06/12/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
June 12, 2023 Monday 1:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
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.
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.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 11:42:08
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24
1.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund –
Salt Lake Sandwich Company, LLC.~ 1:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $100,000
loan for Salt Lake Sandwich Company, Inc., at 1408 West Arapahoe Ave. from the
Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Salt Lake Sandwich Company is a Poplar
Grove based breakfast focused food truck. This loan will assist in the creation of 3.5 new
jobs in the next year.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Monday, June 12, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 13, 2023
2.Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget: Unresolved Issues Follow-up ~ 1:20 p.m.
120 min
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about unresolved issues relating to the
proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 25, 2023; Thursday, June 1, 2023; Tuesday, June 6, 2023 and
Monday, June 12, 2023
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 and Tuesday, June 6,
2023 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Standing Items
3.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
4.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.
5.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 Friday, June 9, 2023, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does
hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt
Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have
indicated interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay
service 711.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:June 12, 2023
RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO SALT LAKE
SANDWICH COMPANY, LLC, AT 1408 W ARAPAHO AVENUE
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a
business called Salt Lake Sandwich Company, LLC, a Poplar Grove based breakfast focused food truck. The
City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $100,000 loan at 8.25%
interest over seven years to this business for equipment and working capital. This loan will assist in the creation
of 3.5 new jobs in the next year.
For context, the nationwide median small business commercial and industrial loan rates for the fourth quarter
of 2022 (the most recent data available), were 6.44% for fixed-rate loans, and 7.44% for variable rate loans,
according to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Small Business Lending Survey.i These rates were 4.14% and 4.32%,
respectively in the first quarter of that year. Interest rates for EDLF loans take into account an assessment of the
risk level of different applicants, among other factors. Loan interest rates have ranged from 7.25% to 11.00%
since the beginning of 2022, with most at 7.25%.
The application from Salt Lake Sandwich Company, LLC, meets the following EDLF program goals:
•Increases employment opportunities;
•Stimulates business development;
•Promotes economic development;
•Enhances neighborhood vitality; and,
•Boosts commercial enterprise.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 12, 2023
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: June 13, 2023
Page | 2
The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with
maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the goals of the program. Each loan
application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before
an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful
applications is transmitted to the Council for final approval.
Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a
business called Salt Lake Sandwich Company, LLC.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the
available fund balance at $8,706,947 as of April 17, 2023. Outstanding loans totaled $ 3,761,589 as of March
31, 2023.
B.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development listed nine members of the
EDLF Committee as follows:
City Employees
1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department
2. Representative of the Mayor’s Office
3. Salt Lake City employee at large
4. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability
5. Director, Department of Economic Development
Community Volunteers
1. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
2. Banker
3. Community lender
4. Business mentor
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged
by the City from this and other loan funds, and whether it makes sense to re-evaluate how interest rates
are determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort.
2. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other
unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of
how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each
company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.?
3.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the
EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the
Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for
improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding?
4. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include
the number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc.
Page | 3
i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, Federal Reserve, 2028D, item 7.c. Consulted on April 26, 2023, at
https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-survey/small-business-ci-lending-
increases-from-previous-quarter-but-declines-year-over-year/.
DEP ARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
LORENA RIFFO-JENSON
DIRECTOR
CIT Y COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 4, 2023
Darin Mano , Chair
FRO M: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development
SU BJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Salt Lake Sandwich
Company, LLC.
STAFF CONTACTS:
Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
Will Wright, Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.com
DO CUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval
RECOMMENDATION : The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of a $100,000 loan
to Salt Lake Sandwich Company, LLC .
BU DGET IMPACT: $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund
BA CKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On April 27, 2023, a loan request from Salt Lake Sandwich
Company, LLC, for $100,000 was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and
discussion. Salt Lake Sandwich Company is a Poplar Grove based breakfast focused food truck.
Basic Loan request
Business Name: Salt Lake Sandwich Company
Address: 1408 W Arapaho Ave
Loan Amount Requested: $100,000
Loan Term: 7 years
Interest Rate: 8.25%
Use of Funds: Equipment, Working Capital
Loan Type: Start up.
Lisa Shaffer (May 8, 2023 12:09 MDT)
05/08/2023
05/08/2023
Reasoning behind staff recommendation
Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) go through a thorough application
process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis and economic impact statement. Only
after the loan applicant goes through these processes, then the loan is recommended to be
reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon the thorough review of the Loan Committee
members then a recommendation is made before the loan is transmitted to the Mayor for Council
to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process
must adhere to the Open Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely with the City Attorney’s
Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time the public process
is followed.
In additio n, the EDLF loans must meet the following goals of the Economic Development Loan
Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in
the following areas.
• Increase employment opportunities,
• Stimulate business development and expansion,
• Promote economic development,
• Enhance neighborhood vitality, and
• Boost commercial enterprise,
• While maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a sufficient manner to perpetuate the goals of
the program (collectively, “Goals”).
This loan will assist in the creation of 3.5 new jobs in the next year and retention of 0 current jobs.
This loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval.
EDLF Loan Balances
1. As reported from The Finance Department on April 17, 2023, the EDLF
available fund balance is: $8,706,947.
2. The amount of outstanding loans totals as of March 31, 2023 is: $3,761,588.80
EDLF Loan Committee
There are a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members.
City Employees:
1. Community and Neighborhoods Finance
2. Mayor’s Office
3. Employee at large
4. Housing Stability
5. Economic Development
Community Volunteers:
6. Business Advisory Board (BAB) member
7. Banker
8. Community lender
9. Business mentor
Attachments: Terms Sheet and Resolution
LOAN TERM SHEET
Applicant : Salt Lake Sandwich Company, LLC
Address : 1408 W Arapahoe Ave.
Proposed Loan Terms
Loan Amount: $100,000
Loan Terms: 7 Years
Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 6.25% (at the time of application on October 25,
2022
EDLF Charge: 4%
Less Discount: 1% for each
•Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individual (SEDI)
•Priority area: Poplar Grove
Interest Rate: 8.25%
Use of Funds : Food Truck, Equipment, Working Capital
Business Type: Start up.
Collateral and Guarantees: Real Estate, Equipment
Personal Guarantees: Michelle Drawn
Conditions for Closing
•Salt Lake City Business License, Commissary Kitchen Agreement in Poplar Grove, or other
priority area.
•Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by City legal counsel
a nd DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff.
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2023
(Ordinance approving a $10 0,000 loan for Salt Lake Sandwich Company, In c., at 1 408 W.
Arapahoe Ave. from the Economic Development Loan Fund)
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund
(“EDLF) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment,
enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City.
WHEREAS, th e EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development
(“DED”) and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the
EDLF Loan Committee.
WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of
the attached loan term sheet for a $100,000 loan to Salt Lake Sandwich Company, Inc., a
local business located at 1408 West Arapahoe Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, b e it ordained b y th e City Co uncil of Salt Lake City, Utah, th at:
SECTION 1 . Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term
Sheet attached h ereto, subject to revisions th at do n ot materially a ffec t the rights and obligations
of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan
agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating
such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s of fice.
SECTION 2 . Effective Date. This o rdinance shall become e ffective o n th e d ate o f its first
publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of
_____________________, 2023.
Darin Mano, Council Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2023.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:
Sara Montoya, City Attorney
April 27, 2023
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/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Lehua Weaver, Kira Luke
Allison Rowland, Sam Owen, and Sylvia Richards
DATE: June 12, 2023
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up of Council Questions
The Council held a discussion on June 6th and discussed a number of items for inclusion and/or elimination in
the budget that are summarized in part below. These are also included in the attached tracking spreadsheets.
