HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
and
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
and
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY
REVISED FORMAL MEETING AGENDA
May 4, 2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Amy Fowler, Chair
District 7
James Rogers, Vice Chair
District 1
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Generated: 10:57:49
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at
the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they
feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings
or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7654 to learn
how you can share your comments live during the meetings.
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an
email:
•24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council
Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View
comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings.
The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate
the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one
item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two-
minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning
to speak to the next.
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.LBA OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
Council/Board Member Amy Fowler Ana Valdemoros will conduct the formal
meetings.
2.
Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
B.LBA UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the
Local Building Authority for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for
the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah
for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday,
June 1, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C.LBA ADJOURNMENT:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
D.RDA UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt
Lake City for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for
the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday,
June 1, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
E.RDA ADJOURNMENT:
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
F.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday,
September 1, 2020 and Tuesday, October 6, 2020.
2.
Mayor Mendenhall will present the proposed Salt Lake City budget, including the
Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
G.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Items G1-G6 will be heard as one public hearing
1. Grant Application: 200 South Transit Priority Signal System – Transit
Transportation Investment Fund Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). If
awarded, this grant would fund the installation of a transit signal priority (TSP)
system, traffic signal upgrades, and transit-focused technology to allow the 200
South transit corridor to accommodate twelve bus routes with 1,100 bus trips per
day.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
2. Grant Application: 200 South Transit Hub End-of-Line Facilities -
Transit Transportation Investment Fund Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). If
awarded, this grant would fund the construction of bus parking and layover
infrastructure for the 200 South East Downtown Transit Hub. These amenities
will allow drivers to leave their vehicles and take a break between routes. The
Administration indicates the leasing, operating, and maintenance agreements
between the City and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) are not yet determined.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
3. Grant Application: North Temple Active Transportation – Transit
Transportation Investment Fund – First and Last Mile Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). If
awarded, this grant would fund the construction of a paved trail, improve and
shorten pedestrian crossings, widen sidewalks, and add trees and shading
elements for the five-block stretch of North Temple from the North Temple
Frontrunner stop to downtown Salt Lake City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
4. Grant Application: West Temple Walk Bike Transit Connections -
Transit Transportation Investment Fund-First and Last Mile Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). If
awarded, this grant would fund the addition of physically separated bike lanes,
pedestrian crossing improvements, and narrow pedestrian crossing distances with
curb extensions and refuge islands. These improvements will be made as part of
the West Temple Street Reconstruction scheduled for 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
5. Grant Application: Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood
Byway Grant -Transit Transportation Investment Fund-First and Last
Mile Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). If
awarded, this grant would fund the construction of a north-south transportation
route through the Westpointe and Jordan Meadows neighborhoods running west
of and parallel to Redwood Road. Amenities planned for this location include
mini-roundabouts at larger street intersections, curb extension, bike ramps, bike
lane striping, speed humps, and wayfinding signage.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
6. Grant Application: Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House –
Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Division of Transportation to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). If
awarded, this grant would fund the construction of a two-way bike facility in the
public right-of-way on the west side of Highland Drive, and the construction of
200 feet of a trail along Sugarmont Drive just west of Highland Drive. This work
will be completed as part of the reconstruction of Highland Drive planned for
2023.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
7. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 8 for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance
amending the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing
document, for Fiscal Year 2020-21. The proposed amendment includes funding
for Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training certifications and re-certifications,
hiring a class of lateral police officers, and a donation to Switchpoint to create a
shelter for low-income seniors and veterans, among other changes.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
H.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
I.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled
for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited
to two minutes.)
J.NEW BUSINESS:
1. Motion: Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location
The Council will consider a motion to ratify the determination that the Council
will continue to meet remotely and without an anchor location under HB5002.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Resolution: Local Emergency Declaration Extension – COVID-19
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s
March 10, 2020 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to COVID-19
(coronavirus). The Council’s most recent extension of the local emergency relating
to COVID-19 terminates May 5, 2021.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3. Ordinance: Permitting Certain Outdoor Business Activities and Use of
Certain Temporary Structures
The Council will consider adopting a temporary land use ordinance
that would allow restaurants and retail establishments that hold a
current business license to conduct temporary outdoor restaurant
dining and retail activities on private property and utilize temporary
structures to facilitate outdoor dining and retail activities. The
proposed ordinance would allow the land use aspects of the Mayor’s
emergency proclamations related to outdoor dining and retail to
continue once the emergency proclamation allowed under H.B. 294
expires. The temporary ordinance would be in effect for six months.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
K.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Tentative Budget of Salt Lake City, including the Tentative
Budget of the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Council will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budgets of
Salt Lake City, Utah, including the tentative budget of the Library Fund, for Fiscal
Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday,
June 1, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment located at approximately 706 to
740 West 900 South 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue
The Council will reconsider* adopting ordinances that would rezone properties at
706 to 740 West 900 South and 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, including
portions of two alleys, from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential
Mixed Use). The applicant intends to develop the remaining portion of the site
with multi-family residential housing that is not currently permitted under the
existing zoning designation. The developer has not proposed a specific
development plan as part of the rezone application. The applicant also intends to
renovate two vacant commercial buildings on the site for commercial uses.
Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district
with similar characteristics. Other sections of Title 21A – Zoning may also be
amended as part of this petition. Petition Nos.: PLNPCM2019-01137 and
PLN2020-00442
*The Council is reconsidering this item to clarify for the public record which of the
two proposed ordinances is being considered.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 16, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 16, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 20, 2021 and Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
L.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 9 for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending the final budget of Salt
Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
The proposed amendment includes funding for building office space to
accommodate expansion of the Emergency Management Division, technology
upgrades for the 911 Department, and reimbursements to the Fire Department,
among other changes.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Grant Holding Account Item (Batch No.5) Associated with Budget
Amendment No. 9 for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Item (Batch No. 5)
for Fiscal Year 2020-21 Associated with Budget Amendment No. 9.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
3. Board Appointment: Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC) –
Dani Cepernich
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Dani Cepernich to the
PUAC for a term ending January 20, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
M.ADJOURNMENT:
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.
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.
TO:Board Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
Item B1
MOTION SHEET
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT
LAKE CITY
RE:MOTION SHEET – Resolution adopting Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority
tentative budget for FY 2021-22
MOTION 1 –ADOPT
I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Capital Projects Fund of
the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the proposed resolution and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
1
Resolution No. ______ of 2021
(Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of
Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2021-2022)
A Resolution Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local
Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2021 and
Ending June 30, 2022.
