HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION ONLY
June 9,2022 Thursday 12:00 PM
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
No Formal Meeting
Please note:A general public comment period will not be held this day.This is the Council's monthly scheduled briefing
meeting.Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
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:19:32:03
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.The hybrid meeting
enables people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and
participate during public comment items.
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
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23
1.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Unresolved Issues Follow-up ~12:00 p.m.
TBD
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;Thursday,June 2,2022;Tuesday,June 7,2022;and
Thursday,June 9,2022
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
2.Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget:Capital Improvement Program Overview
Follow-up Time TBD
TBD
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)which involves the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or
other city-owned physical structures.Generally,projects have a useful life of at least five
years and cost $50,000 or more.The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding
in the annual budget process,while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of
the same year.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,June 7,2022 and Thursday,June 9,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,June 7,2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,July 12,2022 and Tuesday,August 9,
2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
3.Previous Years’Legislative Intents and Interim Study Items TENTATIVE
-
The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s progress on the Council’s
legislative intent statements for Fiscal Year 2021-22,as well as legislative intents from
previous years that have not yet been completed.Legislative intents are formal requests the
Council makes of the Administration.This briefing will include updates on a variety of
subjects,including the crossing guard program,funding for affordable housing,and more.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Thursday,June 9,2022
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
4.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
5.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and
announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items.
6.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of
an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction
would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;
or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible
terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water
right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves
the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of
the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City
Recorder,does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others
who have indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of
options discussed.
The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary
aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay
service 711.
CITY COUNCIL 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 9, 2022
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up of Council Questions
Update from discussions on June 2 and June 7, 2022
The Council straw polled a number of expense and reduction items and those have been added to the unresolved
issues tracking sheet (see attached – changes are highlighted in yellow), and straw poll results are listed in red
throughout the report. This does not represent a final “vote” on any of those items and the Council may choose to
revisit. The Thursday, June 9 discussion will give the Council another opportunity to determine which of the
funding requests have the support of a majority of the Council. Staff will record the Council’s preferences and
update the attached ‘balancing spreadsheet’ in real time so that the Council and public can see the impacts of the
tentative decisions. There may be additional information based on ongoing compensation discussions. As of the
Council’s discussion on June 7th, revenues exceed expenses by $410,829. Numbers from the County and State
Tax commission are still PRELIMINARY as of 7pm on 6.8.22. Preliminary new growth for the City is $2,402,395,
which is $2,037,931 over the Mayor’s recommended budget. This would add to the amount of revenues over
expenses and would bring that total to $2,448,760. To illustrate the potential for fluctuation however, at 4pm on
6/8/22, the City’s new growth was only $535,000 over the Mayor’s recommended budget. If, when the numbers
are final, the Council still has expenses that exceed revenues, the following are options for the Council to
consider:
Reconsider the reductions the Council made (2 FTEs in the Public Lands department and/or the various
salary adjustment line items)
Reduce the amount used from fund balance. Currently the budget proposes to use $25.2 million from
fund balance. This would further the City’s goals towards aligning ongoing revenues with
ongoing needs.
Deposit that amount in CIP to fund additional CIP projects. Note: Council Staff has also confirmed that
there is $152,660 to recapture from dormant CIP project accounts (over 3 years old and no longer
needed). The Council could also add these funds to CIP for future allocation.
Reduce the amount of the proposed tax increase
In addition, PRELIMINARY new growth for the SLC Library is $746,374. The Council could consider:
Reducing the proposed tax increase from $2,782,320 to $2,035,946
Adding this amount to Library fund balance for future capital needs
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 9, 2022
Budget Hearing: June 7, 2022
Potential Action: TBD
2
The Council also straw polled support for funding governmental immunity via a separate dedicated property tax,
as allowed by state law. Based on current PRELIMINARY values from the State Tax Commission, the maximum
allowed would be $3.9 million, rather than the $4 million proposed in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The
Council may wish to discuss if it would like to levy the tax at the maximum amount or some amount less than
that (Note: the proposed FY 23 expenditure budget is $3.1 million, and the plan was that a fund balance be
created to increase flexibility for the fund in future years).
New language for those legislative intents is in red starting on page 4.
The following information was provided at the June 2, 2022 Council meeting. It is provided again for
reference, and items that have been added since the June 2 meeting, such as additional legislative intents
appear in red.
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) – Straw poll to add
b. Historic signs around downtown/adjacent areas - 10-12 signs, $2,500 each - $30,000 – Straw
poll to add
c. Election funds for GO Bond election – cost TBD– Straw poll to add
d. East/West special events associated with July holidays – Administration has provided
information on a potential laser-based show - $25,000 (pending confirmation) – Straw poll to add
for $30,000
e.Restore street racing mitigation funding (renting and moving steel plates plus officer overtime)
in Police - $60,000. – Straw poll to add
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) See legislative intents
g. Traffic calming-related:
i. Funding more traffic engineers to expedite traffic calming projects - $122,248 annual
cost per FTE. Straw poll to add 2 FTEs and a legislative intent
ii. Fund temporary traffic calming measures (as an immediate measure to bridge until
longer-term projects can be built) – Straw poll to add $200,000
iii. Express intent to allocate money from CIP for this purpose that was set aside in BA #7 –
Straw poll to allocate $2m from holding account
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).
3
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. – Straw poll to add $1.2 million for
building security from BA #7 CIP holding account and come back to extra overtime budget in
Council Office budget
j. New – Fix the bricks matching program - $7,000 match required. 53 households estimated
($371,000) – Straw poll to add $84,000 (12 homes)
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. – Straw poll to add $150,000 from RDA and $150,000 from fund
balance
l. Funding for HEART lunches - $5000
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) – Straw poll to recapture 3 months
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). – Straw poll to fund fully with property tax
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. – Straw poll to put
some programs in holding account
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. – See legislative intent
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.
4
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). The Council reviewed all new positions and straw
polled to reduce 2 FTEs in Public Lands and substitute with 1 FTE that could address multiple
functions.
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
5
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. The Council straw
polled support to adjust City fees based on the April 2022 CPI (6.2%) rather than the October
2021 CPI (4.6%). The change in revenue ($414,886) is reflected on the unresolved issues
tracking sheet.
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 – It is the intent of the Council to
evaluate the efficiencies of diversified response teams in 6 months and in 1 year. 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. The Council 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
Items in red raised in the June 2 and 7 work sessions
2.Free fare in winter months – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to build on the
success of free fare February in 2022, and seek partners to provide this again next winter, for three
months, with the understanding that the Council would fund the City portion in a future budget
amendment.
3.Expediting Traffic Calming projects – It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to
evaluate the workflow among CAN and Public Services divisions as it relates to delivering previously
funded traffic calming projects, to identify any bottlenecks in the system and return to the Council with
suggestions for ways to address them.
4.Sustainability holding account – It is the intent of the Council to allocate the following items in the
Sustainability Division into a holding account for further discussions with the Council and Department
to ensure policy alignment: $214,000 for EV Charging Station and $300,000 for electrified transit. This
does not mean the Council does not support these items, but that further policy discussions are desired
to gather policy guidance from the Council, including the overall role that the City’s Sustainability
Department plays in the community.
5.Ombudsman for Tenants - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration explore the
addition of a tenant’s ombudsmen FTE(s) in the Good Landlord & Tenants Program, given the increase
6
of renters in the City’s resident population, and building on work done by the City’s consumer protection
analyst. The Council requests that the Administration return with a potential scope of work the City
could fill, keeping in mind service provided by outside agencies already, to avoid duplication.
6.Covenants Education in Good Landlord Program – It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration include training for property owners on Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs)
in the City’s Good Landlord Program. This training should include when these are enforceable and when
they are unconstitutional, including situations when a federally recognized protected class would be
discriminated against. The Council also requests that implicit bias training be added to the program’s
education materials
7.Consolidated Fee Schedule Holistic Review - It is the intent of the Council to evaluate in
conjunction with the Finance Department, the City’s Consolidated Fee Schedule at a future date with an
equity lens, and evaluate whether to increase, reduce or in some cases eliminate City fees.
8.Grants and On-going programs - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate
the extent to which programs have been created with grants whose costs have continued beyond the life
of the grant. The Council will use this information to inform a policy or system for evaluating when and
whether it’s appropriate for the City to create new programs with grants.
Items from previous meetings:
9.CAN/RDA Role Clarity - It is the intent of the Council to further clarify the roles of CAN and RDA as
it relates to housing/land development.
10.Transition to Chemical-free public lands - It is the intent of the Council to ask 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.
11.Youth and Family Streamlining - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to
evaluate consolidating youth programs across the City under Youth & Family to increase efficiency, and
propose options for future budget discussions. Additionally, the Council would like the Administration
to evaluate the City’s role in youth programming in relationship to other community organizations to
identify efficiencies and reduce duplication, while factoring in overall community demand for those
services.
12.Additional information/metrics on Police response and Governmental Immunity – It is the
intent of the Council to re-engage 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.
13.Governmental Immunity Claims - It is the intent of the Council to 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).
14.Fire Department-related legislative intents – It is the intent of the Council to:
a. Ask the Administration to evaluate options for recouping costs for calls at the University of
Utah.
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.
15.Boarded Building Fee - It is the intent of the Council to 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.
16.Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA) – It is the intent of the Council 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:
7
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 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:
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
8
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
6/8/2022 **DRAFT ** 7:13 PM
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
A B C D E
Net 2,448,760$
Amount Revenue Expenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue (MRB estimated - $364,464) -
PRELIMINARY INFORMATION @ 7pm on 6/8/22 - Amount listed is the
amount over the Mayor's Recommended Budget 2,037,931$ 2,037,931$
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater or less than the
proposed budget)76,438$ 76,438$
Adjust fee increases to reflect CPI in April (6.2%) rather than Oct
(4.6%)414,886$ 414,886$
Confirm property tax stabilization proposal 2,000,000$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 13%11,897,702$ $150,000
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 13%2,000,000$
One-time $: Use some/all of fund balance allocated in Budget
Amendment #7 that was placed in CIP either to balance or to use for
specific things like livable streets or bldg security (original intent was
potentially traffic calming and/or affordable housing) - New "balance"
6,800,000 10,000,000$ 3,200,000$
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 $2m from fund
balance (would mean a structural deficit in FY 24)
Transfer from RDA for Open Streets (expenditure in Non-Dept)150,000$ 150,000$
Recapture funding from dormant CIP Projects 152,660$
Expense Items
City Council Office
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time) $ 45,669 (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 (62,538)$
Attorney's Office
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time) $ 66,500 (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$ (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 - $244,496)203,747$
New Positions relating to new programs :
My Brother's Keeper - Youth & Family (annual - $112,578) -
confirming if new or expanded existing program 93,815$
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
($122,248 per FTE) - Straw poll 2 FTEs 122,248$ 244,496$
Funding for temporary traffic calming measures 200,000$ 200,000$
Fix-the-Bricks Matching program for income qualified households
($7,000 amount per award, anticipate 53 homes in FY 23)12 homes - $84,000 84,000$
Food for HEART team lunches 5,000$ 5,000$
Council Cut Ideas:
Re-evaluate City Funding for Youth and Family Program 2,566,219$
Economic Development
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
6/8/2022 **DRAFT ** 7:13 PM
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
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
A B C D E
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)36,134$ (36,134)$
Finance
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)120,078$ (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$ (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$ (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$ (5,330)$
Police
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)27,541$ (27,541)$
New Positions relating to existing/expanding 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 - $156,172)130,143$
FOF - Civilian Response Team Specialists (12 FTEs - Annual -
$1,040,328)520,164$
Council Suggested Additions:
Restore funding for street racing mitigation 60,000$ 60,000$
Public Lands
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)29,798$ (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 - $85,928)64,446$ (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 - $83,076)62,307$ (62,307)$
Council Addition ideas:
Add 1 Admin FTE to address needs at Fisher Mansion Carriage House
and PNUT Board Needs (Annual - $85,928)64,446$ 64,446$
Public Education Campaign about Tree watering (staff is confirming
status of bags) - potentially locate in the Mayor's Office 50,000$ 50,000$
Public Services
NFP & CCAC Placeholder - market salary survey - 3 month recapture
(one-time)92,026$ (92,026)$
6/8/2022 **DRAFT ** 7:13 PM
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
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
A B C D E
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 Signs and Markings 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$ (1,762)$
Non Departmental
Corrections based on new info:
General Fund contribution to DTA for open streets ($150k from RDA,
$150k from General Fund; DTA would need to fundraise $50k)300,000$ 300,000$
Add election expenses for GO Bond (placeholder pending confirmation
from County)30,000$ 20,000$
East/West Celebration events around July holidays (new information
about laser-based show rather than fireworks)30,000$ 30,000$
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
Sustainability Holding Account - Public Facing EV Charging Stations -
pending further conversations with the Department 214,000$
Sustainability Holding Account - Electrified Transit 300,000$
Council addition ideas:
Allocate funds from CIP holding account (BA #7) for traffic
calming/livable streets 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Allocate funds from CIP holding account (BA #7) for building security 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$
Funding for historic signs/markers (10-12)30,000$ 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$
actual Library new growth 746,374$
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY23
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:June 7, 2022
RE: FY2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: 119-131
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Starts on Page 25, General Fund Projects Start on Page 33
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and
approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews individual
projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and competitive
process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The Community
Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the applications in
public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor provides a second
set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific funding.
Overview of the FY2023 CIP Budget
The total FY2023 CIP budget is nearly $45 million which is $9.7 million (27%) more than last year. Most of that
increase is caused by a $10 million year over year increase in the General Fund transfer to CIP which is
equivalent to 9% of ongoing revenues. The City has not reached the 9% level is at least a decade and an audit
from several years ago recommended that level of annual capital investment. The table below details funding
sources for CIP by fiscal year. Other highlights include:
$8.1 Million Unrestricted Funds – $8,137,885 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted
funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available).
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 17 & June 7, 2022
1st Briefing: June 7, 2022
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 12, 2022
3rd Briefing: July 19, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 9, 2022
5th Briefing & Potential Action: August 16, 2022
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget.
Project specific funding is approved by
September 1.
Page | 2
2
1
0
2
1
$4.9 Million Decrease of Impact Fees Spending – The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is the
smallest amount since FY2019. There are over $23 million of available to spend impact fees across the four
types: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Most of the available funds are for parks and transportation. See
Additional info section for more.
$3.1 Million Increase for County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation – This became a new funding source three
years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law. As seen in other sales tax revenue line items,
this one has experienced significant growth.
$10.8 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $10.7 million (36%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including
Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments and the Crime Lab lease payment. However, it
should be noted that $4,393,161 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed sales tax revenue bond
for which the Council has not approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY2023 projects if the
Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
C I P Fu n d in g So u rc e s A do pt ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
A do pt e d
2 0 2 1-2 2
Pro po se d
2 0 2 2 -2 3
FY 2 2 t o
FY 2 3
$ C h an ge
FY 2 2 t o
FY 2 3
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 67$ 1 5 ,1 2 6,884$ 2 5 ,1 5 0 ,43 1$ 1 0 ,0 2 3 ,5 4 7$ 6 6 %
Funding Ou r Futu r e *4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 ,5 2 0 ,0 0 0$ 4 2 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ (2 1 ,7 0 6 )$ -1 %
I mp ac t Fe e s**5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6,1 0 3$ 3 ,3 6 0 ,1 9 3$ (4 ,9 1 5 ,9 1 0 )$ -5 9%
CDBG -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 7 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p ur po se Old CI P A c c o u nt s ***1 ,1 4 9 ,6 1 6$ 2 5 2 ,2 7 1$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nty 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax N/A 4,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 8,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 6 3 %
Sur p lu s Land Fund 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ (2 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ ONE-TI ME
Smit h's Nam ing Righ ts Re v e nu e 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
SLC Sp o r t s Co mp le x ESCO 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ -$ 0 %
Me mo r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nue 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 2 9 ,2 2 6 ,2 62$ 3 6 ,0 2 7 ,1 3 1$ 4 5 ,7 0 3 ,683$ 9 ,6 7 6 ,5 5 2$ 2 7 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 7 ,87 6 ,6 4 6$ 3 5 ,2 5 2 ,86 0$ 4 4 ,9 81 ,683$ 9 ,7 2 8,82 3$ 2 8%
*I nc lu de s % to CI P "o ff th e t o p " a v a ila b le to any p ro je c t a nd fu nd ing fo r t ra nsit a nd pu b lic righ t o f w ay
infrast ru c tu re . A lso , fu nd ing so u rc e is o ngo ing b u t Co u nc il c o u ld c h ange th e u s e c a t e g o rie s in t h e fu tu re
**Th e re a re fo ur im pa c t fe e ty pe s: fire , pa rks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
***I nc lu d e s re c a ptu re d funds fro m mu ltiple fu nd ing so urc e s
No t e : Th e re 's a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o p e re d uc t io n no t se p a rat e d o u t in th e t ab le ab o v e fo r FY 2 0 2 1 & FY 2 0 2 2
Two Differences between Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
(See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book)
Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget
Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is
recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. Differences between
funding amounts are highlighted pink. This year the funding recommendations from the Community
Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board and the Mayor are nearly
identical with two differences listed below.
- The Board recommends funding $3.052 million for the 200 South reconstruction transit corridor
project. The Mayor recommends $4,254,885 for the project which is $1,202,885 more than the Board.