The first spreadsheet represents all ideas raised and notes any official Council Straw polls. Note that Staff has
also attached “Draft Scenario 1” at the request of the Council Chair. This draft is an exercise to illustrate how
key Council priorities could be funded with available revenue streams (some were not known at the June 6th
meeting). It’s important to note that this attachment is a sample and does not represent any Council Straw
polls. Council Staff can adjust in any way.
Revenue Items
•Actual Property Tax New growth – (new as of June 8) The actual amount of property tax new
growth confirmed by the State Tax Commission on June 8th is $2,943,898, which is $803,870 more
than what was included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. The Council could choose to use this
ongoing funding for items raised in unresolved issues.
•CIP Recapture – Council policy requests that each year the Administration review any CIP project
account that is over 3 years old for funds that can be recaptured and put to use in other ways (this does
not include projects that are funded but delayed for some reason). The Administration indicates
approximately $865,234 is available for recapture. Staff has listed this in the revenue section of the
tracking sheet.
•Confirmed judgement levy number – The County Auditor reported the final judgement levy
amount for the City for FY 24. The City can authorize a judgement levy of $1,498,935, which is
$889,468 more than what was included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget (the MRB is put
together with partial judgement levy information). At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council
indicated they are in support of recognizing this revenue. As a reminder, a judgement levy is a one-time
property tax increase which pays the City back for revenues that were due to the City but not received
due to County adjustments. Enacting a judgement levy requires a truth in taxation hearing which will be
on August 15th, 2023.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 24, June 1, June
6, June 12
Budget Hearing: June 6, 2023
Potential Action: June 13
2
•Fund balance – The Council discussed what levels of fund balance the Council is comfortable with
considering as a budget balancing source. In the conversation, the Council settled on a 12.5% fund
balance level, with a preference to stay at or near a 13% level. General Fund balance has $2.7 million
over the 12.5% level and Funding our Future has $2.2 million over the 12.5% level. Staff note for
reference: the MRB proposal had General Fund Balance at 13.2% and Funding our Future fund
balance at 16.7%.
Items for further consideration/Discussion:
•FTEs flagged further discussion – The Council discussed and asked questions about several
proposed new FTEs in the Mayor’s recommended budget, and received information from the
Administration about those positions. At the conclusion of that discussion, the Council decided to flag
four FTEs for further consideration and discussion, particularly if funding is needed to balance the
budget. These are noted in the lavender highlight on the attached spreadsheet.
1. Sustainability lawnmower exchange and E-bike rebate program FTE
▪The Council also expressed concern that funding ebike rebates may not be the most
effective way to reduce driving, as bike infrastructure can be a bigger barrier to getting
people out of their cars.
▪Council Members expressed support for continuing and expanding the lawnmower
exchange program. Some Council Members suggested putting money in a separate
account until the department has an opportunity to discuss further with the State about
having them continue to manage the lawnmower exchange program, and reconsidering
the need for the FTE.
2. Citywide events FTE
3. Love your Block and Know your Neighbor FTEs – Staff note: The Mayor’s office will get more
information about when grants expire and how micro-grants will be funded.
4.Building Administrator
•Sanctioned camping – The Council discussed a proposal to provide a grant to enhance state funding
for sanctioned camping. The Council discussed the importance of having these dollars be flexible so any
organization that can quickly deploy funds can access them. The Council indicated they would continue
discussion on this item. Recent discussions have focused on potentially adopting criteria that are
agreeable to the Council and Mayor about how this money could be allocated. This criteria could be
formalized in July.
•RV Compliance Team – The Administration has provided additional information about the RV
Compliance team (see attached). In addition to the information in the attached document, the
Administration has provided the following information about the relationship with the Homeless
Response and Engagement Team (HEART):
“HEART will continue to provide black water disposal services for RV’s and vehicle repairs services and
cover costs associated with those two services within their existing budget.” (Staff note: Staff is confirming
if their existing budget covers this or if this relies on the Council continuing the funds from FY 23 into FY
24 as previously discussed).
“The team members will also have more specific knowledge of the homeless services available in the county
and provide verbal and/ or printed information as well as referrals to outreach teams when interacting with
occupied vehicles. Such information will also include information about the vehicle repair program and
black water disposal program to increase utilization of those resources, when appropriate.”
•Compensation Resolution – the Council may wish to review the resolution prepared by the
Attorney’s office at the request of the Council that sets forth the goals/expectations for top of market pay
for public safety. The Council could adopt this as a distinct document in the budget adoption process.
•Legislative Intents and Conditional Appropriations – the Council may wish to discuss exact
language to be included in legislative intents and conditional appropriations. The following list is staff’s
attempt to clean up the original list of new legislative intents (for conditional appropriations please
reference page 11). Exact wording will be refined by the Council. Specific City departments and
3
divisions are named for reference only since the Administration has the ultimate authority to assign
responsibility for these tasks.
1.Building Security – It is the intent of the Council that the Administration prioritize hiring the
new Safety and Security Manager FTE proposed for the Public Services Department and return
to the Council by the end of 2023 with recommendations for how building security funds could
be used.
2.Options for Citywide Zoning Re-evaluation – It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration prepare a work plan that outlines options for potential Citywide zoning
improvements.
3.Apprenticeship Program Incentives - It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration to recommend strategies to incentivize an employee who works through the City
Apprenticeship program to remain with the City once they are certified.
4.Legal Defenders Association - It is the intent of the Council to request the Administration:
▪shift funding for the Legal Defenders contract to Funding Our Future, under the policy
umbrella of Public Safety, with the rationale that these attorneys are an integral piece of
the criminal justice system and often connect clients to resources and services to help
them recover from an addiction or otherwise help them get back on their feet.
▪discuss with Salt Lake County whether it would be more efficient for the County to
manage the full contract with the City contributing funding towards it.
5.Pay Parity among Attorneys - It is the intent of the Council that the Administration evaluate
pay parity among the City Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake Legal Defenders, the City prosecutors, and
the County prosecutors. Because this may be a longer-term issue, the Council could ask that the
Human Resources Department conduct a more thorough evaluation on this topic and
recommend strategies to achieve pay parity over the longer term.
6.Golf Fee Structure - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to evaluate
developing a program for the Golf Division that could provide discounted rates to reduce financial
barriers for City residents.
7.Evaluating efficiencies of all diversified response teams – It is the intent of the Council
to ask the Administration to evaluate all response teams that may be considered part of a
diversified response to public safety, establish common metrics, and evaluate whether there are
opportunities for efficiencies or streamlining, including clarity on dispatch and whether/if the
public is intended to contact any teams directly or how resources are deployed.
8.Department Role Clarity in ordinance - It is the intent of the Council to ask the Attorney’s
Office to propose updates to the City’s code that defines and discusses the respective roles of City
departments. This review should include, but not be limited to, the Sustainability, and Economic
Development, and Public Lands Departments. Per Council discussion, Sustainability is the
priority.
9.Airport Air Quality and Transit Investment – The City Council formally requests that the
Airport submit a written plan (and funding proposal if needed) to the Council regarding plans to
encourage and facilitate transit, ride sharing and other transportation options for employees.
The Council requests that the plan include milestones and metrics to measure progress on the
Airport's investment in mitigating the air quality impact of private vehicle trips to the airport,
and the environmental impact of the addition of parking lot impervious surface to accommodate
those vehicle trips. Efforts to support and encourage transit opportunities for the traveling public
are also encouraged by the Council. In making this request the City Council recognizes that the
Airport makes strong environmental investments in its construction and operations.
The following information was provided for the Council’s work session on June 6th. It is provided again for
reference.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
4
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. At the May
23, 2023 Council Meeting, Council Members introduced items that they are interested in discussing further, and
removed some items that staff had previously been tracking. New information is in blue and purple (6/6/23)
font.
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. See attached
tracking sheet.