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has created the Local Building Authority of Salt
Lake City, Utah (the “Building Authority”), and has appointed Mary Beth Thompson as the
Budget Officer of the Building Authority (the “Budget Officer”); and
WHEREAS, the Budget Officer has filed with the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the
Building Authority a tentative budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Board is required to review, consider and tentatively adopt the tentative
budget in a regular or special meeting called for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the tentative budget adopted by the Board and all supporting schedules and
data shall be a public record in the office of the Secretary of the Building Authority, available for
public inspection for a period of at least ten days before the adoption of the final budget; and
WHEREAS, at the meeting in which the tentative budget for the capital projects fund is
adopted, the Board shall establish the time and place of a public hearing to consider the adoption
and shall order that notice thereof be given at least seven days before the hearing (a) by posting
in three public places within Salt Lake City, Utah and (b) by publishing on the Utah Public
Notice Website created in Utah Code Section 63A-12-201.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Local Building
Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
2
1. The tentative budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority for the
fiscal year 2021-2022, filed by the Budget Officer with the Board, is hereby adopted as the
Building Authority’s tentative budget for the capital projects fund and is ordered to be filed and
maintained as a public record, available for public inspection in the office of the Secretary of the
Building Authority, whose permanent office is located at 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt
Lake City, UT 84111 but which office is temporarily located at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake
City, UT 84111, until adoption of the final budget.
2. The Board shall hold a public hearing on the budget tentatively adopted. The
public hearing shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on ________, 2021 and _________, 2021. The public
hearing will be held during an electronic meeting which is authorized under Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 and the Governor’s Executive Order dated March 18,
2020. Under that Proclamation and Order, the meeting will not have a physical location at the
City and County Building. Anyone desiring to listen to or speak at the public hearing must
connect to the meeting remotely. Persons desiring to listen to or speak at the public hearing
should visit the City Council’s website (https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-
news/virtually-attend-city-council-meetings/) or call 801-535-7600 to learn how to listen to or
speak at the public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least seven days
before the hearing (a) in at least one issue of a newspaper of general circulation published in Salt
Lake County, Utah and (b) on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Utah Code Section
63A-12-201. At the public hearing the Board shall give all interested persons in attendance or
connected remotely an opportunity to be heard on the estimates of revenues and expenditures or
any item in the tentative budget of the capital projects fund.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval and adoption.
3
Passed by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah,
this _____ day of _______________, 2021.
________________________
ATTEST: PRESIDENT
______________________________
SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM
______________________________
Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney
Date: _____________________
TO:RDA Board Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
Item D1
MOTION SHEET
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
RE:MOTION SHEET – Resolution adopting Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
tentative budget for FY 2021-22
MOTION 1 –ADOPT
I move that the Board approve a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Redevelopment Agency of
Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Board not adopt the proposed resolution and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
RESOLUTION NO__________
(Adopting the Tentative Budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah
for Fiscal Year 2021-2022)
A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City,
Utah Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2021 and Ending June
30, 2022.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 77204, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake
City (“Agency”) adopted a budget policy requiring the Agency, to the extent possible, to abide by
all processes and procedures outlined in the Utah Fiscal Procedures Act (“Fiscal Procedures Act”);
and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director of the Agency has filed a tentative budget with the
Agency’s Board of Directors (the “Board”); and
WHEREAS, under the Fiscal Procedures Act, the Board is required to review, consider
and tentatively adopt the tentative budget in a regular or special meeting called for that purpose;
and
WHEREAS, the tentative budget adopted by the Board and all supporting schedules and
data shall be a public record in the Agency’s offices, available for public inspection for a period
of at least ten days before the adoption of the final budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment
Agency of Salt Lake City that the tentative budget for the Agency for the fiscal year 2021-2022 is
hereby adopted as the Agency’s tentative budget and will be filed and maintained as a public
record, available for public inspection at the Agency’s offices located in the City and County
Building, 451 South State Street, Room 118, Salt Lake City, Utah, until adoption of the final
budget.
Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this
____ day of May, 2021.
________________________________
Ana Valdemoros
Chair
Approved as to form: __________________________________
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Allison Parks
April 30, 2021
The Executive Director:
____ does not request reconsideration
____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting.
_________________________________
Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director
Attest:
_________________________
City Recorder
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 1
The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, September 1, 2020,
in an Electronic Meeting, pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No. 2 of 2020(2)(b).
In Attendance: Council Members Chris Wharton, James Rogers, Andrew
Johnston, Amy Fowler, Analia Valdemoros, Daniel Dugan, and Darin
Mano.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Erin
Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine
Lewis, City Attorney; Lisa Shaffer, Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff;
Nick Norris, Planning Director; Sam Owen, Council Policy Analyst;
Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner;
Robert Nutzman, Council Administrative Assistant; Blake Thomas,
Community and Neighborhoods Director; Benjamin Luedtke, Council
Policy Analyst, Nick Tarbet, Council Policy Analyst; Mary Beth
Thompson, Chief Financial Officer; Jonathan Larsen, Transportation
Director; Kim Thomas, Youth and Family Division Director; Lani
Eggertsen-Goff, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director;;
Nole Walkingshaw, Public Services Deputy Director; Keith Van Otten
City Cemetery Sexton; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Austin
Kimmel, Council Constituent Liaison; Kristin Riker, Public Lands
Deputy Director; Lee Bollwinkel, Parks Division Director;
Christopher Thomas, Senior Energy and Climate Program Manager;
Vicki Bennett, Sustainability Director; and Scott Crandall, Deputy
City Recorder.
Guests in Attendance: Kathia Dang, Applicant (Item 7).
Councilmember Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:06 p.m. 2:06:16 PM
AGENDA ITEMS
#1. 2:07:35 PM Informational: Updates Relating to Mayor’s
Proclamations Declaring Local Emergencies for COVID-19, March
Earthquake, and Recent Protests. The Council will receive an update
from the Administration about the Mayor’s emergency declarations
relating to COVID-19 (coronavirus), the March 18th earthquake in
the Salt Lake Valley, and recent protests in the City. As part of
the update, the Council may discuss public health and other public
safety, policy and budget issues stemming from the emergency
events. The Administration may also provide information or updates
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 2
from organizations or experts related to the emergency responses
and coordination, including but not limited to earthquake damage
to the City, the functioning of the Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), City response and aid, and the status of City buildings.
Mayor Mendenhall provided information on the following:
COVID-19 Status (including an informative video detailing the
Administration’s plan for winter).
• Five key points of the plan included information on how to
deal with and overcome issues regarding the following during
the pandemic: Health, Education & Childcare, Economic
Support, Housing Stability & Homeless Services, and
Operations & Services from the City.
• The Community Commitment Program was reviewed which included
information regarding the Neighborhood/Camp Cleanup Program.