The 2018 voter-approved Street Reconstruction Bond is the primary funding sources for the project
which is also receiving funding from several smaller sources. The project webpage is regularly updated
and available here: www.slc.gov/mystreet/2020/03/27/200south/
Page | 3
2
1
0
2
1
- The increased funding for the 200 South reconstruction transit corridor (point above) is proposed to be
shifted from the Cemetery Master Plan implementation. The Board recommends $1,202,885 for the
Cemetery Master Plan implementation project and the Mayor recommends no funding. Note that the
proposed sales tax revenue bond includes $11.2 million for City Cemetery road reconstruction.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 4 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores)
The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined
scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY2023 projects.
The combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board
members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not
at the public meeting) or they declined to vote.
$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs Over Next Decade in Context of FY2023 CIP, $65 Million
Sales Tax Revenue Bond and $80 Million Parks and Public Lands General Obligation (GO) Bond
(See Attachment 5 for a spreadsheet summarizing all projects in FY2023 CIP and the two proposed bonds)
Last year, the Council held briefings about different iterations of a proposed sales tax revenue bond. The Mayor
forwarded the recommendations after an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue bond was paid off in
2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid using General Fund
dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to prioritize use of this
funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital needs significantly
exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $65 million bond with an estimated $4.4 million annual debt
payment and an $80 million G.O. bond for parks and public lands projects. The G.O. bond would need to first be
placed on the ballot by the Council and then voters would decide whether to approve it. There is no legal
deadline for the Council to approve, modify or decline the sales tax revenue bond. Note that some of the sales tax
revenue bond projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while others would need to be a separate
taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than the sum of the individual projects
because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $65 million maximum proposed.
Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best
management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs
may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and
may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point.
Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. Typically, a Capital Facilities Plan, is
the mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a long-term horizon.
While the City does long-term planning in each department, a capital facilities plan typically includes a broader
citywide view. The Administration has indicated that there is ongoing work towards this goal. The Council may
wish to ask the Administration for an update on this effort.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, eastside police precinct or smaller
substations, multiple aging fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar,
downtown TRAX loop, quiet zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east
sides, implementing rest of the 9-Line, Folsom and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like
Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, rehabilitation or full rebuild of vehicle bridges including 200 South
and 400 South over the Jordan River, etc.
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index
of the City's street network from poor to fair
$33.8 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$20 million above existing funding levels to fully fund the City’s fleet needs
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 8 – Pending at time of publishing this staff report)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed
projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be
Page | 4
2
1
0
2
1
recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP
projects. 64 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds or impact fees. The total funding is just over $4.2 million. Some of this
funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses, however, the Class C,
CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to identify whether a
project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential funding to recapture
by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Balancing $300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs, $80 Million Parks and Public Lands
G.O. Bond, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond and FY2023 CIP – The Council may wish to
discuss if projects in the proposed bonds and FY2023 CIP align with the Council’s policy priorities. The
Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ million unfunded capital needs
including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets. The Council
is tentatively scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing
individual CIP projects. See Attachment 5 for a summary of projects by title and funding source for both
bonds and FY2023 CIP.
2.Five Projects to Approve in June with Annual Budget or Add to Summer Deliberations –
The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to approve in June with the annual
budget and debt service payments any of the five projects below or add them to capital investment
deliberations in July and August. The projects could be added to the Council’s deliberations to see the
total capital investments proposed and which projects should be in FY2023 CIP, the General Obligation
bond and/or the sales tax revenue bond. The five projects were not included in the open and competitive
CIP process because they were identified by administrative staff outside separately, so the resident
advisory board did not provide recommendations. The Council could ask if there are any legal or
operational issues to be aware of.
- $3.7 million handheld radios upgrade to next generation
- $3 million complete streets
- $2 million Funding Our Future Public Lands maintenance (further discussion with the
department is needed)
- $2 million restoration of City Hall insurance reimbursement
- $700,000 maintenance of vacant city owned facilities
3.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost
Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The
Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for maximum
amounts a project may receive (see section 11 of Attachment 1).
4.Updating CIP Policy Guidance Attachment 1 – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide updated policy guidance such as when to
disqualify an application, the Cost Overrun Account formula, project prioritization which could also
inform the resident advisory board’s deliberations, details to provide for proposed projects, etc. The
Council may also wish to discuss if new guidance could advance the Council policy priorities such as
equity being considered in CIP.
5.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some
projects get more support from departments than others.
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic-by-topic email requests to consolidated
monthly reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
Page | 5
2
1
0
2
1
7.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals,
metrics, and requests.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of a CIP Project
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (Attachment
1), a CIP project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other
physical structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Surplus Land Fund
The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City
policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the
Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The current
balance is approx. $2.3 million. The FY2223 budget proposes to discontinue the practice of using $200,000
annually to the Community and Neighborhoods Department for property maintenance expenses such as
utilities, security, and minor repairs. This was using one-time funding for an ongoing expense. The change
fulfills the Council’s legislative intent from FY2020. The ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP is proposed to
cover that ongoing expense and is increased to $700,000.
Cost Overrun Account
The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $557,476 which is a total of CIP
appropriations from the last four fiscal years. The Council established this account for projects that experience
costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the
Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the
formula. This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a
budget amendment. A written notification to the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to
proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which
typically takes a few months.
Updated Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 7)
Attachment 7 will be updated over the summer to inform the Council’s project-specific deliberations in July and
August. The Administration provided updated cost estimates for CIP projects that regularly come up. The
updated Attachment 7 includes the prior FY2019 (calendar year 2018) cost estimates next to a column showing
the 2021 estimates. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation
rate increases. The Engineering Division provided some context that the City doesn’t know to what extent the
larger price increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions)
or longer-term trends. Overall, prices are estimated to be up 10% to 14% according to Engineering.
1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks (See Attachment 9 for the latest report)
Attachment 9 is an annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the past fiscal
year and planned for the next. The report summarizes eight artworks that received maintenance in FY2022 and
21 artworks planned for FY2023. Note that four artworks are identified for deaccession, that is removal from the
City’s public art collection.
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to
maintenance. This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public
art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art
Page | 6
2
1
0
2
1
that require maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation
and maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to
continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of
$200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $65 million sales tax bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding through FY2026. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds. Other commitments
include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for parks and facilities,
contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget Book includes an
overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer into CIP was
needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21. The percentage significantly decreased to approx. 40% after an
$80 million bond was paid off. The chart does not reflect the Mayor’s proposed $65 million sales tax revenue
bond which would add an annual $4.4 million debt payment for 20 years.
The debt load significantly decreased in FY2022 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matured (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 40% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. Note that
General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate, dedicated
voter-approved property tax increase.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-2 2 FY 2022-23 FY 2023 -24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of CIP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Other Debt Se rvice Othe r Commit ments Pay a s You G o Pro jects
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. The table below is current
as of April 28, 2022 and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #7 of FY2022. Available to
spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s
Page | 7
2
1
0
2
1
recommended CIP budget proposes using $1,838,193 of parks impact fees and $1,522,000 of transportation
impact fees. The total amount of the four impact fee types is $23,253,078. Impact fees must be encumbered
within six years of the City receiving them.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,000,885 More than a year away -
Parks $14,031,723 More than a year away -
Police $564,031 More than a year away -
Transportation $7,656,439 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Impact Fee Eligibility
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of
providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth
should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service
provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s
common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other
funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six
years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if
those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 7)
Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The
document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to
date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project
cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost
estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August.
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to
transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused
perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and
ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for
this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active
transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for
maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax
Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and
0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between
this funding source and Class C funds (next section).
Class C Funds (gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C
funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee
selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses
between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous
section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter,
safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the
highway right-of-way
Page | 8
2
1
0
2
1
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be
constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible)
Roadway Selection Committee
The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose
appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and
revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by
Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND,
Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection
process includes:
Public requests for individual road repair
On-going costs to keep a road safely passable
Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood
or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor
Safety improvement goals and crash data
Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities
replacements, repairs, or upgrades
Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power
Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations
Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street
In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads
are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other
City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources.
CIP Planning Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City
currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here:
http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY2023 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY2023 CIP Budget Book
4. FY2023 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
5. Summary Spreadsheet of All Projects in Proposed FY2023 CIP, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond
and $80 Million Parks and Public Lands G.O. Bond
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 2021)
8. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture –
PENDING DEPARTMENT STATUS UPDATES
9. Art Maintenance Report for FY2022 and FY2023
10. Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood Department
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
Page | 9
2
1
0
2
1
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
G.O. Bond – General Obligation Bond
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
Division
(Priority)
/ App Ref
Organization
Name Application Title Project Description/Summary Committee
Score
Final
Recommended
General Funds
Final
Recommended
Class C
Final
Recommended
Street Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
Parks Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
FOF Street
Final
Recommended
FOF Other
Final
Recommended
FOF Transit
Final
Recommended
Qcent Tax
Final
Recommended
General Funds
Final
Recommended
Class C
Final
Recommended
Street Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
Parks Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
FOF Street
Final
Recommended
FOF Other
Final
Recommended
FOF Transit
Final
Recommended
Qcent Tax
% of Art NA $156,107 $156,107
CIP Cost Overrun NA $208,143 $208,143
C31 Constituent 400 S Safety Improvements
Add a school zone, crosswalk striping, curb bulb-outs and Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons s to 400 S prioritizing children and other pedestrian safety in
the wake of multiple incidents in the last few years which caused fatalities and
hospitalizations.
102 $ 513,313 $- $- $- $ - $- $- $-$ 513,313 $- $- $- $- $- $- $-
T1 New 200 South Reconstruction /
Transit Corridor Supplement
To support 1,100 local and regional buses per day, 200 South will become a de
facto Bus Rapid Transit corridor. These funds will supplement 2023's 200 South
Reconstruction project with exemplary bus boarding islands, bus shelters and
designated bus lanes.
95 $ 1,500,000 $- $ 252,000 $- $ - $- $- $ 1,300,000 $ 2,700,242 $- $ 252,000 $- $- $ 2,643 $- $ 1,300,000
C9 Constituent Three Creeks West - Roadways
Reconstruct a block of 1300 South and a block of 1000 West along Jordan River
and install badly needed sewers. Will improve multimodal transportation, park
access, public safety and basic sanitation, expanding on success of Three
Creeks Confluence Park.
92 $ 1,359,130 $- $- $- $ - $- $- $- $ 1,359,130 $- $- $- $- $- $- $-
T5 Renewal 300 N Complete Street
Reconstruction Supplement
Add intersection safety / Complete Streets elements to the 300 N
reconstruction project: possible protected intersection at 1000 W and 300 N;
improved pedestrian safety at intersections at 900 W, 800 W, 700 W, and 600
W; buffered bike lane on 300 N.
91 $ 500,000 $- $ 40,000 $- $ - $- $- $ 500,000 $- $ 40,000 $- $- $- $- $-
C27 Constituent Rose Park Neighborhood
Center Community Garden
This community garden would be developed through the WCG Green City
Growers Program in partnership with SLC Parks and Rose Park Neighborhood
Center. The goal is to increase access to fresh, local produce & reduce barriers
to urban food production.
91 $- $- $- $ 160,819 $ - $- $- $- $- $- $- $ 160,819 $- $- $- $-
E1 Renewal Street Improvements
2022/2023
This annual program funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City
streets, including curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage improvements as
necessary. Where appropriate, it will include appropriate bicycle and
pedestrian access improvements.
89 $- $ 3,000,000 $- $- $ - $- $- $- $- $ 3,000,000 $- $- $- $- $- $-
P16 Planning Asset Management Plan
Plan development to comprehensively guide future asset condition
assessment and asset replacement, renewal and deferred maintenance needs
in our parks citywide, including cataloging all park assets and current
conditions.
85 $ 160,160 $- $- $- $ - $- $- $- $ 160,160 $- $- $- $- $- $- $-
T4 New
Transit Capital for Frequent
Transit Routes / Operational
Investments
Funds will construct bus stops so SLC-supported new and revised transit routes
(4, 205, 1, 200, and others) are legal, accessible, safe, and convenient; and may
provide match to federal grants received for transit hubs (especially 200 S,
Westside hubs).
84 $- $- $ 110,000 $- $ - $- $ 990,000 $- $- $- $ 110,000 $- $- $- $ 990,000 $-
FA1 New Facilities Asset Renewal Plan
FY23
Following a 10 year plan to eliminate the $33,800,000 in deferred asset
renewal, the Facilities Division will utilize the funds requested to replace assets
that are beyond their useful life, prioritizing assets based on their criticality.
84 $- $- $- $- $ - $ 1,192,357 $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $ 1,192,357 $- $-
E4 New Bridge Replacement (650
North over the Jordan River)
This project will replace the 650 North bridge over the Jordan River. The bridge
was rated 61.44 BHI by UDOT (under 60 requires replacement) prior to the
earthquake. A consulting firm with specialized experience will be used for this
project.
84 $- $- $- $- $ - $- $- $ 3,700,000 $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $ 3,700,000
E2 Renewal Public Way Concrete
2022/2023
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-
cutting, slab jacking, and removal and replacement of deteriorated or defective
concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, etc.
84 $ 436,281 $- $- $- $ - $- $- $- $ 436,281 $- $- $- $- $- $- $-
CDCIP Recommendations Mayors Recommendations
*Note: Deviations between the CDCIP Board and Mayor recommendations are highlighted in PINK
Attachment 2 - FY2023 CIP Funding Log (recommended projects are listed first; note not formatted for printing)
Division
(Priority)
/ App Ref
Organization
Name Application Title Project Description/Summary Committee
Score
Final
Recommended
General Funds
Final
Recommended
Class C
Final
Recommended
Street Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
Parks Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
FOF Street
Final
Recommended
FOF Other
Final
Recommended
FOF Transit
Final
Recommended
Qcent Tax
Final
Recommended
General Funds
Final
Recommended
Class C
Final
Recommended
Street Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
Parks Impact Fees
Final
Recommended
FOF Street
Final
Recommended
FOF Other
Final
Recommended
FOF Transit
Final
Recommended
Qcent Tax
CDCIP Recommendations Mayors Recommendations
*Note: Deviations between the CDCIP Board and Mayor recommendations are highlighted in PINK
E3 Renewal Alleyway Improvements
2022/2023
This new annual program funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated
City alleyways, including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary.80 $ 142,919 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 142,919 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
P1 Planning Urban Farm development at
2200 West
The demand for urban farming and local, sustainable food production has
increased in the past years. This project would fund planning and design for
new urban farm development at 2200 West located in Rose Park, and the
Cannon Greens located in Glendale.
80 $ 425,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 425,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
E6 Renewal Bridge Preservation 2022/2023
The City is responsible for performing appropriate preservation activities on
the 31 of the 35 vehicle bridges in Salt Lake City. Engineering manages a
strategy to extend periods between major bridge repairs, based on UDOT's
biennial condition report.
79 $ 108,008 $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 108,008 $ - $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ - $ - $ -
P10 Renewal Cemetery Master Plan Project
Implementation
Design and Construction of projects outlined in the Cemetery Master Plan
which may include structural preservation and restoration of historic WPA
walls, installation of plat markers and interpretive/wayfinding signage.
77 $ 1,200,242 $ 2,643
P12 New RAC Playground Phase II
Design and construction of a new playground for ages 5-12 and shade sails at
the Regional Athletic Complex to supplement CIP funding for design awarded
in FY2021-22 and complete all phases of this project.
73 $ - $ - $ - $ 521,564 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 521,564 $ - $ - $ - $ -
E8 Phase 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West
to 5000 West)
This project will complete the last half mile of a 4.6 mile 700 South
reconfiguration from 25 Ft wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 50 FT wide
concrete street with bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm
drainage from Redwood Rd to 5600 West.
73 $ - $ 1,120,000 $ - $ 850,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,120,000 $ - $ 850,000 $ - $ - $ -
C10 Constituent 900 South River Park Soccer
Field
Access to healthy outdoor recreation is a vital part of community health and
wellbeing. There is an underused area perfect for a soccer field at 9th S. River
Park. With minimal expense or upkeep this can be a great place for the
community to recreate.
72 $ - $ - $ - $ 287,848 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 287,848 $ - $ - $ - $ -
P11 New Memorial Tree Groves Design
and Infrastructure
Design and implementation of memorial tree groves that provide an
opportunity to dedicate trees on public property through a donation by a
member of the public. Project may include site alternatives, landscape design,
irrigation installation, and signage.
61 $ - $ - $ - $ 867,962 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 867,962 $ - $ - $ - $ -
FA2 Renewal Streets Steam Bay Expansion
The existing steam bay is operating beyond capacity, limiting the efficiency of
the asphalt crew and posing an environmental risk if the oil separator
collapses. Adding a steam bay will mitigate this risk and ensure proper
operation of asphalt equipment.
58 $ 597,792 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 597,792 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
TOTAL $ 6,942,885 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,522,000 $ 1,838,193 $ 915,000 $ 1,195,000 $ 990,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 6,942,885 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,522,000 $ 1,838,193 $ 915,000 $ 1,195,000 $ 990,000 $ 5,000,000
***
Total GF Recommendations +
% of Art and Cost Overrun 7,307,135$ 7,307,135$
Division
(Priority) / App
Ref
Organization
Name Application Title Project Description/Summary Committee
Score Requested Amount Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Street Impact
Fees
Requested
Parks Impact
Fees
Requested FOF
Street
Requested FOF
Other
Requested FOF
Transit
Requested Qcent
Tax
Sustainability
Score
(1-10)
Sustainability Comments PNUT Board
Rank (1-18)
Pavement
Condition
C41 Constituent California Avenue Safety
Improvement Study
This project is designed to study pedestrian safety improvements to be made at the intersections of California Avenue and
Concord Street/Glendale Drive.91 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project intended to investigate potential traffic calming measures in project area, which may
enhance safety for pedestrians and other alternative forms of transportation. 0 Serious
C28 Constituent 1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle
Create a traffic circle at the intersection of 1000 W and 500 N and include a public art installation that possibly shares
some common themes with the state Fairpark. Also include several center medians with large trees and native plants
along 1000 W.
