06/02/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
June 2,2022 Thursday 1:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
5 p.m.limited formal meeting or immediately following the work session
Please note:A general public comment period will not be held this day.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance,the meeting may be held electronically.After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City &
County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled
on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on
circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:12:13:43
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.
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 ~1:00 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:Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund to Buddies,
Inc.,1150 East 600 South ~1:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $150,000 loan
from the Economic Development Loan Fund for Buddies,Inc.,at 1150 East 600 South.The
business would own and operate the concessions and rides at Liberty Park.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,June 7,2022
3.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Information Management Services (IMS)~1:50 p.m.
40 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Information Management Services
(IMS)budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.The department provides technical support for the
City.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
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.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:911 Department ~2:30 p.m.
30 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed 911 Department budget for Fiscal Year
2022-23.The Department provides both Police and Fire Dispatch services for the City.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
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
5.Tentative Break ~3:00 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
6.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Department of Economic Development ~3:20 p.m.
60 min
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed budget for the Department of
Economic Development for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
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
7.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Metropolitan Water District ~4:20 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed budget for the Metropolitan Water
District for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
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
8.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Governmental Immunity ~4:50 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Governmental Immunity budget for
Fiscal Year 2022-23,which is the City's self-insurance fund for liability claims.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
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
9.Advice and Consent:Salt Lake City Justice Court –Jojo Chou Liu ~5:35 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will interview Jojo Chou Liu prior to considering appointment to the Salt Lake
City Justice Court.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 2,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Thursday,June 2,2022
10.Dinner Break ~5:45 p.m.
30 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
11.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Unresolved Issues Follow-up ~6:15 p.m.
90 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about unresolved issues relating to the
proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,May 24,2022 and Thursday,June 2,2022
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
Standing Items
12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and
announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business,including but not limited to;
•June 9,2022 Council Meeting;and
•Scheduling Items.
14.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of
an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction
would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;
or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water
right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves
the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of
the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on Tuesday,May 31,2022,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,does
hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake
Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have
indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of
options discussed.
The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids
and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please
contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711.
CITY COUNCIL 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:June 2, 2022
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND TO BUDDIES, INC., 1150 EAST
600 SOUTH
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Buddies, Inc., 1150 East 600 South. This business would own and operate the existing
concessions and rides at Liberty Park. These include food and beverages, as well as paddle boats, a Ferris wheel,
carousel, children’s car and plane rides, mini train, and chair swings ride. The City’s Economic Development
Loan Fund recommends the Council approve a $150,000 loan at 7.25% interest over seven years to this business
for equipment and inventory. This loan will assist in the creation of 10 new jobs in the next year and the
retention of 7 current jobs.
The Buddies, Inc., application meets the following EDLF program goals:
•Increasing employment opportunities;
•Boosting commercial enterprise;
•Stimulates business development;
•Encourages private investment; and,
•Enhances neighborhood vitality.
The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development. Each loan application is
pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before an application
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 2, 2022
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: June 7, 2022
Page | 2
may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful applications is
transmitted to the Council for final approval.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $150,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Buddies, Inc., 1150 East 600 South.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the
available fund balance at $11,882,389.32 on May 9, 2022. The amount of outstanding loans totals was
$3,103,389.32. (Staff Note: The Department of Economic Development suggested that the figure provided
for available fund balance be reviewed. Council staff is following up for more information.)
B.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development listed nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees
1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department
2. Representative of the Mayor’s Office
3. Salt Lake City employee at large
4. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability
5. Director, Department of Economic Development
Community Volunteers
1. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
2. Banker
3. Community lender
4. Business mentor
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other
unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of
how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each
company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.?
2.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
3. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include
clarification of the available EDLF fund balance, as well as the number of applications, review criteria
used, loan program goals, etc.
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: 5/20/2022
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 5/20/2022
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 17, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Director, Department of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Buddies, INC.
STAFF CONTACTS:
Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
Peter Makowski, Project Manager, peter.makowski@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of $150,000 loan to Buddies, INC.
BUDGET IMPACT: $150,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On May 5, 2022, a loan request from Buddies, INC. was
presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Buddies, INC. will be the
owner and operator of the current concessions and rides at Liberty Park.
Basic Loan request
Business Name: Buddies, INC.
Address: 1150 E 600 S
Loan Amount Requested: $150,000
Loan Term: 7 years
Interest Rate: 7.25%
Use of Funds: Equipment, Inventory
Loan Type: Start Up
The EDLF Committee recommends approval of the Buddies, INC loan request of $150,000 to the
City Council.
Lisa Shaffer (May 20, 2022 10:15 MDT)
EDLF Loan Committee Structure
The committee is comprised of nine (9) members.
City Employees:
1. Community and Neighborhoods Finance
2. Mayor’s Office
3. Employee at large
4. Housing Stability
5. Economic Development
Community Volunteers:
6. Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
7. Banker
8. Community lender
9. Business mentor
DED Staff Recommendation
The Department of Economic Development recommends approval of Buddies, INC loan request
as the application goes through a thorough process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting
analysis and economic impact statement.
Upon review, the Buddies INC, loan meets the following goals of the Economic Development Loan
Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines:
• Increasing employment opportunities
• Stimulating business development
• Encouraging private investment
• Enhancing neighborhood vitality
• Boosting commercial enterprise
This loan will also assist in the creation of 10 new jobs in the next year and retention of 7 current
jobs.
EDLF Loan Portfolio as of May 9, 2022
EDLF available fund balance is: $11,882,389.32
The total amount of outstanding loans is: $3,103,389.32
Attachments:
A. Resolution
B. Loan Term Sheet
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Ordinance approving a $150,000 loan for Buddies, Inc., at 1150 East 600 South from the
Economic Development Loan Fund)
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund
(“EDLF) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment,
enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City.
WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development
(“DED”) and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the
EDLF Loan Committee.
WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the
attached loan term sheet for a $150,000 loan to Buddies, Inc., a local business located at 1150
East 600 South.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that:
SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term
Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations
of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan
agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating
such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office.
SECTION 2. 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.
Dan Dugan, Council Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:
Sara Montoya, City Attorney
May 19, 2022
LOAN TERM SHEET
Applicant: Buddies, INC
Address: 1150 E 600 S
Proposed Loan Terms
Loan Amount: $150,000
Loan Terms: 7 Years
Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 3.25%
EDLF Charge: 8%
Less Discount: 4%
• Priority Area
• Woman Owned,
• Ethnic Minority
Interest Rate: 7.25%
Use of Funds: Equipment, Inventory
Business Type: Start Up
Collateral and Guarantees: Equipment, Inventory
Personal Guarantees: Lara Haddad
Conditions for Closing
• Signed Articles of Incorporation
• Salt Lake City Business License
• Salt Lake City Business Address
• Creation of Business Entity
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 BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
TO: City Council Members
FROM:Lehua Weaver
Deputy Director
DATE: June 2. 2022
RE: FY 2022-23 Budget – Information Management Services (IMS) Department
Budget book pages: Key Changes: 64, Department Overview: 184 Staffing Document: 268
DEPARTMENT AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Information Management Services (IMS) provides technical support for General
Fund departments and Enterprise Funds in the City. IMS is operated as an Internal Service Fund,
which means that its source of revenue comes from charging fees to the City departments and funds
based on the services provided.
The Mayor’s recommended budget for IMS totals $25,375,230 which is an increase of $6,159,680 or
32% over the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22).
FY22
Adopted
FY22
Proposed Difference
Percent
Change
$19,215,550 $25,375,230 $6,159,680 32%
Three major themes are visible in the IMS budget this year:
Inflationary impact on contract expenses and salaries
Focus on strengthening security resources
8 new staff positions to meet increased demand for projects and technical support
Major expenditure increases in FY23
$1,496,972 proposed salary and benefits increases, including base-to-base changes (pay
adjustments, reclassifications, and benefits changes), the new position added in Budget
Amendment No. 7, insurance increases, market adjustments for non-represented employees
determined by the NFP third-party and CCAC salary surveys, and the proposed 4.5% cost of
living (COLA) increase.
$1,262,418 in software subscription and contractual increases
$1,162,969 for new positions, outlined below in “Additional Information”
$451,525 more for PC replacements citywide – this would more accurately fund the
replacement needs citywide
Page | 2
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Network Security: the City’s network security provides protection for everything from
constituent data to major City infrastructure. Over the past year IMS has put additional
resources to network security, and the current budget includes $717,000 toward software and
remote computer security, plus new staff positions. The Council may ask for an update on
the items added during Budget Amendment No. 7 (new software, assessments, and
staff person), and what next steps include.
2. The Mayor’s Recommended Budget for IMS includes $150,000 related to fiber buildout and the
free wi-fi program. The City has supported a few initiatives over the past few years to address the
digital divide through adoption of a Digital Equity Policy, increasing access to laptops, and
funding for public-facing wireless access points.
a. The Council may ask for an update on laptop donation programs.
b. The Council may wish to ask for an update on the public wireless access for
free wifi, and whether there are plans for expansion or other ways to improve
internet accessibility.
c. The Council may wish to ask for any other updates on the role Salt Lake City
plays in addressing the digital divide.
3. New survey tool: The IMS budget, within the Civic Engagement team, has $75,000 for City
surveys, which includes an increase of $45,000. The budget will allow for annual surveys
(including some inflationary increase) plus a new contract with an outside agency to set up a
new survey panel for City engagement efforts. This would recruit City residents who are
representative of the City’s population to serve on an on-going panel for a certain number of
surveys throughout the year.
a.The Council may wish to ask what the process will be to identify survey topics,
and how the use of the panel will be coordinated citywide.
b. The Council may also wish to ask which demographic information the
contractor will use to verify that the panel is statistically representative of
the City.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
New Staff Positions:
Total Employees: 92 (+8 since last budget)
A proposed addition of eight new staff people are proposed to provide needed support for the
growing City workforce, security issues, and needed software support. The positions:
are proposed for 10 months of the year, consistent with the Administrative proposal for most
of the other new positions, except for the Deputy Director request, which is budgeted for 11
months due to plans to fill the position as quickly as possible.
includes $3,000 in one time expenses related to new-hire positions.
New positions are:
Deputy Director: 1.0 FTE, $212,760 (11 months to allow for quick recruitment, full year
cost: $232,102)
A department wide Deputy Director would be a new addition to the Director’s Office. The
Department is currently organized with a Chief Information Security Officer, Chief
Page | 3
Innovations Officer, Chief Technology Officer, Chief Data Officer, and Managers for the
other teams.
Software Support Administrator II: 1.0 FTE, $107,686 (full year cost: $129,223)
This would bring the additional Software Support team to 16 FTEs. The number of
applications and programs that IMS is supporting citywide continues to grow, and the
additional staff is necessary to provide support for the CRM (constituent request system)
implementation.
Enterprise Technical Solutions Manager: 1.0 FTE, $133,946 (full year cost: $160,735)
This would be a new position to support the public safety radio system and relationship with
the Utah Communications Authority (UCA), and non-emergency radios across all City
Departments who use other radio networks.
Network Engineer II: 1.0 FTE, $112,467 (full year cost: $134,960)
This requested FTE is in addition to the FTE added during Budget Amendment No. 7, and
would bring the team from 12 to 14 FTEs on the network security team.
Civic Engagement Program Specialists: 2.0 FTEs, $79,980 each (full year cost for two
positions: $191,952)
The request for two additional positions would bring the Civic Engagement team from four
members to six, specifically with the purpose of centralizing citywide graphic design work
and general support for civic engagement work. The Department mentioned that there were
a few requests from various departments for graphic design positions, and the proposal
would centralize that service in IMS to support all departments.
Data Scientist / IT Systems Analyst: 1.0 FTE, $122,670 plus (full year cost: $147,204)
This position would expand data collection and analysis to inform decision making
processes, specifically working with the Data Team to support the City’s data collection,
inventory, and analysis, with special focus on Police data.
Apprenticeship program: $313,480
IMS has utilized the apprenticeship program and found great success with the additional
staff resources. Some of the apprentices will help support the City’s CRM system.
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Initiative:
The IMS budget continues resources toward the ERP implementation. The City is currently
participating in training for the HR Component of the ERP system. This will be the new system for
new hires, individual employee file updates, etc. The next round of migration will include the city’s
payroll and timecard system later this year, followed by the accounting migration next year (early
2023).
ERP software is a central system that tracks and manages processes including:
Project management
Risk management & compliance
Supply chain operations
Human Resources
o Performance management
o Recruitment & onboarding
o Learning management
Financial systems
Document management and archival
By providing a holistic view of the City’s internal processes, an ERP is intended to help decision-
makers rely on clear, accurate data to identify opportunities to create streamlined, efficient
processes. Although there is not a measurable cost savings from ERP implementation, the system is
Page | 4
anticipated to bring improved transparency in City processes for leadership, staff, and the public.
Additional benefits include streamlined collaboration as well as prevention of costly failures.
A working group involving representatives from most City departments have been meeting to audit
existing City systems and identify opportunities for refinement.
Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) Software:
FY23 Budget: $389,114
Funding provides for a new Software Support Administrator to support Salesforce, licensing
increases, consulting, and training expenses. Funding for the CRM first began in FY18. Since then,
the system has been internally implemented, with ongoing use from the Council’s Liaisons, Mayor’s
Office, Community and Neighborhoods, and coordination with nearly every City department to
implement requests for services and requests for information.
Goals of the CRM:
Help staff keep track of public requests for service or information, and contact information
Automate work assignments
Track responses or flag needed follow-ups on a topic
Save staff and constituents time by providing a knowledge base to answer common questions
Provide data elected officials can use in making service level decisions
Other Personnel Cost Increases:
Total Change: $1,496,972 increase in salary changes from year to year. As the Council has
discussed, the competitive job market has affected the City’s budget proposal and deliberations.
Turnover has been significant within the IT field due the availability of new jobs and salary
competition. The significant increase in personnel costs is due to necessary salary adjustments to
keep up with the job market and slow turnover within IMS.
Base to Base Changes $ 497,583
4.5 % COLA Salary Increase $ 540,532
Insurance Increase $ 172,177
Market adjustments for non-represented staff $ 286,740
Information Management Services
FY2023 Budget Presentation
Aaron Bentley -Chief Information Officer
Nole Walkingshaw -Chief Innovation Officer
Joseph Anthony -Finance Manager
Department Mission Statement
Our mission is to empower the community by keeping
the public and our employees connected and informed.
Funding
IMS budget is funded by General, Internal Service, and
Enterprise funds
About Us
Information Management Services
2
Aaron Bentley
IMS Director and CIO
Aaron Bentley
Administration/Office of CIO
Reza Faraji
Software Services
Jason Struck
Network Services
Darrell Lopez
Field Support Services
Nick Kryger
Data Analytics and GIS
Nole Walkingshaw
Innovations
John Rand
Media and Engagement Services
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 Fiscal Budget
Information Management Services
Full Time Employees
Current 84
New 8
FY23 Requested 92
3IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
Relative to the current approved budget for IMS
Contractual Increases
$1,262,418
•The increase for contractual changes reflects the
increase from the vendors for our continuing
maintenance and support.
4
Highlights
•Cohesity Enterprise Backup Solution
•Adobe Sign and Creative Suite
•Microsoft Azure Cloud Servers and Storage
•Microsoft Office 365 Productivity Suite
•Smartsheets Project Management Toolset
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
Relative to the current approved budget for IMS
Technical & Inflationary Increases
$627,960
•Items that have a contract with an annual increase
associated with their costs
5
Highlights
•PC Replacement
•Increased prices due to supply chain
•Inflationary cost for computers
•Moving from desktops to business laptops
•Cloud migrations
•Cartegraph & Accella
•General inflation on all systems and supplies
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
Relative to the current approved budget for IMS
Initiatives
$2,842,475
•Ongoing Cybersecurity Enhancements $662,000
•New Core Switch @ Plaza 349 $150,000
•Additional staff $1,010,301
•Apprentice Program $313,480
•Wi-Fi Rebuild (Year 1 of 3)$100,000
•Enterprise backup (Year 3 0f 3)$70,000
6
•Permits and Licensing Cloud Migration $316,694
•Additional Enterprise and Analytics Tools $70,000
•Fiber Buildout Connecting City Facilities $100,000
•City Connect Expansion $50,000
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
Relative to the current approved budget for IMS
Apprentice Program
•In collaboration with Mayor’s Office and the State of
Utah Workforce Services and community partners.