• Ongoing encampment resolution was reviewed and the need for
partners clarified. Each area was to have a one to two-week
intensive service outreach before cleanup was to take place.
Resources included legal options, treatment options and
housing options.
Rachel Otto spoke on communication needs within the homeless
population regarding camp cleanup so that individuals might be
prepared and when to expect it. The Health Department had
identified certain target areas that they have deemed a necessity
based off health concerns, and alternative housing and funding
were a priority before camping enforcement occurred.
Councilmembers requested the following items from Staff:
• Information on the responsibility of private property owners
regarding camp cleanups and clarification on the hotline
phone number to report violations.
• Clarification on the list of focus areas for camp cleanups.
• Clarification on where individuals might go who were
experiencing homelessness.
#2. 2:51:59 PM Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and
Policing. The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts
on various projects City staff are working on related to racial
equity and policing in the City. The conversation may include
issues of community concern about race, equity, and justice in
relation to law enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and
ordinances. Discussion may include:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 3
• An update or report on the newly created Commission on Racial
Equity in Policing; and
• Other project updates or discussion.
Jennifer Bruno said additional updates would be provided at
a future meeting.
#3. 2:52:17 PM Informational: Updates on Relieving the
Condition of People Experiencing Homelessness. The Council will
hear updates and discuss issues pertaining to relieving the
condition of people experiencing homelessness in neighborhoods
throughout Salt Lake City.
Mayor Mendenhall discussed the following with the Council:
• Eviction Moratorium had lapsed at this time and Unemployment
Aid in the amount of $600 had ended.
• Raise Up Salt Lake City was providing debit cards for qualifying
individuals with $500 towards any reasonable expense such as
rent, groceries, etc.
#4. 2:54:23 PM Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year
2020-21 Follow-up Briefing. The Council will receive a follow-up
briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for
Fiscal Year 2020-2021. Budget amendments happen several times each
year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including
proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed
amendment includes infrastructure for publicly-accessible internet
access, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
funding for personnel costs related to pandemic response,
expansion of the City’s Youth and Family program to help with
childcare and education, and funding for housing assistance, among
other items. View Attachments
Benjamin Luedtke, Kim Thomas, and Nole Walkingshaw discussed
the following with the Council:
• $1.6 million Youth City program expansion proposal using one-
time funds, for a one-time program expansion. CARES Act
funding to cover personnel expenses. $248,000 was anticipated
for technology purchases. The goal of the program was to
increase access for ongoing Child Care needs and increase
Social Services. The program had also anticipated nutritional
and technology device needs. There was one full-time employee
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 4
(FTE) (Community Programs Manager) position available and was
intended to be hired as part of the expansion.
• Supporting the school district to ensure children had access
to wi-fi and appropriate technology to successfully complete
distanced learning.
• The number of children in one group at a time. This number
was three groups of 18 children with two adults at a time
(determined by the Office of Childcare and Health Department
Guidelines in relation to the pandemic).
• Information regarding the program was to be distributed
within the Salt Lake City School district by various means
(including but not limited to Social Media).
• 500 kids in Glendale and Poplar Grove that did not log in
when school went remote in March of 2020. The goal was to
reach these children.
• Additional grant in the amount of $1.2 million to ensure the
continuation of this program.
Council Members requested the following items from Staff:
• Clarification on how information for this program was being
communicated to the community.
• Clarification on the number of assistant teachers for support
services.
• Information regarding income restrictions to the program
ensuring low-income needs were met.
• Information on expanding the program long-term.
#5. 3:14:43 PM Ordinance: Text Amendments to the RMF-30 Low
Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning District. The Council will
be briefed about a proposal to amend the RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-
Family Residential) Zoning District and corresponding sections of
Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance. The changes aim to remove zoning
barriers to multi-family housing developments in RMF-30 zoned
areas of the City. Petition No. PLNPCM2019-00313. Proposed changes
include:
1. Introducing design standards for all new development
2. Allowing the construction of new building types including
sideways row houses, cottage developments, and tiny houses
3. Reducing minimum lot area requirements per unit
4. Removing lot width minimum requirements
5. Allowing more than one primary structure on a lot
6. Granting a density bonus for the retention of an existing
structure
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 5
7. Introducing a lot width maximum to discourage land banking.
View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Mayara Lima, Kelsey Lindquist, Nick Norris, and
Lani Eggertsen-Goff briefed the Council with attachments. Comments
included:
• Study & Analysis by the Planning Division exposed changes
when reviewing the City Master Plan.
• Seven considerations to ensure the zoning district was
functional and produced housing.
• Zoning District Text Amendments were reviewed and proposed
with the following purposes:
1. Remove zoning barriers to development of housing.
2. Promote compatible development.
3. Encourage a variety of housing types.
• Multi-Family developments were proposed in the amendments to
increase City housing stock.
• Changes proposed:
1. Design Standards for new buildings
2. New building forms
3. Reduction of minimum lot area/unit
4. Remove minimum lot width
5. Multiple structures on a lot
6. Unit bonus
7. Lot width maximum
• Community Concerns and Comments were as follows:
1. Lack of affordable housing as a component of this
amendment
2. Displacement of existing units
3. Potential demolition of historic structures
• A Technical Committee was previously used to discuss planning
within the City that included Attorney Staff, Planning Staff,
Housing & Neighborhood Development (HAND) Staff, and Building
Services. Addressing the ordinance and engaging a consultant
was currently being discussed.
Council Members requested the following items from Staff:
• Information regarding affordable housing stock and how
affordable housing options would be available.
• Clarification on the height restrictions and an update on
parking information.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 6
#6. 3:58:30 PM Tentative Break
#7. 4:32:55 PM Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment for 402 and 416
East 900 South Follow-up Briefing (Southeast Market). The Council
will receive a follow-up briefing about an ordinance that would
rezone the parcels located at 402 and 416 East 900 South to rezone
those parcels from RB (Residential/Business District) and CN
(Neighborhood Commercial District) to CB (Community Business
District). Currently, these parcels fall within two different
zoning districts and the parcel at 416 East Street is split zoned
both RB and CN. The applicants would like to rezone to one zone
for consistency. No development plans have been submitted at this
time. Petition No. PLNPCM2018-01025. View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Molly Robinson, and Kathia Dang (applicant)
briefed the Council with attachments. Comments included:
• Community concerns at public hearing regarding re-zone.
• Meeting was held in November of 2019 and another zone was
reviewed. Request continued for CB Rezone.
• Building must face 900 South.
• Public Hearing was set for April 7, 2020 but was rescheduled
due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and meeting arrangements.
