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety
officer’s use of the vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty.” The purpose of this
change is to better tailor the policy to the intended benefits of taking home a vehicle,
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 29, 2021 15:37 MST)
12/29/2021
12/29/2021
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
including the benefit to the City of having public safety officers available for immediate
response when on callback duty, without accumulating excessive mileage or permitting
excessive personal use of the vehicles. The proposed ordinance includes procedures for
establishing the employee’s “standard commute,” and requires employees to first agree, in
writing, to comply with the ordinance, limit personal use, maintain the vehicle, and
acknowledge that there is no expectation of privacy their use of city vehicles. “Reasonable
personal use” will be further defined as per Fleet and Departmental policy.
Expanded eligibility radius for permitted take home use: The proposed ordinance
expands authorized take home use to any employee residing 60 miles or less from the city
limits, an increase from the current ordinance’s limit of 35 miles or less.. Additionally, the
proposed change permits exceptions to this radius requirement on a case-by-case basis, with
permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor. The primary purpose of
this change is to enable the City to recruit new public safety officers, as an increasing
number of recruits reside in communities surrounding the City, and public safety agencies in
other communities often have robust take home vehicle policies. The previous 35-mile
limitation seemed to arbitrarily cut employees living furthest from the city out of the policy
(arguably those most benefitted from commuting in a city-owned vehicle). Additionally, this
change encourages more equity in the take home policy, as the previous ordinance permitted
very broad personal use for employees within Salt Lake County and their home county,
while other employees residing just a few miles outside of the limit were not permitted to
even commute in a city vehicle, even without personal use.
Reporting and enforceability: The proposed ordinance calls for Fleet to maintain a take
home vehicle policy and to provide department directors with access to geofencing
technology and telemetrics reports, allowing them to audit employees’ vehicle use. The Fleet
policy must also set forth procedures to address unauthorized use. These provisions are
intended to allow the City to monitor and enforce the terms of the ordinance.
Liability Insurance: Utah Code sets forth the insurance coverage a government entity must
carry to cover circumstances where a city employee is using a city vehicle outside the scope
of employment, with the express or implied consent of the city. The proposed amendments
bring the ordinance in line with the State Code minimum insurance requirements.
Cleanup: The proposed new ordinance re-structures the authorization provision and
removes some categories of authorization for simplification.
Emergency circumstances: The changes include new language permitting employees to
take home a vehicle when emergency circumstances make it difficult or unsafe for an
employee to return a vehicle at the end of their shift. This is intended to address
circumstances such as the protests in summer 2020 when public safety officers had to get
through demonstrators to gain access to the public safety building to pick up or return their
vehicles. This could also address inclement weather situations, such as snow storms, etc.
Attachments:
A. Legislative Draft
B. Ordinance
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2022 2
3
(An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code 4
Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles) 5
6
An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city 7
owned motor vehicles. 8
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the 9
permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and 10
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are 11
necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake 12
City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and 13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to 14
require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles 15
to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and 16
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 17
SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code 18
shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 19
A.Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nNo motor vehicle owned by the city20
may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances:21
22
1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time23
employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of24
staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken 25
home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the 26
following criteria:; or 27
28
a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified29
law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee 30
of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer") 31
pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall 32
at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that 33
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the 34
event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or 35
36
b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency37
situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or 38
emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's 39
personal vehicle. 40
41
2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other42
peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city43
custody at the end of a duty shift;. 44
45
3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary46
location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to 47
reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The 48
employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department 49
director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to 50
take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the 51
temporary authorization; or 52
53
4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department.54
55
B. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle pursuant to subsection A1 is56
subject to the following requirementsmay be granted to a full time employee for a57
“demonstrated need” based on at least one of the following criteria :58
59
1. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department.60
2. The vehicle is assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake61
City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either62
case, a “public safety officer”) pursuant to their department’s take home car program63
requirements. Public safety officers shall at all times maintain in their vehicle an article64
of clothing or equipment that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake65
City to be used in the event of unexpected or off duty deployment.66
3. The employee must respond to at least five (5) emergency situations or callbacks to work67
per month.68
4. The nature of the employee’s work requires immediate response to emergency situations,69
regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment70
that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee’s personal vehicle.71
72
5. For vehicles provided pursuant to subsections B2 through B4 of this section, reasonable73
personal use of the take home vehicle is allowed within Salt Lake County and the county74
in which the employee resides. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of75
these limits. The amount and nature of personal use shall be established by department76
policy, and shall be a reasonable amount and nature that, as described in that policy, shall77
not accumulate excessive miles on the vehicle.78
1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute79
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
mileage by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of 80
employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet 81
program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard 82
commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard 83
commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed 84
within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the 85
vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall 86
be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit 87
from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on 88
city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to 89
receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of 90
this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and 91
use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the 92
employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle. 93
94
2.Fleet management shall provide to the department director a monthlyaccess to reports95
detailing usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to 96
geofencing monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor 97
vehicle usage and to determine what constitutes a reasonable accumulation of miles on 98
vehicleswhether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined herein and 99
in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take home 100
vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the fleet 101
management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures for 102
addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard 103
commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of 104
authorization for take home use and disciplinary action. 105
106
3.Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with107
respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a108
fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer.109
110
C. 111
1. Employees who have a demonstrated need as set forth inauthorized for take home use112
pursuant to subsection B of this sectionA1 may use city owned motor vehicles on a113
voluntary basis with the knowledge and consent of the appropriate department head, and114
only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use according to the115
following fee schedule:116
117
a.Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of118
the vehicle.119
120
b.For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a121
biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based122
upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City123
limits to the employee's homeresidence. Such distance shall be calculated using124
the shortest possible driving distance from the city limits to the residence as125
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
evidenced by a commonly available internet or computer software program that 126
estimates distances using driving directions. The distance calculated by such 127
program shall be rounded to the nearest whole mile by calculating the mileage to 128
the hundredth of a mile and then applying standard rounding practices. An 129
employee who disagrees with the determination of the city regarding that distance 130
calculation may appeal that determination to the employee's department head or 131
the department head's designee, pursuant to a process established by departmental 132
policy. Any department's policy shall require the employee to: 1) provide 133
documentation supporting any disagreement with the distance determination of 134
the city, and 2) describe any action taken by the department regarding the matter. 135
The department shall maintain records regarding the appeal and shall make those 136
records available for audit purposes. 137
138
2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its 139
adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, 140
department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire 141
department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C. 142
143
3. The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability insurance coverage to such 144
employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars 145
($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death, and property damage and 146
shall be in addition to that required by Utah code sections 31A-22-304 and 63G-7-802. 147
Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty 148
use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-149
802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of 150
the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or 151
off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use 152
passengers, if applicable, under this subsection. 153
154
D. Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection B1 of this 155
section, under no circumstances shall a city owned vehicle be authorized for take home 156
use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the city limits, as 157
calculated pursuant to subsection C of this section, regardless of the department in which 158
the employee is employed 159
Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this 160
section, any employee whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city 161
limits may only be authorized for take home use of a city owned vehicle with the express 162
permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee. 163
With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this 164
section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at 165
a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city 166
limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable . 167
168
E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any 169
purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by 170
the mayor or the mayor’s designee. 171
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
172
SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall 173
be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 174
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal 175
from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense , except as set forth in Utah Code 176
Ann. § 76-8-402. 177
178
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 179
publication. 180
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. 181
182
183
CHAIRPERSON 184
ATTEST: 185
186
187
______________________________ 188
CITY RECORDER 189
190
191
Transmitted to Mayor on . 192
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 193
194
195
196
MAYOR 197
198
199
______________________________ 200
CITY RECORDER 201
202
(SEAL) 203
204
205
Bill No. ________ of 2022. 206
Published: ______________. 207
208
209
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code
Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles)
An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city
owned motor vehicles.
WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the
permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are
necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake
City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to
require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles
to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code
shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
A. No motor vehicle owned by the city may be taken home by any city employee except
under the following circumstances:
1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time
employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of
staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken
home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the
following criteria:
a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified
law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee
of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer")
pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall
at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that
clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the
event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or
b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency
situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or
emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's
personal vehicle.
2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other
peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city
custody at the end of a duty shift;
3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary
location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to
reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The
employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department
director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to
take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the
temporary authorization; or
4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department.