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
1.Straw polls and discussion from the June 1 work session – The Council discussed a number of
unresolved issues on June 1, including new ideas, including adding construction mitigation funding in
Economic Development if possible; clarifying amounts for existing funding for prosecutor and legal
defenders compensation; and considering a new proposal that would add an RV enforcement team in
Compliance. The Council straw-polled a number of items relating to funding for housing ideas (note:
these straw polls are not final until the budget is adopted):
Funding Source & Amount
Naturally-occurring affordable housing loan program $1,200,000 from Dormant HUD funds
RDA Notice of Funding Availability for Housing
Development
$ 6,476,014 from dormant HUD funds
Partnership with Neighborworks for equity-sharing
workforce housing project
$1,400,000 from excess North Temple
Viaduct Funding
$ 700,000 from Westside Community
Initiative
Citywide ADU Incentives $ 1,000,00 from Funding our Future
Housing dollars
Gap financing for Switchpointe project $ 250,000 from Funding our Future
housing dollars
Partnership with Salt Lake County for adding housing to
Sunday-Anderson senior center
$ 2,013,820 from RDA Housing
funding sources
(combination of RDA, Primary and/or
Secondary Housing Funds)
Funding for a sanctioned camping grant will be discussed further at an upcoming meeting. If the
Council decides to allocate funding for a sanctioned camping grant, one option would be to use the
$1.14 million remaining Funding our Future dollars. These can be seen as more flexible, because they
are originally general fund dollars (the Council has previously committed to spending money from that
source on one of the five Funding our Future areas).
2. Response to some Council Member questions:
a.Total amount of requests – A Council Member asked about the total budget amount for
Council-added items. Not including additional CIP funding or housing requests and depending
on the exact level of compensation increases raised, that amount is just under $3 million.
Housing requests may have alternative funding sources such as RDA or dormant HUD funds –
and those ideas could total $7.8 million (see straw polls above). Some Council Members
5
have expressed an interest in adding funding for CIP projects that did not receive funding
recommendations - they total around $2.5 million.
b.Wage increase for seasonal workers – In response to a Council Member question about
the cost of a 5% raise for Public Lands seasonal/hourly employees, the Department (DPL)
responded that the cost would be $133,000 for FY24. This would result in $17.85 per hour
($34/week at 40 hours/week) for these workers. It is hard to predict whether this change would
help resolve the recruitment and retention of these Parks Maintenance Technicians. The
Department has noted in other documents, that “many of the challenges are around staff safety
in parks, and the difficult work environment imposed by people living in and committing crimes
in parks.”
c.Additional funding for traffic calming - In response to a Council Member question about
the kinds of traffic-calming or livable streets projects that could be accomplished with an
additional $100,000 for FY24, the Transportation Division provided the following information:
•In-roadway crosswalk signs, mounted to prefabricated, bolt-down curbing have been
popular, and are inexpensive: less than $1,500 installed. The Division would prioritize
crosswalks near schools. ($100,000 would fund about 66 of these projects.
•Concrete planters, installed, would likely be $1,000-1,500 each, with about 8-12
needed per project. ($100,000 would fund 5 to 12 of these projects).
- The Division just started putting out planters in the past few weeks and the
initial feedback has been mostly positive.
- The ongoing unit cost is not quite clear, since Streets helped install the most
recent round, but if a larger quantity is desired, they would have to hire a
contractor.
- Based on feedback from Council on Tuesday, May 23, The Division could hire
someone to paint the planters “Salt Lake City Blue” and attach the Livable
Streets logo. The Transportation Division is not sure how much this would cost,
but it could provide some cohesive branding for this effort.
- The Division does not fund plants or watering for the planters but suggests that
communities might be willing to “adopt” them.
- Portland caps their traffic-calming planters and paints them.
•Targeted speed humps or similar implementations are not quite as quick, and cost
more, ranging from $7,000-25,000 each, depending on the size, location, and
whether they are asphalt or concrete. ($100,000 would fund 4 to 14 of these projects)
•Solar-powered “feedback” speed limit signs can be purchased and installed for
approximately $15,000 per sign. ($100,000 would fund about 6 of these projects)
•The Division also stated that they are constantly looking at additional possibilities to
expand the quick action toolkit, so they look forward to continuing the conversation.
3.CIP Projects of Council Member Interest which were Not Recommended for Funding by
Board and Mayor: Some Council Members are interested in funding CIP projects that are not
recommended for funding by the Mayor. Unless there are projects that were recommended for funding
that the Council is interested in not funding, the Council could add money to CIP in order to guarantee
funding for these projects. The total cost to fully fund the five projects listed below is $2,514,126. Of this
amount, $747,000 could come from parks impact fees which is itemized by project below. Projects are
listed in District numerical order:
a. Council Member Petro: $840,000 for Rose Park Lane Beautification, Trail, and Safety
Improvements
•$235,000 is eligible for parks impact fees
•Could be partially funded in phases
•A request has been submitted to the Administration for phasing options
b. Council Member Puy: $500,000 for Madsen Park Improvements
•$300,000 is eligible from park impact fees
•CDCIP Board said if additional funding is available, then this project is their next
highest priority
•Madsen Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be “reimagined” with
funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond
6
c. Council Member Valdemoros: $530,000 for Richmond Park Playground
•$212,000 is eligible from park impact fees
•Richmond Park is also identified as a neighborhood park to be “reimagined” with
funding from the Parks, Trails, and Open Space General Obligation Bond
d. Council Member Fowler: Project #32 requesting $150,000 for Sugar House Safe Side Streets
Phase 2
•Phase 1 received $153,221 in FY2022 CIP for studying, testing, public engagement,
and designs of traffic calming improvements on six local streets: Hollywood Avenue,
Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street
•An application was submitted in the FY2023 CIP cycle for Phase 2 but did not receive
additional funding
•The FY2024 CIP application is requesting funds that would be combined with
remaining funds from Phase 1 to complete the traffic calming improvements
recommended in the Phase 1 traffic study
e. Council Member Dugan: $494,126 for Safety Enhancements to Westside of Foothill Drive
•Application lists the project as ineligible for streets impact fees but some elements
might be partially eligible
•The project is from the 2017 Foothill Drive Implementation Strategy which was not
brought to the Council for adoption
•A request has been submitted to the Administration for phasing options
4.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.(see section above for more recent update on housing) Housing ideas raised by one
or more Council Members (Note: Staff is working with the Administration to identify whether
any of the dormant HUD funds first allocated in FY 23 could be used for any of these items):
Housing Idea Amount Recommended Funding Source
Loan Program for Naturally-Occurring
Affordable Housing
Funding to establish a low or no interest
loan program for repairs on naturally-
occurring affordable housing units for the
owners to guarantee the ongoing
affordability of those units (TBD one-time
or ongoing $)
$1 million •Dormant HUD Funds
City-wide ADU Incentive Program
To incentivize construction of ADUs City-
wide
(TBD one-time or ongoing $)
$1 million •Funding our Future Dollars previously proposed for NOFA (since
income-qualifications/verifications may be complicated)
Funding for partnership with
Neighborworks for an equity-sharing
workforce housing project
(one-time $)
$2 million •Excess North Temple Viaduct funding for debt service previously
proposed for NOFA
Funding for partnership with SL
County to add housing to the planned
Sunday-Anderson Senior Center
reconstruction project (9 Line)
The County is using ARPA dollars to reconstruct
the senior center and is on a timeline to spend by
the end of 2025. Opportunity to add housing to
the project if the City can contribute on their
timeline.
(one-time $)
$ 2,013,820 •RDA Housing Funds – the project could meet income
restrictions/requirements
o Primary Housing Fund - $1,013,820 originally proposed
for shared equity housing
o Secondary Housing Fund - $1 million originally
proposed for housing property acquisition
•
Funding for addition to current
Switchpoint facility on North Temple
– the addition would house services and
case management for residents. Current
funding gap is $2 million.