90 $ 569,534 $ 569,534 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Poor
C40 Constituent 900 West Corridor 900 West is in need of beautification and enhancements for pedetrians. This project would install speed feedback signs
and upgrade lighting to be consistent with SLC streetlight master plan.89 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project will enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting active transportation in
this area.0 Fair/Good
T7 Planning 2100 South Conceptual Design /
Corridor Transformation
The 2100 South reconstruction has the potential to be a highly transformative project for the Sugar House business area.
This funding will enable design and possible Phase 1 / quick build implementation of this redesign in collaboration with the
community.
88 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,000 0 Failed
T3 New Livable Streets Implementation
This citywide program aims to address the most common resident complaint to Transportation staff - speeding vehicles. It
uses a data-driven & equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the areas
most in need.
88 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 2,700,000 $ - $ - 7
"The requested General Funds are suggested to come from Funding Our Future. Recent
discussions with city leadershipand city council have suggested that it may be appropriate to
consider Livable Streets as a public safety relatedexpenditure. Public safety is one of the four
themes recognized in the original council intents around Funding Our Futuresales tax. 10%
of each line item anticipated to come from Impact Fees as part of the ongoing bike and
pedestrian safety enhancements." Supports comprehensive pedestrian safety
enhancements/traffic calming measures.
0 0
T2 New
Highland Drive / 1100 E Complete
Street & Parley's Trail Supplement
(1700 S-I-80)
Add walk/bike infrastructure, construct connections to Parley’s Trail, and address price inflation for the 2023 Highland
Drive / 1100 E reconstruction. With significant residential growth in the Sugar House core, safer walk/bike access is critical.
88 $ 3,500,000 $ - $ - $ 245,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,255,000 7 Expands/enhances needed active transportation opportunities within the project area 0 Failed
P19 Renewal Public Lands ADA Walkway and
Asphalt Replacement
Replace damaged concrete and asphalt in compliance with ADA regulations as often as possible. Priority locations may
include: Memory Grove, West Capital, Wasatch Hollow, Cottonwood Park, SLC Cemetery, City Creek Park.87 $ 873,062 $ 873,062 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 Enhances equitable access to public green open space. 9 0
C20 Constituent Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park
Improvements
We propose to conduct a complete renovation and redesign of the Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park to renew, improve,
and add new amenities based on public feedback. The project will design and create a new public park that will improve
the neighborhood.
87 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 Preserves and enhances public open space. Project plans not specific.15 0
P18 Renewal Playground Replacement
Replace aging playgrounds throughout the parks system. Potential locations for replacement may include: Design for
Rotary Playground at Liberty Park, and design and construction for Meadows, Pugsley Ouray, Parley's Way, Steenblik,
Jefferson, Miami, Cotten.
87 $ 1,874,063 $ 1,874,063 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1 Enhanced access to public green open space.7 0
C14 Constituent Madsen Park Renewal
This inner-city neighborhood park has been neglected for many years, & neighbors want to reclaim it as an asset to the
growing area. This park buttresses the new Folsom Trail & new development along 10th West and Chicago St.
87 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4
This park should be an asset to the community but has been neglected for too long. With the
growth coming to the area, the neighbors believe we need to reclaim this park for the
enjoyment of the community and to push away criminal activity. Improving Madsen Park
creates a positive gathering place for neighbors, in an up-and-coming area of SLC that
needs to embrace its open space assets. Enhances open space, priority area of City,
enhances public access amenity.
0 0
P9 New Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase I
Construction of Phase I of landscaping plan for Folsom Trail, included in initial site design in 2021. Scope may include
landscaping along the trail edges, with more significant irrigation, and trees at intersections along 600, 800, Jeremy, 900
and 1000 W.
85 $ 1,767,908 $ 1,767,908 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5
The Folsom Trail provides opportunity for alternative transportation in high-needs areas,
identified in the PL Needs Assessment. Addition of landscaping will provide biodiversity,
improved air quality and green space access in these communities. The Folsom Trail
Corridor will provide residents with a unique urban trail and that supports a safe and
comfortable walking and bicycling connection for all ages and abilities. Landscaping and
other amenities are important to it's success.
12 0
C35 Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming
The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near schools, homes, and
businesses, and promote environmental sustainability by making our streets more welcoming to non-vehicular modes of
transportation.
85 $ 420,000 $ 420,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project will enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting active transportation in
this area. 0 Serious/Very
Poor
P13 Renewal Cottonwood Park Pavilions
This project would fund design and construction of two new pavilions, and replacement of three existing pavilions in
disrepair at Cottonwood Park. The two new pavilions would be replacements of previously-removed pavilions that are
now empty concrete pads.
82 $ 756,094 $ 756,094 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 1 Enhanced access to public green open space.18 0
C30 Constituent 400 North Street Improvement
An ornamental median and raised crosswalks down the middle of the street. This will help mitigate traffic, parking, &
speeding. Will improve the safety, functionality, and restore the character to the neighborhood that was lost to SLC and
utility project.
82 $ 599,746 $ 599,746 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project will enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting active transportation in
this area. 0 Serious
P20 Renewal Court Resurfacing Replace or resurface tennis and basketball courts throughout the parks system identified as failing or failed. Potential
locations may include: Cottonwood basketball, Firestation Tennis, Westpointe Tennis and Basketball, Riverside Tennis.81 $ 1,478,739 $ 1,478,739 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
T8 Planning Ballpark Study Implementation -
Phase 1
Initiate multimodal improvements outlined in the draft Ballpark Station Area Plan, such as technical analysis, engagement,
and concept designs for ped/bike connections/crossings; 1300 South lane redesign; improved alleyways; and parking
management.
81 $ 500,000 $ 450,000 $ - $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Enhances safety for pedestrians and cyclists 0 0
T12 New
Local Streets 2023 Reconstruction
Supplement Two local streets scheduled for 2023 reconstruction need additional funds for complete streets elements: Pierpont Ave
(400 W - 300 W) and 100 South (600 W - 500 W; just west of Gateway) both lack curb / gutter / sidewalk / bikeways.80 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2
These two local streets are in areas with considerable pedestrian activity; this funding will
support the addition of sidewalks and safer crossings along with potential street trees and
lighting, similar to nearby streets.
0 Serious/Failed
C22 Constituent SLC Cemetery Infrastructure
Repairs Repair Phase 1a roads as identified in the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan. 80 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Preserves and enhances green public open space. 6 Very Poor
C29 Constituent 1000 W intersection upgrades at
300 N and 400 N
Add a permanent 4 way stop at 1000 W and 300 N with traffic islands, medians, raised crosswalks and other safety
measures to improve safety for cars, pedestrians and cyclists. Also include improvements to 400 North intersection.80 $ 539,693 $ 539,693 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project will enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting active transportation in
this area. 0 Poor
P3 Planning Tree Succession Design for Liberty
Park Planning and design for aging tree canopy within Liberty Park. Project scope may include identification of vulnerable trees,
public engagement, design for successional plantings, and visioning for areas affected by tree removal.
79 $ 90,160 $ 90,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5 Preserves public green space 11 0
P2 Planning Jordan River Tree Planting and
Irrigation
Planning and design for irrigation installation and tree planting along Jordan River Parkway, allowing for the reforestation
of the riparian corridor, and providing increased shade for users, improving habitat and improving aesthetics along the
parkway.
79 $ 210,834 $ 210,834 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7
Trees increase air quality and quality of life. The Jordan River serves many communities
across the City as well as many high -needs areas, according to the Needs Assessment.
Native trees will mitigate invasive species and provide shade to users
residents. The Jordan River is the ecological heart of Salt Lake's Westside. This project will
further develop tree canopy that provides shade for recreational users and improves
wildlife habitat throughout the entire JRP corridor.
14 0
P7 Planning Riverview Native Plant Center Phase
1A Design & construction documents for a native plant center on the Jordan River. The farm, greenhouse and related
infrastructure would create capacity to grow native plants for citywide projects, increasing health and biodiversity of SLC's
public lands.
77 $ 412,160 $ 412,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7
Design & construction documents for a native plant center on the Jordan River. The farm,
greenhouse and related infrastructure would create capacity to grow native plants for
citywide projects, increasing health and biodiversity of SLC's
public lands. The site is near many schools which would provide educational opportunities.
Additionally, it would provide a functional and accessible facility for west side communities
and visitors that would help contribute to environmental sustainability in the City.
17 0
C38 Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2
This request, combined with $153,221 from FY21/22, completes funding required to design and construct desired traffic
calming for the project area’s six local streets: Hollywood Ave, Ramona Ave, Garfield Ave, Lincoln St, 1000 E, and
McClelland St.
77 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Serious/Very
Poor
T13 Renewal Replacement Traffic Signals (4)Upgrade four top priority aging traffic signals, along with their surrounding intersections, with safety and operational
improvements for all modes.77 $ 1,400,000 $ 1,260,000 $ - $ 140,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
C6 Constituent Brentwood Circle Storm Water
Drainage This project will prevent massive flooding of Parleys neighborhood homes by creating and implementing a plan to divert
storm water from Brentwood Circle.
76 $ 160,129 $ 160,129 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8
Project mitigates stormwater flooding incidents that have caused damage to homes in the
neighborhood, particularly during "100-year storm events". Proposed project is example of
resilience measure that will be needed to mitigate climate-related impacts.
0 Satisfactory
T6 Renewal Multi-modal Transportation Safety
Improvements
Citywide traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic
control devices and minor reconfiguration of intersections or roadways to address safety issues.76 $ 300,000 $ 270,000 $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2 Supports comprehensive pedestrian safety enhancements 0 0
C23 Constituent Taufer Park Revamp
Taufer Park is in need of public engagement and improvements to make this downtown park an asset to the community.
This funding will go towards public engagement and conceptual design to re-envision Taufer Park as a community asset
instead of a liability.
76 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 Enhances maintenance and accessibility of green public open space. 0 0
P8 Renewal Library Plaza Repair and
Improvements
Planning and design for Library Plaza, including analysis of the current wedge wall, fountain, retaining wall and paver
replacement. These assets are all currently failing and are in need of repair/replacement in the next three years.76 $ 205,755 $ 205,755 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
T11 Renewal Replacement Traffic Signal; Asset
Condition Report
Upgrade a top priority aging traffic signal and intersection with safety and operational improvements for all modes.
Formalize a city-wide signal condition report with stakeholder input on asset condition priorities and multi-modal
recommendations.
76 $ 450,000 $ 415,000 $ - $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
P4 Planning NW Quadrant trails and Greenway
Planning
Planning and design for public trails in the NW Quadrant. Goals may include: provide and maintain high-quality, safe,
affordable trail network, support developed recreation opportunities near SR-201, foster stewardship of natural
environment/greenways.
76 $ 257,600 $ 257,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8
The lack of open space/parks in the NW Quadrant results in perpetuation of environmental
injustice. This network would provide alternative modes of transport that would minimize
health risks and provide essential green space to underserved
communitiesThe trails would provide essential green space in a sea of industrial
development, connectivity for safe, alternative modes of transportation to other City
communities, and support additional, developed recreation opportunities near SR
-201
5 0
T9 Planning Future Transformations: Corridor
and Area Studies Funds will be used to develop concept designs with public input, primarily for streets to be transformed or reconstructed
after the Street Bond ends in 2025. This will enable us to request “Complete Budgets for Complete Streets” in FY25 CIP
applications.
75 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 5
This project will contract with an engineering firm with expertise in structures such as
bridges and tunnels to complete 40% design and cost estimates to improve pedestrian and
bike crossings across Foothill Drive. This will include multiple, likely grade-separated,
ped/bike crossings (bridges or tunnels)as well as enhancements to other at-grade crossings
that already exist
0 0
C17 Constituent Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public
Park
Dinwoody Park was listed in 1975 as one of the SLC Redevelopment Agency's crowing achievements but has since been
fenced off & closed to the public. This area has a very low level of service for parks per resident & reopening would
improve the community.
74 $ 71,198 $ 71,198 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 Preserves and enhances public open space in urban neighborhood. 0 0
C19 Constituent Folsom Trail- Request on behalf of
River District Business Alliance
Completion of landscape, hardscape, lighting, public art, daylighting of City Creek, and other improvements related to the
Folsom Trail.
74 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 5
The first phase of the Folsom Trail project, which is currently on-going, focuses on trail
design and construction thatsupports a safe and comfortable walking and bicycling
connection for all ages and abilities. Future phases of improvements to the Folsom Corridor
will explore options for encouraging redevelopment, expanding the focus on greenspace,
ecological improvements, and water quality. The City has also studied the feasibility of
creating a small streamchannel, or“daylighting”using the excess City Creek runoff currently
in the Folsom Drain. The amounts requested above will provide funding for the elements of
the project that have been omitted from the current scope of the project due to budgetary
constraints. Enhancement to active transportation corridor project.
8 0
E10 New Bridge Replacement (200 South
over Jordan River)
The project will replace 200 South bridge over Jordan River. UDOT rated the bridge 61.90 BHI (<60 requires replacement)
prior to the earthquake. Design considers complete streets, Jordan River Trail, historic Fisher Mansion, and potential art
components.
73 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Very Poor/Fair
P14 Planning Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan
The Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan will provide key organizational directives to help effectively accomplish the goals of
the Reimagine Nature Master Plan. The document will be the third of 3 documents required for CAPRA accreditation.
72 $ 154,000 $ 154,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6
The Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan will provide key organizational directives to help
effectively accomplish the goals of the Reimagine Nature Master Plan. The document will
be the third of 3 documents required for CAPRA accreditation.This plan will provide
strategies for project implementation from the Master Plan, recommendations for which
came from the Needs Assessment which identified underserved areas and priority projects
based on public engagement and demographic
analysis. Supports city-wide efforts to maintain and enhance public green open space.
2 0
E9 Renewal Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South
over the Jordan River)
This project will rehabilitate the 400 South vehicle bridge over the Jordan River. The bridge was rated 64.73 BHI by UDOT
(under 60 requires replacement) prior to the earthquake. A consulting firm with specialized experience will be used for
this project.
72 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,700,000 0 Fair/Poor
C21 Constituent Replace Fairpark Tennis Courts with
New Sports Court This project will replace the existing tennis courts with either new tennis courts, 6 pickleball courts, or one tennis court
and 3 pickleball courts. If funding permits a water fountain and seating would also be included in this project.
72 $ 496,109 $ 496,109 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
P15 Planning Jordan Park and International Peace
Gardens Master Plan and CLR
Plan development for future management and projects for Jordan Park and Peace Gardens, including potential expansion
of the Peace Gardens. This project includes robust community engagement, visioning and implementation strategies, and
may include a CLR.
71 $ 251,160 $ 251,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Enhances/expands access to public green open space in a high-needs area as designated in
the Needs Assessment.0 0
C25 Constituent 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, new
irrigation, new tree planting
Install new curbing, replace irrigation systems, install a significant amount of added trees via community matching funds to
supplement the urban forest that remains due to this infrastructure falling into serious disrepair and creating safety
hazard.
70 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 Enhances maintenance and accessibility of green public open space. 0 Serious/Very
Poor
C36 Constituent Neighborhood Identification Equity
Project
This proposal supported by the Glendale Neighborhood Council to promote equity in neighborhood identity. The council
is writing to propose the creation of a new neighborhood entrance.70 $ 245,215 $ 245,215 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Satisfactory/Po
or
P6 Planning Urban Wood Reutilization Planning and design for a storage building, materials staging, fencing, lighting, utilities, and security needs to develop a
wood reutilization facility. Plan may include site analysis, alternatives, design for infrastructure and implementation
strategies.
69 $ 206,080 $ 206,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 7
This plan will allow the City to begin the process of reusing wood from downed, removed
trees throughout as playground mulch, building materials, etc. to minimize landfill impacts,
and provide sustainable reuse of materials and result in cost savings
3 0
F1 New Mixed-Use Three-Story Fire Prop Salt Lake City Fire Department is seeking funding to procure a three-story mixed-use fire training structure. This structure
or prop would be constructed on the department’s training grounds on the west-side of Salt Lake City.68 $ 856,690 $ 856,690 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
P17 Planning Memory Grove Master Plan and
Cultural Landscape Report
Development of a Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report for Memory Grove Park. This plan will include robust
community engagement, visioning and implementation strategies. These plans will guide future improvements, including
treatment and strategies.
68 $ 341,320 $ 341,320 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 16 0
C11 Constituent Gateway Triangle Property Park
Park and garden development on SLC property between Gateway Community Garden and Grants Tower RR tracks,
adjacent to Folsom Trail (under construction). Uses may include Garden expansion, playground, off-leash dog park, active
recreation space.
68 $ 499,563 $ 499,563 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4
Park and garden development on SLC property between Gateway Community Garden and
Grants Tower RR tracks, adjacentto Folsom Trail (under construction). Uses may include
Garden expansion, playground, off-leash dog park, active recreationspace. Coupled with
the Folsom Trail, this property will provide a connection and access from the Westside.
There are no other ped surface connections within two blocks of this
property. This tremendous residential growth proximate to this SLC property creates
demand:. Uses may include: 1) dog park; 2) playground; 3) garden park; 4) expanded
community garden; 5) sport activity; 6) buffer from intense RR activity and noise.
Enhances/expands greenspace, promotes active transportation, may expand community
garden activities.