7
Requested (Not FTE)
•10-15 Part time apprentices
•$18-20 per hour up to 28 hours per week
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
FTE Requested
•IMS FTE Currently
•84 approved
•Increase of 8 requested, bringing the total to 92
•Cost of new employees requested is $1,210,232
•NFP & CCAC -286,740
8
Highlights
•8 additional FTE requested
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Department Leadership
9 FTE + 2
FTE Requested
•Deputy Director
•Radio -Enterprise Tech Solutions Manager
9
Projects Management
2 FTE
Financial Services Team
4 FTE, 3 Hourly
Relationship Management
2 FTE
ETSM
1 FTE Requested
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
Chief Information Officer
1 FTE + 1 Deputy Director
Requested
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Software Support Services
31 FTE + 1
FTE Requested
•Software Support Admin II
10
Software Engineering Team
10 FTE
Software Support Team
15 FTE + 1 Requested
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
Chief Technology Officer
1 FTE
Enterprise Technology Managers
3 FTE
Technical System Leads
2 FTE
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Network and Security Services
16 FTE + 2
FTE Requested
•Cyber Security Engineer II
•Budget Amendment #7
•Network Engineer II
11
Cybersecurity Team
4 FTE + 1 Requested
CISO
1 FTE
Systems Engineering Team
7 FTE
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
Network Engineering Team
4 FTE + 1 Requested
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Field Services Division
11 FTE
FTE Requested
•No Change
12
Field Services Team
10 FTE
Division Director
1 FTE
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Media and Engagement Services
9 FTE + 2
FTE Requested
•Civic Engagement Program Specialist
•Graphic Design Specialist
13
Media Team
3 FTE
Civic Engagement Team
3 FTE + 1 Requested
Social Media Team
1 FTE
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
Graphic Design
1 FTE + 1 Requested
Division Director
1 FTE
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Data Analytics and GIS
4 FTE + 1
FTE Requested
•Data Scientist
14
GIS Team
3 FTE
Data Analytics Team
1 FTE Requested
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
Chief Data Officer
1 FTE
2023 IMS Operation Budget Requests and Changes
FTE Positions Changes Requested
Innovations
4 FTE
FTE Requested
•No change
15
Chief Innovation Officer
1 FTE
IMS FY23 Budget Presentation
Innovations Team
3 FTE
Workday ERP
Budget Update
May 17, 2022
Agenda
•What is Workday
•Scope of the implementation
•Where we are and timeline
•The Team
•Training
•Website
•The Future
What is Workday
Timeline
Jobs &
Positions
Recruiting
CompensationWorker Data
Learning
Phase 2
Workstream Project Phases
Phase 1
Payroll
Time Tracking
Absence
Management
Benefits
Core
Financials
Expenses
Procurement
Inventory
Grant
Management
Project
Management
The Team
Citywide Trainer Strategy
Attend Department Trainer Orientation/Kickoff ~ May 12th
Attend Train the Trainer ~ May 23rd -26th
Time: Full day
Lead training classes for department
Dates: June 6th –Jun 24th
Time: Depends on how you schedule classes and department
needs –expect 4 to12 hours per week
Support peers and answer basic Workday questions
Dates: After Go-Live, July
Time: informally available to peers
Attend weekly training debriefs
Dates: weekly from June 6th –July 28th
Time: 1 hour
https://www.slc.gov/workday/
For more information
https://www.slc.gov/workday/
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 BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE:June 2, 2022
RE: 911 Department FY2023 Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes 45, Department Overview 231-235, Staffing Document 251
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The 911 Department provides year-round dispatch services for emergency and non-emergency calls in Salt Lake
City as well as Sandy City. The FY2023 proposed budget of $10,873,902 is $1,857,522 (21%) more than last year.
The proposed budget would remove the eight dispatchers FTEs added in the FY2022 budget for the 32-hour
work week pilot program which was unable to proceed due to high turnover rates. Removing those FTEs would
reduce the total department staffing to 100 FTEs. Attachment 1 provides a comparison of the FY2023 proposed
budget and the three prior Council adopted budgets.
911 Department Top Priorities for FY2023 Budget
Department leadership shared the following top priorities that informed the FY2023 budget proposal:
- Improve pay equity and market competitiveness for dispatchers
- Reach and maintain full functional staffing in FY2023
- Increase time for training and in-house training capabilities
- Continue partnerships diversifying public safety response options
82 Dispatcher FTEs (decrease of eight)
Decrease of eight authorized and funded dispatcher FTEs to reach 82 in total. Note that the Council added six
dispatchers in FY2020 and eight in FY2022 as part of a 32-hour work week pilot program that was not
implemented due to lack of sufficient dispatchers. There are currently five dispatcher FTEs and three authorized
but unfunded dispatcher positions that are vacant.
Three Unfunded FTEs – The Council authorizes but does not fund three dispatcher FTEs to provide
hiring flexibility for the Department (like the unfunded FTE approach used in the Police Department).
However, due to turnover rates higher than the City’s average the Department is limited in how often the
unfunded FTEs can be utilized.
Staffing Levels Below Performance Audit Recommendation – The 2019 Performance Audit of 911 and
nonemergency dispatch services recommends the Department have 100 dispatchers in significant part
to account for high turnover (21% over seven-year average). The Department would be 18 less than the
ideal staffing level recommended in the audit, however, the proposed salary enhancement covered below
is expected to reduce turnover and may also reduce ideal dispatcher staffing levels.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 2, 2022
Budget Hearings: May 17 and June 7
Potential Action: June 14
Page | 2
$1,048,559 Dispatcher Salary Enhancements
The 911 Department implemented a midyear salary enhancement for dispatchers which is proposed to be
continued as part of the FY2023 annual budget. The cost is partly offset by $735,934 from eliminating eight
dispatcher FTEs added to the FY2022 budget as part of a never implemented 32-hour work week pilot program.
Staff turnover was too high to allow the pilot program to proceed.
The table below shows the hourly wage increases for the four rates based on an employee’s tenure with the
Department. The last column shows the annual salary increase. The Department worked with HR for local and
national wage comparisons to determine what salary increases would be competitive in the current market and
reduce turnover. The number of applicants for dispatcher jobs is reportedly higher since the salary
enhancements were implemented and turnover has decreased in recent months. Note that the staffing document
in the budget book lists dispatchers at pay grades 14-18 which is the prior levels. If the salary enhancement are
approved for FY2023, then dispatchers would start at pay grade 20. The staffing document would be updated in
the Council-adopted budget book to reflect that change.
Y earl y Rat e Pri o r Ho u rly
Wage
Ne w Ho u rl y
Wag e $ C h an ge % C h an g e A n n u al Sal ary
I n c re ase
Fir st Y e a r 1 9 .1 3$ 2 1 .6 2$ 2 .4 9$ 1 3 %5 ,1 7 9 .2 0$
Thir d Y e ar 2 1 .6 9$ 2 3 .1 6$ 1 .4 7$ 7 %3 ,0 5 7 .6 0$
Six t h Y e ar 2 2 .9 6$ 2 7 .7 9$ 4 .83$ 2 1 %1 0 ,0 4 6 .4 0$
Eigt h Y e ar 2 6 .86$ 3 2 .5 2$ 5 .6 6$ 2 1 %1 1 ,7 7 2 .80$
Most of the employees in the 911 Department are members of the American Federation of State County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, except for those in supervisory positions. Specific compensation
changes will also be addressed within those negotiations and memorandum of understanding (MOU).
$250,000 Increase to Overtime Budget
The proposed budget increases overtime to $392,000 total which more accurately reflects the Department’s
actual overtime expenses. The overtime budget remained $142,000 each of the past four fiscal years. Actual
overtime expenses ranged from approximately $300,000 to $550,000. The gap between the overtime budget
and actual expenses was filled with vacancy savings from high turnover. The salary enhancements are expected
to reduce turnover which also reduces available vacancy savings to use for overtime.
Call Response Times (See Attachment 2 for a breakdown by hour of the day and number of seconds)
The table below summarizes the Department’s emergency call response times over the past six years.
Percentages are shown in red where this best practice was not reached. Answer times significantly improved
since 2017 and have remained above the industry best practice since then. In 2020, 7.62% more calls were
answered within the industry best practice of 10 seconds or less compared to 2017. Answer times are some of the
best reported during the past seven-year period.
911 Call Answer Times by Calendar Year
2 0 14 2 0 15 2 0 16 2 0 17 2 0 18 2 0 19 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1
1 0 Se c o nds 87 .1 8%87 .2 8%9 1 .2 6 %89 .9 0 %9 5 .6 2 %9 7 .5 3 %9 7 .5 2 %9 6 .1 2 %
1 5 Se c o nd s 89 .2 3 %89 .4 0 %9 2 .5 7 %9 1 .4 4 %9 6 .4 8%9 8.0 3 %9 8.0 2 %9 6 .89 %
4 0 Se c o nds 9 5 .2 0 %9 5 .4 5 %9 6 .5 8%9 6 .3 8%9 8.6 6 %9 8.4 3 %9 9 .3 5 %9 8.81 %
A n sw e r
T i m e
C al e n d ar Y e ar
Increasing Call Volumes
Attachment 2 shows a breakdown of the 911 Department’s 2021 calendar year response times by hour of the day
and number of seconds to answer. Note that the table in the attachment uses military time. The breakdown
shows that in all but two of the 24 hour blocks the 911 Department exceeds the industry best practice of
answering 90% of 911 calls within 10 seconds. The best practice was slightly missed in the 9:00 (88.07%) and
10:00 (89.39%) blocks. The answer rate varies between peak call volume times such as late afternoons and
evenings and slower times such as middle of the night. In 2021, the highest rate of answering 911 calls within 10
seconds was 98.79% for the 7:00 hour. 835 calls (0.48%) of 911 calls took longer than 60 seconds to answer.
Page | 3
The Department experienced a 51% total call volume increase over the past nine years. The table below details
call volume increases from May 2013 to April 2022. Comparing the most recent 12-month period of May 1 –
April 30 shows a decrease of 38,938 calls which is -5% less than last year. Of this total, the year-over-year
change saw a 4% increase in 911 calls and a -7% decrease in non-emergency calls.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Call Volume Changes by Type and
12-month Period (May 1 -April 30)
911
Calls
Non-emergent Total Calls
M ay 1 - A p ril 3 0
b y Y ear
9 11
C al l s
%
C h an g e
No n -
e m erge n t
%
C h an g e
T o t al
C al ls
Y e ar Ov er Y e ar
% C h an ge
2 0 1 3 -1 4 1 5 8,0 87 - 3 3 7 ,0 5 5 - 4 9 5 ,1 4 2 -
2 0 1 4 -1 5 1 87 ,7 9 9 1 9 %3 81 ,7 1 6 1 3 %5 6 9 ,5 1 5 1 5 %
2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 0 4 ,87 5 9 %4 1 3 ,86 9 8%6 1 8,7 4 4 9 %
2 0 1 6 -1 7 1 9 6 ,86 0 -4 %4 2 3 ,6 5 6 2 %6 2 0 ,5 1 6 0 %
2 0 1 7 -1 8 1 7 0 ,7 9 2 -1 3 %6 2 3 ,7 0 2 4 7 %7 9 4 ,4 9 4 2 8%
2 0 1 8-1 9 1 6 7 ,2 0 6 -2 %6 1 8,89 2 -1 %7 86 ,0 9 8 -1 %
2 0 1 9 -2 0 1 7 3 ,4 5 4 4 %5 9 4 ,2 7 7 -4 %7 6 7 ,7 3 1 -2 %
2 0 2 0 -2 1 1 7 8,6 87 3 %6 0 7 ,3 2 8 2 %7 86 ,0 1 5 2 %
2 0 2 1 -2 2 1 86 ,4 3 6 4 %5 6 3 ,6 4 1 -7 %7 5 0 ,0 7 7 -5 %
5 1%T OT A L C h an g e fro m M ay 2 0 13 t o A p ril 2 0 2 2
The proliferation of cell phones in society increases the average number of 911 calls per incident. Abandoned 911
calls must be called back if the call ends before being answered. In recent years nearly 10% of all calls the
Department received were abandoned calls which are called back and can delay response times for other calls.
Some calls must be transferred to other agencies which were over 23,000 in 2020. There are also outbound calls
at the request of field personnel.
Continuing Pilot Partnership with University of Utah Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT)
The Department started a pilot partnership with MCOT and established criteria and a procedure to determine
when a non-violent caller in mental crisis could be diverted away from a sworn police officer response. The
Department provided the below table summarizing monthly and total mental health crisis calls in calendar year
2021. The table shows dispatchers were able to resolve 234 mental health crisis calls, diverted 232 calls for
MCOT to deploy a response, 39 required a law enforcement response and 11 were referred to a higher level of
care. The Department is continuing to track mental health crisis call diversion in 2022. In FY2023 the
Department plans to explore Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) specifically for dispatchers, refine call diversion
protocols and potentially place an MCOT mental health professional in the call center to take certain calls.
Page | 4
Calendar Year 2021 Mental Health Crisis Calls by Diversion Type
Month Calls Resolved
Telephonically
Law
Enforcement
MCOT
Deployed
Referred to Higher
Level of Care
Monthly
Totals
February 25 10 15 2 52
March 23 5 15 -43
April 34 5 12 2 53
May 26 2 17 -46
June 19 1 26 -46
July 24 2 24 -50
August 15 8 26 -49
September 18 -17 1 36
October 16 4 31 2 53
November 16 1 23 1 41
December 18 1 26 1 46
Grand
Totals 234 39 232 11 516
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Measuring and Coordinating Diversion of Mental Health Calls – The Council may wish to ask
how will the Department coordinate diverting mental health calls between the City’s growing number of
alternative response programs and external service providers? The Council may also wish to ask how the
Department could help create metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of the City’s multiple alternative
response programs including partnership with MCOT, Medical Response Team, Community Health
Access Team, Social Workers, Crisis Intervention Team, Business Community Engagement Officer,
Civilian Response Team, Park Rangers, Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team,
and the several ambassador programs
2.Pilot Partnership with University of Utah Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT) –
Consistent with the City’s overall interest and investment in diversifying emergency response from
relying solely on Police, the Council may wish to ask the Administration if additional resources are
needed to further improve/streamline this partnership with MCOT to help divert mental crises calls.
3.Recruitment and Community Engagement – The Council may wish to ask the Department what
recruitment and community engagement efforts are or could be done to help reach full staffing of
dispatchers and improve diversity of the applicant pool?
4.Dispatchers Unable to Telecommute – The Council may wish to ask if the Department has plans to
purchase equipment that would allow dispatchers to telecommute. Stations are estimated to cost
$20,000 each.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Funding Our Future (FOF) Public Safety Category
As part of the FY20 annual budget adoption the Council included the following legislative intent: “It is the intent
of the Council that the definition of “public safety” include the Police Department, Fire Department, and 911
Dispatch for allocation of Funding Our Future revenue.” The FY2022 budget was the first year for the 911
Department to receive FOF dollars for hiring eight more dispatchers. The 911 Department would receive
$792,384 from Funding Our Future in the FY2023 proposed budget.
Contract to Provide Services to Sandy City (Animal Services, Fire and Police)
The five-year contract between Salt Lake City and Sandy City started in October 2013 and the initial term ended
in October 2018. It was renewed for another five years until October 2023. A second five-year renewal is
contemplated in the contract and will go into effect if neither party acts to end the contract at the expiration
date. A six-month cancellation notice is required for either part to terminate.
Page | 5
Turnover and Reaching Full Staffing Levels
The Department currently has five dispatcher FTEs and three authorized but unfunded public safety dispatcher
positions that are vacant. The chart and table below show the Department’s average staff turnover from 2014 to
2021 was 21%. This is significantly higher than the City’s average turnover across departments over the same
time. However, note that many departments experienced elevated turnover in 2021 because of labor market
conditions and that turnover in the 911 Department significantly decreased in 2022 since the salary
enhancement was implemented. One of the Department’s hiring limitations is the number of recruits that can be
brought on-board at any given time.