(one-time $)
$500,000 •Funding our Future Dollars previously proposed for NOFA (since
funding would go towards funding construction for expansion of
services)
Sanctioned Camping grant to
supplement state and county efforts
$250,000 •Funding our Future Dollars previously proposed for NOFA (since
exact end-use of dollars is not clear)
7
One idea - Funds would be offered on the
condition that a site be opened by X date
(one-time $)
b. Compensation related (these would be ongoing expenses):
i.Fire Fighter pay increases – Some Council Members have expressed interest in
considering adding to the pay increase for Fire Fighters, in addition to the 5% included
in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. These are amounts that would need to be added
to the budget, depending on the time of year the increase goes into effect:
1. For each 1%, for a full year - $376,624
2. For each 1%, for half a year - $188,312
Note: The Fire Union contract is up for negotiation in FY 25. The previously-
negotiated amount for FY 24 was 3% increase (the Mayor’s recommended
budget exceeded that with the 5% increase for all City employees).
ii. Intent for pay equity for City Prosecutors and Salt Lake Legal Defender Association
(Note: Staff is working on clarifying dollar amounts for this issue and has not yet been
able to confirm that the dollar amounts provided for the Legal Defenders are sufficient
to accomplish the policy goal of pay parity).
1. The County District Attorney increased salaries for County prosecutors, due
to increasing salaries at the Office of the Attorney General. Some Council
Members have expressed an interest in increasing salaries for City Prosecutors,
as they work alongside County prosecutors and there is a concern about
turnover. The Mayor’s Recommended budget includes $200,000 for prosecutor
salary increases. The following would need to be added to the budget to get
them to various comparison levels to the County prosecutors:
a.$340,000 to get them equal to County Prosecutors,
b.$250,000 more to get them to 95% of County prosecutor salaries, with
the intent of revisiting mid-year
Staff has forwarded information from the City Attorney’s Office on
this topic.
2.Legal Defenders Association (LDA) (Some Council Members are
interested in addressing this as a priority, rather than the item above). Due to
the County and State increases listed above, a similar pay equity issue is created
with LDA. Currently the City contracts with the LDA to provide legally-required
defense services. The Mayor’s Recommended budget includes a $118,000
increase for LDA. Some Council Members have expressed interest in ensuring
pay parity for LDA. According to staff communications, to get LDA to pay parity
the City would need to add $122,000 to the Mayor’s Recommended budget.
(staff is confirming this amount)
3. See related legislative intent relating to LDA and considering Funding our
Future as a funding source in future years.
iii.Wage increase for seasonal workers - While salaries for seasonal workers were
increased from $13.15 to $17 in FY 23, wages are not proposed to be increased in FY 24.
Staff is confirming with the Public Lands Department to identify how much the Council
would need to add to the budget foreach 1% increase. See response above.
c. Transportation
i. One Council Member expressed an interest in providing HIVE passes to a
parent/guardian of a school children (the Mayor’s Recommended budget continues
the $100,000 funding for HIVE passes for all K-12 Students). The Salt Lake School
District foundation is proposing the following to provide a pass for all faculty, staff and 1
parent/guardian:
Total Cost $ 503,648
Mayor’s Recommended Budget $ 100,000
School Foundation Contribution $ 289,000
Gap to be funded $ 114,648
This would be an ongoing expense.
ii.Train crossing safety signs – $150,000 (ongoing $) - One Council Member has
expressed interest in a technology that would provide signs connected to the Rail Lines
8
in order to increase safety at heavy rail train crossings on the west side. One Council
Member raised this idea that the Inland Port could be a partner in the future.
iii. Some Council Members have expressed an interest in providing an additional
$100,000 for rapid traffic calming. Staff is following up with Transportation to
find out what the division could achieve for that amount of money. See response above.
d. Other
i.RV Compliance Team - $398,000 with $325,000 ongoing – 3 FTEs and a vehicle.
The Administration provided this information as a response to Council Member
inquiries about City tools for RV enforcement given the increasing need in some areas.
Some Council Members expressed a desire to increase funding for services and/or the
HEART team too, to connect people to resources. Some Council Members wondered
about how many calls about parked RVs are not responded to because of lack of
capacity. One Council Member asked if this funding could be used to free up City
property to use as an RV parking area, or if we could rent property for this purpose.
ii.Additional funding for construction mitigation – During the Council’s
discussion on the Department of Economic Development, Council Members expressed
an interest in meeting business demand for construction mitigation. Based on an
analysis done by Economic Development, the ideal funding level would be around
$500,000, which is $300,000 more than is included in the MRB. The Administration
noted that this program is scalable and any additional funding would help meet
demand.
iii. One Council Member expressed an interest in increasing the per-day building
permit violation fine. That fine is in section 21A of the code, and any changes would
need to be endorsed by the Planning Commission. In reviewing this fine, staff noted
that no violation fees or fines are included in the Consolidated Fee Schedule. The
Council could express an intent to include all violation fees and fines in the
Consolidated Fee Schedule so that inflationary adjustments are automatically made to
violation fines as well as City fees.
iv.Funding for a study for a Granary District Special Assessment Area (SAA) –
Some Council Members are interested in adding $60,000 to the Economic
Development Department to manage a study to establish rates and purposes for an SAA
in the Granary District. Staff is working to clarify whether the goal of this SAA would be
to pay for enhanced infrastructure, promotional activities (like the Downtown SAA) or
both. It should be noted that if they end up forming an SAA, this funding could be
reimbursed. It should also be noted that Economic Development indicated they would
need an additional staff person to manage additional SAAs in the City. One option
would be to consider this in the first budget amendment of the year.
v. One Council Member expressed interest in funding a system similar to one deployed by
the Unified Police Department (UPD) last year that sends the caller a text message
after calling 911, with information including their case number, whether officers
arrived, and a post-incident survey. Staff does not have a cost estimate for this program
at this time.
vi. One Council Member expressed interest in increased funding for Economic
Development to partner with smaller non-profits to extend the reach of the
Economic Development Department to communities that those non-profits are already
connected to. Note: Some Council Members clarified that this is not intended to be a
competitive process, although other Council Members asked that we clarify with the
Attorney’s office to ensure any process comports with State procurement/expenditure
guidelines. Proposed funding amount $30,000
vii. One Council Member expressed an interest in continuing funding for an RV Black
Water tank disposal voucher program - $10,000. Staff note: the Council added
$10,000 for this program in FY 23 which has not been spent yet. The Council could
appropriate this money for FY 24 to roll the same amount into the next fiscal year.
e.Budget “clean up” items – these are items that either the Staff or Administration have
flagged as potential corrections to the budget to ensure expectations are met:
i. Increased funding for lifestyle savings account to ensure all employees who are
interested can receive the benefit - $206,724 additional needed for the General Fund,
$454,943 for enterprise funds. This includes half a year of administrative fees to pay for
9
the third party administrator. (Potential source: Insurance and Risk Management
Fund Balance. Staff is confirming potential funding sources. Typically Enterprise
Funds would budget for this program within their sources).
ii. Reappropriating/Rolling forward building security money not yet spent from account
established with the FY 23 budget - $409,450. If not re-appropriated for this purpose,
these funds will lapse to fund balance and will no longer be available for this purpose.
iii.Reappropriating/Rolling forward funding for Downtown Street activation approved in
BA #5 - $500,000. If not re-appropriated for this purpose, these funds will lapse to
fund balance and will no longer be available for this purpose.
iv. Additional funding needed to ensure Police substations in downtown and north temple
have sufficient funding for lease and utilities - $5,000 (CAN)
v. Correct Bio Hive funding (intended to be one-time in FY 23) - $35,000 can be removed
from the budget.