0 0
T10 Renewal Multimodal Capital Maintenance These funds hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which SLC does not have the equipment or
staff. Examples: enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement, delineators, radar speed feedback signs,
RRFBs, etc.
67 $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ 25,000 5
As a maintenance project that primarily supports walking, bicycling, and transit, its equity
impacts are principally about equity among modes-providing renewal for walking, biking,
and transit infrastructure that may be excluded from routine maintenance.
0 0
P5 Planning Rose Park Open Space Concepts
Planning and design for existing Rose Park Golf Course driving range and disc golf course. Project would expand publicly
accessible open space and determine preferred site developments and activation improvements for the largest open
space along the JRP.
66 $ 154,560 $ 154,560 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4
This project could provide activation and public access along the JRP, utilized by citywide
residents, and visitors. This area also serves communities in high-needs areas as identified
by the Needs Assessment. Restoration efforts could reduce env. impacts. Project would
expand publicly accessible open space and determine preferred site developments and
activation improvements for the largest open space along the JRP
0 0
C2 Constituent Back Alley Block Project
After working with the city and the Liberty Wells Community Council to successfully launch the first Alley Pilot Project in
September 2021, we'd like to use the same blueprint to rejuvenate an additional 5,000 feet of public alley space in Liberty
Wells.
66 $ 517,500 $ 517,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4
"The alleys we are looking to rejuvenate through this project have been selected partially
based on the economic and racialdiversity of the surrounding neighbors (compared to
Liberty Wells at large). We also hope to encourage walking and biking options.
Transforming a portion of the 5 miles of public alleys in Liberty Wells into walkable, bikeable,
community gathering spaces would strengthen the community by bringing neighbors
together, preserving and enhancing existing open spaces, and
supporting art. We also intend to install solar lighting, landscaping, art, and placemaking
intitiatives in these alleys. Enhances active transportation/walkability
0 Failed
C13 Constituent Lindsey Gardens Natural Springs
Pollinator Garden
The Lindsey Spring Pollinator Project intends to daylight a natural spring, allowing for native species to flourish and to
provide habitat for pollinators and to serve as a learning tool for residents, particularly for nearby Ensign Elementary
students.
65 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8
The Lindsey Spring Pollinator Project intends to daylight a natural spring, allowing for native
species to flourish and to provide habitat for pollinators and to serve as a learning tool for
residents, particularly for nearby Ensign Elementary students It creates a critical habitat
ribbon near the urban wildland interface, provides educational opportunities for students,
daylights ahistorically significant spring currently diverted to storm drains and improves the
psychological health of all. Enhances/supports riparian habitat and wildlife coriddors.
10 0
E7 Renewal Rail Adjacent Pavement
Improvements 2022/2023 This program addresses uneven or deteriorated pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement
improvements and contracts the construction.
65 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3
This program provides improved transitions from roadway to railway on at-grade crossings.
These improvements will enhance safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers, reduce
potential damage to bikes and vehicles, and reduce noise pollution. Enhances active
transportation access/safety.
0 0
C16 Constituent 337 S 400 E Pocket Park
Improvement
This park has been heavily damaged by recent adjacent construction. This project will fund public engagement and
conceptual design to determine the future of the park. The plan will use public feedback for design and include CPTED
considerations.
64 $ 54,096 $ 54,096 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Creates and enhances public open green space in urban neighborhood undergoing heavy
development. 0 0
C15 Constituent Rose Park Community Pump Track
The Rose Park pump track project will construct a new community bicycle pump track that would be adjacent to the Day
Riverside library along the Jordan River Parkway, near the newly constructed Watershed project within Rose Park
neighborhood in SLC.
64 $ 498,584 $ 498,584 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
F2 Renewal Training Ground Site Improvements
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding fire
training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. There is approximately 45,000 sq. ft. of
underutilizes space.
64 $ 755,991 $ 755,991 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Serious
C34 Constituent Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Vehicle Trip Reduction, Safety Improvement, Neighborhood Center Improvement, Public Health, Critical Infrastructure
Improvement of 3 landscaped median islands, 3 crosswalks, west bound bike lane, restriping on Sunnyside Avenue
between1350 East and Guardsma
64 $ 514,688 $ 514,688 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project will enhance safety for pedestrians, promoting active transportation in this area.0 Poor
C37 Constituent Yalecrest Traffic Calming The Yalecrest Neighborhood requests traffic calming initiatives to improve safety, reduce speeding and lower the
increased volume of traffic along two of its main boundaries -- 1900 East and 1300 East, as well as interior roadways.61 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project intended to investigate potential traffic calming measures in project area, which may
enhance safety for pedestrians and other alternative forms of transportation. 0 Serious/Poor
C32 Constituent East Bench Traffic Calming and
Pedestrian Safety
Traffic calming measures on the East Bench neighborhood's busiest streets to lower speeds and improve
bicycle/pedestrian safety.61 $ 467,929 $ 467,929 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 4 Project will enhance safety for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting active transportation in
this area. 0 Serious/Poor
C12 Constituent Jefferson Park Walking Path
Build a lighted walking path around the retention pond berm going around the outside perimeter of the park. Adding
fencing around the playground to delineate children's space from other park areas and keep dogs out. Plant additional
trees in the park.
61 $ 496,472 $ 496,472 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
E5 Planning Project Management Software
Renewal The Engineering Division requires funding to renew the annual subscription to Procore project management software.61 $ 79,999 $ 79,999 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
E11 Planning Wingpointe Levee Design
This project includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by hired consultants.
Levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and modifications recommended to bring the levee
into compliance.
59 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 8
Wingpointe levee was modified during golf course construction and does not meet revised
FEMA criteria nor current US Army Corps of Engineers standards. The levee must be
reconstructed to prevent flooding the neighboring communities. Project mitigates
flooding hazard that may be exacerbated by climate related flooding events.
0 0
C24 Constituent Welcome Signage
Installation of monument signage (in brick planters, located in the center medians, at multiple entrances to our
neighborhood). We want to re-establish our identity within the city & create a sense of pride for those who live here and
future residents.
57 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
C26 Constituent Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course This project will add a new disc golf course on the vacant parcel next to the Mountain Dell Golf Course. The project will fill
the strong need for additional affordable recreational opportunities within our community.57 $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
C33 Constituent Sugar House Crosswalk Murals
Painting murals on three crosswalks in Sugarhouse (1300 E near Westminster, 2100 S near Highland HS, and a crosswalk at
2100 S 1900 E). This will draw more attention to crosswalks, slow traffic down, and also add more art to the
neighborhood.
56 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
C18 Constituent First Encampment Park
The Park turns 25 in 2022 & upgrades & improvements are needed. Our goals: evaluate & replant vegetation, mend
sprinkler system, preserve engraved pioneer names, repair monuments, add historical info, improve safety & develop
enhanced information systems.
53 $ 363,916 $ 363,916 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 Maintenance and improvements to public open green space 0 0
C1 Constituent 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Install curb and gutter on east side of road, and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on west side of road on 1200 East between
Zenith Ave. and Crandall Ave.
53 $ 275,919 $ 275,919 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 2
“This project will make it safer for pedestrians to walk up and down the street, & will allow
appropriate drainage so puddles don’t form and wear away/break down the asphalt of the
road further or encourage bugs. Road maintenance will be improved." Pedestrian-usage
enhancement
0 Satisfactory
C4 Constituent South Belaire Dr Road
Reconstruction
South Belaire Drive is in dire need of road reconstruction. In May 2018, the streets surrounding Belaire Dr were
resurfaced, but Belaire Dr. was left out because it was too far gone. Since that time, its condition has only deteriorated.51 $ 699,650 $ 699,650 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Serious/Failed
C8 Constituent Repair Alley #4195 after 9th South
rebuild project
Repair Alley #4195 from 9th S reconstruction damage from contractor equipment use. Fix failed infrastructure impacting
property use, parking, safety and development. There are significant issues with use of alley parking and use of property
utilization.
48 $ 72,450 $ 72,450 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Very Poor
C3 Constituent Pave Benchmark Circle
Benchmark Circle (My street) has not been paved for 35 years per my neighbors who have been here that long. About 5
years ago The city street engineers had rated this street as the number second worst streets in Salt Lake City. It needs to
be fixed.
44 $ 199,307 $ 199,307 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Failed
C7 Constituent Harvey Milk Blvd. Rainbow
Crosswalk
Permanent Rainbow coloring of 4 crosswalks along 900 S. or Harvey Milk Blvd, renamed as such in 2016. This project will
be an economic development and neighborhood identity landmark for the vibrant Central 9th Neighborhood & honor
Harvey Milk
43 $ 459,346 $ 459,346 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 0
C5 Constituent Storm Drains 1100 East South of
Zenith Ave Storm drain installation 1100 East from Zenith Ave south on west side.41 $ 92,735 $ 92,735 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0 Failed
TOTAL $ 40,949,953 $ 31,344,953 $ - $ 800,000 $ 500,000 $ 225,000 $ 2,700,000 $ - $ 5,380,000
CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS PAGE
FY 2022-23 PROJECTS OVERVIEW 1
FY 2022-23 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY 5
DEBT SERVICE CIP
DEBT SERVICE CIP 17
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND 21
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS 21
GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 25
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
400 South Safety Improvements 29
200 South Reconstruction / Transit Corridor Supplement 30
Three Creeks West Roadways 31
300 North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement 32
Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden 33
Street Improvements 2022/2023 34
Public Lands Asset Management Plan 35
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 36
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 37
Bridge Replacement (650 North over Jordan River)38
Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 39
Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 40
Urban Farm Development at 2200 West 41
RAC Playground Phase II 42
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 W to 5000 W)43
900 South River Park Soccer Field 44
Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure 44
Streets Steam Bay Expansion 46
Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance 47
Hand Held Radios 48
Cost Overrun 49
Percent for Art 50
CDBG AND ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
CDBG CAPITAL PROJECTS
Ballpark Trax Stop Crosswalks on 1300 South 54
400 South Bus Stop Improvements 55
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDEDCIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 TABLE OF CONTENTS
AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
Concourse B - Maintenance Facilities and Shell Space 58
Stairs to Access Pedestrian Bridges Roofs 59
Pump House #9 Renovations (Construction)60
Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway Deicer Fluid 61
Gate 39 Reconstruction (Construction)62
SkyWest Hangar Taxilane Reconstruction 63
Taxiway E Reconstruction F1-F2 64
South Valley Regional Airport Hangar Site Development 65
South Valley Regional Airport – T-Hangars 66
Skydive Utah Taxilane and Apron 67
South Valley Regional Airport Vitek Hangar Apron Construction 68
Booth 10 Restroom Installation 69
Ground Transportation Staging Lot Study & Modifications 70
Ground Transportation Staging Lot Restroom & EVC Stations 71
Park and Wait Lot Expansion 72
Terminal Front Access Road Improvements 73
Equipment Storage Building (Construction)74
Replace PVC Roof Membrane on NS1 (Roads & Grounds Maint Bldg)75
Replace PVC Roof & Greenhouse Panels on NS14 76
Electrical & Communications Duct Bank from AOC to Gate 7 77
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (FY2023)78
South Employee Parking Lot Development Program (Design)79
GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
Tee Box Leveling 83
Pump Replacement 84
Maintenance Equipment 85
Short Course Design 86
Property Fencing Project 87
New Construction Projects 88
Building Improvements 89
Cart Path Improvements 90
PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
Water Main Replacements 92
Treatment Plant Improvements 93
Deep Pump Wells 94
Meter Change-Out Programs 95
Water Service Connections 96
Storage Reservoirs 97
Pumping Plants & Pump Houses 98
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 99
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDEDCIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)100
Landscaping 101
Treatment Plants 102
Collection Lines 103
Lift Stations 104
Storm Drain Lines 105
Riparian Corridor Improvements 106
Landscaping 107
Storm Water Lift Stations 108
Street Lighting Projects 109
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS
Japantown 112
Main Street Closure 113
West Capitol Hill Projects 114
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDEDCIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page has been intentionally left blank
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Introduction and Overview
Salt Lake City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed
to replace or expand the City’s public infrastructure. The principal element that guides the City in determining the
annual infrastructure improvements and budgets schedule is the current fiscal year capital budget.
The City CIP Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development Capital Improvement Program
(CDCIP) Board, consisting of community residents from each district. The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety
of criteria and provides funding recommendations to the Mayor.
The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares its funding recommendations for
the City Council as part of the Annual Recommended Budget. The City Council reviews the recommendations of the
Mayor and the CDCIP Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects before allocating funding and
adopting the final CIP budget. The details of the recommended FY 2022-23 CIP Budget are included in this book.
In considering major capital projects, the City looks at the potential operating impact of each project. New capital
improvements often entail ongoing expenses for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition, the repair and
maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the new infrastructure. Conversely, a
positive contribution, such as a reduction in ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into
the decision-making process.
Each project includes a section for estimated future maintenance and/or operations expenses, where the
departments have included projections of any increases to future operating costs.
The City also reviews all CIP projects to determine the progress. All projects older than three years that do not show
significant progress are then considered for recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready
projects.
The Administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital Improvement Program. Because the
proceeds from debt financing are considered a source for funding the City’s capital improvement projects, the City
analyzes the effect issuance that additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current debt ratio.
Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017 / Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management
Policies
Resolution No. 29 of 2017 provides the framework for project funding recommendations. Its guidance helps clarify
the expectations of the City’s Capital Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in
determining how to best address the City’s deferred and long-term maintenance needs.
Some of the policies guiding the CDCIP Board and the Administration include:
– A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more years and cannot have a
recurring capital outlay such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine. It also clarifies that a capital outlay does not
include maintenance expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches.
– A capital improvement must be a City asset and have a cost of $50,000 or more, with few exceptions.
– Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect its capital investments and
minimize maintenance and replacement costs.
– Priorities given to projects that preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; are mandated
by the state and/or federal government and provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in the
preservation of the community’s prior investment.
– The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget amendment of each year if an
existing balance remains on a completed project.
– Debt Service (excluding G.O. Bonding)
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
1
FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Allocations
Salt Lake City’s FY 2022-23 recommended CIP budget appropriates $345,912,595 for CIP, utilizing General Funds,
Class “C” Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent Tax Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and
other public and private funds.
The City’s General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a
payment from the City CIP contribution, except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local
Building Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt associated with the
construction of two fire stations is funded through the General Fund. Funds to pay debt service are included in the
recommended annual budget of $10,243,296.
Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City’s capital improvement projects.
A total of $17,189,536 was recommended for transportation infrastructure, rehabilitation, and capital improvement
of deteriorated streets city-wide. Of this amount, the major budget appropriations are $6,157,034 general fund,
$3,000,000 of Class “C” fund, $1,522,000 of Impact Fee funds, and $5,000,000 in ¼ Cent Tax funding. Such projects
include transportation safety improvements, Complete Streets Reconstruction, alleyway improvements, and bridge
replacement.
The recommended budget for Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement projects includes a total
appropriation of $4,043,393 from various funding sources. This includes a variety of enhancements in RAC, urban
farm development, community gardens, memorial tree groves and the development of a Public Lands Asset
Management Plan.
Public Facilities' capital improvement recommended budget includes a total appropriation of $1,790,149 from the
general fund for improvements listed in the Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire long overdue
deferred capital replacement projects and an expansion to the Streets Steam Bay.
Capital Projects
The CIP pages include details for each recommended project the for the FY 2022-23 Budget. These pages provide a
breakout of the funding recommendations and future costs associated with each project. The total for capital
projects funded from CIP submissions in the FY 2022-23 budget is $ $21,230,070. Additionally, the budget
recognizes $2.0 million for repairs to the City and County Building, from funds that will be reimbursed through the
City's insurance provider, and $3.7 million for the citywide radio system from funding set aside in fiscal year 2022.
The combined total for CIP is $26,930,070.
Maintenance Projects
The recommended CIP budget consists of projects that meet the City’s definition of CIP of over $50,000 (for
capitalization) but are ongoing in nature. These funds help maintain capital investments, ensure longevity, and
decrease the need for new capital expenditures to replace the City’s current valuable assets. The Administration has
reviewed each project and determined if it was a new capital expenditure or an ongoing maintenance project. The
CIP pages provide any maintenance details. The total funding recommended for FY 2022-23 maintenance projects is
$2,173,008.
CDBG and Enterprise Fund Projects
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
supports community development activities to build stronger and more resilient communities. To support
community development, activities are identified through an ongoing process. Activities may address needs such as
infrastructure, economic development projects, public facilities installation, community centers, housing
rehabilitation, public services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, homeowner
assistance, etc.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
2
In the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget CDBG funds are allocated for CIP infrastructure projects to improve safety and
meet ADA requirements. The projects were selected through the FY2022-23 CDBG selection process and are aligned
with goals and objectives outlined in Salt Lake City’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC, and the 2020-2024 Consolidated
Plan.
Enterprise Funds
The City’s enterprise functions; Airport, Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Redevelopment, Refuse Collection and Golf –
are by nature, very capital intensive. The budgets for these activities reflect the need to maintain the integrity and
capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality.
Airport Fund – The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive
any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of Airports has
619 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide
quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience.
The FY 2022-23 budget is the Airport's first budget that is focused on moving past the financial impacts of Covid-19
as enplanements traffic and revenues are set to exceed those levels prior to the global pandemic. The Salt Lake City
International Airport continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the recently
announced Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). These grants will continue to offset operating and maintenance
expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY 2022-23 as well as provide much needed
and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects. Passenger demand continues to increase on a
monthly basis, and as such, the Department of Airports will act prudently in managing the FY 2022-23 budget and
look for ways to continue to save operating and capital expenses where feasible, while also looking for ways to
strengthen our revenues.