B. Authorization to take home a city owned vehicle subject to subsection A1 is subject to the
following requirements:
1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute mileage
by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of
employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet
program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard
commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard
commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed
within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the
vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall
be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit
from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on
city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to
receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of
this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and
use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the
employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle.
2. Fleet management shall provide to the department director access to reports detailing
usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to geofencing
monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor vehicle usage
and to determine whether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined
herein and in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take
home vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the
fleet management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures
for addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard
commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of
authorization for take home use and disciplinary action.
3. Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with
respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a
fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer.
C.
1. Employees authorized for take home use pursuant to subsection A1 may use city owned
motor vehicles only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use
according to the following fee schedule:
a. Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of
the vehicle.
b. For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a
biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based
upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City
limits to the employee's residence.
2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its
adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,
department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire
department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C.
3. Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty
use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-
802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of
the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or
off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use
passengers, if applicable, under this subsection.
D. Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this
section, a city owned vehicle may only be authorized for take home use for an employee
whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city limits with the express
permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee.
With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this
section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at
a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city
limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable.
E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any
purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by
the mayor or the mayor’s designee.
SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall
be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows:
Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal
from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense, except as set forth in Utah Code
Ann. § 76-8-402.
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:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on .
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
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: April 22, 2022
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council: April 22, 2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 22, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Lisa Shaffer
SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation: Jorge Chamorro as Public Services Department
Director.
STAFF CONTACTS: Lisa Shaffer, lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com
April Patterson, april.patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Appointment
RECOMMENDATION: Following advice and consent, appoint;
Jorge Chamorro, Director – Public Services
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Brief Biography:
Jorge is currently Deputy Director in Public Services serving as the Interim Director following
Lorna Vogt’s retirement.
It is with great enthusiasm that we are forwarding Jorge’s resume for your consent to install him
as the Director of Public Services.
Jorge has demonstrated his ability to navigate a budget, handle tough community issues, work
across departmental lines, and support employees. He has the intelligence, integrity, strength,
and compassion required of this important position.
Signature:
Email:
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 21, 2022 16:04 MDT)
Lisa Shaffer
LS
lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com
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: 4/6/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/6/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/6/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Pook Carson as a member of
the Business Advisory Board.
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
April 6, 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 Business Advisory Board.
Pook Carson - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 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
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: 4/6/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/6/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/6/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Cultural Core Finance Committee
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Cultural Core Finance Committee
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Shaleane Gee as a member of
the Cultural Core Finance 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
April 6, 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 Cultural Core Finance
Committee.
Shaleane Gee - to be appointed for a four year term 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
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: 4/11/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/11/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/11/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Frances Ngo as a member of the
Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board.
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
April 11, 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 Parks, Natural Lands,
Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board.
Frances Ngo - to be appointed for a three year term 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
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: 4/11/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/11/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/11/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and
Trails Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Wisam Khudhair as a member
of the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board.
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
April 11, 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 Parks, Natural Lands,
Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board.
Wisam Khudhair - to be appointed for a three year term 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
1
7
7
9
8
City Council Announcements
May 3, 2022
For You Information
A. Agenda Packet Days Shift to Fridays during Budget Season
Friendly reminder, to help accommodate the volume of budget information and rapid pace of
Council meetings during budget, agenda packets are published on Fridays instead of Thursdays
after the Mayor presents the recommended budget. This shift would begin on May 6th for the
May 10th Council meeting and end after the budget is adopted.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Dan Dugan, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on May 3, 2022 in a hybrid meeting
pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual;
§52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205(l)(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including
any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the
appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from
completing the transaction on the best possible terms;
§52-4-205(l)(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right
or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated
value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction
on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the
sale;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code
§78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open andPublic Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording
and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
X
X
X X
Dan Dugan (May 6, 2022 12:35 MDT)
Dan Dugan May 6, 2022
Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting on May 3,
2022
Final Audit Report 2022-05-06
Created:2022-05-05
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAc98AyamDbVO4AHjF26cGSa3tk3Sqh4C2
"Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting on May 3, 2022" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
2022-05-05 - 10:33:53 PM GMT
Document emailed to Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-05-05 - 10:34:38 PM GMT
Email viewed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
2022-05-06 - 6:34:53 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-05-06 - 6:35:10 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-05-06 - 6:35:10 PM GMT