5. Items to discuss further:
a. Airport Employee Parking Lot Development – Some Council Members have indicated an
interest in reducing the Airport budget or adopting a contingent appropriation to address the
$61 million request for CIP funds for the South Employee Parking Lot Development Program
(CIP Budget Book page 70). Some Council Members have raised the policy consideration that
while the Department of Airports may have a policy goal of providing ample employee parking
and generating revenue from passenger parking, the City Council may have a policy goal of
making demonstrable efforts to encourage people to use transit over passenger vehicles.
b. Clarification on major Westside art installation – funding in CIP, funding in RDA. The Council
could clarify whether these funds should they be combined via policy for a more major
installation, or whether the Council/Board prefers multiple projects on the west side.
6.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 Amendment) is listed in the
unresolved issues tracking sheet, starting on line 67. The total amount of these FTEs, not including
Airport FTEs, is $4,016,644. 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 $1.2 million
to the FY 25 budget to accommodate all proposed new positions ($370,000 from funding
our future).
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. Fund balances available – Previously the City had a policy of maintaining a minimum of 10%
fund balance. In FY 19 the Council established a policy goal of 13%, although that goal is not
legally binding. Staff has provided both figures. Also note this is one-time in nature and to the
extent it funds ongoing ideas, this would increase the structural deficit for FY 25:
Amount above 13%Amount above 12%Amount above 10%
General Fund $ 723,239 $ 4,644,907 $ 12,488,243
Funding our Future
(for ideas relating to
one of the 5 Funding
our Future areas)
$ 1,945,500 $ 2,468,882 $ 3,515,644
10
c. Consider re-appropriating funds that would otherwise drop to fund balance within a
department (funds that are not likely to be spent for FY 23)
d. Risk Management Fund balance (for items relating to employee benefits)
e. Increase property tax (Note: the proposed FY 24 budget does not include a tax increase
although because it includes a judgement levy, a truth in taxation hearing is required).
f. Evaluate compensation levels for non-represented employees (reduce mayor’s
recommendation).
g. $35,000 in non-departmental not needed for Bio Hive branding (it was intended to be one-time
in FY 23 and can be re-appropriated this year for other uses)
8.Budget reduction options – As of the printing of this staff report, Council Members have not
specifically identified any budget reduction options (to fund any of the budget additions listed above),
although some have expressed interest in reviewing the proposed new FTEs and new programs in more
detail. These FTEs and new programs are all listed on the attached Unresolved Issues tracking sheet.
The Council may also wish to discuss whether to reduce or eliminate any existing programs offered by
the City.
Potential Legislative Intents – These are draft ideas based on Council Member suggestions. Exact wording
will be developed by the Council.
1.Building Security - Legislative intent that the $1 million set aside for building security in Budget
Amendment #5 be the Administrative priority for the new Safety and Security Manager FTE in Public
Services, and that returns to the Council by the end of 2023 with recommendations for how that money,
could be prioritized. Note: In FY 23, the Council allocated $1 million for building security, of which
$409,450 is not yet spent. This money will drop to fund balance unless the Council elects to re-
appropriate it in FY 24 for this purpose.
2.City-wide Re-evaluation of Zoning – A Council Member has raised an interest in the possibility of
considering a city-wide re-evaluation of the City’s zoning code. It is the intent of the Council to ask the
Administration and planning staff to come up with a work plan for what city-wide zoning reform could
look like.
3.Apprenticeship Program Incentives - Council Member Petro expressed an interest in ways to
incentivize an employee who works through the City Apprenticeship program to stay with the City once
they are certified. The Council could ask the Human Resources Department to recommend strategies to
achieve this goal.
4.Legal Defenders Association - Council Member Fowler expressed an interest in shifting funding for
the Legal Defenders contract to “Funding Our Future”, under the policy umbrella of public safety, with
the thinking that Legal Defenders are very much like the City’s social workers when operating within the
justice system. She is also interested in the City discussing with the County whether it would be more
efficient for the County to manage the full contract with the City contributing funding towards it.
5.Pay Parity among Attorneys - Some Council Members have expressed an interest in evaluating pay
parity among the City Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake Legal Defenders, the City Prosecutors, and the County
prosecutors. Because this may be a longer term issue, the Council could ask the Human Resources
Department to conduct a more thorough evaluation on this topic and recommend strategies to achieve
longer-term pay parity in the future.
6.Bird-friendly Glass - Council Member Dugan has expressed an interest in a legislative intent to
review the City code for opportunities to require bird friendly glass in new commercial and City
buildings.
7.Golf fee structure - One Council Member requested an evaluation from the Golf Division about a
program that could provide discounted rates to reduce financial barriers for City residents.
8.Compensation Philosophy – Some Council Members have expressed an interest in turning this into
a policy resolution: It is the intent of the Council to be at the top of the market regarding compensation
11
for Police and Fire. Staff note: language referencing compensation strategy does appear in the current
MOUs:
POLICE
In addition to the already appropriated wages in the City budget, the City Council hereby
appropriates $5,132,766 to implement wage raises for the eligible employees for fiscal year
2022, which the City Council intends will bring the eligible employees to at or close to the top
of the market in Utah.
FIRE
In recognition of the unique challenges associated with public safety employment, the City is
committed to providing its firefighters with a competitive compensation package that aims to
the top of the market for such employment in the State of Utah.
9.(repeat from FY 23) Evaluating efficiencies of all diversified response teams – Council
Members have expressed support for the various alternative response models in each department. The
Council would like to periodically re-evaluate across City departments to determine whether there are
redundancies and/or efficiencies to be gained. Staff is including the following programs in our
understanding of “diversified response models”:
i. Fire Department – Community Health Access Team (CHAT), Medical Response Team
(MRT)
ii. Police Department – Social Worker Co-Responders, Civilian Response Team
iii. CAN (in partnership with other entities in some cases) – Downtown Ambassadors
(including expanded areas), Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART),
Code Enforcement
iv. Public Lands – Park Rangers Program
v. Public Services – Community Cleaning Program (CCP) Rapid Intervention Team
(clarify whether this is sometimes referred to as the “Clean Team”)
vi. 911 Department – partnership with Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT)
b. The following are specific areas of interest that were raised in the context of the FY 23 budget
and may be relevant in evaluating these programs:
i. Clarify roles of each team and how a call for service is routed from one team to another,
and how calls from the public are routed.
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
Potential Conditional Appropriations
1.Trails contingency – In FY 22, the Council adopted the following contingency related to funding for
trails. The Council may wish to consider an additional or similar contingency for FY 24, including
whether language should be changed to enhance clarity for all parties. The following is the conditional
appropriation from that year:
Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails – Existing and new funds
for the construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail
System Master Plan, Phase 1, will be placed on hold contingent on the Administration’s review in
collaboration with a broad spectrum of community stakeholders of:
a. the implementation to date of the master plan;
b. identification of adjustments or additional engagement as warranted;
and c. the Council’s authorization to move forward after the Council evaluates the results of the
process.
The City Council is willing to provide funding to the Administration for one or more outside
experts who can objectively evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of the trail changes
12
and additions completed to date and anticipated in the master plan. That written evaluation
should focus on, but not be limited to, the extent to which trail planning and development have
been consistent with the vision, goals and principles in the Master Plan, including: best practices;
strategies for the preservation and stewardship of the land; and respect for Tribal concerns. In
addition, the written evaluation should include an analysis of how the process could be adapted to
better meet the needs and desires of all users.
Existing and new funds for environmental studies will not be on hold, so long as such funds are
not used for construction or decommissioning of trails. Existing and new funds for maintenance
or repair of existing trails will be on hold, but may be released incrementally by the Council as
information about adherence to best practices and progress on community feedback is received.
2.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.