The developed FY 2022-23 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and
revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important
capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse
Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield, terminal,
and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport owned facilities keep up with critical
infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into
future years.
Public Utilities Funds – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer,
storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to
fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds,
and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to
finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive
through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost-of-service basis.
The City's utilities are infrastructure intensive, and administration of these assets requires long term project and
financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In FY 2022-23, the
department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects.
Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects designed in one
year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the
Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project
undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require
increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early
60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A
unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities.
Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations.
RDA Funds – The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial
districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
3
utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the
City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA’s primary
source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the
specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure
projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year
funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent
on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on
the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval.
The RDA FY 2022-23 budget process proposes three potential City infrastructure projects. The Japantown project is
an allocation of funds to support implementation of the Design Strategy. Improvements could include
infrastructure, utility work, lighting, site furniture, public art, etc. The Main Street project is an allocation of funds to
support the transition of Main Street to a pedestrian-first promenade. Funds would primarily be used to hire a
consultant to provide design/planning work, code analysis, phasing, and stakeholder engagement. The West Capitol
Hill project provides additional funds to current projects which includes construction of Marmalade Plaza, a public
open space and mid-block connection adjacent to the Marmalade Library.
Sustainability Fund - Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance with federal, stand and local
regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within
the permitted footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no projects for FY 2022-23.
Golf Fund - The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and
various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by
user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golf’s ability to self-fund
most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9
holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital
Projects. Until FY 2018-19, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a
fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY 2021-22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented
a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more
capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using
$856,502 in FY 2022-23 to purchase additional equipment.
The Golf Division has budgeted $4,050,000 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY 2022-23. The Golf Division is
undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee
box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY 2022-23 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is
undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated
$950,000 for FY 2022-23. Other significant projects include new HVAC system at the Mountain Dell clubhouse, Roof
improvements at the Nibley Park clubhouse, On-course restrooms at Nibley Park, Forest Dale and Glendale golf
courses.
The Golf Division is anticipating receiving a matching federal WaterSMART grant to assist in funding a new irrigation
system at the Rose Park Golf Course. The award should be announced in May of 2022. If the grant is not awarded,
approximately $2 million of CIP projects will be suspended to help fund the Rose Park irrigation system.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
4
Deb
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond $ 2,500 $ 2,500
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond $ 363,660 $ 363,660
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond $ 749,937 $ 749,937
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond $ 2,014,623 $ 2,014,623
Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond $ 365,285 $ 365,285
Sales Tax Series 2021 Bond (Refunding 2013B, LBA2013A & 2014A)
$ 476,422 $ 476,422
Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond $ 4,393,161 $ 4,393,161
B & C Roads Series 2014 $ 981,208 $ 981,208
ESCO Debt Service $ 896,500 $ 896,500
Debt Service Projects Total $ 10,243,296 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 10,243,296
Ong
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Facilities Maintenance $ 350,000 $ 350,000
Public Lands Maintenance $ 250,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,250,000
Community and Neighborhoods - Maintenance $ 700,000 $ 700,000
Ongoing Projects Total $ 1,900,000 $ 2,000,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,900,000
Oth
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Complete Streets $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000
Public Services- Smiths Ballfield $ 154,000 $ 154,000
Public Services- ESCO County Steiner $ 148,505 $ 148,505
Public Services - Memorial House $ 68,554 $ 68,554
Other Ongoing $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,000,000 $ 371,059 $ 3,371,059
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
5
Mai
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 $ 108,008 $ 65,000 $ 173,008
Maintenance Funded Projects Total $ 108,008 $ 65,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 173,008
New
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
400 South Safety Improvements $ 513,313 $ 513,313
200 South Reconstruction / Transit Corridor Supplement
$ 2,700,242 $ 2,643 $ 252,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 4,254,885
Three Creeks West Roadways $ 1,359,130 $ 1,359,130
300 North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement
$ 500,000 $ 40,000 $ 540,000
Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden
$ 160,819 $ 160,819
Street Improvements 2022/2023 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000
Public Lands Asset Management Plan $ 160,160 $ 160,160
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments
$ 990,000 $ 110,000 $ 1,100,000
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 $ 1,192,357 $ 1,192,357
Bridge Replacement (650 North over Jordan River)
$ 3,700,000 $ 3,700,000
Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 $ 436,281 $ 436,281
Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 $ 142,919 $ 142,919
Urban Farm Development at 2200 West $ 425,040 $ 425,040
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
6
New
C
I
P
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
RAC Playground Phase II $ 521,564 $ 521,564
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 W to 5000 W)$ 850,000 $ 1,120,000 $ 1,970,000
900 South River Park Soccer Field $ 287,848 $ 287,848
Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure $ 867,962 $ 867,962
Streets Steam Bay Expansion $ 597,792 $ 597,792
Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000
Hand Held Radios $ 3,700,000 $ 3,700,000
New Projects Total $ 12,534,877 $ 3,035,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,360,193 $ 5,000,000 $ -$ 26,930,070
Cost Overrun $ 208,143 $ 208,143
Percent for Art $ 156,107 $ 156,107
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects.
$ 25,150,431 $ 5,100,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,360,193 $ 8,000,000 $ 371,059 $ 44,981,683
CDB
G
City Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation)Ballpark Trax Stop Crosswalks on 1300 South $ 550,000 $ 550,000
400 South Bus Stop Improvements $ 172,000 $ 172,000
Total CDBG $ 722,000 $ 722,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
7
Other Fund Capital Improvement Programs
Air
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
Concourse B - Maintenance Facilities and Shell Space
$ 5,290,000 $ 5,290,000
Stairs to Access Pedestrian Bridges Roofs $ 153,000 $ 153,000
Pump House #9 Renovations (Construction)$ 463,000 $ 463,000
Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway Deicer Fluid $ 379,000 $ 379,000
Gate 39 Reconstruction (Construction)$ 2,318,000 $ 2,318,000
SkyWest Hangar Taxilane Reconstruction $ 934,000 $ 934,000
Taxiway E Reconstruction F1-F2 $ 6,469,000 $ 6,469,000
South Valley Regional Airport Hangar Site Development
$ 3,018,000 $ 3,018,000
South Valley Regional Airport – T-Hangars $ 4,235,500 $ 4,235,500
Skydive Utah Taxilane and Apron $ 490,000 $ 490,000
South Valley Regional Airport Vitek Hangar Apron Construction
$ 459,000 $ 459,000
Booth 10 Restroom Installation $ 265,000 $ 265,000
Ground Transportation Staging Lot Study & Modifications
$ 153,000 $ 153,000
Ground Transportation Staging Lot Restroom & EVC Stations
$ 678,000 $ 678,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
8
Air
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Park and Wait Lot Expansion $ 1,413,000 $ 1,413,000
Terminal Front Access Road Improvements $ 2,037,000 $ 2,037,000
Equipment Storage Building (Construction)$ 3,923,000 $ 3,923,000
Replace PVC Roof Membrane on NS1 (Roads & Grounds Maint Bldg)
$ 337,000 $ 337,000
Replace PVC Roof & Greenhouse Panels on NS14 $ 76,000 $ 76,000
Electrical & Communications Duct Bank from AOC to Gate 7
$ 5,746,000 $ 5,746,000
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (FY2023)$ 477,000 $ 477,000
South Employee Parking Lot Development Program (Design)
$ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000
Total Airport CIP Projects $ 41,813,500 $ 41,813,500
Gol
f
Golf CIP Projects
Tee Box Leveling $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Pump Replacement $ 20,000 $ 20,000
Maintenance Equipment $ 856,502 $ 856,502
Short Course Design $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Property Fencing Project $ 100,000 $ 100,000
New Construction Projects $ 1,525,000 $ 1,525,000
Building Improvements $ 820,000 $ 820,000
Cart Path Improvements $ 1,475,000 $ 1,475,000
Total Golf CIP Projects $ 4,906,502 $ 4,906,502
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
9
Pub
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements $ 16,893,000 $ 16,893,000
Treatment Plant Improvements $ 9,200,000 $ 9,200,000
Deep Pump Wells $ 996,000 $ 996,000
Meter Change-Out Programs $ 3,100,000 $ 3,100,000
Water Service Connections $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000
Storage Reservoirs $ 2,125,000 $ 2,125,000
Pumping Plants & Pump Houses $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges $ 1,615,000 $ 1,615,000
Distribution Reservoirs (Tanks)$ 1,410,000 $ 1,410,000
Landscaping $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Treatment Plants $ 178,739,910 $ 178,739,910
Collection Lines $ 24,385,000 $ 24,385,000
Lift Stations $ 2,760,000 $ 2,760,000
Storm Drain Lines $ 4,625,000 $ 4,625,000
Riparian Corridor Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Landscaping $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Storm Water Lift Stations $ 750,000 $ 750,000
Street Lighting Projects $ 2,240,000 $ 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects $ 252,838,910 $ 252,838,910
RDA
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
Japantown $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Main Street Closure $ 300,000 $ 300,000
West Capitol Hill Projects $ 100,000 $ 100,000
Total RDA CIP Projects $ 650,000 $ 650,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
10
Sus
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Sustainability CIP Projects
$ -
Total Sustainability CIP Projects $ -$ -
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP $ 300,930,912 $ 300,930,912
GRAND TOTAL $ 25,150,431 $ 5,100,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,360,193 $ 8,000,000 $ 301,301,971 $ 345,912,595
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
11
Salt Lake City
Impact Fee Summary
Fiscal Year 2023
PROJECT Parks Impact Fee Streets Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Fire Impact Fee TOTAL
Imp
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
Impact Fee Projects
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
400 South Viaduct Trail 90,000 90,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 35,300
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component
3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 44,400
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 28,000
Urban Trails 6,500 6,500
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 37,422
Local Link Construction 50,000 50,000
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 104,500
900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 70,000
Corridor Transformations 25,398 25,398
SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 425,000
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 510,000
SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 1,304,682
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
Total Impact Fee by Type 6,800,450 491,520 — 984,133 8,276,103
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
12
Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects FY 2023
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Constituent 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 3000 S Highland Dr to 1500 E 449,315 449,315
Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700 East to 2000 East and 2000 East from 1700 South to Bryan Avenue
1,405,000 1,405,000
Engineering Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)200 South over Jordan River (Approx. 1220 West 200 South)
3,500,000 3,500,000
Engineering Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over Jordan River)
400 South & 650 North over Jordan River 3,000,000 3,000,000
Engineering Wingpointe Levee Design Jordan River Surplus Canal between 3700 West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive
800,000 800,000
Constituent Three Creeks West Bank Roadways 1300 S. 1000 W.1,158,422 1,158,422
Facilities Delong Salt Storage 719 S Delong St 1,504,427 1,504,427
Facilities Steam Bay 1910 West 500 South 363,495 363,495
Fire Mixed-Use Three Story Prop 1600 South Industrial Rd.815,895 815,895
Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 1600 South Industrial Rd.694,785 694,785
Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72,740 72,740
Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee Glan Tennis Court Construction
1216 S. Wasatch Drive 500,000 500,000
Constituent Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center
1105 S Constitution Dr.202,100 202,100
Constituent Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing
1105 S Constitution Dr.300,000 300,000
Constituent Harrison Ave and 700 E Community Garden 1300 S. 700 E.103,500 103,500
Constituent 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 1300 South between Main and West Temple 100,000 100,000
Constituent Wingate Walkway 475 N. Redwood Road 286,750 286,750
Constituent 1200 East Median 1200 East bet. So. Temple & 200 S. and 300 S & 500 S.500,000 500,000
Parks & Public Lands Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation
2740 South 2700 East 765,325 765,325
Parks & Public Lands Enhancement of the Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge
200 N Street 790,000 790,000
Parks & Public Lands Cemetery Roadway Improvements, Phase 1 200 N Street 3,838,000 3,838,000
Parks & Public Lands 9Line and Rose Park Asphalt Pump Tracks 700 West 900 South & 900 North Cornell Avenue 1,393,600 1,393,600
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
13
Unf
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Parks & Public Lands Richmond Park Playground and Park improvements
440 East 600 South 690,000 690,000
Parks & Public Lands Library Square Feasibility, Civic Engagement and Design Development
Block 37, bounded by 400 South, 300 East, 500 South and 200 East
225,000 225,000
Parks & Public Lands Donner & Rotary Glen Park Community Park Irrigation & Landscape Design and Construction
2850 East Sunnyside & 2903 E Kennedy Drive 650,000 650,000
Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595,194 595,194
Constituent Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction
Harvard Ave bet. 1300 & 1500 East 1,311,920 1,311,920
Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues (600 East to 700 East) and 600 East (Kensington Ave to 1700 South)
400,000 400,000
Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700 E. Stratford 200,000 200,000
Constituent Sugar House Safe Side Streets 900 East on the west, 2100 South on the south, 1100 East on the east, and Garfield Avenue on the north
500,000 500,000
Transportation Sunnyside 9Line Trail Missing Piece 1805 to 1851 East Sunnyside Avenue.350,000 350,000
Transportation Multimodal Intersections & Signals Various 945,000 105,000 1,050,000
Total Unfunded CIP Projects 27,016,868 1,498,600 28,515,468
Organization Name Proposal Title Project Address Location General Fund Impact Fee Total
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 CIP SUMMARY DOCUMENTS
14
This page has been intentionally left blank
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,500 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds June 2012 4-01-2022 RDA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing and
improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple
Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,855,000.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt
service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service.
The 2012A Bonds were fully refunded with the Series 2022A Bonds.. The budget for 2023 is to pay the final
arbitrage calculation fees.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$363,660 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds November 2013 10-01-2023 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a
portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to create a
“greenway” within the corridor. The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000.
A portion of the Series 2013B Bonds were refunded with the Series 2021 Bonds. As of June 30, 2022, $690,000 in
principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2023.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$749,937 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring,
constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads.
The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of $10,935,000. As of June 30, 2022, $7,955,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2034.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 DEBT SERVICE CIP
17
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$2,014,623 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the
Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition,
construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City
offices and other capital improvements within the City.
Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the
Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $21,715,000. As of June 30 2022, $15,920,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
on October 1, 2028.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$365,285 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A, were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of
the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the
Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown.
The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of $2,620,000. As of June 30, 2022, $1,555,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April
1, 2027.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2021
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$476,422 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds December 2019 10-01-2034 General Fund/Library
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2021, were issued in December 2021 to refund a portion of
the Series 2013A Bonds and a portion of the LBA Series 2013A and 2014A Bonds.
The Series 2021 bonds were issued with a par amount of $15,045,000. As of June 30, 2022, $15,045,000 in principal
remains outstanding. A portion of the debt service is paid by the Library for the LBA 2013A and 2014A (Glendale
and Marmalade libraries).
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 DEBT SERVICE CIP
18
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2034.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$4,393,161 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds January 2022 10-01-2032 RDA
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A, were issued in January 2022 to refund the Series
2012A Bonds. The Series 2012A Bonds were originally issued to fund the construction and improvement various
City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard.
The Series 2022A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,900,000. As of June 30, 2022, $8,900,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt
service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service.
Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature
October 1, 2032.
Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$981,208 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C
The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014, were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of constructing
and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West, and 17th South
Street from State Street to 700 East.
The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,800,000. As of June 30, 2022, $1,900,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on
April 1, 2024.
ESCO Lease Debt Service
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$82,500 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund
This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 DEBT SERVICE CIP
19
ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$148,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County
$148,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of
this facility is shared 50% with the County, the County pays 50% of this lease payment.
ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$517,000 Capital Lease August 2012 March 2026 General Fund
This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks.
Crime Lab Improvements Capital Lease Debt
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$600,000 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund
This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$497,950 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds March 2016 04-15-2037 General Fund
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March
2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project.
The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of $6,755,000. As of June 30, 2022, $5,490,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature
on April 15, 2037.
Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
$676,075 LBA Lease Revenue Bonds April 2017 04-15-2038 General Fund
The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (LBA of SLC) issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April
2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project.
The Series 2017A bonds were issued with a par amount of $8,115,000. As of June 30, 2022, $7,260,000 in principal
remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature
on April 15, 2038.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 DEBT SERVICE CIP
20
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND
Crime Lab Rental Payments
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$600,000 General Fund
Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab
Facilities Maintenance
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$350,000 General Fund
The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems
early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City’s building stock.
Public Lands Maintenance
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$2,250,000 General Fund
The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets. The purpose is to stop problems
early on and prevent larger failures in the City’s park stock.
Percent for Art
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$156,107 General Fund
To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP)
Cost Overrun
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$208,143 General Fund
ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES
Smith Ballfield Naming Rights
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$154,000 Other -Donations
Two parts to this request - to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming
rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing the
deferred maintenance backlog in this facility. This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 DEBT SERVICE CIP
21
CIP Memorial House
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$68,554 Other - Rental
A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation.
Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use
of the funding is to be determined.
Real Estate Services – Surplus Land
2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source
$700,000 General Fund
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B
2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source
Don’t need for CIP Sales Tax Rev Bonds October 2019 04-01-2038 RDA
Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose
of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and related
improvements. The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue
Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B.
The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable to pay
any of the debt service, the City’s General Fund would be responsible for it.
The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of
$6,396,905. As of June 30, 2022, $57,270,000 in principal remains outstanding.
Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on
April 1, 2038.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 DEBT SERVICE CIP
22
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
25
This page has been intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
29
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
30
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
31
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
32
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
33
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
34
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
35
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
36
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
37
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
38
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
39
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
40
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
41
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
42
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
43
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
44
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
45
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
46
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
47
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
48
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
49
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
50
This page has been intentionally left blank
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program supports community development activities
to build stronger and more resilient communities. To support community development, activities are
identified through an ongoing process. Activities may address needs such as infrastructure, economic
development projects, public facilities installation, community centers, housing rehabilitation, public
services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, homeowner assistance,
etc.