Two years ago, HR worked with the Department to combine dispatcher level one and two jobs to increase
starting pay to $18.31/hour. This was an increase of approximately two dollars an hour. The Department offered
$1,000 retention bonuses during the pandemic. The Department has experienced hiring issues with applicants
passing background checks, employees not completing one-year probationary periods and other agencies
offering higher salaries. The Council authorized three unfunded dispatcher FTEs to help mitigate turnover.
A new dispatcher takes five to seven months of training before they can operate independently as a regular
dispatcher on the call floor. First are several trainings and certifications with two months in the classroom
reviewing policies and procedures. Second is three to five months on the call floor working with fully trained
dispatchers doing hands-on training.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
911 Department Staffing and Turnover
Total # of Employees at the Highest Staffing Level for that Year
# of New Hires that Failed to Complete Probation
# of Experienced Employees Who Left for Any Reason
Turnover Rate %
2 0 14 2 0 15 2 0 16 2 0 17 2 0 18 2 0 19 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1
A
To t a l # o f Emplo y e e s a t t he
Hig h e st St a ffing Le v e l fo r tha t
Y e a r
7 8 82 80 90 88 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 0
B # o f Ne w Hir e s t hat Fa ile d to
Co m p le te Pr o b a t io n 4 8 9 6 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 9
C # o f Ex pe r ie nc e d Emp lo y e e s
Wh o Le ft fo r A ny Re as o n 1 1 1 5 1 3 6 3 8 1 7 1 3 1 1
D Tur no v e r Rate %1 9 %2 8%2 8%1 3 %1 1 %2 0 %2 8%2 4 %2 1 %
E Re t e ntio n Rate (Re te nt io n = 1 -
Tur no v e r ) x 1 0 0 81 %7 2 %7 3 %87 %89 %80 %7 2 %7 6 %7 9%
C A L C UL A T E A V E RA GE
T URNOV ER RA T E A V E RA GEYEAR
Page | 6
Industry Best Practices for 911 Call Response
Ideally, a 911 call is supposed to elicit the following responses within six minutes:
1. Dispatcher answers incoming call within 10 seconds
2. 60 seconds or less for dispatcher to gather priority information
3. 60 seconds or less for dispatcher to notify appropriate emergency responders; and
4. 4 minutes or less for emergency responders (fire, medical and/or police) to reach the caller’s location.
Minimum Staffing Standard
The 911 Department established a minimum staffing level for 24/7 operations which is: 4 fire dispatchers, 3-5
police dispatchers, and between 3-9 call takers based on the time of day and average call volumes. This staffing
mix is unique to Salt Lake City and based on current call volumes. Thus, the mix is subject to change as the need
for emergency response fluctuates overtime. Going below the minimum staffing level may create situations when
the Department is unable to readily respond to an active emergency. Mandatory overtime is one tool the
Department uses to ensure these minimum staffing levels.
Rapid SOS for Mobile Phone Location Identification
The Administration described Rapid SOS as “a free product offered to all PSAP agencies across the country. The
product allows dispatchers to get a GPS hit when someone calls 911 from a cell phone. The caller must have their
location services turned on in their phone settings. SLC911 has a procedure requiring dispatchers to launch
Rapid SOS each day. Any caller that is unable to give a location or verify that location will be processed through
Rapid SOS to get the best location information possible.”
Dispatchers Unable to Telecommute
The current technology used by the 911 Department does not provide a telecommuting option for dispatchers.
This created operational challenges during the pandemic because dispatchers had to physically work from the
Public Safety Building (PSB), the existing call answering floor space is unable to accommodate the six-foot social
distancing health guidelines and wearing a mask makes it harder to communicate over the phone and radio. The
Utah Communication Authority (UCA), State agency overseeing PSAPs, is investing in new technology from
Vesta that can provide a telecommuting option. However, a station would need to be purchased and installed at
dispatcher’s homes which is estimated to cost $20,000 each or $1.64 million for all dispatchers. The Department
reports a smaller number of telecommuting stations would also be a significant improvement to operations
because dispatchers could check out a station for temporary use and then return it. However, there are
cybersecurity and physical security regulations protecting access points to criminal justice system information
which could be difficult to satisfy at private residential locations.
Emergency 911 Dispatch Fund (E-911 Fund)
E911 Fund revenues come from a 911 excise tax paid on phone bills. Revenue in recent years is averaging about
$4.7 million annually. The projected transfer to the General Fund for FY2023 is $3.8 million which is 35% of the
Department’s annual budget. The E-911 Fund has its own Fund Balance (savings account) with a projected
balance of $4.48 million. A few years ago, the Utah Legislature requested an audit of how these funds are
collected and distributed. The audit recommended changes to the distribution formula: (1) increase monthly fee
rate and (2) allot revenues to where 911 service occurs rather than the phone billing address. Taken together
these changes significantly increased Salt Lake City’s E911 Fund revenues in recent years. Approximately, $2.7
million in E911 Funds were used to purchase new equipment and furniture when the 911 Department relocated
to the Public Safety Building in 2013. This fund has also provided several software and hardware upgrades for
the Department in recent years.
Accreditations
As a follow up to the 2019 Performance Audit the 911 Department ended script-based protocol software for
police calls and is working through accreditation options for police. The Department is pursuing accreditation
for dispatch from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) which is expected
to take two years. The Department is also seeking Association of Public Safety Communications Officials
approval for the in-house training program and all staff are being certified with the Utah Bureau of Emergency
Services for Dispatch Professionals.
Emergency Calls Tracking System (ECaTS)
The State contracts with a private company called Emergency Calls Tracking System (ECaTS) which
automatically records data from all 911 call centers in Utah. The tracking system allows call response times to be
analyzed by customized time periods such as year, days of the week, times of the day, and type of call.
Page | 7
Variations in Call Volume
The Department provided the graph below showing average call volumes (911 and non-emergency) by hour of
the day. Note that the graph uses military time. The graph shows daily call volume typically peaks around 15:00
hours (3:00 pm) and then reaches the daily low point at 4:00 hours (4:00 am). The Department adjusts staffing
levels to account for these call volume variations but never falls below the minimum staffing standard (see
section above). Note: PSAP is Public Safety Answering Point
COUNCIL RETREAT – PROJECTS & PRIORITIES
At the Council retreat on January 25th, Council Members discussed a variety of policy projects that are of
particular interest and will likely affect either the City as a whole or individual districts. Below is a list of those
topics that related in some way to this Department budget. The Council may wish to ask for any updates the
Department has on any of the projects or if there is funding that could help move a related item ahead.
- Code blue / code red ordinances
- Neighborhood safety issues
- Park ranger program and diversification of public safety response options
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. 2021 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Breakdown of 911 Department’s Answer Times by Hour of
the Day and Number of Seconds to Answer
ACRONYMS
AFSCME – Association of Federal State County and Municipal Employees
CAD – Computer Aided Dispatch
CALEA – Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HR – Human Resources
MCOT – Mobile Crisis Outreach Team
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
PSAP – Public Safety Answering Point
PSB – Public Safety Building
UCA – Utah Communication Authority
Page | 8
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF BUDGET CHANGES
FY 2 0 2 0 -2 1
A c t u als $ A m o u n t % C h an ge
Pe r so nal Se r v ic e s $ 7 ,5 4 8,2 2 9 $ 6 ,7 9 9 ,4 0 9 $ 8,0 5 4 ,5 3 6 $ 9 ,7 0 2 ,9 69 $ 1 ,6 4 8,4 3 3 2 0 %
Op e r a t io ns and
Ma int e nanc e $ 5 9 ,0 1 1 $ 7 1 ,3 2 7 $ 4 2 ,4 0 0 $ 84 ,9 84 $ 4 2 ,5 84 1 0 0 %
Ch ar ge s a nd Se r v ic e s $ 2 4 5 ,81 9 $ 6 3 8,0 88 $ 85 9 ,4 4 4 $ 9 3 5 ,5 7 6 $ 7 6 ,1 3 2 9 %
Ca pit a l Ex pe ndit u r e s $ 1 0 2 ,6 4 0 $ 2 4 ,3 7 3 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 0 ,3 7 3 $ 9 0 ,3 7 3 1 5 1 %
TOTA LS $ 7 ,9 5 5 ,69 9 $7 ,5 3 3 ,19 7 $ 9 ,0 16 ,3 80 $ 10 ,87 3 ,9 0 2 $1,85 7 ,5 2 2 2 1%
Differe n c eFY 2 0 2 2 -2 3
Pro po se d
911 Communications Bureau
PROP OSED BU DGET COMPARI SON
Ex p en se FY 2 0 19 -2 0
A c t u als
FY 2 0 2 1-2 2
A do pt ed
Page 1 of 2
Avg.
0 - 10 16 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 120+Duration
5,682 39 87 52 12 138.5
5,090 19 67 36 7 148.6
4,038 7 31 9 5 153.3
3,237 17 25 21 8 153.6
3,047 5 17 15 4 142.6
3,161 11 58 24 11 128.4
3,939 13 41 11 4 120.2
5,209 12 23 7 5 123.3
6,003 54 120 55 16 122.8
6,015 112 300 153 37 126.1
7,033 124 303 127 32 123.9
8,461 47 117 43 11 120.4
8,987 55 110 47 14 119.0
9,106 66 172 46 8 121.8
9,667 55 116 51 4 120.1
10,211 31 58 10 2 123.8
10,187 20 59 13 1 124.4
9,662 66 179 68 10 128.5
9,486 44 139 54 6 133.3
9,195 46 87 41 13 127.8
8,639 32 76 29 5 131.8
8,590 31 75 46 3 132.9
7,870 29 59 22 4 133.3
6,402 32 94 39 9 140.0
168,917 967 2,413 1,019 231 128.9
96.12%0.55%1.37%0.58%0.13%
PSAP Answer Time
Report Date:05/24/2022 11:52:15Salt Lake City 9-1-1
Report Date From:01/01/2021
315 E 200 South
Report Date To:12/31/2021
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 County: Salt Lake
Period Group:Year
Time Group:60 Minute
Year:2021
Time Block:00:00 - 23:59
Agency Affiliation Emergency Communications
Days Of Week:All
Call Type:911 Calls
Abandoned Filters:Exclude Abandoned
Agency Affiliation:All
Include:Voice Calls Only
The PSAP Answer Time Report is representative of the caller's answer time experience. Seizure-to-Answer Time is measured from the time of call seizure to the time of agent answer. Times shown
include Setup, and may include Queue Seconds and/or Ring Seconds depending on PSAP configuration.
Answer Times In Seconds
Call Hour 11-15 61 - 120 Total
00:00 37 54 5,963
01:00 21 36 5,276
02:00 20 14 4,124
03:00 16 33 3,357
04:00 5 9 3,102
05:00 20 48 3,333
06:00 20 11 4,039
07:00 11 6 5,273
08:00 59 57 6,364
09:00 104 109 6,830
10:00 132 117 7,868
11:00 73 22 8,774
12:00 79 30 9,322
13:00 83 28 9,509
14:00 83 29 10,005
15:00 56 4 10,372
16:00 64 10 10,354
17:00 145 54 10,184
18:00 93 40 9,862
19:00 48 28 9,458
20:00 33 28 8,842
21:00 50 23 8,818
22:00 44 14 8,042
23:00 50 31 6,657
Overall %:0.77%0.48%
Total:1,346 835 175,728
Page 2 of 2
≤ 15 Secs ≤ 40 Secs
95.91%98.02%
96.87%98.50%
98.40%99.32%
96.90%98.15%
98.39%99.10%
95.44%97.51%
98.02%99.36%
98.99%99.66%
95.25%97.99%
89.59%95.62%
91.07%96.49%
97.26%99.13%
97.25%99.02%
96.63%99.14%
97.45%99.16%
98.99%99.85%
99.01%99.77%
96.30%98.70%
97.13%98.99%
97.73%99.13%
98.08%99.30%
97.98%99.18%
98.41%99.50%
96.92%98.81%
96.89%98.81%
05/24/2022 11:52:15
01/01/2021
12/31/2021
Year
60 Minute
00:00 - 23:59
All
911 Calls
Exclude Abandoned
All
Voice Calls Only
The PSAP Answer Time Report is representative of the caller's answer time experience. Seizure-to-Answer Time is measured from the time of call seizure to the time of agent answer. Times shown
include Setup, and may include Queue Seconds and/or Ring Seconds depending on PSAP configuration.
% Answered
≤ 10 Secs ≤ 20 Secs
95.29%96.56%
96.47%97.23%
97.91%98.57%
96.43%97.41%
98.23%98.55%
94.84%95.77%
97.52%98.34%
98.79%99.22%
94.33%96.10%
88.07%91.23%
89.39%92.64%
96.43%97.80%
96.41%97.84%
95.76%97.33%
96.62%98.00%
98.45%99.29%
98.39%99.20%
94.87%96.95%
96.19%97.58%
97.22%98.21%
97.70%98.44%
97.41%98.33%
97.86%98.77%
96.17%97.40%
96.12%97.44%
SLC 911
BUDGET
2021 Statistics
2021 Call summary total 770,702
2021 Calls transferred to SLC 911: 8,161
2021 Calls transferred from SLC 911 to outside agencies: 15,251
2021 MCOT call diversion: 234 calls resolved telephonically,39 required law enforcement, 232
MCOT deployed, 11 referred to higher level of care. Total calls 516
2021 PSAP answering time <10 seconds 96.12%,<15 seconds 96.89%, <20 seconds 97.4%
Turnover rate retention increase 4%
Priorities and
Goals
Getting fully staffed through
recruitment and retention of
current employees
Implementing an internal training
program for our current
employees
Increasing community
involvement
Fully staffed and fully
trained
Recruiting with intention
The already positive impact of the recent pay
increase
Providing our new and current employees
relevant and pertinent training and support to
perform at optimal levels to better serve the
community
Embracing
the
community
SLC 911 to participate
in pride week 2022
Involvement with local
schools to bring
awareness to 911
services
Leading with intention
Recruit and train to attain a full staff that is
adequately trained
Taking a proactive approach with targeted
training for current employees
Embrace positive growth in our departmental
operations and interactions with the
community
Continue working with our call diversions
partners such as MCOT
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
SLC Budget FY23
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland and Sylvia Richards
Public Policy & Budget Analysts
DATE:June 2, 2022
RE: FY2023 BUDGET – DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
- Key Changes, 38; Department Overview, 159 to 163; Staffing, 262
OVERVIEW
The Department of Economic Development (DED) functions are split in two, between the Business Support
Division and the Arts Council. This report covers both functions and focuses on the General Fund revenue and
expenses. DED leads Salt Lake City’s efforts to promote local economic opportunities and business expansion by
developing partnerships with communities and businesses, organizing events, and advocating for small and
medium-sized businesses. The Arts Council seeks to promote, present and support artists and arts organizations
to facilitate the development of the arts and expand awareness, access, and engagement in Salt Lake City.
A.General Fund Budget. The recommended FY23 budget for the Department of Economic Development is
$3,731,754, which is $1,016,839 higher (37%) than FY22, with 76% of the increase resulting from changes
to personal service costs (insurance rates, salaries, and merit increases). All funding for both divisions
comes from the general fund, apart from revenue that is received by the Arts Council Foundation and
remains separate from the Department’s general fund allocation.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 2, 2022
Budget Hearings: June 7
Potential Action: June 14 (TBD)
2
Economic Development Arts Council Cultural Core
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
FY21 Actual
FY22 Adopted
FY23 Recommended
Trends in Department of Economic Development Divisions
B.Staffing Levels. The total number of FTEs would rise from 18 to 22, for a total of 13 in Economic
Development and 9 in the Arts Council. The Arts Council’s three new positions were approved by the
Council in FY22 Budget Amendment #6 and would continue permanently. One FTE, an Office Manager,
would be transferred from the RDA to Economic Development to correct a technical error resulting from
the split of RDA and Economic Development in FY2022. The employee has worked in DED since the split,
and the correction merely documents the change that happened at that time.