Additional information
- Debt Ceiling – Based on a Council Member question, staff inquired with finance regarding the potential
impact of a federal default on debt on the City’s operations and/or budget. It will likely have no
operational impact on the City, although municipal bond rates may be impacted, causing the City to
strategize when it make sense to issue either the Sales Tax or General Obligation bonds.
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
13
International Association of Chiefs of Police – IACP
Mayor’s Recommended Budget - MRB
Redevelopment Agency – RDA
Salt Lake City School District – SLCSD
Salt Lake City Fire Department - SLCFD
Request for Proposal - RFP
TBD – To Be Determined
Transit Master Plan – TMP
United Nations – UN
Utah League of Cities and Towns
Utah Transit Authority – UTA
Volunteers of America - VOA
Wasatch Community Gardens - WCG
6/12/2023 **DRAFT **11:11 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
A B C D E F G H I J
Net 2,588,572$ -$ -$
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue (MRB estimated - $2,140,028)803,870$ 803,870$
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater or less than the proposed budget)889,468$ 889,468$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 13% (GF only)
($1.9m avove 13% in FOF)723,239$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 13%1,945,500$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 12%4,644,907$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 12%2,468,882$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 12.5%2,684,073$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 12.5%2,207,191$
Capture funds dropping to fund balance in FY 23
Capture funds from premium holiday in FY 23
Appropriate Housing Funding Dollars (Dormant HUD Funds)$1,200,000
Redirect RDA Housing Funding (Allocate $6.7 million in Dormant HUD funds to NOFA)$5,263,820
Flexible RDA Housing Funding remaining 1,140,000$
Reconsider new FTEs proposed in the budget
(total amount for new FTEs NOT including Airport FTEs which are offset with airport
revenue)4,016,644$
Recapture CIP $ that has been unspent for 3+ years towards CIP projects below - Exact
amount TBD 865,234$ 865,234$
blue = ongoing
orange = one-time
Housing Ideas
Funding to establish a low or no interest loan program for repairs on naturally-
occurring affordable housing units for the owners to guarantee the ongoing
affordability of those units 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$
City-wide ADU Incentive Program - to incentivize construction of ADUs City-wide 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Funding for Partnership with Neighborworks for an equity-sharing worforce
housing project (RDA/Westside Community Initiative)2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Partnership with SL County to add Housing to the planned Sunday Anderson
senior center reconstruction project (9 Line)2,013,820$ 2,013,820$
Funding for addition to current Switchpoint facility on North Temple - the
addition would house services and case management for residents. Current
funding gap is $2 million 250,000$ 250,000$
Sanctioned camping grant to supplement State and County efforts 500,000$
Compensation Related
Increase salary for fire fighter increases - options for discussion:
for each 1% for a full year 376,624$
for each 1% for a half year 188,312$
5% for a full year 1,883,120$
5% for half a year 941,560$
More Information to Come: Increased funding for Prosecutors
($200k in the MRB; $340,000 additional to get them to 100%; $214,086 to get them to 95% -
note: need to clarify. The Administration is recommending 95%)340,000$
More Information to Come: Increased funding for Legal Defenders contract
(In addition to the $118k increase in the MRB - idea to fund from FOF)122,000$
Wage Increases for seasonal workers in Public Lands 133,000$
Transportation/Streets
Parent/Guardian/Faculty Hive passes 114,648$
Train Crossing Safety signs 150,000$
Additional quick traffic calming
(see staff report for response from Transportation)100,000$
Other
Post-911 Call text messaging reporting/survey system (UPD system)
($10,000 in one time costs)145,225$
Increased funding for Economic Development to partner with smaller non-
profits 30,000$
Black Water Tank Voucher Program
($10k in funds added in FY 23 have not yet been spent and will drop to fund
balance unless approrpriated by the Council into FY 24)10,000$
Additional funding for CIP projects not currently funded:
$2,514,126
($1.9 million if impact
fees are used)
D1: $840,000 - Rose Park Lane Beautification ($235k eligible for parks impact
fees) (FOF?)605,000$
Alternative - Solar speed feedback signs - or add more to make it CIP eligible
and expanding it to D1 & D2 60,000$
D3: Ensign Peak Nature Park Security and Access Improvements 210,000$
D4: $530,000 - Richmond Park Playground ($212,000 eligible for parks impact
fees)318,000$
D6: $494,126 - Safety Enhancements to Foothill Drive (FOF?) - Dan is asking for
a breakdown of projects 494,126$
D7: $150,000 - Sugar House Safe Side Streets (FOF?)150,000$
Add money to general CIP for discussion later in the summer TBD
Increasing per-day violation fees TBD
Additional Construction Mitigation Funding in Economic Development
($300k additional would be ideal)300,000$
RV Enforcement Team in Compliance
($325k ongoing. If funded for 10 months: $270,833 - a $54,167 difference); $73,000 one-
time 398,000$
Funding for RV Repair 100,000$
Housing Funding
Dormant Program Income HUD
Funds; RDA housing funds
Council Ideas - see staff report for additional detail/background
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our
Future
Categories: Housing,
Transit, Public Safety,
Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
Council discussion: comfortable using
fund balance but want to stay as close
to 13% as possible
Council discussion: Ok using this on
housing-related items
6/12/2023 **DRAFT **11:11 AM
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
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
A B C D E F G H I J
Funding for a consultant to develop SAA recommendation for Granary District
(either Economic Development or RDA) - confirm whether additional FTE is
needed in Economic Development 60,000$
Increased funding for lifestyle spending account for all employees ($454,943 for
enterprise funds) - funding could come from Ins and Risk fund balance 206,724$
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating downtown street activation
approved in BA #5 500,000$
Council straw poll -
yes
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating building security money not yet
spent from FY 23 amount 409,450$
Council straw poll -
yes
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating budget for the lease expenses
and tenant improvementsfor the Downtown precinct not yet spent from FY 23 643,208$
Council straw poll -
yes
Additional funding to ensure PD Substations are fully funded on North Temple
and Downtown 5,000$ 5,000$
Correct Bio Hive funding
(intended to be one-time accidentally included as ongoing)(35,000)$ (35,000)$
Clarify exact amount for elections 50,000$
Attorney FY 24 Budget Amount
Special Project Analysis & Automation (Grade 26)1 99,509$
Prosecutor's - Assistant Prosecutor - Miami Model (Grade 34) 1 132,238$
Community and Neighborhoods
YF Youth and Community Programs Four FTES (Grant Funded mid-year)4 447,136$
Civil Enforcement Positions (Grade 19) - revenue generating 2 194,000$
Business Systems Analyst II (Grade 28) - increasing efficiency 1 111,010$
Finance
Financial Analyst II for Salt Lake Foundation (Grade 24) - increasing efficiency 1 87,373$
Fire
(CHAT) Community Health Access Team Enhancements - (FOF)4 367,667$
Fire Captain - Medical Division (6-month Funding) - (FOF)1 72,252$
Offset with Airport Revenue - 5 FTEs for Airport MRT 5 764,666$
Human Resources
Project & Policy Manager (Grade 24) 1 121,588$
Business Partner I (Grade 25) 1 128,460$
Mayor
Love Your Block Program (Grade 23)2 160,667$ flag for further discussion pending budget
Know your Neighbor (Grade 23) 1 92,000$
Police