In the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget CDBG funds are allocated for CIP infrastructure projects to improve
safety and meet ADA requirements. The projects were selected through the FY2023 CDBG selection
process and are aligned with goals and objectives outlined in Salt Lake City’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC,
and the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2022-23 CDBG CAPITAL PROJECTS
53
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2022-23 CDBG CAPITAL PROJECTS
54
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET Fiscal Year 2022-23 CDBG CAPITAL PROJECTS
55
This page has been intentionally left blank
The Department of Airports
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any
general fund revenues to support the operation of the City’s system of airports. The Department of
Airports has 619 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and
promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel
experience.
The Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget is the airports first budget that is focused on moving past the financial
impacts of Covid-19 as enplanement traffic and revenues are set to exceed those levels prior to the
global pandemic. The Salt Lake City International Airport continues to benefit from the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) as well as the recently announced Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). These grants will
continue to offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents
charged in FY 2022-23 as well as provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital
infrastructure projects. Passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, and as such, the
Department of Airports will act prudently in managing the FY 2022-23 budget and look for ways to
continue to save operating and capital expenses where feasible, while also looking for ways to strengthen
our revenues.
The developed FY 2022-23 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased
passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Department of Airports will
continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program
(TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition critical
projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all
Airport owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently
experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
57
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
58
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
59
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
60
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
61
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
62
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
63
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
64
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
65
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
66
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
67
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
68
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
69
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
70
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
71
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
72
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
73
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
74
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
75
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
76
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
77
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
78
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS
79
This page has been intentionally left blank
The Salt Lake City Golf Division
The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality
recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding
cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess
revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have
limited Golf’s ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund
was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward
building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been
released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit.
As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2
per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund
to increase funding from this source for additional future projects.
As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will
be using $856,502 in FY 2022-23 to purchase additional equipment.
The Golf Division has budgeted $4,050,000 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY 2022-23. The Golf
Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-
sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY23 from the Golf CIP
Fund. The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct
some new carts paths and has allocated $950,000 for FY 2022-23. Other significant projects include new
HVAC system at the Mountain Dell clubhouse, Roof improvements at the Nibley Park clubhouse, On-
course restrooms at Nibley Park, Forest Dale and Glendale golf courses.
The Golf Division is anticipating receiving a matching federal WaterSMART grant to assist in funding a new
irrigation system at the Rose Park Golf Course. The award should be announced in May of 2022. If the
grant is not awarded, approximately $2 million of CIP projects will be suspended in order to help fund the
Rose Park irrigation system.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
81
The following table shows a breakdown of proposed projects:
Facility Description Estimated Cost
Bonneville Tee Box Leveling $10,000
Glendale Tee Box Construction $10,000
Forest Dale Tee Box Leveling $5,000
Mountain Dell Tee Box Leveling $20,000
Nibley Tee Box Leveling $5,000
Rose Park Tee Box Construction $10,000
Mountain Dell Basement HVAC Units/Water
Heater
$150,000
Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $250,000
Glendale Cart Path Improvements $150,000
Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $150,000
Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $300,000
Nibley Cart Path Improvements $100,000
Forest Dale Clubhouse Painting $40,000
Glendale Irrigation Pump $20,000
Nibley Roof Improvements $30,000
Glendale On Course Restroom $150,000
Rose Park Short Course Design $50,000
Subtotal $1,450,000
Rose Park Irrigation System and Turf
Reduction Project
$2,075,000
Subtotal $2,075,000
Rose Park Rose Park Irrigation System Cost
Overruns
$525,000
Subtotal $525,000
Grand Total $4,050,000
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
82
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
83
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
84
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
85
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
86
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
87
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
88
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
89
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS
90
The Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning.
The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In FY 2022-23, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects designed in one year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department’s Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950’s and early 60’s. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
91
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
92
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
93
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
94
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
95
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
96
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
97
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
98
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
99
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
100
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
101
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
102
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
103
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
104
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
105
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
106
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
107
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
108
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS
109
This page has been intentionally left blank
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts
to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA
utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that
enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental
sustainability. The RDA’s primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and
program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account.
The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned
infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that
anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval
process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects
costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the
City’s CIP schedule or requirements for approval.
The RDA fiscal year 2023 budget process proposes three potential City infrastructure projects. The
Japantown project is an allocation of funds to support implementation of the Design Strategy.
Improvements could include infrastructure, utility work, lighting, site furniture, public art, etc. The Main
Street project is an allocation of funds to support the transition of Main Street to a pedestrian-first
promenade. Funds would primarily be used to hire a consultant to provide design/planning work, code
analysis, phasing, and stakeholder engagement. The West Capitol Hill project provides additional funds
to current projects which includes construction of Marmalade Plaza, a public open space and mid-block
connection adjacent to the Marmalade Library.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
111
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
112
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
113
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
CIP BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2022-23 RDA CAPITAL PROJECTS
114
Division (Priority) / App
Ref Organization Name / Application Title
Requested
Amount Votes
Average
Recommend Committee Score
C31 400 S Safety Improvements 513,312.58 6 to 0 392,208.29 101.63
T1 200 South Reconstruction / Transit Corridor Supplement 4,500,000.00 6 to 0 3,041,666.67 94.67
C9 Three Creeks West – Roadways 1,359,130.00 4 to 1 575,000.00 92.13
T5 300 North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement 600,000.00 6 to 0 454,166.67 91.44
C27 Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden 160,819.00 5 to 0 116,491.40 90.88
C41 California Avenue Safety Improvement Study 100,000.00 5 to 0 70,000.00 90.50
C28 1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle 569,534.00 5 to 0 401,720.40 90.00
E1 Street Improvements 2022/2023 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 2,145,833.33 89.22
C40 900 West Corridor 1,000,000.00 5 to 0 460,000.00 89.00
T7 2100 South Conceptual Design / Corridor Transformation 250,000.00 6 to 0 177,083.33 88
T3 Livable Streets Implementation 3,000,000.00 4 to 2 1,875,000.00 87.67
T2 Highland Drive / 1100 E Complete Street & Parley's Trail Supplement (1700 S ‐ I‐80)3,500,000.00 6 to 0 2,145,833.33 87.56
P19 Public Lands ADA Walkway and Asphalt Replacement 873,062.00 6 to 0 528,843.67 87.22
C20 Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park Improvements 500,000.00 5 to 0 186,000.00 87.13
P18 Playground Replacement 1,874,063.00 6 to 0 1,274,687.67 86.89
C14 Madsen Park Renewal 500,000.00 5 to 0 240,000.00 86.50
P16 Asset Management Plan 160,160.00 6 to 0 106,720.00 85.22
P9 Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase I 1,767,908.00 6 to 0 4,167,287.33 85.00
C35 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 420,000.00 4 to 1 205,000.00 84.50
T4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational Investments 1,100,000.00 6 to 0 652,083.33 84.22
FA1 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 7,400,000.00 6 to 0 4,875,000.00 84.11
E4 Bridge Replacement (650 North over the Jordan River)3,700,000.00 6 to 0 3,083,333.33 84
E2 Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 750,000.00 6 to 0 447,916.67 83.56
P13 Cottonwood Park Pavilions 756,094.00 6 to 0 447,682.33 82.22
C30 400 North Street Improvement 599,746.29 4 to 1 499,873.00 81.50
P20 Court Resurfacing 1,478,739.00 5 to 1 655,747.80 81.44
T8 Ballpark Study Implementation ‐ Phase 1 500,000.00 4 to 2 475,000.00 81.33
T12 Local Streets 2023 Reconstruction Supplement 200,000.00 6 to 0 127,083.33 80.33
E3 Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 250,000.00 6 to 0 182,291.67 80.22
C22 SLC Cemetery Infrastructure Repairs 500,000.00 4 to 1 400,000.00 80.13
C29 1000 W intersection upgrades at 300 N and 400 N 539,693.00 3 to 2 346,564.33 80.00
P1 Urban Farm Development at 2200 West and Cannon Greens 425,040.00 5 to 0 298,016.00 79.5
P3 Tree Succession Design for Liberty Park 90,160.00 5 to 0 72,096.00 79.38
E6 Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 300,000.00 5 to 1 207,000.00 79.22
P2 Jordan River Tree Planting and Irrigation 210,834.00 6 to 0 124,444.67 78.67
P7 Riverview Native Plant Center Phase I 412,160.00 5 to 0 327,296.00 77.38
C38 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 400,000.00 5 to 0 240,000.00 76.86
P10 Cemetery Master Plan Project Implementation 2,231,443.00 6 to 0 1,138,573.83 76.78
T13 Replacement Traffic Signals (4)1,400,000.00 5 to 1 844,000.00 76.78
C6 Brentwood Circle Storm Water Drainage 139,129.00 4 to 1 104,346.75 76.38
T6 Multi‐modal Transportation Safety Improvements 300,000.00 6 to 0 195,833.33 76.33
2022‐23 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
Attachment 4 - FY2023 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
Division (Priority) / App
Ref Organization Name / Application Title
Requested
Amount Votes
Average
Recommend Committee Score
2022‐23 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
C23 Taufer Park Revamp 50,000.00 5 to 0 40,000.00 76.25
P8 Library Plaza Repair and Improvements 205,755.00 6 to 0 162,170.00 76.22
P4 NW Quadrant Trails and Greenway Planning 257,600.00 5 to 1 194,560.00 75.89
T11 Replacement Traffic Signal; Asset Condition Report 450,000.00 5 to 1 360,000.00 75.89
T9 Future Transformations: Corridor and Area Studies 150,000.00 4 to 2 150,000.00 74.56
C17 Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public Park 71,198.00 4 to 1 37,799.50 74.38
C19 Folsom Trail‐ Request on behalf of River District Business Alliance 500,000.00 3 to 2 500,000.00 74.00
E10 Bridge Replacement (200 South over the Jordan River) 3,500,000.00 4 to 2 3,500,000.00 73.22
P12 RAC Playground Phase II 521,564.00 6 to 0 419,115.33 73.11
E8 700 South (Phase 7 [Final Phase], 4600 West to 5000 West) 1,970,000.00 6 to 0 1,443,333.33 72.67
P14 Public Lands 5‐Year Strategic Plan 154,000.00 6 to 0 123,500.00 72.44
C10 900 South River Park Soccer Field 287,848.00 4 to 1 178,924.00 72.38
E9 Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South over the Jordan River) 1,700,000.00 5 to 1 1,700,000.00 72.13
C21 Replace Fairpark Tennis Courts with New Sports Court 496,109.00 3 to 2 398,703.00 71.88
P15 Jordan Park and International Peace Gardens Master Plan and CLR 251,160.00 5 to 1 160,232.00 70.56
C25 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, new irrigation, new tree planting 500,000.00 3 to 3 250,000.00 70
C36 Neighborhood Identification Equity Project 245,215.00 3 to 2 383,333.33 69.5
P6 Urban Wood Reutilization 206,080.00 4 to 1 154,540.00 69.38
F1 Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 856,689.61 5 to 1 17,595,130.00 68.44
P17 Memory Grove Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 341,320.00 6 to 0 210,220.00 68
C11 Gateway Triangle Property Park 499,563.00 4 to 1 337,390.75 67.88
T10 Multimodal Capital Maintenance 250,000.00 4 to 2 237,500.00 67.22
P5 Rose Park Open Space Concepts 154,560.00 4 to 1 115,920.00 66.38
C2 Back Alley Block Project 500,000.00 4 to 1 150,000.00 65.63
C13 Lindsey Gardens Natural Springs Pollinator Garden 500,000.00 2 to 3 400,000.00 65.38
E7 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2022/2023 70,000.00 3 to 3 66,666.67 65
C16 337 S 400 E Pocket Park Improvement 54,096.00 5 to 0 26,819.20 64.00
C15 Rose Park Community Pump Track 500,000.00 4 to 1 225,000.00 63.88
F2 Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 755,991.33 4 to 2 716,745.58 63.67
C34 Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety Improvements 502,000.00 2 to 3 267,875.00 63.50
C37 Yalecrest Traffic Calming 240,000.00 2 to 3 170,000.00 61.13
C32 East Bench Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety 467,929.00 3 to 2 329,309.67 61.00
C12 Jefferson Park Walking Path 500,000.00 3 to 2 433,333.33 60.88
P11 Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure 867,962.00 6 to 0 427,993.67 60.78
E5 Project Management Software Renewal 79,000.00 5 to 1 79,000.00 60.56
E11 Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 3 to 3 800,000.00 59
FA2 Streets Steam Bay Expansion 597,792.00 4 to 1 597,792.00 57.75
C24 Welcome Signage 500,000.00 3 to 2 91,666.67 57.38
C26 Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course 500,000.00 3 to 2 216,666.67 56.63
C33 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals 50,000.00 2 to 3 50,000.00 56.13
C18 First Encampment Park 363,916.00 2 to 3 75,000.00 53.25
Division (Priority) / App
Ref Organization Name / Application Title
Requested
Amount Votes
Average
Recommend Committee Score
2022‐23 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
C1 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 237,182.00 2 to 3 218,591.00 53.00
C4 South Belaire Dr road reconstruction 699,650.00 2 to 3 350,000.00 50.50
C8 Repair Alley #4195 after 9th South rebuild project 86,000.00 2 to 3 86,000.00 48
C3 Pave Benchmark Circle 75,000.00 2 to 3 75,000.00 43.50
C7 Harvey Milk Blvd. Rainbow Crosswalk 300,000.00 2 to 3 50,000.00 42.50
C5 Storm drains 1100 east south of Zenith ave 92,735.00 2 to 3 92,367.50 41.00
71,788,941.81 68,955,922.66
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund 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 Public Services $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
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 &
Public Utilities $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 Public Services $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)Public Services $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 Public Services $2,000,000
Hand Held Radios IMS $3,700,000
Complete Streets Transporation $3,700,000
Parks Maintenance Public Lands $2,000,000
Maintenance of Vacant City Owned Facilities Public Services $700,000
Totals $63,453,000 $80,000,000 $13,234,877 $5,035,000 $3,000,000 $3,360,193 $8,700,000
Total Bonds $143,453,000
Total CIP $33,330,070
Total Investment (Bonds & CIP)$176,783,070
CIP New/Maintenance Projects Recommended for Funding
Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP)
Last Updated June 6, 2022
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX
California Avenue Safety Improvement Study Transportation 100,000$
1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle Transportation 569,534$
900 West Corridor Transportation &
Public Utilities 1,000,000$
2100 South Conceptual Design / Corridor Transformation Transportation 250,000$
Livable Streets Implementation Transportation 2,700,000$ 300,000$
Highland Drive / 1100 E Complete Street & Parley's Trail
Supplement (1700 S-I-80)Transportation 245,000$ 3,255,000$
Public Lands ADA Walkway and Asphalt Replacement Public Lands 873,062$
Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park Improvements Public Lands 500,000$
Playground Replacement Public Lands 1,874,063$
Madsen Park Renewal Public Lands 500,000$
Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase I Public Lands 1,767,908$
Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Transportation 420,000$
Cottonwood Park Pavilions Public Lands 756,094$
400 North Street Improvement Transportation 599,746$
Court Resurfacing Public Lands 1,478,739$
Ballpark Study Implementation - Phase 1 Transportation 450,000$ 50,000$
Local Streets 2023 Reconstruction Supplement Transportation 200,000$
SLC Cemetery Infrastructure Repairs Public Lands 500,000$
1000 W intersection upgrades at 300 N and 400 N Transportation 539,693$
Tree Succession Design for Liberty Park Public Lands 90,160$
Jordan River Tree Planting and Irrigation Public Lands 210,834$
Riverview Native Plant Center Phase 1A Public Lands 412,160$
Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 Transportation 400,000$
Replacement Traffic Signals (4)Transportation 1,260,000$ 140,000$
Brentwood Circle Storm Water Drainage Public Utilities 160,129$
Multi-modal Transportation Safety Improvements Transportation 270,000$ 30,000$
Taufer Park Revamp Public Lands 50,000$
Library Plaza Repair and Improvements Public Lands 205,755$
Replacement Traffic Signal; Asset Condition Report Transportation 415,000$ 35,000$
NW Quadrant trails and Greenway Planning Public Lands 257,600$
Future Transformations: Corridor and Area Studies Transportation 150,000$
Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public Park Public Lands 71,198$
Folsom Trail- Request on behalf of River District Business Alliance Transportation 500,000$
Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River)Public Services 3,500,000$
Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan Public Lands 154,000$
Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South over the Jordan River)Public Services 1,700,000$
Replace Fairpark Tennis Courts with New Sports Court Public Lands 496,109$
Jordan Park and International Peace Gardens Master Plan and CLR Public Lands 251,160$
1200 East Median, Raise Curb, new irrigation, new tree planting Public Lands 500,000$
Neighborhood Identification Equity Project Transportation 245,215$
Urban Wood Reutilization Public Lands 206,080$
Mixed-Use Three-Story Fire Prop Fire 856,690$
Memory Grove Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report Public Lands 341,320$
Gateway Triangle Property Park Public Lands 499,563$
Multimodal Capital Maintenance Transportation 225,000$ 25,000$
CIP Projects NOT Recommeded for Funding (in order of CDCIP Board Scores)
Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP)
Last Updated June 6, 2022
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX
Rose Park Open Space Concepts Public Lands 154,560$
Back Alley Block Project Public Services 517,500$
Lindsey Gardens Natural Springs Pollinator Garden Public Lands 500,000$
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2022/2023 Public Services 70,000$
337 S 400 E Pocket Park Improvement Public Lands 54,096$
Rose Park Community Pump Track Public Lands 498,584$
Training Ground Site Improvements Fire 755,991$
Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety Improvements Transportation 514,688$
Yalecrest Traffic Calming Transportation 240,000$
East Bench Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Transportation 467,929$
Jefferson Park Walking Path Public Lands 496,472$
Project Management Software Renewal Public Services 79,999$
Wingpointe Levee Design Public Services 800,000$
Welcome Signage Transportation 500,000$
Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course Public Lands 500,000$
Sugar House Crosswalk Murals Transportation 50,000$
First Encampment Park Public Lands 363,916$
1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Public Services &
Public Utilities 275,919$
South Belaire Dr Road Reconstruction Public Services 699,650$
Repair Alley #4195 after 9th South rebuild project Public Services 72,450$
Pave Benchmark Circle Public Services 199,307$
Harvey Milk Blvd. Rainbow Crosswalk Transportation 459,346$
Storm Drains 1100 East South of Zenith Ave Public Utilities 92,735$
Notes:
The Public Services Department includes the Facilities Division (city owned buildings) and the Engineering Division (street and alley projects)
The GF FOF column includes funding proposed for parks maintenance and an amount "off the top" available to any capital project
The Impact Fees column includes transportation impact fees and parks impact fees
Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP)
Last Updated June 6, 2022
2
1
0
1
6
ATTACHMENT 6 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP
and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high
alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Parks 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 $168,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K $700,000
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K $75,000-$100,000
Cultural Landscape Report $75,000-$150,000
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K $200,000-$300-000
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000 $35000- $50,000
Playground Replacement $150K - $250K $450,000-$550,000
Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-$500,000
Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000 $250,000
Fencing (6 ft. vinyl coated chain link)$45.00-$55.00/LF
Patch, repair and paint $150,000 $168,000
New post tension court $250,000 $300,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (40"
width)$6-12/LF $25.00-$30.00/LF
Machine-built natural-surface trail (40" width)$20-25/LF $10.00-$15.00/LF
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF $5.00/SF
Concrete Trail (6" thick)$4.50/SF $8.00/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF $6.00-$10.00/ SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K $ 280,000-$392,000
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+$75,000 +
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350 $750
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K $ 112,000- $224,000
Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+$600,000+
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile) 2,000+$2,500+
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000 $500,000-1,000,000
Traffic Signals - New 250,000$ 350,000.00$
Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$ 350,000.00$
HAWK Signals 130,000$ 150,000.00$
Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$ $75,000
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$ $30,000
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K $18,000-$27,000
Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$ $9,500
Speed Table / Raised Crosswalk 25,000$ $30,000
Pedestrian Refuge Island 10,000$ $12,000
Curb Extension at Intersection 20,000$ $25,000
Crosswalk 1,600$ $1,800
Streets 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$ 335,000$
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$ 6,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$ 600,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M $840,000 - $1,440,000
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$ $5
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10 $8 - $12
Note: Last updated July 2021
Studies
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Regular CIP Project Costs
General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (which may be out of date), vary by project, and do
not include on-going maintenance.