KEY ISSUES AND POLICY QUESTIONS
A.Business Assistance Grants. On April 19, in FY22 Budget Amendment #4, the Council approved the
proposal to use $2 million in ARPA (American Recovery Plan Act) funds for a new type of business
assistance grant. At the same time, the Council adopted an ordinance to establish a new community grant
program and to create a new City board to assist with and oversee the distribution of funds. In response to
staff’s request for an update on any progress and changes in the program, and for a timeline, the
Department responded as follows:
“DED submitted guidelines for review in March 2022 and next steps are to have the funds
released to the Department for execution upon Council approval. Given the time of year, DED
recommends this action take place in FY23.”
The Council may wish to ask the Department for updated information about the
program since the Council’s adoption of the guidelines in April.
B.Economic Development Loan Program (EDLP). In early Spring 2022, the Council began to take on
a larger role in the City’s longtime Economic Development Loan Program, and the first two loan requests
were approved in April. The EDLP was shifted to DED from the Community and Neighborhoods
Department in FY21. Staff pre-screen, perform an underwriting analysis, and complete an economic impact
statement for each loan application before it is recommended (or not) to the Loan Committee for
review. Information on applications recommended by the Loan Committee is transmitted to the Council for
final review and potential approval. See additional information on this program below.
C.Department Goals. In response to a Council staff question, the Department of Economic Development
provided a list of its six goals for FY23. The Council could consider reviewing these goals in more depth
3
with the Department in a future work session, and/or request additional information on the issues listed in
the sections below.
1.BioHive Apprenticeships. Goal: “Work with BioHive to define the scope of an apprenticeship
program that the healthcare innovation industry can take on to provide SLC residents with high-
quality job opportunities.”
In response to a Council staff request for additional information, the Department responded as
follows:
“Short Term
The three short term goals are, 1. Organize student tours at BioHive companies, 2. Organize
employee visits to schools, and 3. participation in events that increase engagement between our
youth and the healthcare innovation industry. Metrics may include: number of students
interfacing with the program, number of visits, and number of businesses engaged with the
program.
Long Term
A long term goal is to get City residents placed in apprenticeships. The total number of
apprenticeships facilitated will be a key metric. We will have to benchmark an appropriate
number and then set sub-goals moving forward.”
The Council may wish to ask additional questions, especially related to equity
and program performance:What is the target population? Will there be support
for individual students who may face difficulties like transportation to and
from companies involved, fit with company culture or norms, or who are
otherwise at risk of dropping out of the program? Over the next few years, how
will the City be able to evaluate whether this program is worth the financial
investment involved?
2.Main Street to a Pedestrian Promenade. Goal: “Phase in permanent conversion of Main
Street to a pedestrian promenade to increase positive downtown activation and support local
businesses.”
In response to a Council staff request for additional information, the Department responded as
follows:
“It is important to recognize that nothing has been proposed so far because a study has not been
completed. Also any study needs to include a strong stakeholder engagement process. The
Department anticipates that the study funded by the RDA will look at 400 South to South Temple
on both sides of the street (our current footprint for the Open Streets Program).”
3.Sister Cities. Goal: “Update the Sister Cities strategy to be more responsive to our existing
relationships and our requests for new relationships, enhancing SLC’s connection to the world.”
Council staff did not receive a response to a request to DED for additional information on its plan to
update the Cities’ Sister Cities Program.
The Council may wish to ask the Department about its concrete goals for this
project, and whether the Department is aware of models used by other US cities
4
to achieve these goals. The Council may also wish to inquire about any budget
impacts associated with this project.
4.Economic Development Loan Funds. Goal: “Increase support for local business by fully
deploying Economic Development Loan Funds to local businesses for the first time since 2018.”
In response to a Council staff request for additional information, the Department responded as
follows:
“The Department plans to deploy this program through the following efforts:
Presentations to Partners-Our team works closely with our partner organizations such as the
International Rescue Committee (IRC), Suazo Business Center, the Asian Chamber of
Commerce, the Black Chamber of Commerce, the Pacific Islander Chamber of Commerce, etc.,
and regularly presents our resources in member meetings. This loan program is highlighted in
these presentations and it will continue to be.
Site Visits to Businesses-Our site visit program has given our team the opportunity to
communicate one-on-one with the business community and we emphasize the EDLF program
in these meetings. In FY23, we plan to do follow-up site visits with businesses we have met
with in the past as we realize we need to mention the program multiple times before a business
remembers this resource.
Update Collateral Materials-We are updating our collateral materials for the program that
we will share on business visits and in presentations. We plan to ask all current and past
recipients to advertise a window sticker on their business as program recipients. We find word
of mouth among the business community to be incredibly beneficial.
Local Business Marketing Program/IRC-Our current local business marketing contract with
the International Rescue Committee will focus on outreach and marketing to the diverse
business community about all DED programs, particularly the EDLF, and they will also
provide technical assistance to loan applicants.
Online Application-The current paper application process for the EDLF is badly outdated and
we are looking at moving to an online application format. This will enable applicants and City
staff to better track the progress of the application. A paper process would still be available
for those who cannot get to a computer to apply.
COVID-19 Pandemic-The loan program has had fewer applications since 2020 until recently.
When our team has met with businesses, we have consistently heard small businesses express
that they could obtain grants or other loans at better rates. Many of those resources are no
longer available and we are already seeing an increase in applications coming in.”
The Council may wish to share any guidelines or preferences for seeking
certain types of businesses with the loan funds.
5.Construction Mitigation Funding. Goal: “Improve the construction mitigation program that
reduces negative impacts to residents and businesses from city road construction and
maintenance projects, improves communication, and delivers coordinated civic engagement from
design to completion.”
The Council agreed to increase DED’s construction mitigation grant funding by $200,000 in FY22.
The FY23 budget proposes to make this amount ongoing to allow additional construction mitigation
funding to continue the service. DED requested $200,000 for this program based on the previous
year’s demand, upcoming scheduled projects, and total number of potential businesses impacted by
upcoming projects. The Department stated:
5
“The request for FY23 also includes an anticipated increase in the grant amount from $2,000 -
$3,000 due to business feedback that $2,000 is not enough. In San Francisco, the Van Ness
Improvement Project provided mitigation funding running from $5,000-$10,000 per business.
Other business feedback DED received was to better coordinate outreach efforts with other City
departments. To implement this feedback and streamline efforts, we recommend regular
coordination meetings with the Engineering consultants and Civic Engagement.”
6.Sugar House SAA. Goal: “Provide considerations to the Council for a Sugar House SAA.”
In response to a Council staff request for additional information, the Department responded as
follows:
“DED is preparing to submit a transmittal in the coming weeks with the initial analysis. That
analysis and guidance from the Council will provide considerations for next steps.”
The Arts Council. The Arts Council’s recommended FY23 budget shows an increase of $396,152 or (63.2%) as
compared to FY22 which is primarily attributed to the costs of funding the annual salary and benefits for the
three FTE’s added to the staffing document during Budget Amendment No. 6 in the amount of $309,824.
A.Increase in Non-Departmental Contribution of $150,000
The Administration has indicated that the increased contribution from the Non-Departmental budget would
provide the ‘full actual needs for the organization’s existing programs’, as well as mitigation for the loss of
ZAP ((Zoo Arts and Parks Tier I Grant) funding. The Arts Council indicated that the Foundation has lost
approximately $250,000 in ZAP grant funding over the last five years. The additional funds will address
expenses relating to the pandemic, inflation, and increased fees and services. (See chart of expenses below.)
1. Operating Expenses $45,000
The Arts Council is requesting $45,000 for increased operating expenses, such as professional
development, Art Barn maintenance, cell phone reimbursement.
2. City Arts Grants
As outlined in the chart below, the Arts Council received an ARPA grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts and is not requesting additional funding for arts grants.
FY23
Request
FY22 Award /
Allocation
Variance /
Increase
Comments/Notes:
Art Barn
Maintenance
$10,000 $7,500 $2,500 This increase will go toward utilities and
building security. Both items have increased
over the years while the amount of non-
departmental has not.
City Arts
Grants
$382,500 $382,500 $0 This allocation will remain the same for the next
fiscal year. The Arts Council received a
$500,000 ARPA grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts split over two years
which will supplement the grants budget. The
Arts Council indicates that they receive over 1
million dollars in requests for grants, and an
6
increasing number of applications. The Council
may wish to ask the Administration whether the
National Endowment for the Arts grant can be
applied for in future years.
Arts
Programming
Support
$407,500 $260,000 $147,500 This increase accounts for inflation to
programming costs as well as to help alleviate
the loss of ZAP funding.
Arts Council Performance Measures 2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Actual
2022
Target
2023
Target
Attendees 49,444 35,771 36,070 40,000 40,000
Artists Served 1,839 843 1,532 1,500 1,500
Total Grants Awarded 109 116 151 150 150
B.Public Art Maintenance
One of the Arts Program Coordinators will assist the Public Art Program Manager in maintaining public art,
but the coordinator role is also responsible for a number of other public art needs in project execution,
outreach and engagement, and other tasks.
In response to Council staff’s question as to whether there is adequate funding for maintenance of larger,
more expensive art pieces, the Administration provided the following update:
“The transmittal sent to the Council on May 11th (now required by ordinance) indicated that the FY23
projects will use almost 100% of the remaining maintenance funds designated in FY20. This was the first
time a maintenance fund was formally designated for the program and was seeded with approximately
$200,000.
The FY23 maintenance work plan and projections will address the needs of all the remaining artworks
identified in the Priority 1 category (11 artworks in total) and a significant portion of the Priority 2 artworks
(10 out of 37 artworks). It does not address Priority 3 and 4 artworks. The maintenance work plan does not
account for unanticipated vandalism, damage, theft etc. that may arise and shift maintenance priorities.
For context, the cost of repair and maintenance for individual works of art in FY22 has varied from a few
hundred dollars to over $40,000 dollars. During FY22, the Public Art Program conducted a variety of
maintenance needs to eight public artworks in its permanent collection for a total cost of $176,067 (some of
this covered by insurance or budgets specific to other departments). Overall, the remaining number of
previously unmaintained artworks, and finite funding remain the biggest obstacles impacting our future
maintenance efforts.
At the conclusion of FY23 (or potentially before), the arts maintenance fund will likely be depleted and only
the new 10-20% of the 1.5% percent for art will be available. This number is dependent on the total CIP
allocation. For example, a $150,000 CIP allocation for art would yield a maximum of $30,000 for
maintenance from that total.” The Council may wish to ask what amount of funding would
address Priority 3 and 4 artworks.
7
C.Cultural Core/The BLOCKS Update
Council Members will recall that the City and Salt Lake County formed a partnership to promote and
develop arts and culture in the Cultural Core, and a twenty-year taxing district was created to fund this
effort. The City and County’s Interlocal Agreement for the THE BLOCKS is governed by a six-member
advisory budget committee, with direct oversight from City and County staff. The City and County both
contribute $250,000 annually, and the Arts Council oversees these efforts. A public RFP process resulted in
a five-year contract with ‘Downtown SLC Presents’ which expires at the end of July 2022.The Arts Council
indicates that the public RFP process is now underway to identify the next arts and culture promotion group.
D.Living Legacy Video Program
The Arts Council had planned to discontinue the Living Legacy video program, but instead wrote and
received a grant for $10,000 through Utah Humanities to fund a second round of videos.
COUNCIL RETREAT – PROJECTS & PRIORITIES
At the Council retreat on January 25th, Council Members discussed a variety of policy projects that are of
particular interest and will likely affect either the City as a whole or individual Districts. Below is a list of those
topics that related in some way to this Department budget. The Council may wish to ask for any updates the
Department representatives may have on any of the projects or if there is funding that could help move a related
item ahead.
A. Equity
7. Equity lens for CIP / EDLF funds
2023 BUDGET
PRESENTATION
Economic Development in Salt Lake City
“...the purpose of our economy isn’t just to go places fast — it’s to
take people there with it.” - Anat Shenker-Osorio
Guiding Principles
Balanced Economy
A balanced economy that
produces quality jobs and fosters
an innovative environment for
commerce, entrepreneurial local
business, and industry to thrive.
Strong Creative Culture
Vibrant, diverse, and accessible
artistic and cultural resources that
showcase the community’s long
standing commitment to a strong
creative culture.
Plan Salt Lake I Salt Lake City 2015
Bending Momentum
To local businesses, artists, and underserved
communities
Our Road
Arts
Council
Arts
Council Business
Development
Business
Development
Economic
Development
Economic
Development
Partnership & Collaboration
Majority of our work is done through partnership
& collaboration
Our Destination
Increased tax Base
Revenue for city
Fuel for city work
Quality of Life for Residents +
Equitable Economic Opportunity
Thriving local business + arts and culture
Vibrant neighborhoods
COVID-19
Inflation & Workforce
Growth
Potential Recession
Key Budget Changes
Arts Council Operating Expenses (+$45,000)
Construction Mitigation Grants ($200,000 + remaining FY22 funds)
NLC Hispanic Entrepreneurs ($30,000)
Healthcare Innovation Marketing & Placemaking ($35,000)
NLC HispanicEntrepreneurs
HealthcareInnovationPlacemaking
Partnership & Collaboration
Bending Momentum
Business Development
Construction Mitigation
Available for 4 construction
projects
$86,000 dispersed
43 small business recipients
Grant:
Districts
Administration of SAA programs
Sugarhouse SAA Study
Designation of Utah Main Street
America program
Business & Cultural Districts
EDLF
20 loans in pipeline
4 Loans approved FY22
Collateral makeover & continued
Economic Development Loan Fund:
marketing, engagement with
community for FY23
Open Streets
Work with small businesses
Facilitate city requirements
Coordinate with Permitting, Fire &
Building Services
Provide letters of support for DABC
to expand patios
“The Construction Mitigation Grant has
been extremely helpful in offsetting some
of the revenue losses due to construction
activity preventing customers from
getting to our coffee shop. We would be
extremely grateful if the program could
continue, both to support our own
struggles during the 900s street
improvements and for businesses in the
future who experience hardship due to
construction.”
- Patrick Andrews, Blue Copper Coffee
EDLF Loan ($150k)
Emergency Loan Program ($20k)
City press releases
Open Streets benefits
Quarters Arcade Bar
BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT
Arts Council
Major Accomplishments
Cultural Core - RFP
Fleet Block Art Healing
2021 Living Traditions
2021 Twilight Concert Series
Finch Lane exhibits
Americans for the Arts, Arts and Economic
Prosperity 6 national study
Mayor's Artists Awards
Public Art
9th South Roundabout sculpture
Three Creek Confluence
Glendale Park-“Glendale Gather Blocks”
TRAX Station Sculpture “The Crossing”
1.5% for art for maintenance
and mural “Out of the Blue”
Two new grant opportunities
this year
Artist Career Empowerment
Racial Equity & Inclusion
$500,000 NEA
151 grants awarded
City Arts GrantsOrg Health & Stability
3 new staff positions
Public Benefit Study
Breaking Barriers accessibility
training grant
BIPOC Fellowship
Completed IDEA work and audit
Increases to UDAM funding
Board and Staff diversity
9th & 11th public art project
Almost two-year-long public art
process
Vibrant neighborhoods, thriving
businesses, rich arts & culture
Brings together businesses,
restaurants, schools, and art.
2021 Artist Career Empowerment
Grant recipient, a program of the
City Arts Grants
Recipient of the Mayor’s Artist
Award
Finch Lane Flash Projects
Flag Committee participant
Small business owner on West
Side
Jorge Rojas, Artist
Supporting local artists Supportinglocalbusinesses
Thank You
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:June 2, 2022
RE:FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET,
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (the “District”) was created in 1935 by the voters of Salt
Lake City in order to provide for additional water management and treatment options from sources within and
beyond the Salt Lake Valley. The District treats and conveys water from the Provo River system and the Central
Utah Project, which draw from sources such as the Strawberry Reservoir and Provo and Weber Rivers, among
many others. (For more history, see Attachment 1.)
The Council reviews the District budget, but does not formally adopt it. The Council appoints five of the
District’s seven-member Board of Trustees.