Sergeant Internal Affairs Program (9 Mths)1 143,186$
4 FTE Civilian Responders (Grade 20) (9 Mths - $70,864 each) - (FOF)4 202,999$
Offset with Airport Revenue - 6 FTEs - Airport Operations Program - (9 Mths)6 760,881$
Public Lands
Expanded Citywide Events 1 85,500$
FOF Funding for Parks Maintenance:
Parks Maintenance Tech II - (FOF)1 67,800$
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (FOF)1 67,800$
Maint. Electrician IV (Grade 22) (FOF)1 83,800$
General Maint. Worker IV (Grade 21) (FOF)1 79,800$
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (Grade 20)(FOF)1 76,000$
Central Control Irrigation SPE (Grade 20) (FOF)1 76,000$
Sr Warehouse Operator (Grade 15) (FOF)0.5 7,500$
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (FOF)4 248,000$
Environ Specialist II Union (FOF)1 74,700$
Public Services
Converting part-time Office Tech to FTE - Streets 1 n/a
Safety and Security Manager (Grade 37)1 152,565$
Environmental Engineer - (Grade 33)1 160,000$
Building Administrator
($80k in current budget for this function - currently outsourced)
1
49,000$ flag for further discussion pending budget
Trades Apprenticeship Program 4 332,000$
Sustainability (offset with non-dept transfer)
Lawnmower Exchange/E-Bike Rebate program coordinator ($115,313 annual cost)1 96,094$ flag for further discussion pending budget
FY 24 Budget Amount
Sustainability - Lawnmower Exchange/E-Bike Rebate Program 1
Staff 96,094$ flag for further discussion pending budget
Program expenses ($250,000 base budget, $230,000 increase)230,000$
Lifestyle Spending Account 1 500,000$
Street Mill Overlay Pilot Program
($130,000 in general fund; $750,000 in CIP)130,000$
City Events
Staff 1 85,000$ flag for further discussion pending budget
Program expenses 136,500$
License Plate Recognition Pilot Program 150,000$
Thriving in Place - Placeholder (FOF)226,000$
Wasatch Community Gardens Apprenticeship Program 50,000$
New Programs - these are included in the MRB - listed here for additional discussion per Council Member
request
Budget cleanup - these are items that either the Staff or Administration have flagged as potential
corrections to the budget to ensure expectations are met:
New Positions - these are included in the MRB - listed here for additional discussion per Council Member
request
6/12/2023 **DRAFT SCENARIO 1**10:59 AM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
A B C D E F G H I J K
Net -$ -$ -$
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Notes
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue (MRB estimated - $2,140,028)803,870$ 803,870$
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater or less than the proposed budget)889,468$ 889,468$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 13% (GF only)
($1.9m avove 13% in FOF)723,239$ Balancing Number: $723239 in GF fund balance over 13%
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 13%1,945,500$ 939,351$ Balancing number: $1,006,149 in FOF fund balance over 13%
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 12%4,644,907$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 12%2,468,882$
One-time $: Use General Fund fund balance over 12.5%2,684,073$
One-time $: Funding our future fund balance dollars over 12.5%2,207,191$
Capture funds dropping to fund balance in FY 23
Capture funds from premium holiday in FY 23
Appropriate Housing Funding Dollars (Dormant HUD Funds)$1,200,000
Redirect RDA Housing Funding (Allocate $6.7 million in Dormant HUD funds to NOFA)$5,263,820
Flexible RDA Housing Funding remaining 640,000$ $500,000 $640,000 in flexible housing dollars remaining
Reconsider new FTEs proposed in the budget
(total amount for new FTEs NOT including Airport FTEs which are offset with airport
revenue)4,016,644$
Recapture CIP $ that has been unspent for 3+ years towards CIP projects below 865,234$ 865,234$ Exact amount TBD
blue = ongoing
orange = one-time
Housing Ideas
Funding to establish a low or no interest loan program for repairs on naturally-
occurring affordable housing units for the owners to guarantee the ongoing
affordability of those units 1,200,000$ 1,200,000$
City-wide ADU Incentive Program - to incentivize construction of ADUs City-
wide 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Funding for Partnership with Neighborworks for an equity-sharing worforce
housing project (RDA/Westside Community Initiative)2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Partnership with SL County to add Housing to the planned Sunday Anderson
senior center reconstruction project (9 Line)2,013,820$ 2,013,820$
Funding for addition to current Switchpoint facility on North Temple - the
addition would house services and case management for residents. Current
funding gap is $2 million 250,000$ 250,000$
Sanctioned camping grant to supplement State and County efforts 500,000$ 500,000$ From RDA Housing Dollars - criteria pending
Housing Funding
Dormant Program Income HUD
Funds; RDA housing funds
Council Ideas - see staff report for additional detail/background
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our Future
Categories: Housing, Transit,
Public Safety, Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
6/12/2023 **DRAFT SCENARIO 1**10:59 AM
1
A B C D E F G H I J K
Housing Funding
Dormant Program Income HUD
Funds; RDA housing funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our Future
Categories: Housing, Transit,
Public Safety, Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Compensation Related
Increase salary for fire fighter increases - options for discussion:
No increases for FD - adopt resolution expressing intent to be top of
market
for each 1% for a full year 376,624$
for each 1% for a half year 188,312$
5% for a full year 1,883,120$
5% for half a year 941,560$
More Information to Come: Increased funding for Prosecutors
($200k in the MRB; $340,000 additional to get them to 100%; $214,086 to get them to 95% -
note: need to clarify. The Administration is recommending 95%)340,000$ 340,000$
More Information to Come: Increased funding for Legal Defenders contract
(In addition to the $118k increase in the MRB - idea to fund from FOF)122,000$ 122,000$
ALTERNATE IDEA - frund from FOF Fund balance - New idea/Public
Safety/Social Workers
Wage Increases for seasonal workers in Public Lands 133,000$ 133,000$
Transportation/Streets
Parent/Guardian/Faculty Hive passes 114,648$ 114,648$
Train Crossing Safety signs 150,000$ 150,000$ FOF - Public Safety
Additional quick traffic calming
(see staff report for response from Transportation)100,000$ 100,000$
Other
Post-911 Call text messaging reporting/survey system (UPD system)
($10,000 in one time costs)145,225$ 145,225$ FOF - Public Safety. Note: Non-Dept transfer to IMS
Increased funding for Economic Development to partner with smaller non-
profits 30,000$
Black Water Tank Voucher Program
($10k in funds added in FY 23 have not yet been spent and will drop to fund
balance unless approrpriated by the Council into FY 24)10,000$
RECAPTURE from
FY 23 Clarify which department
Additional funding for CIP projects not currently funded:
$2,514,126
($1.9 million if impact
fees are used)
D1: $840,000 - Rose Park Lane Beautification ($235k eligible for parks impact
fees) (FOF?)605,000$
Alternative - Solar speed feedback signs - or add more to make it CIP eligible
and expanding it to D1 & D2 60,000$ 60,000$ Clarify where expansion would go
D3: Ensign Peak Nature Park Security and Access Improvements 210,000$ 210,000$
D4: $530,000 - Richmond Park Playground ($212,000 eligible for parks impact
fees)318,000$ 318,000$
D6: $494,126 - Safety Enhancements to Foothill Drive (FOF?) - Dan is asking for
a breakdown of projects 494,126$ 494,126$ FOF - Infrastructure
D7: $150,000 - Sugar House Safe Side Streets (FOF?)150,000$ 150,000$ FOF - Infrastructure
Add money to general CIP for discussion later in the summer TBD 433135
Increasing per-day violation fees TBD
6/12/2023 **DRAFT SCENARIO 1**10:59 AM
1
A B C D E F G H I J K
Housing Funding
Dormant Program Income HUD
Funds; RDA housing funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our Future
Categories: Housing, Transit,