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
Attachment 7
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658$
8317361 Street Reconstruction Improv 49$
8314031 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320$
8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program 18,573$
8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru 14,522$
8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047$
8318154 1300 E Class C 442,501$
8319502 Street Overlay 19 287$
8315015 Fire Station #14 furnishings 158$
8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap 25,336$
8316027 Bikeways, Citywide 60$
8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 103,182$
8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 13,195$
8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond 45,978$
8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction 408,037$
8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements 16,990$
8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 9,661$
8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 21,634$
8317055 Capital Facilities Plan 4,928$
8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio 7,733$
8318028 Bridge Maintenance 76,504$
8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails 90,035$
8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 237,581$
8318048 Miller Park ADA access 367,835$
8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control 5,908$
8318053 Parks and Rec HVAC 9,900$
8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP 110,104$
8319406 11th Ave Pavilion and Signage 33,596$
8319401 Glendale Park Playground Path 43,476$
8619405 Sugarhouse Pavilion Con to CO 112,000$
8319701 Library Parking Equipment 170,689$
8319621 Traffic Signals Upgrade 1$
8319407 Imperial Park Shade Structure (1,400)$ Why is this negative?
8319622 1400 E Sunnyside Intersection 64,663$
8619603 Saw Cutting Sidewalk 1,216$
8619604 Proactive Sidewalk 984$
8619402 City-wide Park Walkway Safety 5,386$
8619411 Westside Trail Connections 249,923$
8619624 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration 35,322$
8619408 Lindsay Garden Concession 53,692$
8619409 Fairmont Stream Access Beautif 102,949$
Class C
General Fund
8619702 C & C Square Master Plan 223$
8319619 1900 East Reconsruction 68,503$
8319616 Whitlock Curb and Gutter 18,910$
8319403 RAC Shade Structure and Playgr 35,575$
8319405 Rose Park Multiloop Trail 148,007$
8319301 Delong & Parks Yard Improvemen 19,931$
8319721 Millcreek Sugarhouse GF 486$
8319741 WestsideMultimodal GF 29,658$
8319751 Life on State CIP 82,945$
8319900 Transportation Acctg SalesTax 1,130$
8412002 Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 124,593$
8413001 Study for Fire House #3 15,700$
8415002 Fire Station #3 1,568$
8416004 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 42,833$
8416005 9line park 18,411$
8416006 Fire Station #14 44,612$
8416009 Fire Station #3 469$
8417007 Transportation Safety Improvem 1,444$
8418002 Cwide Dog Lease Imp 530$
8418003 Bikeway Urban Trails 187,516$
8418005 Bridge to Backman 275,475$
8406001 Gladiola Street 2,244$
8418013 Police Refunds 3,588$
4,264,564$
Impact Fees
TOTAL of ALL SOURCES
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: 5/11/2022
Lisa Schaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 5/11/2022
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 11, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Director, Department of Economic Development
SUBJECT: New Ordinance Requirements for Art Maintenance Reporting
STAFF CONTACTS:
Felicia Baca, felicia.baca@slcgov.com, 385-256-5588
Renato Olmedo-Gonzaléz, Renato.olmedo-gonzalez@slcgov.com, 801-824-9122
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational
RECOMMENDATION: n/a
BUDGET IMPACT: Portion of existing CIP budget already designated, no additional
impact.
COORDINTATION: n/a
ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS:
“2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS:
A.WHEN SO DESIGNATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, IN ITS APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS SHALL
EXPEND, AS A NONDEDUCTIBLE ITEM OUT OF ANY MONIES APPROPRIATED FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (1.5%) OF SUCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION AND
INSTALLATION OF WORKS OF ART AND ORNAMENTATION, TEN TO TWENTY PERCENT (10-20%) OF WHICH WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE PUBLIC
ART MAINTENANCE FUND AND USED TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE FOR EXISTING WORKS OF ART. THE MAYOR SHALL PROVIDE A REPORT
TO CITY COUNCIL OF WORKS OF ART THAT REQUIRE MAINTENANCE AND THE ESTIMATED COST OF SUCH MAINTENANCE PRIOR
TO THE FUNDS BEING DEPOSITED IN THE PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND.
BACKGROUND:
The public art program recommends to the Finance Department that 20% of CIP funds
are deposited in FY23 to the maintenance fund based on the following report. This
report was also sent to Mary Beth Thompson for the maintenance allocation.
Lisa Shaffer (May 11, 2022 15:36 MDT)
We additionally have included a report on FY22 Completed/In-Progress Artwork
Maintenance Projects.
In the last three years, Salt Lake City has implemented important and necessary
revisions to the Salt Lake City Arts Council’s Public Art Program. The incredible support
and meaningful funding provided by the Mayor and City Council established the
foundations of a comprehensive maintenance plan, which effectively secures the future
safeguarding and stewardship City’s art assets. Since its establishment in 1984, the Salt
Lake City Arts Council’s Public Art Program has lacked the proper structural and policy
procedures, including a source of adequate funding, necessary for the proper care and
upkeep of its rich and vast public art collection.
These important revisions to the Public Art Program can be summarized in the
following:
• A significant, one-time allocation of approximately ~$200,000 in FY20 by City
Council for the Public Art Program to identify its maintenance needs and fully
understand the status of its permanent public art collection. Through this
funding, the Public Art Program contracted Dodworth & Stauffer Art Appraisal
and Consulting and commissioned a Condition & Inventory Assessment Report
that surveyed 150 public artworks located in City-owned parks, streets, plazas,
and buildings, as well as 92 artworks located at the City & County Building. Each
artwork was assigned a Priority Code Ranking from 1 to 4 with notes on each
item’s installation and condition with recommended actions for maintenance and
repair. The criteria for each of the priority codes are as follows: [1] Immediate
action: structural issues, visually unsightly; [2] Moderate action: peeling paint,
early corrosion, etc.; [3] Cleaning / waxing; and [4] Condition acceptable. This
Condition & Inventory Assessment is the guiding document for conducting
artwork repairs;
• In early 2021, City Council amended Ordinance 2.30, which established the City’s
Public Art Program in 1984. This amendment established a permanent
maintenance and provided a structure for annual funding, which is determined
by the Council-approved Capital Improvement Program (10-20% of the total
monies given to the program through the 1.5%/Percent-for-Art annual
allocation). Furthermore, this amendment enabled the Public Art Program to
adopt a deaccession policy (removal of an artwork from the permanent
collection). A deaccession policy was officially adopted by the Salt Lake Art
Design Board in December 2021.
FY22 COMPLETED & IN-PROGRESS ARTWORK MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS:
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 $176,067.047 (Attachment
A). Through the annual Percent-for-Art funding approved in early 2021, the Public Art
Program allocated $20,266 towards the maintenance fund (15% of the total amount
funded for public art by City Council).
Our program’s FY22 maintenance efforts, which ranged greatly in scope, duration, and
total cost, established the foundations of our program’s maintenance strategy. In FY22
we addressed a combination of Priority 1 artworks (a stolen artwork that was addressed
for repaired had been identified as Priority 2 prior to the theft) and other unexpected
repairs (UR) due to immediate damage or theft. In total, 4 artworks within the Priority 1
Category were addressed. Two other artworks maintained during FY22 were repaired
using funds not in our established maintenance fund (e.g., monies from insurance
settlements, etc.). The Public Art Program works closely with the City’s Risk Manager in
these cases to determine and secure these funding sources. Another artwork, Fire House
Fire, was considered by the Art Design Board for deaccession, but this body ultimately
voted in favor of refabricating it.
These maintenance efforts conducted in FY22 have provided our program with an
outlook that illustrates the various needs and obstacles our program will face as it
continues to address the maintenance needs of the rest of our permanent collection.
Each artwork maintenance project is different, with some requiring more staff time and
funding than others.
FY23 MAINTENANCE PROJECTIONS:
For FY23, the Public Art Program intends to address the maintenance needs of 21
artworks in its permanent collection, for a projected total cost of $110,825 (the entirety
of this funding will come from the Public Art Maintenance Fund). A contingency of
$15,000 has been included in this total, in order to plan for future unexpected repairs
(Attachment B). After City Council approves the FY23 CIP budget, the Percent-for-Art
allocation will be issued to the Arts Council for its Public Art Program. We recommend
that 20% of this total will be directed towards the Maintenance Fund. This amount,
which will not become known until later this year, has not been included in these
projections. Our program aims to use these promised maintenance funds towards any
potential deaccession costs (artwork removal) and/or further addressing the needs of
the remaining Priority 2 artworks.
Our FY23 maintenance workplan 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). Most of our current
available funding will be devoted to the artworks in the first category. In total, there are
93 maintenance recommendations identified by the Condition & Inventory Assessment
Report (not including replacement of didactic plaques for 36 artworks). Our FY23
maintenance projections, in addition to our FY22 efforts already conducted, will
effectively address 22% of these recommendations. We have the ability of addressing a
large quantity of these repairs because they will be done by a single contractor. Lastly,
up to four different artworks will be considered or have been recommended for
deaccession from our permanent collection.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The findings of the Condition & Assessment Report and the establishment of an
adequate maintenance plan have been a significant milestone achieved by our program.
During FY22, the Public Art Program made great strides at implementing a
maintenance strategy that is responsive to the needs of our public art collection—an
invaluable City cultural asset—and adequately considers our staff capacity to handle
these. Each artwork requires its own unique strategy for proper maintenance, impacting
the number of repairs that can be conducted at any given point. Additionally, the cost,
project scope, and availability of materials needed for repairs are variables that
continuously impact our ability to make progress on our immediate and future
maintenance plans.
The FY23 Maintenance Projections will nearly deplete our current maintenance fund
(see Attachment B). Although there is now a mechanism in place to guarantee a 10-20%
allocation of Percent-for-Art funding for our program’s maintenance needs, additional
funds will be necessary to address the remaining artworks identified as priorities within
our public art collection in future years
In addition to the maintenance accomplishments and objectives described throughout
this document, the Public Art Program will focus a great deal of its FY23 efforts towards
fulfilling Mayor Mendenhall’s 2022 goal of address gaps in public arts projects. A
number of public artworks currently located in multiple City-owned facilities pre-date
the establishment of the Public Art Program in Salt Lake City (e.g., Gilgal Sculpture
Garden, International Peace Gardens, etc.) or have been created outside the Percent-for-
Art funding structure (RDA funding, for example). Our program will aim to address
proper stewardship and care for these important City art assets through a formal
acquisition process that also ensures their future care and safeguarding. Overall, the
remaining number of unmaintained artworks, and finite funding remain the biggest
obstacles impacting our future maintenance efforts.
Thanks to the generous support, trust, and funding received from the Mayor and City
Council, our Public Art Program developed a comprehensive maintenance strategy that
began to address gaps within our public art collection.
The full maintenance condition & inventory assessment can be found here.
Attachments:
Attachment A: FY2022 Completed and in-progress artwork maintenance projects
Attachment B: FY2023 Artwork maintenance projections
ATTACHMENT A: FY22 Completed & In-Progress Artwork Maintenance Projects
5
FY22 Artwork Maintenance Projects
Priority Artist
Artwork
title District Notes
Funding
Source Actual cost
1 Doug
Soelberg
Deadly
Virtues 4
Repairs to be completed in March
2022. Artwork damaged during May
2020 protests demanding racial
justice.
Maintenance
Fund $20,354.00
1 Ric
Blackberry
Bird in a
Plane 4
Completed fall 2021. Object recovered
from storage, repaired, and
reinstalled.
Maintenance
Fund $ 2,500.00
1 Various Untitled
(Labyrinth) 2 Completed summer 2021. Various
repairs conducted.
Maintenance
Fund $ 6,250.00
1
Ben Jones
and Cary
Stevens
Jones
Fire House
Fire 6
Refabrication of object will be
completed in the coming months.
This artwork was considered for
deaccession by Art Design Board and
was ultimately chosen to be
refabricated.
Maintenance
Fund $ 37,656.47
UR*
Traci
O'Very
Covey
Imagine 4 Completed in fall 2021. Bottom of
vinyl mural reprinted and replaced
Maintenance
Fund $ 620.00
UR* Dan
Gerhart
Bonneville
Reliquary II 7 Reinstallation of object in March
2022. Object damaged in traffic
accident (hit-and-run) in fall 2021.
Maintenance
Fund $ 10,187.00
UR*/2
Jim Jacobs
and Silvia
Davis
Crystal
Grate 4
Reinstallation of object in August
2022.Refabrication of 6 bronze cast
tree grates. Stolen in summer 2021
from Gallivan Center. Refabrication
cost to be paid for a settlement, with
remaining funds provided by the
RDA.
Insurance
settlement;
RDA
$ 55,300.00
6
Priority Artist
Artwork
title District Notes
Funding
Source Actual cost
UR* Ed
Fraughton
Finding the
Way (Parley
P. Pratt
monument)
7
Reinstallation of object in March
2022. Maintenance included
extensive repairs to sculpture and
reinstallation of masonry base.
Artwork damaged in a traffic accident
(hit by a semitruck). Refabrication
cost to be paid for through a
settlement with insurance company,
with remaining funds provided by the
RDA.