KEY ITEMS
The total FY23 expenditures and revenues figure is an estimated at $49,463,484. Highlights of the proposed
budget include:
- A rate increase of 3% is proposed this year. The same percent increase is tentatively planned for water
sales to member cities every year through 2027. Salt Lake City customers see this increase through the
bill for water service from Public Utilities.
- No increase is proposed for member cities’ property tax rates for the fiscal 2023 budget.
- A 7% graduated cost of living adjustment (COLA) salary increase for employees is proposed.
- Assessments related to the City’s share of Utah Lake System petition water through the Central Utah
Project (CUP) is estimated to be $844,223. Use of this water source for serving the system is relatively
new.
- District supplies are included in the Public Utilities long-term water source forecast and plan.
- The District proposes to draw on its cash balance this year, an estimated figure of $1,269,633. In
contrast, over recent past fiscal years the District has added to its cash balance each year.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 2, 2022
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
OTHER BACKGROUND
The District is funded primarily through the water sales to its member cities (Salt Lake and Sandy) and other
surplus customers, collection of property taxes from member city residents, and capital assessments paid by
each member city toward costs related to master planned capital improvements.
The District’s expenditures include operations and maintenance costs within their own system, debt service,
capital assessments, as well as water purchases, conveyance, and operations and maintenance for the Provo
River Water Users Association, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) and Central Utah Project
(CUP), and the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. These relationships allow the District to collect, treat,
store and convey water resources throughout the Salt Lake Valley.
Increased revenues relative to last year’s from water sales to Salt Lake City. Costs for this water are paid by
customers via Salt Lake City Public Utilities. Any water sales revenues collected from sales of surplus water to
outside entities is placed in an Aquifer Storage and Recovery reserve to help offset member city capital costs.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) is an entity organized for conveyance,
treatment, storage, and capital needs related to water obtained through the Central Utah Project.
Several appointments from Salt Lake County sit on the 18-member Board.
The District contracts with CUWCD to obtain water resources from the CUP that are necessary for
ongoing water service to Salt Lake Valley customers, especially in light of anticipated new growth in the
City alone.
CUWCD makes decisions about the timing and scope of infrastructure replacement and maintenance
within their system that ultimately impact City ratepayers in the form of charges passed from CUWCD
to the District, onto the City’s Water Utility and ultimately to the “end users,” City residents. The District
anticipates that operation, maintenance and replacement costs related to CUP infrastructure and
supplies could escalate significantly in the future.
a. In the future, the Council may wish to explore working with Salt Lake area representatives on
the CUWCD Board to encourage budget and policy measures that would continue to address
infrastructure and service needs, as well as
b. Discussion that could also include planning for balanced and equitable impacts to City
ratepayers in terms of ongoing costs from CUWCD policy.
2. Council Members may wish to discuss the District’s philosophy in terms of recreation and land use
changes in the central Wasatch canyons. Does the District take an active role in watershed protection
and education?
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Other Notes
1. Capital costs to the District associated with regional water service facilities such as the dam at Jordanelle
Reservoir total an estimated $2,971,200 for fiscal 2023.
2. Costs related to the Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA) are budgeted for $4,094,023 for the
fiscal year 2023 and involve water sales, capital assessments and operations and maintenance. 61,900 acre
feet of water is potentially available to the District through its shares in the Provo Association. The cost
increases by under 2% this year.
3. The District is a 2/7 capacity owner in the Jordan Aqueduct, Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant, and
Jordan Aqueduct Terminal Reservoir.
a.The District also owns 50% of the capacity in the 150th South Pipeline. Jordan Valley Water
Conservancy District (JVWCD), which helps convey water to Metropolitan Water District customers
in the western Salt Lake area, operates and maintains these facilities on behalf of the District. The
Jordan Aqueduct also services the City’s developing Northwest Quadrant.
b.The District’s payments to JVWCD for capital expenditures related to the Jordan Aqueduct System
will total an estimated $2,885,643 for the fiscal year 2023. JVWCD only conveys, treats and stores
supplies for the District and is not a source of water for District customers.
4. Proposed 2023 costs related to maintenance of the Little Dell Reservoir Dam are an estimated $630,000.
Salt Lake County is separately responsible for 30% of the O&M costs of Little Dell.
Salt Lake City’s Annual Contributions
- $7,021,892 capital assessment, related to infrastructure upgrades and facility improvements, for
example the Metro Water Project completed in 2007, construction of Point of the Mountain Water
Treatment Plant, Point of the Mountain Aqueduct, and capacity upgrades to Little Cottonwood Water
Treatment Plant
- $16,622,883 in anticipated annual wholesale water purchased from the District for resale through the
City Water Utility to customers
- $8,654,447 estimated in property taxes paid by Salt Lake City residents
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Metropolitan Water District FY23 tentative budget
Attachment 2 History of the District
Attachment 3 Metro Water System Facilities Map
1
Overview and
Summary of FY 2023
Budget
Salt Lake City Council
June 2, 2022
Metropolitan Water
District of Salt Lake
& Sandy
2
Outline of Presentation
Metro Overview
FY 2023 Budget
Debt Service
Budget Schedule
Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy
Established in August 1935
Member cities
–Salt Lake City—founding
member
–Sandy City—joined in 1990
Board members appointed
by city councils
–5 members—Salt Lake City
–2 members—Sandy City
–Four year terms
3
Customers of Metro
Salt Lake City
Sandy City
Surplus customers
–Jordan Valley Water
Conservancy District
–Irrigators
–Others
4
Metro Water Supply
5
Water Sources Typical Annual Supply (acre-feet)
Provo River Project
(Deer Creek Reservoir; current year interim allocation is
60%)
61,900
Central Utah Project--Municipal & Industrial
(Jordanelle Reservoir)
20,000
Central Utah Project--Utah Lake System
(Strawberry Reservoir; SLC Preferential Right)
3,100
Little Cottonwood Creek
(SLC & Sandy City Rights)
20,000
Ontario Drain Tunnel
(Sandy City Preferential Right)
2,800
Bell Canyon (Sandy City Right)900
Total:108,700
Central Utah Project—Utah Lake System (Strawberry
Reservoir; future supply available in FY 2031)
2,500
Agency Relationships
Provo River Project
–Provo River Water Users Association (Deer Creek
Division)
–Metro (Aqueduct Division)
–Shareholders of Provo River Water Users Association
Metro owns the majority of stock (61.9%)
Provo Reservoir Water Users Company (16%)
(Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District owns
majority stock in this company)
Others
Central Utah Project
–Central Utah Water Conservancy District 6
7
Metro Key Facilities
Little Cottonwood
Water Treatment Plant
–Design capacity
150 million gallons per day
(MGD)
Point of the Mountain
Water Treatment Plant
–Design capacity
70 MGD
8
Metro Key Facilities
Salt Lake Aqueduct
–42 miles long
–69 inch inside diameter
–Design capacity—113 MGD
Point of the Mountain
Aqueduct
–12 miles—60 inch diameter
Design capacity—77 MGD
–2.5 miles—84 inch diameter
Design capacity—151 MGD
9
Metro Key Facilities
Terminal Reservoir
–Replacement project
completed in 2018
–Design capacity
48 million gallons
Jordan Aqueduct System
–Metro owns 2/7
Jordan Aqueduct and
related facilities
Jordan Valley
Water Treatment Plant
10
FY 2023 Budget—Revenue
Water sales
50%
Property taxes
23%
Capital assessments
26%
Miscellaneous revenue
(interest, cell tower
leases, surplus
equipment sales)
1%
Revenue Sources
11
FY 2023 BudgetMember City Water Sales
Member city rates history
–Volumetric water rates ($/acre foot) before FY 2010
–Seasonal volumetric water rates from FY 2010 through
FY 2013
Goal of seasonal rates was to encourage
conjunctive water use (utilization of surface water
supplies while resting ground water supplies)
–Returned to volumetric rates in FY 2014 due to revenue
shortfalls
–Established fixed water rate in FY 2017
Supports conjunctive water use
Provides predictability for Metro and member cities
12
FY 2023 BudgetMember City Water Sales
Member city historical usage
43,923
50,554
44,193
52,541 51,043
54,291
17,233
23,894 24,444 22,438 24,262 24,829
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Fiscal Year Water Deliveries (in acre feet)
SLC Sandy City
13
FY 2023 BudgetMember City Water Sales
3% increase to the member cities water charge for
FY 2023
–Future water rate increases are anticipated to be 3%
annually through FY 2027 (5-year look ahead).
14
FY 2023 BudgetWater Sales to Others, Property Taxes, Capital Assessments
3% rate increase proposed for non-member entity
water sales
–Water sales to non-member entities on a surplus basis
to help offset member city costs
No proposed increase to the certified tax rate
No proposed changes to the capital assessments
15
FY 2023 BudgetProperty Taxes
Property taxes
–Independent property tax study completed and position
statement issued by Metro Board in 2016
Metro supports maintaining property tax
A stable, predictable source of revenue
Provides a mechanism for revenue fairness (e.g.,
properties to be developed pay fair share of
water infrastructure costs)
Revenue source for necessary infrastructure
when water sales revenue from such
infrastructure is unavailable (e.g., new capacity
needs, natural disasters)
When below the certified rate, additional revenue
can be generated for unanticipated emergencies
16
FY 2023 BudgetProperty Taxes
Property taxes (cont.)
Ability to levy a property tax bolsters good bond
ratings
Helps finance redevelopment agency community
improvements
Potential unintended consequences of property tax
elimination
Increased rates for surface water will likely
promote more groundwater use
Tax exempt entities (schools, government,
hospitals, churches, certain non-profit
organizations, etc.) will pay more via water rates
Residential users with lower valued properties
will see a relatively greater financial burden than
residential users with higher valued properties
17
FY 2023 BudgetExpenditures
6.8% increase in Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) expenses
–Increased chemical costs
Primarily due to unit price increases
–Increased employee costs
Addition of two full-time equivalents (FTEs) for
workload and succession planning needs
18
FY 2023 BudgetExpenditures
O&M expenses—increased Central Utah Water
Conservancy District (CUWCD) costs
–Increases are associated with Central Utah Project
supplies (operation, maintenance, replacement, and
reserves)
9.1% increase for FY 2023 (increase of $115,500)
Annual assessment will have increased by
$1,086,000 in six years (362% increase)
FY 2017 annual assessment was $300,000
Forecasted FY 2023 annual assessment is
$1,386,000
–Total annual CUWCD cost is approximately $5.2 M
20,000 acre feet M&I and 3,100 acre feet ULS
19
FY 2023 BudgetExpenditures
CUWCD costs (cont.)
20
FY 2023 BudgetExpenditures
CUWCD costs (cont.)
–For FY 2023, 19% of Metro’s water rate charge to Salt
Lake City is allocated to Central Utah Project (CUP)
costs
$3.1 M of the Salt Lake City water rate charge is
allocated to CUP
By FY 2040 (or sooner), that number is projected to
increase to $8 M
21
FY 2023 BudgetExpenditures
Provo River Water Users Association (PRWUA)
–Annual assessments have been relatively steady
–Largest future cost increase associated with
replacement of Deer Creek Dam intake structure and
related guard gates
Assuming a $90 M project, a 2024 start date, 17%
cost participation by CUWCD, 35 year amortization,
and 1.0% interest rate:
The Metro estimated annual cost would be
approximately $1.6 M
–Based on historical averages, other assessments
expected to increase by approximately 3.6% annually
–Total annual PRWUA cost is approximately $4.1 M
61,900 acre feet (100% allotment) and holdover
22
FY 2023 BudgetExpenditures
Capital expenses
–Total capital budget is $12.4 M
Includes $900 K for Managed Aquifer Recharge
Design and Construction
Increase of $682 K in Jordan Aqueduct System
capital expenditures
–Have initiated a comprehensive hazard analysis and
mitigation plan for all Metro assets
Results of the already completed SLA and LCWTP
hazards assessments will be included in this plan
Completed plan will help prioritize capital
improvements in the updated Master Plan
–Comprehensive Asset Management Program and
Capital Improvement Plan
23
Debt Service
In 2021, Metro refunded its 2011A bonds
–Net present value savings of $1.1 M
–Average annual cash flow savings of $85 K
Current bond rating is AA+ (S&P and Fitch)
Additional refunding opportunities may be
explored
No new debt anticipated in FY 2023
24
Budget Schedule
Tentative budget was adopted on April 18
Budget public hearing was held on May 16
Final budget is anticipated to be adopted on June 13
25
Key Takeaways
Despite poor precipitation and snowpack conditions,
Metro’s current year water supply is healthy
3% rate increase for the member cities in FY 2023
Metro is working diligently to control O&M and
capital costs
–Costs from some outside agencies continue to escalate
at a high rate (e.g. CUWCD)
No new debt anticipated in FY 2023
Questions?
Questions?
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 BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
Deputy Director
DATE:June 2, 2022
RE: Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Governmental Immunity Fund Budget
Salt Lake City is self-insured for exposures to liability claims. The Governmental Immunity Fund operates as a
reserve fund managed by the Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office to address those claims and cover employee costs
related to managing the fund and related claims. Having the fund means the City does not buy liability insurance,
but the City does carry excess liability insurance to cover up to $4,000,000 per year for general liability claims
above $1,000,000 per claim. (Note: this coverage would not pay for claims over $4 million). The Attorney’s
Office coordinates with Risk Management on matters in litigation and claims submitted against the City.
9 FTEs are associated with the Governmental Immunity Fund through the Attorney’s office (see page 149 of the
budget book). The staffing budget for FY 23 is proposed to be $1.39 million (44% of the FY 23 proposed budget).
The total budget for the Governmental Immunity Fund is proposed to increase from $2.9 million in FY 22 to $3.1
million in FY 23, an increase of just under 7%. Almost all of the increase is to cover expenses related to the 9
employees assigned to this fund.
Since the early 1980s, this budget has been funded through the General Fund (Non-Departmental). For FY 23,
the Administration is proposing to return to funding this line item through direct property taxes in the amount of
$4 million. The $900,000 over the recommended budget would establish a “fund balance” that would grow in
future years to ensure the City’s ability to address claims. The Administration indicates that they are making this
recommendation in an effort to provide greater stability for the fund going into future years. This is allowed per
state law1 and would make the Governmental Immunity Fund more similar in nature to the Library Fund, with
its own property tax line item. Staff is confirming whether this would be required to go through a truth-in-
1 Utah State Code 63G-7-704
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 2, 2022
Budget Hearings: May 17, June 7.
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
taxation hearing. It would result in a $40.35 per year increase on a $520,000 residential property and a $141.08
per year increase on a commercial property valued at $1 million.
Generally, the fund’s administrators have a goal to maintain a positive fund balance while continuing to cover the
cost of potential claims against the City. A loss reserve analysis is performed each year by an actuary to determine
the reserve level needed to fund the City’s outstanding liability claims.
In the current fiscal year, the Governmental Immunity Fund has paid 97 claims totaling $823,231as of May 23.
141 claims were closed with no incurred cost. (Attachment 3). Claims originated from several departments
including Public Utilities, Public Services, Public Lands, Police, Fire, Sustainability, and CAN. The Attorney’s
Office has provided the following chart showing a 10year history of the number of claims settled and settlement
totals. The 10-year average is $780,109 with a high of $1.9 million paid in FY 2018. Note that the Governmental
Immunity fund must pay the staffing expenses ($1.4m in FY 23) regardless of claims paid.
Background Information
1. The Attorneys office has provided Attachment 1 to help the Council understand the mechanics of how
the City Attorney’s office determines when to defend an employee’s action, as outlined by State code.
2. The Attorney’s office has also provided Attachment 2, the Officer Involved Critical Incident (OICI)
flowchart, to help the Council and public understand the various evaluation points as it relates to
criminal charges, civil charges, and employee discipline when an OICI occurs.
3.Employees - The 9 positions associated with the Governmental Immunity Fund are as follows: 1
division chief senior city attorney; 3.50 senior city attorneys, .50 assistant city attorney, 1 senior claims
adjuster, 2.50 paralegal workers, and .5 office facilitator. Salaries and benefits are projected at
$1,391,344 and would account for about 44 percent of the total Governmental Immunity budget.