Public Safety, Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
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
Additional Construction Mitigation Funding in Economic Development
($300k additional would be ideal)300,000$ 300,000$ Increased b/c of new growth information on June 8
RV Enforcement Team in Compliance
($325k ongoing. If funded for 10 months: $270,833 - a $54,167 difference); $73,000
one-time 398,000$ 343,883$ Fund FTEs for 10 months + one-time
Funding for RV Repair 100,000$ 100,000$
Funding for a consultant to develop SAA recommendation for Granary District
(either Economic Development or RDA) - confirm whether additional FTE is
needed in Economic Development 60,000$ 60,000$
Intent to discuss an FTE in Budget Amendment #1 or Add and FTE in this
budget
Increased funding for lifestyle spending account for all employees ($454,943
for enterprise funds) - funding could come from Ins and Risk fund balance 206,724$
fund from Ins and
Risk Fund from Ins and Risk Mgmt Fund balance
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating downtown street activation
approved in BA #5 500,000$ yes
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating building security money not yet
spent from FY 23 amount 409,450$ yes
(NO NEW FUNDING NEEDED) Reappropriating budget for the lease expenses
and tenant improvements for the Downtown precinct not yet spent from FY 23 643,208$ yes
Additional funding to ensure PD Substations are fully funded on North Temple
and Downtown 5,000$ 5,000$
Correct Bio Hive funding
(intended to be one-time accidentally included as ongoing)(35,000)$ (35,000)$
Clarify exact amount for elections 50,000$ 50,000$ amount in MRB not enough for budget
One FTE reduced. See notes below
Attorney FY 24 Budget Amount
Special Project Analysis & Automation (Grade 26)1 99,509$
Prosecutor's - Assistant Prosecutor - Miami Model (Grade 34) 1 132,238$
Community and Neighborhoods
YF Youth and Community Programs Four FTES (Grant Funded mid-year)4 447,136$
Civil Enforcement Positions (Grade 19) - revenue generating 2 194,000$
Business Systems Analyst II (Grade 28) - increasing efficiency 1 111,010$
Finance
Financial Analyst II for Salt Lake Foundation (Grade 24) - increasing efficiency 1 87,373$
Fire
(CHAT) Community Health Access Team Enhancements - (FOF)4 367,667$
Fire Captain - Medical Division (6-month Funding) - (FOF)1 72,252$
Offset with Airport Revenue - 5 FTEs for Airport MRT 5 764,666$
Human Resources
Project & Policy Manager (Grade 24) 1 121,588$
Budget cleanup - these are items that either the Staff or Administration have flagged as potential
corrections to the budget to ensure expectations are met:
New Positions - these are included in the MRB - listed here for additional discussion per Council Member
request
6/12/2023 **DRAFT SCENARIO 1**10:59 AM
1
A B C D E F G H I J K
Housing Funding
Dormant Program Income HUD
Funds; RDA housing funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our Future
Categories: Housing, Transit,
Public Safety, Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
90
91
92
93
Business Partner I (Grade 25) 1 128,460$
Mayor
Love Your Block Program (Grade 23)2 160,667$ keep as proposed
Know your Neighbor (Grade 23) 1 92,000$ keep as proposed
6/12/2023 **DRAFT SCENARIO 1**10:59 AM
1
A B C D E F G H I J K
Housing Funding
Dormant Program Income HUD
Funds; RDA housing funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund
Funding our Future
Categories: Housing, Transit,
Public Safety, Infrastructure, Parks
Maintenance
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Police
Sergeant Internal Affairs Program (9 Mths)1 143,186$
4 FTE Civilian Responders (Grade 20) (9 Mths - $70,864 each) - (FOF)4 202,999$
Offset with Airport Revenue - 6 FTEs - Airport Operations Program - (9 Mths)6 760,881$
Public Lands
Expanded Citywide Events 1 85,500$
FOF Funding for Parks Maintenance:
Parks Maintenance Tech II - (FOF)1 67,800$
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (FOF)1 67,800$
Maint. Electrician IV (Grade 22) (FOF)1 83,800$
General Maint. Worker IV (Grade 21) (FOF)1 79,800$
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (Grade 20)(FOF)1 76,000$
Central Control Irrigation SPE (Grade 20) (FOF)1 76,000$
Sr Warehouse Operator (Grade 15) (FOF)0.5 7,500$
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (FOF)4 248,000$
Environ Specialist II Union (FOF)1 74,700$
Public Services
Converting part-time Office Tech to FTE - Streets 1 n/a
Safety and Security Manager (Grade 37)1 152,565$
Environmental Engineer - (Grade 33)1 160,000$
Building Administrator
($80k in current budget for this function - currently outsourced)
1
49,000$ keep as proposed
Trades Apprenticeship Program 4 332,000$
Sustainability (offset with non-dept transfer)
Lawnmower Exchange/E-Bike Rebate program coordinator ($115,313 annual cost)1 96,094$ see below
FY 24 Budget Amount
Sustainability - Lawnmower Exchange/E-Bike Rebate Program 1
Staff 96,094$ (96,094)$
Program expenses ($250,000 base budget, $230,000 increase)
230,000$
keep program funding
as proposed
Continue/expand lawnmower exchange program and coordinate with
state. Evaluate need for FTE after conversation with state.
Lifestyle Spending Account 1 500,000$
Street Mill Overlay Pilot Program
($130,000 in general fund; $750,000 in CIP)130,000$
City Events
Staff 1 85,000$ keep as proposed
Program expenses 136,500$ keep as proposed
License Plate Recognition Pilot Program 150,000$
Thriving in Place - Placeholder (FOF)226,000$
Wasatch Community Gardens Apprenticeship Program 50,000$
New Programs - these are included in the MRB - listed here for additional discussion per Council Member
request
Compliance
New Program: Occupied Vehicle Mitigation Team
Overall FY24 Cost: $398,000
One Time Cost: $73,000
• 1 Chevy Bolt: Purchase Price & Make Ready
• Uniforms, cell phones, other equipment
Ongoing: $325,000
• 3 FTEs: 1 Compliance Division Supervisor – pay grade 25, 2 Lead Compliance Officers –
pay grade 121
This new support team consists of 3 staff members, 2 Lead Compliance Officers and 1 Supervisor. In
coordination with the HEART team, the County, and PD, this team will address non-compliant vehicles
surrounding encampments and enforce the 48-hour streets for storage ordinance, on vehicles reported
as occupied. The two enforcement officers would share a vehicle as they will always work in tandem.
The supervisor will process incoming reports, coordinate response with other Departments, reply to
requests and manage scheduling.
Since the plan is to provide full parking enforcement training, when not specifically addressing vehicle
mitigations, these officers would assume regular compliance officer duties, providing additional capacity
to routine parking enforcement functions. These officers and supervisor will also receive specialized
training to gain the necessary skills to address encampment impact mitigation events in a safe and
compassionate manner.
The team will be available Monday through Friday 8am-5pm. With the current and steady volume of
requests (see attached report), it is expected that they will be responding more immediately to reports
involving a small number of vehicles while continuing to address locations with a larger number of
vehicles in a coordinated way with PD.
Open “occupied-vehicle” reports as of May 31
Count: 97 locations
Days open: 6 days 70 days
Current scheduled response to occupied-vehicle reports
• Tuesday 5/30 notification posting, Thursday 6/1 follow-up.
Start time 8 am, 2 Officers from P.D.
1000 south Legacy view (5710 w) 6 vehicles
3636 west Ninigret (1580 s) 4 vehicles
4490 west 2100 south 6 vehicles
1481 st Paxton ave. (1170 s) 1 vehicle
1481 west Pacific ave. (440 s) 1 vehicle
• Tuesday 6/6 notification posting, Thursday 6/8 follow-up.
Start time 8 am, 2 Officers from P.D.
1015 west 3600 west 9 vehicles
1510 south Gustin (38000 w) 14 vehicles
1021 west Cannon (1510 s) 1 vehicle
939 south 700 west 1 vehicle
459 south Concord (1240 w) 2 vehicles
• Tuesday 6/13 notification posting, Thursday 6/15 follow-up.
Start time 8 am, 2-4 Officers from P.D.
Gladiola St. 900 s. – 1300 s. 24 vehicles