• Brew pubs and taverns were not allowed in the RB zone.
• Within the CN zone, a bar was a Conditional Use.
• Applicant spoke on the agreement including information regarding
the existing building being used as a commercial business for
80 years, no intention to change the footprint, wanting to be
able to bring the property back to life, and structural issues
causing a liability if not addressed.
#8. 4:50:14 PM Informational: County Sales Tax for
Transportation Projects. The Salt Lake County fourth quarter-cent
sales tax for transportation funding is a new, ongoing funding
source dedicated to transportation. The Council will be briefed
about the Administration’s proposed projects for Fiscal Year 2021.
Funding includes $1.5 million for improvements to prepare for
frequent transit bus service on 600 North and 1000 North, $800,000
for improvements to the 9-Line Trail and Folsom Trail, and $200,000
for alleyway maintenance, among other items. View Attachments
Benjamin Luedtke, Blake Thomas, and Jennifer Bruno briefed
the Council with attachments. Comments included:
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 7
• Second year of the funding source available to the City due
to ongoing sales tax available to the City.
• $58 million County-wide in the recent year and $4.7 million
specifically within Salt Lake City.
• Funding was split per State law (40% of revenue going to Utah
Transit Authority (UTA), 40% divided between the cities, and
remaining 20% going to the County).
• Used to develop new roads or enhance current roads.
• Used to fund transit enhancement as well as maintenance and
upkeep of current facilities.
• 10 of the 11 projects totaling $6.9 million was placed into
a holding account.
• Council included a budget contingency which stated the
funding was being held pending the Administration briefing
the Council.
• Funding to be included in Capital Improvement Projects (CIP)
in future years.
• Potential contingency if there were revenue short falls, due
to it being a sales tax revenue.
Jonathan Larsen specifically spoke on:
• Quality Transportation Improvement Program (QTIP) having two
phases.
• Creating a data driven process to ensure decision processes
were easier.
• GIS Based Scoring was reviewed which included equity data.
• Transportation QTIP Process Example Map was reviewed.
• Equity consideration per district was requested.
• 11 current projects included:
Urban Trails (Fund Balance Fiscal Year (FY) 2020)
o Multi-Modal intersection and traffic signal upgrades (Fund
Balance FY2020)
o Neighborhood Street Safety and Livability (Fund Balance
FY2020)
o 600 North/1000 North Bus Service Start Up Investment
o Urban Trails Development
o Complete Streets Reconstruction (Class C Bond Money)
o Alleyway Maintenance and Re-pavement
o Trail Maintenance
o Maintenance of Multi-Modal Infrastructure
o Community Engagement
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 8
Mary Beth Thompson reviewed the following:
• Funding from the Tax Commission into Salt Lake City’s
Transportation Fund would be deposited monthly as Sales Tax
did.
Councilmembers requested the following items from Staff:
• Clarification regarding input screening.
• Clarification regarding transferring the project to CIP.
• Clarification regarding GIS Scoring against current project and
how they ranked.
Straw Poll: Support for the Council to recognize the intent
for QTIP was a mechanism for evaluating Transportation projects,
and for Transportation funds and projects to go through the CIP
process. All Council Members were in favor.
#9. 5:49:53 PM Informational: Draft Cemetery Master Plan Update
The Council will be briefed about the updated draft Master
Plan for The Salt Lake City Cemetery. The City’s 120-acre cemetery
is located in the Avenues neighborhood and opened officially in
1849. It is facing challenges similar to those experienced by other
historic cemeteries, including dwindling capacity, limited
expansion opportunities and funding challenges. The draft Master
Plan includes ideas and recommendations to capitalize on the
cemetery as a valuable community open space and provide
recommendations to fund its deferred maintenance and perpetual
care. View Attachments
Austin Kimmel, Kristin Riker, Lee Bollwinkel, Keith Van
Otten, Mayor Mendenhall, and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council
with attachments. Comments Included:
• Three primary purposes of the Master Plan:
1. Preservation and management of the cemetery
2. Expand access to appropriate uses of the cemetery
3. Address the future financial sustainability of the cemetery
The Administration provided funding recommendations and
provided information regarding the following:
• Currently less than 400 grave sites left.
• Nominate cemetery to National Registry of Historic Places.
• Preservation Management Plan.
• Historic Documentation & Investigation.
• Protect and stabilize damaged gravestones.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 9
• Trees & Vegetation Preservation Plan was reviewed.
• Preservation & management of the cemetery deferred maintenance.
• Roadway Conditions Analysis was reviewed to determine necessary
repairs.
• Updated 2020 Cost Breakdown regarding capital needs was
reviewed.
• Next steps included a public hearing scheduled for September
15, 2020, with the Council scheduled to vote on adoption shortly
after.
#10. 6:14:38 PM Informational: Municipal Renewable Energy
Project Update. The Council will receive a briefing about the
Administration’s recent efforts to align more City operations with
renewable energy resources. The update primarily includes a solar
project opportunity and City financial impacts for repowering
municipal electricity needs with renewable energy. View
Attachments
Sam Owens, Christopher Thomas, and Vicki Bennett briefed the
Council with attachments. Comments included:
• Solar Power supporting municipal operations; 2.8 gigawatt
(GW) from on-site generation, 7.2 GW from subscriber solar,
and now 100 GW from utility-scale (6-customer collaboration
to build new Utah solar farm.
• Procurement timeline, including: March 2019 - requests for
proposal (RFP) issued by RMP and six customers, October 2019
-renewable contract filed with Utah Public Service
Commission, February 2020 - Renewable Contract Approved,
September 2020 - currently in the process of finalizing
appendix language/providing input on power purchase agreement
with both expecting to be signed/approved, and project
expected to go online no later than December 2022 (with full
production of the project seen in calendar year 2023).
• Power contract runs through Rocky Mountain Power
• Expecting to procure 100 GW hours of solar electricity
annually (long-term goal)
• Project allowing Salt Lake City to meet joint 50% renewable
electricity target (starting in 2023 forward)
• Schedule 34 adder (rate schedule) – while paying for normal
electric service – accounts enrolled for Solar Electricity
would pay an additional $1.49 per megawatt (MW)-Hour consumed
• Anticipated annual cost impact of 1.46%
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
20 - 10
• Energy Balancing Account surcharges would include two
adjustments per year
• Protection from annual adjustments for those enrolled in the
solar resource
STANDING ITEMS
#11. 6:39:08 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
No discussion was held.
#12. 6:39:27 PM 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 Virtual ULCT 2020
Annual Convention and Scheduling Items.
See File M 20-5 for announcements.
#13. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN
KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE §52-4-205 FOR ANY ALLOWED PURPOSE.