A GOVERNEMENT ENTITY’S DUTY TO INDEMNIFY AN EMPLOYEE
This is a summary prepared for general informational purposes. This is not legal advice. Anyone wishing to exercise
their rights under these laws should consult with an attorney. Nothing in this document may be construed as a waiver of
any rights or obligations of Salt Lake City as set forth in State or Federal Law.
Duty to Defend a government employee . . .
If an action arises from an act or omission occurring:
during the performance of the employee's duties;
within the scope of the employee's employment;
or
under color of authority.
See Utah Code § 63G-7-902(1).
Options for government entity, if a timely request is made.
. .
Provide defense and pay any damages; or
Provide defense under reservation of rights, i.e.,
provide defense, but do not pay damages if one of
the conditions set forth in Utah Code § 10-9a-
902(3) is subsequently shown.
No Duty to Defend a government employee . . .
If action does not arise from an act or omission
occurring:
during the performance of the employee's duties;
within the scope of the employee's employment;
or
under color of authority.
Or
the injury or damage on which the claim was
based resulted from conditions set forth in
Subsection 63G-7-202(3)(c).
See Utah Code § 63G-7-902(3).
Utah Code § 63G-7-202(3)(c) identifies the following as
conditions under which a government entity has no duty
to defend.
The employee acted or failed to act through
fraud or willful misconduct;
The employee was driving or in physical
control of a vehicle under the influence of
drugs and/or alcohol;
The employee was physically or mentally
impaired from use of a non-prescribed
controlled substance and/or alcohol such that
they could not reasonably perform job
functions;
The employee knowingly or intentionally
gave false testimony on a material issue
under oath in a judicial or administrative
hearing;
The employee knowingly or intentionally
fabricated evidence or under certain
conditions failed to disclose relevant
evidence known to the employee.
Options for government entity, if a timely request is made
. . .
Provide defense and pay any damages;
Decline defense and do not pay damages;
Provide defense under reservation of rights, i.e.,
provide defense, but do not pay damages if one of
the conditions of Utah Code § 10-9a-902(3) is
shown.
This is a summary prepared for general informational purposes. This is not legal advice. Anyone wishing to exercise their rights under the laws governing these processes should consult with an attorney. Nothing in this document may be construed as a waiver of any rights or obligations of
Salt Lake City as set forth in State or Federal Law.
Yes No
Sustained Not Sustained
Yes
No
Informs
Discipline
Decision
Informs Chief’s Decision
CSC
Upholds
CSC
Reverses
Tier 2 Tier 1 Tier 3
Officer Involved Critical Incident
Civil Suit Criminal Charges Employment Discipline
Outside Agency
Conducts Investigation
DA Screens for
Criminal Charges
Criminal
Charges Filed
Criminal Charges
Not Filed
Officer Defends
Criminal Charges
Officer
sentenced and
pays his own
attorneys’ fees
for defense of
criminal case
Charges
Dismissed,
Quashed, or Not
Guilty Verdict
Guilty
State Law requires
the City to pay the
Officer’s attorneys’
fees for defense of
criminal case
Suit Against City Suit Against Officer
Officer
Appeals
to Chief
City Defends
City provides
legal defense for
Officer and pays
any damages
A claim that there is an
unconstitutional policy,
practice, or procedure
-or-
a failure to train that gave rise
to a constitutional violation
A claim that the Officer’s
actions gave rise to a violation
of constitutional rights or other
state civil laws, i.e., negligence
Does Chief Conclude
Differently
Officer may
be required to
obtain own
counsel to
defend case
and pay any
damages
Critical Incident Occurs or a Complaint Initiated
(Complaint can be filed by anyone)
Officer
Disciplined
(By Dept.)
IA Investigation
Opened
CRB
Review
No
Discipline Officer Appeals
through
Arbitration
Officer Appeals
to Civil Service
Comm’n (CSC)
Officer
Appeals to
Court of
Appeals
City
Appeals to
Court of
Appeals
Officer May
File Civil
Action
Against City
re: Discipline
Does state law require the City
to provide a legal defense for
the Officer, i.e. indemnification
Available Defenses include:
Facts do not show a constitutional
violation occurred; or
It is not clearly established that what
occurred was a violation of constitutional
rights i.e., qualified immunity
FY Closed Total Paid Claim Count
22 823,231$ 238 Claim Count Settlement Cost
21 754,678$ 201 210 $780,109
20 416,169$ 154
19 732,259$ 222 *Excludes FY22 YTD as of 5/23/22
18 1,918,269$ 208
17 884,051$ 219
16 1,009,698$ 259
15 500,213$ 208
14 715,401$ 277
13 595,260$ 194
12 275,091$ 159
10‐year average*
$‐
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12
Cl
a
i
m
Co
u
n
t
Fiscal Year Closed
Governmental Immunity
Claims by Fiscal Year Closed
Total Paid Claim Count
Governmental Immunity Claim Settlements
YTD FY22 as of May 23, 2022
Claim / Case Number Claim Type Date of Loss Date Closed Total Paid Department
OBI2019008897 / 200903702 Bodily Injury 06/12/18 04/04/22 9,547$ CAN
APD2021009477 Auto Property Damage 02/18/21 08/31/21 1,120$ CAN
APD2022009870 Auto Property Damage 04/11/22 05/12/22 1,039$ CAN
540‐2021‐03976 Discrimination 06/28/19 03/01/22 1,000$ CAN
APD2022009798 Auto Property Damage 06/22/21 02/18/22 2,532$ Fire
APD2021009555 Auto Property Damage 01/31/21 10/21/21 1,025$ Fire
ABI2020009399 Auto Bodily Injury 05/15/20 10/28/21 18,650$ Police
APD2021009543 Auto Property Damage 06/01/21 09/21/21 12,072$ Police
APD2021009482 Auto Property Damage 01/03/21 09/09/21 10,601$ Police
APD2021009720 Auto Property Damage 03/24/21 02/04/22 10,378$ Police
APD2021009664 Auto Property Damage 08/04/21 11/04/21 9,065$ Police
APD2021009721 Auto Property Damage 03/24/21 01/06/22 7,926$ Police
APD2021009596 Auto Property Damage 06/09/21 10/11/21 7,374$ Police
ABI2020009178 Auto Bodily Injury 12/21/19 11/24/21 6,683$ Police
APD2022009830 Auto Property Damage 07/23/21 04/29/22 5,763$ Police
APD2021009626 Auto Property Damage 04/30/21 02/04/22 5,686$ Police
APD2021009642 Auto Property Damage 08/06/21 12/30/21 4,989$ Police
APD2021009537 Auto Property Damage 10/02/20 08/25/21 3,651$ Police
APD2022009849 Auto Property Damage 03/10/22 04/25/22 3,129$ Police
PIP2021009657 Personal Injury Protection 03/24/21 12/09/21 3,000$ Police
APD2022009776 Auto Property Damage 10/29/21 01/28/22 2,246$ Police
APD2021009476 Auto Property Damage 07/12/20 08/12/21 2,103$ Police
APD2021009473 Auto Property Damage 01/20/21 11/10/21 1,624$ Police
APD2021009595 Auto Property Damage 08/04/21 10/14/21 1,541$ Police
APD2021009750 Auto Property Damage 12/18/21 02/03/22 1,051$ Police
APD2021009728 Auto Property Damage 11/15/21 02/24/22 887$ Police
APD2020009392 Auto Property Damage 09/03/20 07/01/21 841$ Police
APD2021009705 Auto Property Damage 10/21/21 02/03/22 806$ Police
OPD2021009661 Property Damage 04/01/20 04/05/22 630$ Police
APD2021009590 Auto Property Damage 07/23/21 08/25/21 499$ Police
APD2021009494 Auto Property Damage 02/26/21 08/31/21 400$ Police
IMP2021009586 Impound 07/26/21 08/25/21 318$ Police
OPD2022009827 Property Damage 02/12/22 03/31/22 280$ Police
APD2022009774 Auto Property Damage 09/29/21 04/29/22 6,679$ Public Lands
OPD2022009856 Property Damage 03/05/22 04/28/22 4,620$ Public Lands
1 of 3
Governmental Immunity Claim Settlements
YTD FY22 as of May 23, 2022
Claim / Case Number Claim Type Date of Loss Date Closed Total Paid Department
OPD2022009878 Property Damage 12/04/20 05/19/22 3,450$ Public Lands
OPD2021009658 Property Damage 09/08/21 05/05/22 2,394$ Public Lands
OPD2022009836 Property Damage 12/15/21 03/31/22 500$ Public Lands
EXP2021009668 Expense 09/07/21 10/21/21 289$ Public Lands
OPD2022009835 Property Damage 03/06/22 03/24/22 263$ Public Lands
OBI2020009274 / 210902515 Bodily Injury 07/15/19 08/27/21 20,614$ Public Services
OBI2021009530 Bodily Injury 05/08/20 12/09/21 7,500$ Public Services
APD2022009841 Auto Property Damage 02/24/22 04/14/22 4,256$ Public Services
OBI2021009521 Bodily Injury 10/16/20 10/14/21 4,147$ Public Services
APD2021009536 Auto Property Damage 12/12/20 08/12/21 2,154$ Public Services
APD2021009740 Auto Property Damage 12/15/21 01/13/22 1,523$ Public Services
ABI2019009124 / 200905517 Auto Bodily Injury 10/02/19 08/12/21 1,500$ Public Services
APD2022009757 Auto Property Damage 01/05/22 01/27/22 1,453$ Public Services
APD2021009557 Auto Property Damage 06/22/21 08/25/21 1,213$ Public Services
OBI2020009298 Bodily Injury 05/27/20 09/22/21 1,163$ Public Services
OPD2022009797 Property Damage 01/18/22 03/03/22 1,050$ Public Services
OPD2022009875 Property Damage 04/18/22 05/05/22 914$ Public Services
OPD2021009731 Property Damage 11/24/21 03/03/22 830$ Public Services
APD2021009509 Auto Property Damage 02/17/21 11/05/21 620$ Public Services
APD2022009863 Auto Property Damage 03/04/22 04/28/22 500$ Public Services
OPD2022009756 Property Damage 12/15/21 01/20/22 465$ Public Services
OPD2021009549 Property Damage 06/07/21 07/29/21 400$ Public Services
OPD2021009548 Property Damage 06/07/21 08/12/21 299$ Public Services
APD2021009589 Auto Property Damage 07/19/21 08/20/21 270$ Public Services
OPD2022009781 Property Damage 01/17/22 02/24/22 256$ Public Services
OPD2021009554 Property Damage 06/11/21 07/29/21 250$ Public Services
APD2021009733 Auto Property Damage 12/16/21 03/24/22 213$ Public Services
OPD2022009834 Property Damage 03/06/22 04/07/22 200$ Public Services
APD2021009734 Auto Property Damage 12/15/21 01/13/22 165$ Public Services
EXP2022009807 Expense 02/05/22 03/24/22 80$ Public Services
APD2022009753 Auto Property Damage 12/28/21 03/11/22 68$ Public Services
OBI2021009680 Bodily Injury 10/09/21 11/09/21 60$ Public Services
540‐2018‐01168 / 2:18‐CV‐85 Discrimination 04/28/17 10/01/21 403,849$ Public Utilities
OPD2020009289 Property Damage 02/26/20 08/09/21 23,917$ Public Utilities
OPD2021009678 Property Damage 05/21/21 03/11/22 4,646$ Public Utilities
2 of 3
Governmental Immunity Claim Settlements
YTD FY22 as of May 23, 2022
Claim / Case Number Claim Type Date of Loss Date Closed Total Paid Department
APD2020009357 Auto Property Damage 08/31/20 07/01/21 3,447$ Public Utilities
APD2022009828 Auto Property Damage 03/02/22 04/21/22 2,393$ Public Utilities
APD2021009687 Auto Property Damage 08/17/21 03/31/22 1,839$ Public Utilities
APD2021009465 Auto Property Damage 12/28/20 08/09/21 1,614$ Public Utilities
APD2021009562 Auto Property Damage 07/01/21 10/14/21 1,391$ Public Utilities
OPD2021009496 Property Damage 02/19/21 07/12/21 1,383$ Public Utilities
APD2021009673 Auto Property Damage 09/21/21 11/01/21 961$ Public Utilities
OPD2021009659 Property Damage 07/22/21 03/11/22 844$ Public Utilities
OPD2020009394 Property Damage 08/01/20 10/11/21 455$ Public Utilities
OPD2021009607 Property Damage 07/30/21 10/04/21 450$ Public Utilities
OPD2022009822 Property Damage 02/25/22 03/17/22 303$ Public Utilities
OPD2021009653 Property Damage 09/02/21 10/21/21 190$ Public Utilities
OPD2021009558 Property Damage 05/17/21 10/04/21 40$ Public Utilities
ABI2019008888 / 190904576 Auto Bodily Injury 03/05/18 05/03/22 129,224$ Sustainability
OBI2020009176 / 210901346 Bodily Injury 04/13/19 03/22/22 11,091$ Sustainability
APD2022009862 Auto Property Damage 04/04/22 04/28/22 5,010$ Sustainability
APD2021009544 Auto Property Damage 06/07/21 07/22/21 3,812$ Sustainability
APD2021009500 Auto Property Damage 04/02/21 07/08/21 3,539$ Sustainability
APD2021009732 Auto Property Damage 11/24/21 02/18/22 2,834$ Sustainability
APD2021009528 Auto Property Damage 11/10/20 07/01/21 2,747$ Sustainability
APD2021009526 Auto Property Damage 04/19/21 08/09/21 2,260$ Sustainability
OPD2022009783 Property Damage 01/20/22 02/10/22 1,350$ Sustainability
APD2022009865 Auto Property Damage 04/07/22 05/05/22 1,091$ Sustainability
APD2021009746 Auto Property Damage 12/14/21 03/03/22 1,048$ Sustainability
APD2021009695 Auto Property Damage 09/14/21 12/16/21 1,019$ Sustainability
OPD2021009447 Property Damage 01/06/21 07/01/21 991$ Sustainability
OPD2022009812 Property Damage 02/21/22 04/21/22 679$ Sustainability
823,231$
A total of 238 claims have closed in FY22 as of 5/23/22. This
includes 97 settled and 141 closed without payment due to
denial, judgment for City, or indemnification from Contractor.
3 of 3
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: May 24, 2022
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council: May 24, 2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 24, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
____________________
SUBJECT: Nomination of Jojo Chou Liu as Salt Lake City Justice Court Judge
STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Office
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council confirm the Mayor’s nomination.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Salt Lake City Justice Court Judge John Baxter will retire from the bench in July 2022. Salt Lake City has
been working with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) since Fall 2021to fill the vacancy he
leaves in the court. To be considered for a justice court judgeship in Salt Lake County, candidates must be
at least 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a Utah resident for at least three years, and have a
degree from a law school that would make one eligible to apply for admission to a bar in any state in the
United States. In addition, candidates must be a resident of Salt Lake County or an adjacent county for at
least six months immediately preceding appointment.
This process and accompanying timelines are set forth in Title 78, Chapter 7 of Utah State Code. The process
includes the following steps:
•AOC and Salt Lake City Advertise the Vacancy (45 days)
•AOC Forms the Nominating Commission (45 days)
•Nominating Commission Conducts Interviews (45 days)
•Public Comment Period (10 days)
•Mayor Selects Finalist (30 days)
•City Council Ratifies (30 days)
Lisa Shaffer (May 24, 2022 14:45 MDT)
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
Pursuant to 78A-7-202(2), membership of the Nominating Commission includes:
• one member appointed by the county commission or council
• one member appointed by the municipalities
• one member appointed by the county bar association; and
• two members appointed by the governing authority of the jurisdiction where the judicial office is
located.
After the Nominating Commission reviewed applications and conducted interviews, five finalists were
forwarded on to the Mayor. Mayor Mendenhall, Chief of Staff Rachel Otto, Chief Equity Officer Kaletta
Lynch, and Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach Andrew Johnston interviewed all five finalists.