Insurance
settlement /
reimbursement
$43,200.00
*UR - Unexpected repair
FY22 EXPENSES PAID FROM MAINTENANCE
FUND
$ 77,567.47
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR FY22 PUBLIC ART
MAINTENANCE
$176,067.47
ATTACHMENT B: FY23 Artwork Maintenance Projections
7
FY23 Artwork Maintenance Projections
Priority Artist Artwork title District Notes Cost Estimate
1 John Swain Untitled 4 Clean, strip, and repaint $ 2,550.00
1 Kinde Nebeker Untitled 3 Cast 14 bronze plaques @
$1,985.00 each $ 27,790.00
1 Various Garden Silhouettes 4 Refabricate and replace missing
silhouettes $ 7,560.00
1 Robert Ellison Tweak 360 2 Clean and repaint sculpture $ 6,625.00
1 Dave Eddy Red Fans 4 Remove, repaint, and reinstall $ 4,480.00
1 John Hess Eurythmy 5 Relocate to a new, City-owned
facility $ -
1 Day Christensen,
Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks 4
Various repairs to
infrastructure; site
improvements
$ 9,000.00
1 Wayne Chubin Friends of the Park 5 Recommended deaccession $ -
1 Thomas Tessman Pierpont Benches 4 Recommended deaccession $ -
1 Eric Thelander Sugar House Benches 7 Recommended deaccession $ -
1 Various Untitled at Bend in
the River 2 Further assessment needed
(potential deaccession) $ -
2 Day Christensen Trees (Maple) 5 Address rust issues and
determine further deterioration $ 2,470.00
2 Holly Christmas Flight of Fancy 4 Repair top and reinstall $ 3,565.00
2 Greg Ragland Three Peas in a Pod 2 Repair ends of three peas
elements $ 2,615.00
2 Cordell Taylor Order to Chaos 4 Repair or replace corroded areas
& repaint $ 4,575.00
2 Sam Allen Untitled 4 Clean and repaint sculpture $ 1,545.00
2 Ethan Barley Anthocyanin 4 Repaint both sculptures to
prevent additional loss $ 1,800.00
2 Lena Konopasek McClelland Trail:
Spurt 5 Remove graffiti and repaint $ 2,775.00
8
Priority Artist Artwork title District Notes Cost Estimate
2 Unknown Herman Franks 5 Sculpt, mold, and replace
missing bronze bat $ 5,975.00
2 Wayne Chubin, Tim
Gallagher Signal Site 1 Various repairs to infrastructure $ 4,500.00
2 Ed Dolinger Untitled 4 Repaint 24 objects $ 8,000.00
Contingency for unexpected repairs
$ 15,000.00
TOTAL EXPENSES FOR
FUTURE PUBLIC ART
MAINTENANCE*
*All monies to come from
Maintenance Fund
$ 110,825.00
Funds available in Maintenance
Cost Center $ 111,762.95
Anticipated balance (not
including FY23 allocation) $ 937.95
Type FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
Constituent 10 13 19 14 0 24 41
Departmental 67 37 35 40 19 50 49
Totals 77 50 54 54 19 74 90
10 13 19 14
0
24
41
67
37
35 40
19
50
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY)
Constituent Departmental
Attachment 10 - Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type
Bond
When does the
Council need to
decide?
Who picks
projects and
amounts?
What kinds
of projects
are eligible?
Who has final
approval
power?
How is it repaid?When must funds be
spent?What else to know?
Sales Tax
Revenue
Bond
No legal deadline for
Council to decide
Council selects
projects and
funding
amounts
Capital
improvement
projects but not
operations or
maintenance*
Council makes
final decision
The General Fund transfers to
CIP each year to cover debt
payments on sales tax revenue
bonds
A taxable sales tax bond
must have funds spent
within three years of
issuance
A tax-exempt bond does not
have a spending deadline
Second cheapest way for the
City to issue debt
Subject to debt coverage
ratio which is less than GO
Bonds
General
Obligation
(G.O.) Bond
August 16 is the last
regularly scheduled
Council meeting to
place on the November
2022 ballot
Decision must be at
least 75 days before
Election Day
Council selects
projects and
funding
amounts
Capital
improvement
projects but not
operations or
maintenance*
Voters make final
decision
Voters approve a property tax
increase on themselves when
approving G.O. bonds, and that
levy directly pays the bond
debt
The levy is automatically
eliminated when the bond is
paid off, so property taxes go
back down
Bond must be issued within
10 years of voter approval
Issuing bonds sooner is
preferrable because inflation
decreases purchasing power
over time
This is the cheapest way for
the City to issue debt
Tax exempt properties do
not pay
Subject to a debt coverage
ratio which is relatively high
*Up to 5% can be spent on operations and maintenance directly related to the bond-funded projects per IRS regulations and Utah law further limits this to a one-year period
Comparison Table of Sales Tax and GO Bond Questions
Last Updated June 7, 2022 Salt Lake City Council Office
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland
Public Policy & Budget Analyst
DATE:June 9, 2022
RE: FY2023 BUDGET – REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE INTENTS AND INTERIM STUDY
ITEMS
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES: 109-118
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
As part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget, the Administration provided responses to the Legislative Intent
Statements that the Council adopted last year with the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) annual budget. Since that budget
was adopted, the Council held two mid-year update discussions about the Legislative Intents, on September 7,
2021, and April 12, 2022. The typical Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents is included as
Attachment C1.
The chart below summarizes the status of each of these Intents, and includes Council staff recommendations to
either leave open, or to close. Recommendations to close (or consider closing) include whether the item would
then be considered complete or would continue indefinitely as a policy change.
The Administration’s full responses to the Legislative Intents can be found in the FY23 Mayor’s Recommended
Budget, pages 109-118.
Goal of the briefing: Review the status of past years’ Legislative Intents, consider options, and potentially
straw poll Council support for changing the status on specific items. Note: if Council Members don’t indicate
otherwise, staff will proceed according to the recommendations below.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 9, 2022
Budget Hearings: May 24, June 7
Potential Action: June 14 (TBD)
2
KEY BUDGET ISSUES & POLICY QUESTIONS
A. Attorney’s Office
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY21 – Decriminalization Review
of City Code. It is the intent of the
Council that an in-depth review be
conducted of the City Code to consider
items that could be de-criminalized.
Council staff could work with Council
Members and the City Attorney’s Office
to draft a scope and come back with a
report on the timeline.
Open.
The initial review of City code, which included a law
student clerk and the Prosecutor’s Office, revealed
that more attention and expertise will be needed to
complete this review, including involvement of the
Prosecutor’s Office. The project will be continued in
the coming fiscal year.
The Council may wish to ask whether
there is an estimated completion date,
and when an update will be available.
B. Community and Neighborhoods Department
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY22 - Update Boarded-Building
Fee. It is the intent of the Council that
the Administration propose a boarded
building fee that includes the full City
costs of monitoring and responding by
Police, Fire and other City departments
at these properties.
Open.
“The cost analysis related to this Legislative Intent
has been finalized. The program is being developed.”
The Council may wish to ask whether
there is an estimated completion date for
the program, and when a Council
briefing could take place.
FY22 - Trips-to-Transit Expansion
Evaluation. It is the intent of the
Council that the Administration provide
their strategy for evaluating whether to
expand the Trips-to-Transit program,
which will begin to serve Westside
neighborhoods in late 2021, to other
areas of the City.
Open.
The Transportation Division uses ridership levels
and cost-per-rider data as guides to potential
expansion. Data from Phase 1 (service to Westside
communities) will be available in the next year or
two and will allow the Transportation Division to
forecast the potential for expansion in these
neighborhoods.
The Council may wish to ask whether
there is an estimated date that Phase 1
3
data will become available, and when a
Council update could take place.
FY21 - Transfer Housing Trust
Fund Development Loans and
Payments to RDA. The Council
intends to transfer the Housing Trust
Fund’s housing development-loan-
related balances and payments to be
overseen by the RDA. During FY20,
HAND and the RDA developed a detailed
“housing framework” for consideration
by the RDA Board and the Council.
These bodies may wish to schedule time
once the FY21 budget is complete to
finalize this work, which may include
changes to City ordinances and/or board
policies.
Open.
The Housing Stability Division continues to
administer these loans and assist the HTF Advisory
Board. This year, the Finance Department will
prepare a budget amendment to transfer the balance
sheet of the loans, and coordinate with RDA for a
corresponding budget amendment to accept the
balance sheet. Once the loans are transferred, the
Attorney’s Office will prepare and review with the
Council the needed code modifications related to
restructuring the HTF Advisory Board.
C. Finance Department
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY22 - Expanded Funding Our
Future Definition. It is the intent of
the Council that the definition of “public
safety” for allocation of Funding Our
Future revenue include not only the
Police Department, Fire Department,
and 911 Dispatch, but also any social
workers and non-emergency traffic
enforcement programs which are
designed to expand the City’s public
safety alternative response model. (Note:
The current definition included Fire and
911 Dispatch since FY2020.)
Open.
The “public safety” allocations have been expanded
to include social workers, park rangers, and MRT
(Medical Response Team) crews.
The Council may wish to request
information on the planned non-emergency
(civilian) traffic enforcement program,
which is an element of the original
legislative intent.
D. Police Department
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY21 - Police Department Role. It is the intent of the Council to re-evaluate the role the City asks
the Police Department to play, and the budget to fulfill that role, and ask the Administration to
evaluate moving certain programs out of the Police Department, like park rangers and social workers,
4
and potentially add a function to the Human Resources Department to enhance the independence of
the Internal Affairs unit.
a. Park Rangers.Close and complete.
The Park Rangers program was shifted to the Public
Lands Department and will be staffed by civilians.
The Police Department’s dedicated Park Bike Squad
will continue to provide a police presence in City
parks to deter criminal activity, engage with
residents, and work with Public Lands employees to
address ongoing law enforcement issues like illegal
camping, curfew violations, drug use, thefts, and
violent crimes.
b. Social Workers.Open.
As hiring proceeds to fill the additional nine social
worker positions authorized in the FY22 budget,
covering evening and weekend shifts will become
easier.
The Council may wish to ask for an
update on the number of positions filled
and the share of evening and weekend
shifts now covered.
c. Internal Affairs Unit.Open.
The Department hired a civilian director for the
Internal Affairs Unit, which is now part of the
Chief’s Office. The director works closely with the
City’s Human Resources Department, the
independent Civilian Review Board, and the public.
This director is not a sworn officer, which allows for
continuity and steady leadership since the position
is not subject to rotating assignments.
The Legislative Intent indicated that the
Council’s interest was “to enhance the
independence of the Internal Affairs
unit.” The Council may wish to ask how
this new position helps further that
goal, and whether the City’s Human
Resources Department has taken on
any new roles.
d. Police Civilian Response Team
(CRT).
Open.
The CRT is planned as a response to police-related
calls for service that are categorized as low-hazard
5
and non-emergency. A Police Department steering
committee is working through the logistics of adding
this program, like training, job and duty
descriptions, policies and procedures.
The Council may wish to ask when the
hiring for the CRT will begin, and how
many FTEs will be hired for this new
role.
FY21 - Police Department Zero-
based Budget Exercise. It is the
intent of the Council to hire an
independent auditor to evaluate each line
item in the Police Department budget
with the goal of conducting a zero-based
budget exercise, which takes the budget
apart and builds it back in a way that
aligns with the policy goals of the
Council, Mayor and public. A report back
to the Council would happen in
September, or sooner if possible.
Open.
As a step toward zero-based budgeting, the Police
Department participated in the Administration’s
initial efforts to undertake program-based budgeting
during the formulation of the FY23 Mayor’s
Recommended Budget. This process cannot get fully
underway until the migration to the City’s new
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) is complete.
Would the Council like to request
additional information on the
Administration’s adoption of a program-
based budgeting process, like any
challenges encountered, and plans for the
FY24 process?
FY21 – Police Department
Reporting Ordinance. The Council
intends to work with the Attorney’s
Office to create an ordinance that
establishes reporting requirements for
internal information collected by and
related to the Police Department.
Open.
“Response forthcoming”
Would the Council like to ask about any
obstacles the Department or the City’s
Attorney’s Office have encountered in
working on this legislative intent?
E. Public Lands Department
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY22 – Golf Fund Update. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide
information on the following items in anticipation of a work session briefing to review and discuss
options for the Golf Fund. (Note: this item consolidates Legislative Intents from FY21, FY20, and
FY19.)
6
a. Golf Fund Financial
Sustainability: Trends in
revenues, expenditures.
Close and complete.
See Council Budget Staff Report for FY23 for updated
details.
Some Council Members expressed
interest in scheduling additional
briefings on long-term plans for Golf
Fund Financial Sustainability.
b.Long-term CIP Plans: based
on current projections and the
recently completed short-term
CIP plan.
Close and complete.
See Council Budget Staff Report for FY23 for updated
details.
Some Council Members expressed
interest in scheduling additional
briefings on long-term plans for Golf
Fund Financial Sustainability.
c.Golf Food and Beverage
Options: A review of the
specific open space zoning
ordinances, with the goal of
removing barriers to providing
additional food and beverage
options in golf courses. To the
extent that barriers exist in
State law the Council requests
an analysis of those, and that
changing them be identified as a
future legislative priority.
Open.
This part of the Legislative Intent specifies that the
Golf Division should review the specific open space
zoning ordinances with the goal of removing barriers
to providing additional food and beverage options in
golf courses. The Council also requested an analysis
of any barriers that might exist in State law, and that
changing these laws be identified as a future
legislative priority. The Division’s response included
the following information:
- In August of 2021, the contracted concessionaire
for 5 of the 6 Salt Lake City golf courses ended
their agreement with the City after 15 months of
operations, citing financial losses. These losses
came despite the Golf Division waiving their fees
and all revenue sharing for the entirety of 2020
due to the pandemic disruption.
- The Golf Division continued operations of the
cafes at the five courses for the remainder of
2021. However, the courses were not able to offer
beer sales, which make up most of the
concessionaire’s profits. The course cafes lost a
significant amount of revenue while trying to still
provide café services to golf patrons.
- City Code 15.08.050 makes it unlawful for a
person to consume beer in a City park, unless it is
a park in which the City has expressly granted a
7
concessionaire operating in the park a license to
sell beer. The City’s golf courses are “parks” as
defined in chapter 15.04.
- The Golf Division has re-published the
concessionaire RFP and hopes to contract with
replacement concessionaires at the five locations
for the 2022 season and beyond. However,
absent new concessionaire contracts, the Golf
Division will offer reduced services at the
remaining courses.
- The two main obstacles to providing additional
food and beverage services are:
1. Lack of interest from potential
concessionaires due to lack of revenue
potential.
2. The State restriction to the City as an
applicant for beer license.
- The Golf Division has proposed reducing the fee
structure for potential concessionaires to make
operating a golf course café more profitable. It is
also looking into areas of additional investment
within the café spaces to help make the
operations more attractive to both
concessionaires and customers.
Would the Council like to request an
update on this situation for the 2022 golf
season?
FY22 - Public Lands Maintenance
[Funding Estimates]. It is the intent
of the Council that the Administration
provide an estimate of the funding that
would be needed to adequately maintain
all of the City's public lands. This
estimate should include the number of
FTEs, as well as supplies, equipment,
and appropriate signage.
Open.
The Public Lands Department is working on an
estimate of funding needs, based on a complex
framework that includes full staffing at appropriate
wages, replacement of failing infrastructure, and
unfunded responsibilities, including tasks like weed
abatement and tree maintenance.
F. Public Services Department
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY15 Maintenance of Business
Districts. It is the intent of the Council
to hold a briefing regarding the costs of
Open.
8
enhanced services provided to the
Central Business District, in order to
consider: a) revising how City services
are provided and paid for, b) services
that may be offered to other established
or developing Business Districts in the
City, and c) maintenance of amenity
upgrades (such as lighting and benches).
It is also the intent of the Council that
this discussion happen in time to
incorporate any changes into the renewal
of the Central Business District
agreement and Sugar House Business
District.
Several years ago, Public Services reported having
had productive discussions with RDA staff about
various models to fund maintenance. Discussions
focused on Central 9th and Regent Streets and
included considering how parking can support
business district maintenance. Nothing further has
been reported since.
The Council might wish to schedule a
briefing on this topic with the
Administration to reanimate
discussions.
G. RDA
Title Staff Status Assessment
FY22 - Energy Efficiency as a
Condition of any RDA Project
Loans and Investments. It is the
intent of the Council/Board that all RDA
project loans and investments require
certain energy efficiency standards be
met as a condition of funding by January
1, 2022.
Close and continue.
The RDA Board/Council adopted a Sustainability
Policy during a December 2021 meeting.
FY22 - Structure of Accounts within
RDA and All Other Departments,
including Fund Balances and
Previous Capital Projects. It is the
intent of the Council/Board to review the
full structure of RDA accounts with RDA
and Finance Staff, including fund
balances and capital projects funded in
previous years. The Board may wish to
discuss with the RDA and Finance staff
the best way to get this information on a
real-time basis. Staff note: The City’s
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
effort will help in tracking/providing
this information in a less labor-intensive
way, although the horizon for full
implementation could be a year or
longer.
Open.
The RDA responded, “The efforts requested in this
Legislative Intent are being undertaken as part of
the preparation for the implementation of the new
ERP system.”
9
ATTACHMENT
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents.
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Briefing #1: Post-budget discussion
Transmittal: August
Work Session: September
Purpose:
o Q & A with department representatives
o Workshop to refine the legislative intents
o Receive information from the departments – what’s been tried and/or whether
they would like to propose a better approach, etc.
o Early status information, first-round thoughts, feedback
Briefing #2: Mid-year status update –Timed to coincide with BA 3 or 4
Transmittal: January - February
Work Session: March
Purpose:
o Briefing from Department representatives
o Mid-year update on progress made, department response, impact to budget if
any, etc.
o This is not expected to be a 100% complete report or close-out, but rather a mid-
term update
Briefing #3: Combined with annual budget report
Transmittal: No separate transmittal; information and updates included or apparent in
annual budget information
Work Session: Intents would be discussed as part of department annual budget briefings
Purpose:
o Continue tracking legislative intents and close out as applicable
o Refine status and next steps for the coming fiscal year
Exceptions: Some items may have a separate timeline identified and those will be considered
separately.
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 9th, 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
Dan Dugan (Jun 13, 2022 20:22 MDT)
Dan Dugan Jun 13, 2022
Sworn statement for closed meeting held on
6-9-22
Final Audit Report 2022-06-14
Created:2022-06-10
By:Matthew Brown (matthew.brown1@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAACKxMBthul8a2Nw3QXi25UaLl_HWcKkWc
"Sworn statement for closed meeting held on 6-9-22" History
Document created by Matthew Brown (matthew.brown1@slcgov.com)
2022-06-10 - 7:16:00 PM GMT
Document emailed to Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-06-10 - 7:16:34 PM GMT
Email viewed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
2022-06-14 - 2:21:57 AM GMT
Document e-signed by Dan Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-06-14 - 2:22:10 AM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-06-14 - 2:22:10 AM GMT