Item not held.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
_______________________________
COUNCIL CHAIR
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript
as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio
or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
September 1, 2020.
sc/kt
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 1
The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday October 6, 2020,
in an Electronic Meeting, pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No. 2 of 2020(2)(b).
In Attendance: Council Members Andrew Johnston, Amy Fowler, Chris
Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers, and Analia
Valdemoros.
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive
Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Erin
Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine
Lewis, City Attorney; David Litvack, Mayor’s Senior Advisor; Ben
Kolendar, Economic Development Deputy Director; Katia Pace,
Principal Planner; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director;
Russell Weeks, Council Senior Advisor; David Salazar, Human
Resource Program Manager; Carolyn Campbell, Human Resource Program
Manager; Lehua Weaver, Associate Council Deputy Director; Laura
Briefer, Public Utilities Director; Lorna Vogt, Public Services
Director; Danny Walz, Redevelopment Agency Chief Operating
Officer; Blake Thomas, Director of Community & Neighborhoods; JP
Goates, Housing & Neighborhood Development Policy & Program
Manager; Daniel Rip, Housing and Neighborhood Development Policy
& Program Manager; Nick Tarbet, Council Senior Public Policy
Analyst; Nick Norris, Planning Director; Daniel Echeverria, Senior
Planner; Julianne Sabula, Transportation Transit Program Manager;
Jonathan Larsen, Transportation Director; Lisa Shaffer, Mayor’s
Chief Administrative Officer; Robert Nutzman, Council
Administrative Assistant; Amanda Lau, Council Public Engagement &
Communications Specialist; Benjamin Luedtke, Council Policy
Analyst; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City Recorder.
Councilmember Wharton presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 2:04 p.m.
AGENDA ITEMS
#1.2:05:56 PM Informational: Updates Relating to Mayor’s
Proclamations Declaring Local Emergencies for COVID-19, March
Earthquake, Recent Protests, and Windstorm. The Council will
receive an update from the Administration about the Mayor’s
emergency declarations relating to COVID-19 (coronavirus), the
March 18th earthquake in the Salt Lake Valley, and the September
8th windstorm. As part of the update, the Council may discuss
public health and other public safety, policy and budget issues
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 2
stemming from the emergency declarations. The Council may also
receive information or updates from organizations or experts
related to the emergency responses and coordination, including but
not limited to earthquake damage to the City, the functioning of
the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), City response and aid, and
the status of City buildings.
Mayor Mendenhall and Rachel Otto provided updates/briefed the
Council regarding COVID-19 and windstorm, including:
• City moving back into Orange phase (after three highest positive
test case days in local pandemic history)
• 8.5% positivity rate averaged in the last seven days (goal was
less than 5%)
• 45 City Police officers were quarantined/in isolation due to
exposure
• Coordination with local businesses/public health officials to
re-evaluate moderate-risk restrictions
• Windstorm cleanup moving ahead and currently on schedule
• Coordination with a variety of different programs to keep wood
waste out of landfills
#2.2:09:59 PM Informational: Updates on Relieving the Condition
of People Experiencing Homelessness. The Council will hear updates
and discuss issues pertaining to relieving the condition of people
experiencing homelessness in neighborhoods throughout Salt Lake
City.
Rachel Otto briefed the Council regarding:
• Continuation of the Community Commitment Program (Phase II
began yesterday – involving intensive focused outreach located
in the 700 South area/Geraldine E. King Women’s Resource Center,
15 individuals engaged during outreach, six individuals
accepting services with nine declining services)
• Website being made available today by Housing and Neighborhood
Development (HAND), explaining various phases of Community
Commitment Program, available resources, addressing frequently
asked questions, etc.
#3.2:13:21 PM Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and
Policing (REP). The Council will hold a discussion about recent
efforts on various projects City staff are working on related to
racial equity and policing in the City. The conversation may
include issues of community concern about race, equity, and justice
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 3
in relation to law enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and
ordinances. Discussion may include:
• An update or report on the newly created Commission on
Racial Equity in Policing; and
• Other project updates or discussion.
David Litvack briefed the Council regarding:
• Background on selection process of facilitators (Langdon Group
being firm selected)
• Proposed budget for REP Commission Members & Facilitators
(funding for the facilitator positions not to exceed $218,940
for one year, funding/honorarium of $2,500 for core
commissioners, $2,000 for other members, and $1,500 for two
youth commission members).
Straw Poll: Support for funding the REP facilitator positions
(expecting a future budget amendment and support for that budget
amendment). Council Members Rogers, Johnston, Wharton, Fowler,
Mano, and Dugan were in favor. Councilmember Valdemoros was absent
for the vote.
4:09:51 PM Katherine Lewis and Benjamin Luedtke briefed the
Council regarding donation ordinance guidelines/restrictions,
donation of military surplus (as per current draft ordinance), and
examples of equipment donated to other jurisdictions (grenade
launchers, military assault rifles, combat Humvees with top
mounted firearms).
Straw Poll: Support for creating a process to negotiate with
the Administration regarding the donation of certain military
surplus property (through added/amended language regarding
donation policy in an ordinance). All Council Members were in
favor.
Mr. Luedtke inquired on the upcoming timeline: if the Council
would be ready to vote this evening at the formal meeting or moving
the vote to the next formal meeting. Cindy Gust-Jenson recommended
an added motion to allow the Council to adopt the ordinance tonight
with the condition the Attorney’s office add the requested amended
language. Mr. Luedtke confirmed this could be added for the formal
meeting tonight. Councilmember Wharton agreed to Ms. Gust-Jenson’s
recommendation.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 4
#4. 2:21:53 PM Ordinance: Fleet Block Zoning Amendments (300
and 400 West and between 800 and 900 South). The Council will be
briefed about a proposal to create a new land use zone titled Form-
Based Urban Neighborhood 3 (FB-UN3) and rezone the 10-acre City
block known as the Fleet Block (located between 300 and 400 West
and between 800 and 900 South) from Public Land (PL) and General
Commercial (CG) to FB-UN3. The area was previously used by the
City for a fleet maintenance facility that has since been
relocated. Form-Based code focuses on the form and appearance of
buildings. It also has more regulations that control those aspects
of development than traditional zones. The proposal would apply
regulations to future developments such as building design,
height, bulk, use, and other development standards and land uses.
The regulations are intended to support the block’s redevelopment.
In addition to the zoning amendments, the Council will also hear
updates from City departments about the work they have done related
to the redevelopment of this City-owned property. Petition No.