Each of the candidates were tremendous and very well-qualified, and after careful consideration, Mayor
Mendenhall has selected Jojo Chou Liu to fill Judge Baxter’s vacancy. Ms. Liu’s resume and application
materials are attached to this transmittal. She has been a licensed attorney for 21 years, with extensive
experience in juvenile justice, complex civil litigation, and criminal justice policy. She currently serves as the
Director of the Office of Criminal Justice Initiatives and the Criminal Justice Advisory Council in Salt Lake
County.
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 BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Lehua Weaver
Allison Rowland, Sam Owen, and Sylvia Richards
DATE:June 2, 2022
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up of Council Questions
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Staff has kept a list of items that one or more Council Members have raised as potential changes to the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget. It should be noted that this is a staff-generated draft, reflecting Council questions and
discussions as of the date of its printing. It may be updated prior to the work session discussion, and Council
Members may have changes or corrections to individual items, and Council Members may add items.
If a budget impact is apparent (revenue, FTE and/or expense changes), that amount has been listed, or noted as
“to be determined.” Depending on Council feedback, adjustments can be made to the overall key changes
document, so that the Council can track the net effect of these decisions on the overall budget.
Changes to the budget may cause it to be out of balance (increase or decrease expenses and revenues). As these
changes occur, the Council would need to identify offsetting revenue enhancements or expense reductions to
bring the budget back in balance. Staff can research and provide other revenue generation or expense cutting
options if the Council is interested.
(Note: this list is not comprehensive – please let staff know if there are other items to add)
Follow-up Items/Themes
1.Items to consider adding to the budget. Some Council Members have expressed interest in adding
the following items to the budget (cost estimates are TBD):
a. Tree watering public information campaign - $50,000 (potential legislative intent about
notifying homeowner of the care requirements for trees before planting)
b. Historic signs around downtown/adjacent areas - $30,000
c. Election funds for GO Bond election – cost TBD
d. East/West special events associated with July holidays – Administration has provided
information on a potential laser-based show - $25,000 (pending confirmation)
e.Restore street racing mitigation funding (renting and moving steel plates plus officer overtime)
in Police - $60,000.
f. Free fare transit in winter months (3 months – cost TBD based on partnerships – if info isn’t
available for budget adoption turn into legislative intent)
g. Traffic calming-related:
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 2, 2022
Budget Hearing: June 7, 2022
Potential Action: TBD
2
i. Funding more traffic engineers to expedite traffic calming projects - $122,248 annual
cost per FTE.
ii. Fund temporary traffic calming measures (as an immediate measure to bridge until
longer-term projects can be built)
iii. Express intent to allocate money from CIP for this purpose that was set aside in BA #7
h. Funding for enhanced maintenance/refuse service on North Temple (or ask the Administration
if an existing team, such as the “Clean Team” can provide this service within existing budgets).
i. Staff is confirming whether the Council Meeting security is included in the proposed budget. If it
is not yet included funding may need to be identified.
j. New – Fix the bricks matching program - $7,000 match required. 53 households estimated
($371,000)
k. New – Open Streets 2022 Event funding - After conferring with the Downtown Alliance the
Administration is recommending transferring $150,000 of the $300,000 line item in RDA for
long term planning of this event, to the general fund, and adding $150,000 to non-departmental
for a total of $300,000 to contribute to the Downtown Alliance for the 2022 Open Streets event
(or $350,000 if the Council is inclined). The Administration has forwarded a memo from the
DTA that staff has attached from February 2022. The event would not be a long term closure –
45 days total between Memorial and Labor Day. Funding for both long term planning and the
2022 event were intended to be included in the FY 23 budget, but accidentally only the long
term planning line item made it in. RDA staff indicates that $150,000 should be sufficient for
the long term planning effort.
2.Desire to decrease the budget to reduce the proposed property tax increase – Some Council
Members have expressed an interest in finding ways to reduce the budget and therefore proposed tax
increase, although there is not consensus on specific reductions. Some ideas that have been mentioned:
a. Use fund balance to balance the budget instead of the proposed tax increase (this will mean a
tax increase next year) – If the FY 23 budget is adopted as proposed, the City would have
approximately $14.8 million above the 13% minimum threshold for fund balance.
b. Use some/all of the $10 million holding account from fund balance that was allocated to the CIP
fund in Budget Amendment #7 (this would increase one-time funding used this year and would
likely require a bigger tax increase needed next year)
c. Reduce the General Fund transfer to CIP: Reducing CIP from 9% to 8% would free up
$3,296,728; reducing it to 7% would free up $6,665,941. Reducing the CIP transfer means some
of the projects recommended by the Mayor and resident advisory board would not be funded in
FY2023.
d. Ask departments City-wide for budget cut ideas (note: it is likely that some of those ideas have
been considered and/or implemented in recent years, and some department’s budgets are
mostly personnel expenses so cuts could mean eliminating FTEs)
e. There is a placeholder in most departments for non-represented employee salary adjustments
based on a recent study by a City consultant. HR is planning to work with departments in the
coming months to identify specific employees that may need these market adjustments. Based
on the time needed to do this, the Council could recapture 3 months from each department
placeholder ($580,696 one-time savings total)
f. Reduce the governmental immunity tax increase from $4 million to $2 million and use $2
million from fund balance instead. (Note: In FY 24 the Council would need to assess whether
there is sufficient ongoing revenue to pay for the 9 FTEs associated with that fund, if that
reduction in ongoing revenue is approved).
g. Council Members expressed interest in reviewing list of proposed projects in the Sustainability
Department and weighing them in the context of other general fund priorities (staff will provide
an attachment) in order to reduce the contribution from the general fund.
h. Re-evaluate whether the City should have a Youth and Family Division - $2,566,219 from the
General Fund (does not include some expenses that are paid for by grants). Note: this would not
be consistent with a proposed legislative intent to streamline and centralize youth
programming in the City.
i. Use the $10 million from ARPA that the Administration anticipates using for an early childhood
education program, towards other existing City ARPA-eligible expenses. (note: it may not be
possible to combine this with item a. above due to the timing of actual funds received)
j. Re-evaluate the $4 million in ARPA that was approved in BA #6, since the programs have not
yet been launched by CAN and ED.
3
3.All New Positions – some Council Members expressed an interest in considering the proposed new
FTEs in more detail. Each new position (except those approved in Budget Amendments) will be listed in
a forthcoming detailed unresolved issues spreadsheet under the proposed department. Note: While
most positions are funded for less than a full year to reflect the time it takes to actually hire an
employee, there are a few that are proposed for a full year of funding. The Council could consider
adjusting those budget amounts to reflect the realities of the hiring process. Alternately, the Council
could authorize early advertising for new positions to begin before the fiscal year begins. One Council
Member asked for additional clarification on the difference between the amount included in the budget
for all new positions this year and the amount that will be needed to fully fund the position next year.
For the general fund, the City will have to add $2.3 million to the FY 24 budget to accommodate all
proposed new positions ($2.5 million for all funds).
4.New Program(s) – the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration any new programs
proposed in the FY 23 budget, and whether now is an appropriate time to add those. Examples include
the Civilian Response Team, programming at the Fisher Mansion Carriage house, my brother’s keeper
FTE, Northwest Quadrant Liaison.
5.Existing Programs – the Council may wish to discuss whether to reduce or eliminate any existing
programs offered by the City.
6.Re-evaluating projects in the Sales Tax and General Obligation (GO) Bonds, along with
CIP. Council Members have expressed an interest in re-evaluating projects in the Sales Tax and GO
Bonds, although there is not consensus on which projects to change/shift/remove/add. The Finance
Department has provided the attached spreadsheet which shows all the projects and proposed funding
sources. This could facilitate a Council conversation about which projects should be funded from which
source or removed. Because the GO Bond public education campaign would need to start very soon, the
Council may wish to have this conversation in conjunction with budget deliberations. The sales tax bond
amount could also increase or decrease the total transfer needed to CIP for making the first year debt
payment. Some ideas mentioned:
a. Make sure we invest in an equitable way – balancing which projects are critical to City services,
legal deadlines or federal obligations, and may belong in the sales tax bond that the Council
controls vs. projects that should be in the GO bond for the public to consider in November
b. Include daylighting creeks in one of the bonds (cost estimate TBD; note that some feasibility
studies are ongoing for daylighting specific creeks)
c. Historic buildings – Some Council Members have pointed out that if the funding isn’t enough to
make the building operable, does it make sense to invest City resources at all? Alternately, other
Council Members have noted that we have owned these buildings for so long, we should
increase funding so that they can become fully operational.
7.Funding source options - Staff has identified the following potential funding sources for Council
discussion/consideration, potentially to address some of the above ideas (these are included on the
attached spreadsheet):
a. Potential additional revenue (pending information from Tax Commission and follow up from
the Administration – due by June 8 per state law)
i. Actual New Growth
ii. Actual Judgement Levy
b. Placeholders for Non-represented employee market adjustments – given that it will take some
time for Human Resources to work through the proposed placeholders with each department
leader the Council could recapture 1-3 months of savings from each of these placeholders -
$580,696 from three months recapture across the City. (note: this is one time money)
c. Fund balances available
i. The total amount of fund balance above the 10% level is $27,488,858 million
4
d. Update the western Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment for all General Fund fees. The
Mayor’s recommended budget includes a 4.6% CPI increase to fees. The CPI has likely increased
since the 4.6% amount was measured in the economy in October 2021.
e. Increase property tax at an amount higher than recommended by the Mayor.
f. Evaluate compensation levels for non-represented employees.
Potential Legislative Intents
1.Evaluating efficiencies of all diversified response teams – Council Members have expressed
support for the various alternative response models in each department. The Council would like to
periodically re-evaluate across City departments to determine whether there are redundancies and/or
efficiencies to be gained. Staff is including the following programs in our understanding of “diversified
response models”:
i. Fire Department – Community Health Access Team (CHAT), Medical Response Team
(MRT)
ii. Police Department – Social Worker Co-Responders, Civilian Response Team
iii. CAN (in partnership with other entities in some cases) – Downtown Ambassadors
(including expanded areas), Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART),
Code Enforcement
iv. Public Lands – Park Rangers Program
v. Public Services – Community Cleaning Program (CCP) Rapid Intervention Team
(clarify whether this is sometimes referred to as the “Clean Team”)
vi. 911 Department – partnership with Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT)
b. Staff would like the Administration to provide information so that the Council can evaluate
these programs in 6 months and in 1 year:
i. Clarify roles of each team and how a call for service is routed from one
team to another
ii. Track as much data as possible to determine what metrics are most important for future
reviews such as number of calls for service, diversions away from a police-only
response, response times, impact on police response times, volume of calls by time of
day and day of the week, referrals, and other outputs and outcomes.
iii. Find ways to share this data with the Council and the public in a coordinated way
iv. Inform the public and other levels of government as these programs are rolled out
2. Additional information/metrics on Police response and Governmental Immunity – Some Council
Members expressed an interest in re-engaging the Council’s consultant on Police to see if there are ways
for the City to be more specific about minimum performance expectations, particularly as it ties to the
City’s requirement to provide a legal defense for employees.
3. Consider retaining a consultant to examine whether and how other Cities have tied legal settlements to
departments where the claim originated (to inform safety and prevention programs and identify training
needs).
4. Some Council Members have expressed an interest in:
a. further clarifying the roles of CAN and RDA as it relates to housing/land development.
b. asking Public Lands and Golf to transition to chemical-free treatments for weeds and
maintenance in future years, acknowledging that this may include a budget adjustment. This is
consistent with an existing Sustainability Department policy.
c. consolidating youth programs across the City under Youth & Family to increase efficiency. A
legislative intent could ask the Administration to evaluate this and propose options for future
budget discussions. Other Council Members have asked whether this function should be funded
by the City at all or if the County and School District could be relied on to expand their
programming.
5. Fire Department-related legislative intents –
a. Ask the Administration to evaluate options for recouping costs for calls at the University of
Utah.
5
b. Ask the Administration to evaluate the City’s hazardous materials ordinance, as well as the
implementation of that ordinance, to assure that the City is able to capture revenue from private
insurance reimbursement.
c. Ask the Administration to continue evaluating options for electrified Fire vehicles.
6. Ask the Administration for a timeframe when the Council can consider an updated boarded-building fee,
or request that the Attorney’s Office provide a draft directly to the Council Office.
7. The Council could consider a legislative intent to ask the Administration to ensure that any time the city
is loaning or granting tax dollars, that the Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA) is followed by the
Department administering the grant. The Council could request that the City Attorney’s Office develop
an ordinance specifying that City departments are precluded from awarding any public dollars to an
outside entity without adherence to OPMA and without specific approval from the Council.
Potential Conditional Appropriations
1. Council Members expressed interest in changing some line items related to new plans in Sustainability
to contingent appropriations. Examples could include:
a.Funds might only be released after the department returns with draft RFPs or draft scope
documents.
b.Departments may not rely on resolutions adopted by previous City Councils as the framework or
authorization for future policy or funding plans without consulting with the sitting City Council
in accordance with resolution 14 of 2020.
c.Departments may not rely on draft plans that have not been adopted by the legislative body as
the basis or building blocks for additional City policy or budget plans.
2. Council Members expressed interest in making any appropriation relating to capital expenditures on
parking lots contingent on the airport consulting with UTA and reporting back to the Council on
expanding transit opportunities in lieu of creating additional employee parking. The goal would be to
protect air quality and minimize the addition of impervious surface by encouraging mass transit
collaboration with UTA and other public private partnerships.
3. The Council may wish to make adoption of a specific portion of the City Police budget (detail TBD)
contingent on having the City’s crime map back on the City’s website.
4.Continued Contingency for All Funding Our Future -- Sales Tax Funds (this has been
adopted each year since the City implemented the sales tax). The Council approves Funding
Our Future sales tax revenue appropriations with the following conditions:
a. Expenditure of Funding Our Future Sales Tax Funds. Funding our Future funds may not be
expended unless the department or division expending the funds complies with:
6
i. Utah Fiscal Procedures Act
ii. The City’s Procurement Code and Rules
iii. Written verification from the City Attorney and City Finance Director that proper
legal and financial procedures have been followed.
b. Other Funding Our Future Budget Contingencies:
i. The Administration providing a written semiannual spending, implementation and
outcomes report on each of the critical need areas.
ii. Tracking funding for Fleet provided through the Funding our Future tax separately
to ensure it is spent only on public safety (police, fire, dispatch).
iii. The Administration spending funds in the critical need areas as adopted in the
attached key changes spreadsheet.
iv. The Administration bringing back to the Council any proposed adjustments to the
adopted budget in a budget amendment for re-appropriation before changes are made.
v. The Administration maintaining and regularly updating a publicly available
dashboard reflecting revenues received and actual uses.
vi. In FY21 and all future funding requests, providing a label denoting which line items
are funded with this Funding Our Future sales tax funds.
vii. For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review
along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve
the critical need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a
presentation of the report.