PLNPCM2019-00277. View Attachments
Mayor Mendenhall, Nick Tarbet, Nick Norris, and Daniel
Echeverria briefed the Council with attachments. Discussion was
held regarding history of the fleet block, considerations for fleet
block and nearby/surrounding area, overview of current zoning,
master plan coordination, form-based code proposal (key components
including: midrise heights, design controls, broad mix of uses,
expandable to Granary area), building form types and allowances
(row house/vertical mixed use, multi-family, storefront), design
standards, possible land uses, parking/streetscape/sign
requirements, additional requirements/components
(retail/restaurant/art galleries along 900 South sidewalks,
excluding residential units and clarifications to code to reduce
conflicts), and public process (outreach, open house, public
comments, and public hearings).
Further discussion included environmental impacts/concerns,
requiring certain commercial uses on ground level throughout the
block, and concerns regarding developing lot lacking open/green
space.
Councilmember Valdemoros joined the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Daniel Rip provided a high-level summary of the Urban Design
Associates Feasibility Study, including: study completed late
2018, concluding presentation was made to the City Council early
2019 (findings were reviewed), process included heavy public
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 5
engagement with several community engagement meetings, findings
included recommendations from consultants for the City to include
dividing the site into three areas and develop using a phased
approach, recommended next steps at the time included: begin the
re-zone process, determine a sequence for public infrastructure
improvements around the fleet block (new roads, public
access/transportation, upgrades to utilities/underground utility
lines), determine a path for environmental remediation, and
publish from a request for interest and/or qualification from
developers (important for the City to see what interest there was
in the development community for pursuing this project).
JP Goates provided information regarding environmental
considerations, including: constraints due to previous industrial
use (for over 100 years), mitigation of existing soil contaminants
(petroleum, lead, arsenic, etc.), Phase II assessment was
conducted in late 2017 detailing cleanup costs (ranging from
$600,000 for commercial screening, time frame varying from eight
months to two years), and determining factors for level of cleanup
dependent on future use of the property/screening levels (EPA
standards for commercial vs. residential uses).
Councilmember Johnston requested more detailed information
regarding environmental cleanup costs if the block became a public
park. Mr. Goates said he would provide more information to the
Council.
Jonathan Larsen provided the following information: potential
changes to street frontage on fleet block depended on what was
developed, largest investment in the area being 400 West light
rail connection (benefitting the neighborhood/City, relieving
pressure off main TRAX line), light rail study being conducted by
Utah Transit Authority (UTA), additional City-run Transportation
projects being on a much shorter time frame: 900 South
reconstruction, 9-Line trail completion, 300 West reconstruction,
the already completed Route 9 service (funded by Funding Our
Future), and the Grain Loop project (900 South/500 West) with
plans to address the railroad tracks in the area (being a major
barrier heading west).
Danny Walz and Ben Kolendar provided information regarding
RDA involvement in the western downtown area (including Fleet
Block) including: consideration of one or more potential project
areas, the existing RDA project area of the Granary District
(expiring in 2023), existing project area of the Depot District
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 6
(expiring in 2022), looking at 400 South/400 West areas as they
relate to potential transit expansion/improvements (including
consideration of the Grand Boulevards – 500/600 South), financial
analysis being conducted for land use, base taxable values for the
areas, planned projects for the neighborhood, property value
increases (re-zoning efforts playing a role in economic growth
potential), inclusion of an evaluation of areas from a community
impact/neighborhood vibrancy prospective (prioritizing public
benefits including affordable housing, sustainable development,
walkability, open-space, adaptive reuse, and historic
preservation), crucial portion of analysis for new project areas
was determining appetite for additional taxing entities to
participate (to what extent a new project area could align with
their goals), current discussions/negotiations with Salt Lake City
School District and Salt Lake County for approval of 9-Line & State
Street project areas, and analysis results informing discussions
with the Administration regarding priorities/next steps.
Councilmember Johnston expressed concern regarding investing
time/staff resources/money for new project areas in that district.
Mr. Kolendar said the struggle in planning new project areas was
the balancing of either shaping development that was happening now
(in the vision/values of the City) or have development build
development (may not fit City values, becomes more unorganized).
Mr. Walz added there were public benefits such as affordable
housing, infrastructure improvements, and encouraging transit to
be built sooner to benefit the area (as well as the City and County
as a whole).
Blake Thomas thanked the Council for utilizing their various
backgrounds to provide recommendations to the FBUN-3 zone and
mentioned that an update on the 2018 study (funded through Housing
& Neighborhood Development – HAND) was requested (noting the study
was now outdated), feedback from the Council regarding open-space
for the Fleet Block was being heard, and determining a zoning
change that all departments could agree on was top priority.
Mayor Mendenhall said that open space was very important to
her in the development of the Fleet Block and she appreciated the
creativity considerations of the Planning Department and others.
She said open-space had water-quality benefits, intersectional
reasons in the decision-making process, and for the future public
benefit that brings open-space up on the list of priorities.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 7
Laura Briefer provided information on the following: higher-
capacity water/waste water lines existed in the Fleet Block area,
however; capacity upgrades may be needed if larger water users
came in to the development (industrial, whole food processing,
breweries, beverage manufacturing, etc.), storm water
considerations included the new MS4 Permit (State issued –
authorizes City to discharge storm-water collected by storm sewer
systems to waters of the United States) requiring on-site retention
of water, and any changes with respect to pedestrian activity in
the area/changes to the flow of traffic would trigger consideration
of enhanced lighting areas (included in the updated Street Lighting
Master Plan forthcoming to the Council).
Lorna Vogt said a needs assessment was performed in 2018-2019
and was made available to the Council, the Fleet Block resided in
the Central Planning Area for public lands and was identified as
the highest need (currently lowest level of service in the City),
highest level of anticipated growth/visitation/future needs
(measured by the number of school aged children/youth, seniors,
density, and income), the block had a significant lack of trees
and area for other open spaces that were publicly accessible, the
addition of green spaces/plazas/squares were a way to support
livability and economic development in addition to their many
social/environmental factors, considerations for
preserving/incorporating into a public plaza/square (due to the
historic/current nature of the Fleet Block itself – specifically
the murals), and research was being conducted for resources on how
to use public spaces to connect people across
demographics/economic levels with some model cities finding
measurable impacts in voting participation & civic engagements
(due to access to available public space).
Councilmember Fowler said she would be interested in the
findings of the research from Ms. Vogt and her team and requested
a small group meeting to discuss.
#5. 3:44:18 PM Tentative Break
#6. 4:27:57 PM Ordinance: Congregate Care Text Amendment
Additional Recommendations. The Council will be briefed about a
proposal that would create a land use classification to address
short-term housing for the terminally ill and seriously ill
(sometimes known as eleemosynary, residential support, group home,
assisted living facility, or congregate care facilities). The
updated proposal includes reviewing compatibility concerns for how
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 8
this land use, and others like it, would impact the adjacent
residential neighborhoods, particularly the Institutional Zoning
District. Petition No. PLNPCM2016-00024 View Attachments
Nick Tarbet, Katia Pace, Michaela Oktay, and Nick Norris
briefed the Council with attachments. Discussion was held
regarding Planning Commission recommendations (remove 25-person
cap in the definition of Assisted Living Facilities, remove 800-
foot distance requirements between facilities, rename Eleemosynary
to “Dwelling, Congregate Care” facility, create new parking
requirement, etc.), proposing the addition of a qualifying
provision limiting one individual allowed per 950 square/feet of
lot area for Large Congregate Care/Large Assisted Living
facilities only in the Institutional zoning districts, amending
the definition of Congregate Care land use to explain how to define
an individual to be calculated, Medical Respite being a service
(not a land use type) and addressed/allowed as part of existing
land uses in the zoning ordinance, reasoning for focus on
Institutional zoning district (usually lying within low-density
neighborhoods – potentially impacting the neighborhood), and
allowance for existing facilities to increase the number of clients
with the proposed changes.
#7. 4:59:40 PM Ordinance: Shared Housing Zoning Text Amendments
Follow-up Briefing (formerly Single Room Occupancy or SROs). The
Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a new proposal for
Shared Housing zoning text amendments. The proposed amendments
would redefine what was previously Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
housing to Shared Housing, and defines it as a residential
building, or part of one that contains smaller housing units
consisting of one or more sleeping rooms and contains either a
private kitchen or private bathroom, but not both. In the updated
proposal, units could contain multiple sleeping rooms, rather than
limiting the unit to one sleeping room. Petition No. PLNPCM2018-
00066. View Attachments
Russell Weeks and Nick Norris briefed the Council regarding
requirement that any universally accessible units be on the ground-
floor (if more than what could fit on the ground floor then
allowable on other levels), and separate (new) petition being
required for expansion of shared housing units into residential
zones.
#8. 5:06:21 PM Resolution: Authorizing Pick Up of Public Safety
and Firefighter Employee Retirement Contributions. The Council
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 9
will be briefed about a resolution that would authorize the City
to “pick up” or cover qualifying Tier II public safety and
firefighter employee retirement contributions. The Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020-2021 annual budget split the cost between the City and
employees. The City would fully cover the cost increase under the
proposal. View Attachments
Benjamin Luedtke, David Salazar, and Carolyn Campbell briefed
the Council regarding proposed change estimated to cost the City
approximately $55,000 (included reimbursing those City employees
who had made payments in the current fiscal year), change was
result of Senate Bill (SB) 129 of 2019 (increased public safety
retirement multiplier from 1.5% to 2% and effective starting July
1, 2020 – higher benefit to the employee), the change in State law
resulted in a cost increase of 4.27% for the retirement plans with
two options: covered fully by the employer, or split between
employer/employee – adopted fiscal year (FY) 21 budget splits the
cost between the City and employees), Administration now
recommending the City fully cover the cost increase and reimburse
City employees making payments since July 1, 2020, and proposed
change being built into the annual budget each year at 2.27%.
#9. 5:18:02 PM Informational: County Sales Tax for
Transportation Projects Follow-up. The Salt Lake County fourth
quarter-cent sales tax for transportation funding is a new, ongoing
funding source dedicated to transportation. The Council will
receive a follow-up briefing about the Administration’s proposed
projects for Fiscal Year 2020-21. Funding includes $1.5 million
for improvements to prepare for frequent transit bus service on
600 North and 1000 North, $800,000 for improvements to the 9-Line
Trail and Folsom Trail, and $200,000 for alleyway maintenance,
among other items. The Council may consider a straw poll to support
releasing funds for some or all project proposals. View
Attachments
Benjamin Luedtke, Blake Thomas, Jonathan Larsen, Jennifer
Bruno, and Julianne Sabula briefed the Council with attachments.
Discussion was held regarding Transportation’s Quality
Transportation Improvement Plan (QTIP) website (providing
clarity/transparency regarding scoring metrics, processes, tools
used, funding opportunities, and links to master project list),
QTIP being Transportations new 5 year program (technical project
screening with 23 data points: analysis of equity, sustainability,
good governance, and safety), prioritization of a 5+ year project
list, matching projects with opportunities (Capital Improvement
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 10
Projects - CIP, Fourth quarter, Funding Our Future, etc.), proposed
QTIP annual timeline (successful with high-level buy in from
multiple levels throughout the City – particularly the Council),
goal being to receive feedback from the Council regarding project
prioritization, providing the Council requested list of projects
not selected this year, QTIP providing accountability,
transparency, and clarity about why projects get selected,
different this year was a dedicated funding stream and potential
discussions to determine if it was automatically directed or added
to the larger CIP conversation (used for CIP projects), and
motivation for the project was to be organized with more
information for more informed discussions.
Councilmember Johnston raised concerns regarding potentially
choosing between a project that was ready to go but was not nearly
as impactful (to surrounding area/neighborhood) as a project that
maybe was not ready and would never be because they could never
start.
Councilmember Fowler said she was in favor of releasing
funds/not holding up required work but requested more time to
discuss the process to understand the benefits to the Department
as well as the Council.
Straw Poll: Support for release of the recommended project
list, and to move forward with releasing funds for said projects
and set this topic for a future agenda item for policy discussion.
All Council Members were in favor.
#10. 5:48:45 PM Board Appointment: Utah Performing Arts Center
Agency (UPACA) – Rachel Otto. The Council will interview Rachel
Otto prior to considering her appointment to the UPACA Board for
a term ending October 6, 2024. View Attachments
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Rachel Otto’s
name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
#11. 5:52:12 PM Board Appointment: Human Rights Commission –
Shannon Kelly. The Council will interview Shannon Kelly prior to
considering her appointment to the Human Rights Commission for a
term ending April 3, 2022. Shannon is replacing Kimberlyn Mains,
who resigned August 2020. View Attachments
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Shannon
Kelly’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 11
#12. 5:56:56 PM Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board –
Edward Bennett. The Council will interview Edward Bennett prior to
considering his appointment as an ex-officio member to the Business
Advisory Board for a term ending December 27, 2021. View
Attachments
Interview was held. Councilmember Wharton said Edward
Bennett’s name was on the Consent Agenda for formal consideration.
STANDING ITEMS
#13. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
No discussion was held.
#14. 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.
Item not held.
#15. Tentative Closed Session. Council will consider a motion
to enter into Closed Session for any specific purpose under Section
52-4-205.