Glossary
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees - AFSCME
Budget Amendment - BA
Capital Improvement Program – CIP
Community and Neighborhoods – CAN
Community Land Trust – CLT
Economic Development Corporation of Utah -
EDCU
Funding Our Future - FoF
Frequent Transit Network – FTN
Fiscal Year – FY
Full-Time Employee – FTE
Housing and Neighborhood Development – HAND
Human Rights Commission – HRC
Homeless Resource Centers – HRCs
Housing Trust Fund - HTF
Interlocal Agreement – ILA
International Association of Chiefs of Police – IACP
Mayor’s Recommended Budget - MRB
Redevelopment Agency – RDA
Salt Lake City School District – SLCSD
Salt Lake City Fire Department - SLCFD
Request for Proposal - RFP
TBD – To Be Determined
Transit Master Plan – TMP
United Nations – UN
Utah League of Cities and Towns
Utah Transit Authority – UTA
Volunteers of America - VOA
Wasatch Community Gardens - WCG
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX
Sales Tax Bonds
City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction Public Lands $11,200,000
Pioneer Park Improvements Public Lands $10,000,000
600 North Corridor Transformation Transporation $9,753,000
Radio Towers IMS $7,500,000
Central Plant Electrical Transformer Upgrade &
Emergency Backup Generators Public Services $6,100,000
Westside Railroad Quiet Zones Engineering $6,100,000
Warm Spring Historic Plunge Structure
Stabilization Public Services $6,000,000
Smith's Ballpark Improvements Public Services $3,000,000
Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and
Storage Additions Public Lands $2,000,000
Fisher Mansion Stabilization Public Services $1,800,000
GO Bond (to be considered by voters - would not impact FY 23 property taxes)
Glendale Regional Park Public Lands $27,000,000
Jordan River Corridor Improvements Public Lands $9,000,000
Allen Park Public Lands $9,000,000
Seven Neighborhood Parks, 1 per district Public Lands $7,000,000
Fleet Block Park Public Lands $5,000,000
Liberty Park Playground Public Lands $2,000,000
Folsom Trail Completion Public Lands $5,000,000
20% contingency Public Lands $16,000,000
CIP New/Maintenance Projects
400 South Safety Improvements Transporation $513,313
200 South Reconstruction / Transit Corridor
Supplement Transporation $2,700,242 $2,643 $252,000 $1,300,000
Three Creeks West Roadways Public Lands $1,359,130
`300 North Complete Street Reconstruction
Supplement Transporation $500,000 $40,000
Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community
Garden Public Lands $160,819
Street Improvements 2022/2023 Engineering $3,000,000
Public Lands Asset Management Plan Public Lands $160,160
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes /
Operational Investments Transporation $990,000 $110,000
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 Public Services $1,192,357
Bridge Replacement (650 North over Jordan
River)Engineering $3,700,000
Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 Public Services $436,281
Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 Engineering $142,919
Urban Farm Development at 2200 West Public Lands $425,040
RAC Playground Phase II Public Lands $521,564
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 W to 5000 W)Engineering $850,000 $1,120,000
900 South River Park Soccer Field Public Lands $287,848
Memorial Tree Groves Design and
Infrastructure Public Lands $867,962
Streets Steam Bay Expansion Public Services $597,792
Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance Engineering $2,000,000
Hand Held Radios IMS $3,700,000
Totals $63,453,000 $80,000,000 $12,534,877 $3,035,000 $3,000,000 $3,360,193 $5,000,000
Total Bonds $143,453,000
Total CIP $26,930,070
Total Investment (Bonds & CIP)$170,383,070
Bonds and CIP Proposals
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX
Notes on Bond Projects Sales Tax Bonds
Total road repairs and reconstruction estimated at $12.5 million (2020
Cemetery Master Plan)City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction Public Lands $11,200,000
In FY20 CIP, the Council approved $3.445 million of parks impact fees for
Pioneer Park improvements. Public engagement is currently ongoing for
selecting amenities and locations
Pioneer Park Improvements Public Lands $10,000,000
In FY22 CIP, the Council approved over $1.8 million for this project 600 North Corridor Transformation Transporation $9,753,000
Part of a larger radio infrastructure upgrade project with a total estimated
cost of $20 million. The FY23 annual budget proposal also includes $3.7
million for new radios
Radio Towers IMS $7,500,000
Required by Rocky Mountain Power by 2024 (estimate based on 70%
constreuction docs)
Central Plant Electrical Transformer Upgrade &
Emergency Backup Generators Public Services $6,100,000
Three at grade crossings would be improved to create a single quiet zone
in residential neighborhood (Cost estimate reviewed in fall 2021) Westside Railroad Quiet Zones Engineering $6,100,000
Structure stabilization including security and fire suppression systems. Not
necessarily ready for an operator.
Warm Spring Historic Plunge Structure
Stabilization Public Services $6,000,000
Total deferred maintenance and improvements identified by the Facilities
condition index (industry best practice) is estimated at over $12.7 million.
This does not factor in recently identified improvements requested by
minor league ballparks
Smith's Ballpark Improvements Public Services $3,000,000
New program would also require one or two new full-time City employees Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and
Storage Additions Public Lands $2,000,000
This funding is for structure stabilization, not necessarily for public or
private uses. In FY20 CIP, the Council funded almost $1.4 million for
restoration of the Carriage House, and in FY21 another $504,732 for
construction overages
Fisher Mansion Stabilization Public Services $1,800,000
GO Bond (to be considered by voters - would not impact FY 23 property taxes)
This project would use up to $27 million in bond proceeds, in addition to
$3.2m in impact fees that were previously allocated to the project Glendale Regional Park Public Lands $27,000,000
Jordan River Corridor Improvements Public Lands $9,000,000
Allen Park Public Lands $9,000,000
Dept ideas - D1: Madsen Park; D2: Poplar Groe Park; D3: Warm Springs
Park; D4: Reservoir Park; D5: Jefferson Park; D6: Donner Park; D7:
Fairmont Park N. Entry/McClelland Trail
Seven Neighborhood Parks, 1 per district Public Lands $7,000,000
Fleet Block Park Public Lands $5,000,000
Liberty Park Playground Public Lands $2,000,000
Folsom Trail Completion Public Lands $5,000,000
20% contingency Public Lands $16,000,000
CIP New/Maintenance Projects
400 South Safety Improvements Transporation $513,313
200 South Reconstruction / Transit Corridor
Supplement Transporation $2,700,242 $2,643 $252,000 $1,300,000
Three Creeks West Roadways Public Lands $1,359,130
`300 North Complete Street Reconstruction
Supplement Transporation $500,000 $40,000
Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community
Garden Public Lands $160,819
Street Improvements 2022/2023 Engineering $3,000,000
Public Lands Asset Management Plan Public Lands $160,160
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes /
Operational Investments Transporation $990,000 $110,000
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 Public Services $1,192,357
Bridge Replacement (650 North over Jordan
River)Engineering $3,700,000
Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 Public Services $436,281
Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 Engineering $142,919
Urban Farm Development at 2200 West Public Lands $425,040
RAC Playground Phase II Public Lands $521,564
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 W to 5000 W)Engineering $850,000 $1,120,000
900 South River Park Soccer Field Public Lands $287,848
Memorial Tree Groves Design and
Infrastructure Public Lands $867,962
Streets Steam Bay Expansion Public Services $597,792
Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance Engineering $2,000,000
Hand Held Radios IMS $3,700,000
Totals $63,453,000 $80,000,000 $12,534,877 $3,035,000 $3,000,000 $3,360,193 $5,000,000
Total Bonds $143,453,000
Total CIP $26,930,070
6/2/2022 **DRAFT ** 10:27 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
A B C D E F G H I J K
Net -$ -$ -$ -$
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue (MRB estimated - $364,464)TBD (June 8)
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater or less than the
proposed budget)TBD (June 8)
Confirm property tax stabilization proposal 2,000,000$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 13%14,765,651$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 13%2,000,000$
One-time $: Use some/all of fund balance allocated in Budget
Amendment #7 that was placed in CIP (original intent was potentially
traffic calming and/or affordable housing)10,000,000$
One-time $: Capture ARPA funds planned for early childhood
education proposal 10,174,498$
One-time $: Re-appropriate $4m in ARPA funds approved on April 19
in BA #6 for Community Grants if those can't be spent soon (pending
updates from Depts)4,000,000$
Confirm Governmental Immunity tax including final amount based on
maximum rate in state law (may be less than MRB)
Council idea - fund Gov Immunity tax at $2m and use $2m from fund
balance (would mean a structural deficit in FY 24)
Transfer from RDA for Open Streets (expenditure in Non-Dept)150,000$
Expense Items
City Council Office
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time) $ 45,669
Council Addition:
Council Meeting security/Overtime pay TBD
Mayor's Office
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time) $ 62,538
Attorney's Office
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time) $ 66,500
New Positions:
Legal secretary III (annual - $83,175) $ 69,230
Boards and Commissions Liaison (annual - $99,810) $ 83,175
Community and Neighborhoods
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)60,236$
New Positions relating to existing programs:
Civil Enforcement Officer (annual - $79,272)66,060$
Building Inspector I (2 FTEs - annual - $171,856)143,213$
FOF - Transportation Planner III ( 2 FTEs - $244,496)203,747$
My Brother's Keeper - Youth & Family (annual - $112,578) - confirming
if new or expanded existing program 93,815$
New Positions relating to new programs :
NWQ Liaison (annual - $127,410) *Note: this is legally required per
2022 legislative session 106,175$
Council Addition Ideas:
Add funding for additional engineers to expedite traffic calming
($122,248 per FTE)122,248$
Funding for temporary traffic calming measures (Amount TBD)
Fix-the-Bricks Matching program for income qualified households
($7,000 amount per award, anticipate 53 homes in FY 23)371,000$
Council Cut Ideas:
Re-evaluate City Funding for Youth and Family Program 2,566,219$
Economic Development
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)36,134$
Finance
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)120,078$
New Positions relating to existing programs:
Good Landlord Program Position (Annual - $76,936)64,113$
Acccounts Receivable Financial Analyst (Annual - $144,524)120,437$
Financial Analyst for Budget Division (Annual - $144,524)120,437$
Purchasing Deputy Director (Annual - $150,827)125,689$
Fire
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)10,517$
New Positions relating to existing/expanding programs:
Office Facilitator - Emergency Mgmt (Annual - $85,928)71,607$
Fire Fighter (5 months - 3 FTEs - Annualized - $237,816)99,090$
Fire Fighter (11 months - 3 FTEs - Annualized - $261,598)217,998$
FOF - MRT Expansion (4 FTEs - Annual - $317,088)264,240$
Human Resources
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)22,566$
New Positions relating to existing/expanding programs:
HR Senior Technician (Annual - $88,780)73,983$
HR Recruiter - Apprenticeships/Interns (Annual - $108,041)90,034$
HR Recruiter - Police (Annual - $108,041)90,034$
HR Business Partner (Annual - $132,844)110,703$
HR Employee Relations Manager (Annual - $137,115)125,689$
Justice Court
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)5,330$
Police
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)27,541$
New Positions relating to existing programs :
SVU Victim Advocate (Annual - $100,561)83,801$
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator (Annual -$108,041)90,034$
Victim Advocate Program Director (Annual - 127,410)106,175$
GRAMA Caseload Management (Annual - $119,124)99,270$
Community Outreach/Recruiting Coordinator (full year)157,007$
Promising Youth Program - Youth Specialists (4 FTEs - $282,524)258,980$
New Positions relating to new programs :
FOF - Civilian Response Team Program Director Sworn Lieutenant
(Annual - $156,172)130,143$
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund Funding our Future ARPA Funding
CIP Funding (pending
need to track separately)
6/2/2022 **DRAFT ** 10:27 AM
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
A B C D E F G H I J K
FOF - Civilian Response Team Specialists (12 FTEs - Annual -
$1,040,328)520,164$
Council Suggested Additions:
Restore funding for street racing mitigation 60,000$
Public Lands
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)29,798$
New Positions relating to existing/expanding services :
Crew Arborist (reallocation of existing budget)-$
Office Tech (reallocation of existing budget)-$
Board & Community Council Liaison (Annual - $85,928)64,446$
Area Forester (Annual - $95,952)71,964$
Groundskeeper for Disc Golf Course (Annual - $76,936) - could be
considered a new level of service depending on interpretation 57,702$
New Positions relating to new programming :
Fisher Mansion Carriage House Coordinator (Annual - $83,076)62,307$
Council Addition ideas:
Public Education Campaign about Tree watering 50,000$
Public Services
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)92,026$
New Positions relating to existing/expanding programs:
Deputy Director (Annual - $187,283) (second deputy to replace the one
transferred to Public Lands in FY 22 156,069$
Safety Coordinator (Annual - $112,578)93,815$
Pub Services Financial Analyst (Annual - $127,410)106,175$
Business Districts Ops Manager (Annual - $138,575)115,479$
Sr Facilities Project Manager (Annual - $157,392)131,160$
Engineering Project Manager (Annual - $157,428)131,190$
FOF - Expanded Traffic Signal Maintenance (Annual - $99,810)83,175$
FOF - Expanded Traffic Signal Maintenance (2 FTEs - Annual - $166,152)138,460$
911 Communications (rename department)
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)1,762$
Non Departmental
Corrections based on new info:
General Fund contribution to DTA for open streets ($150k from RDA,
$150k from GF; DTA would need to fundraise $50k unless City
contribution was $350k) 300,000$
Add election expenses for GO Bond TBD
East/West Celebration events around July holidays (new information
about laser-based show rather than fireworks)25,000$
Council cut ideas:
Reduce general fund transfer to CIP dollars - funding sources are
general fund, FOF, County Transportation fund, Class B&C
to 8% level 3,296,728$
to 7% level 6,665,941$
to CIP from Funding our Future - would have to be for FOF eligible
projects (current transfer is $5.1 million from FOF)5,100,000$
Re-evaluate projects in Sales Tax/GO Bonds and CIP Separate Discussion
Council addition ideas:
Allocate funds from CIP holding account for building security 1,000,000$
Funding for historic signs/markers 30,000$
Funding for Free Fare winter (3 months) - cost TBD depending on
partnerships - could be a legislative intent
Other funds
IMS Positions:
Deputy Director (Annual - $235,375)215,760$
Enterprise Tech Solutions Mgr (Annual - $164,335)136,946$
IT Systems Analyst (Annual - $150,804)125,670$
Network Engineer II (Annual - $138,560)115,467$
Software Support Admin II (Annual - $132,823)110,686$
Civic Engagement Specialist (Annual - $199,152)165,960$
Library:
Confirm tax increase proposal 2,782,320$
City Council Announcements
June 2, 2022
Information Needed by Staff
A. Thursday, June 9, 2022 Council Work Session Meeting
Does the Council approve of starting the Thursday, June 9, 2022 Work Session
meeting at noon? This would accommodate a conflict and help ensure Council
Members can attend for the Unresolved Budget items briefing. The meeting may
go until 4:30 or 5:00 p.m.
A few Council Members have indicated this time works, but we wanted to
be sure that this time works for all of you.
B. Army Birthday Softball Game Invitation
On behalf of Jennie Taylor and the Major Brent Taylor Foundation City officials
are invited to join/play in a softball game as part of a birthday celebration for the
Army June 14th from 10-2:00 p.m. at the Riverside Park in SLC.
Let staff know if you would like to play. Please make note this is on a
Council Meeting day.
For You Information
A. Wear Orange in honor of National Gun Violence Awareness Day
The Mayor would like to invite Salt Lake City Legislators, City Council and
Council staff, Members of the Human Rights Commission and Commission on
Racial Equity in Policing, and Department Leadership to join her this Friday,
June 3 at 9:00 a.m. at the International Peace Gardens at 1160 Dalton Ave S, in
recognition of National Gun Violence Awareness Day with a moment of silence
and remarks from some of the City’s valued partners. This day marks the start of
Wear Orange Weekend, during which we call attention to the more than 110 people
killed and hundreds more wounded by gun violence every day. It is particularly
important right now to take the time to pause and mourn for so many lives
needlessly lost. Also the Administration will be announcing a gun turn-in event
coordinated by the Salt Lake City Police Department on June 11. The first 100
people to turn in guns will receive a $50 gift card, thanks to the generous support
of the Salt Lake City Police Foundation.
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 June 2, 2022 in an 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 X
Dan Dugan (Jun 3, 2022 15:11 MDT)
Dan Dugan Jun 3, 2022
Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting on June 2,
2022
Final Audit Report 2022-06-03
Created:2022-06-03
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAtUwJvV1niha4ru7yH5pps32fpJHhh7Mn
"Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting on June 2, 2022" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
2022-06-03 - 8:42:33 PM GMT
Document emailed to Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-06-03 - 8:43:13 PM GMT
Email viewed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
2022-06-03 - 9:11:12 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-06-03 - 9:11:26 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-06-03 - 9:11:26 PM GMT
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 June 2, 2022 in an 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 X
Dan Dugan (Jun 3, 2022 15:11 MDT)
Dan Dugan Jun 3, 2022
Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting on June 2,
2022
Final Audit Report 2022-06-03
Created:2022-06-03
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAtUwJvV1niha4ru7yH5pps32fpJHhh7Mn
"Sworn Statement for Closed Meeting on June 2, 2022" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
2022-06-03 - 8:42:33 PM GMT
Document emailed to Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-06-03 - 8:43:13 PM GMT
Email viewed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
2022-06-03 - 9:11:12 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-06-03 - 9:11:26 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-06-03 - 9:11:26 PM GMT