Item not held.
The Work Session meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
_______________________________
COUNCIL CHAIR
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript
as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio
or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020
20 - 12
This document along with the digital recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
October 6, 2020.
dr
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MESSAGES
MAYOR’S MESSAGE 10
SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION ORGANIZATION A-1
SALT LAKE CITY AT A GLANCE A-3
SALT LAKE COMMUNITY PROFILE A-4
SALT LAKE CITY BUDGET-IN-BRIEF A-5
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
BUDGET SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS B-1
FY 2021-22 CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET B-6
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES B-17
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES B-32
LBA KEY CHANGES B-50
RDA KEY CHANGES B-51
Multi-Agency Drug Task Force Key Changes B-63
FINANCIAL POLICIES
DEBT POLICIES C-1
DEBT STRUCTURE C-4
REVENUE C-5
FY 2020-21 LEGISLATIVE INTENTS C-22
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW D-1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2021-22 PROJECTS LIST D-2
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL E-1
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR E-5
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU E-9
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS E-13
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY E-17
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT E-23
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E-29
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE E-35
FIRE DEPARTMENT E-41
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES E-45
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES E-51
JUSTICE COURT E-57
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICE DEPARTMENT E-63
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS E-69
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES E-75
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES E-83
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY E-87
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY E-91
NON-DEPARTMENTAL E-95
STAFFING DOCUMENT
STAFFING DOCUMENT INTRODUCTION F-1
STAFFING DOCUMENT SUMMARY F-3
STAFFING DOCUMENT DETAIL F-4
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY G-1
APPENDIX B: HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS & RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS G-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
This page intentionally left blank
This page has been intentionally left blank
Dear Salt Lake City,
Going into our next fiscal year, Salt Lake City Corporation finds itself in a relatively strong financial
position, despite the serious budgetary implications brought on by all that 2020 entailed.
Because we were conservative and judicious last year, we will not be making any staffing or service cuts
in the coming year, and any funding gaps we are facing due to revenue shortfalls will be filled through
our fund balance, also known as our City’s rainy day fund.
This year’s General Fund budget is just under $350 million and represents our commitment to providing
you with clean drinking water, repaired roads, waste and recycling collection, parks and public lands,
emergency services and so much more at our current or expanded staffing levels.
This budget is unique because, in addition to our usual funding streams, we’ve also received federal
investments through President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, and we have an increased bond capacity.
This means we have an unprecedented opportunity, one born of historic challenges and fiscal
responsibility, to make once-in-a-generation investments in our City and its people.
We will continue to focus our budget priorities on four areas that have the potential to transform our
City:
•Prioritizing growth that equitably benefits ALL city residents
•Making our city more environmentally resilient and sustainable
•Bolstering our communities with inclusive and equitable opportunities for all
•Supporting City employees’ physical, mental and economic well being, because our City team is
what makes everything possible.
This budget is based on thousands of comments we’ve received in the last year from constituents about
what they value, and we’ve worked hard to make sure those good ideas were honored.
I want to give special thanks to this year’s budget committee. Public Services Director Lorna Vogt, Fire
Chief Karl Lieb, Human Resources Director Debra Alexander, and IMS Director Aaron Bentley each
brought expertise and passion for our City to this work. Thank you so much for your dedication and
commitment to this budget process.
Strategic management and fiscal responsibility are paving the way to a brighter, more prosperous future
for all of us in Salt Lake City.
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S MESSAGE
10
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S MESSAGE
11
This page has been intentionally left blank
SALT LAKE CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS
Fiscal Year 2021-22
Mayor
Erin Mendenhall
City Council
James Rogers (Vice-Chair)
District 1
Vacant
District 2
Chris Wharton
District 3
Ana ValdemorosDistrict 4 Darin ManoDistrict 5 Dan DuganDistrict 6 Amy Fowler (Chair)District 7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE
A-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE
A-2
Salt Lake City at a Glance
DATE FOUNDEDJuly 24, 1847 AVE. ANNUAL SNOWFALL16.5 in. (419mm)
DATE INCORPORATEDJanuary 19, 1851 AVE. ANNUAL RAINFALL58.5 in. (1,486mm)
FORM OF GOVERNMENTMayor/Council since 1980 AVE. DAILY TEMPS52.1 F. (11.2 C) Mean28.2 F. (-1.6 C) January77.0 F. (25.0 C) July
TOTAL CITY AREA111.1 Sq. Mi.AVE. ELEVATION4,327 ft. (1,319 m.)
2019 EST. POPULATION200,567
COUNCIL DISTRICTS
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE
A-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE
A-4
CITYWIDE EXPENDITURES
Fund Type
FY 2020 Adopted Budget
FY 2021 Adopted Budget
FY 2022 Mayor's Rec Budget Increase/ (Decrease)Percent Change
General Fund 330,424,037 326,130,003 349,738,555 23,608,552 7.24 %
Airport Enterprise Fund 1,042,908,153 302,311,600 706,792,500 404,480,900 133.80 %
Public Utilities Enterprise Funds 298,107,775 362,313,148.5 420,480,027 58,166,879 16.05 %
Other Enterprise Funds 103,976,087 102,480,970 108,467,025 5,986,055 5.84 %
Internal Service Funds 91,855,909 91,763,186 108,385,522 16,622,336 18.11 %
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Funds 17,719,147 25,093,221 26,257,457 1,164,236 4.64 %
All Other Funds 58,551,583 64,093,994 66,961,126 2,867,132 4.47 %
Total 1,943,542,691 1,274,186,122.5 1,787,082,213 512,896,089.5
FY 2020 and 2021 Adopted Budgets and FY 2022 Recommended Budget
FY 2020 Adopted Budget FY 2021 Adopted Budget FY 2022 Mayor's Rec Budget
Ge neral Fu
n
d
Ai rport En
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
F
u
n
d
Pu blic Utilit
i
e
s
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
…
Ot her Ente
r
p
r
i
s
e
F
u
n
d
s
*
In ternal S
e
r
v
i
c
e
F
u
n
d
s
Ca pital Imp
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
…
Al l Other
F
u
n
d
s
0 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 700,000,000 800,000,000 900,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,100,000,000
* Redevelopment Agency Included in the Other Enterprise Fund Amount. salt Lake City’s budget is comprised of several different types of funds, including General Fund,
Enterprise Funds, and Internal Service Funds. Enterprise funds, unlike the General Fund, are not
supported by property or sales taxes. Revenues in these funds come primarily from fees charged for
services provided. For instance, the Airport derives a large portion of its revenues from landing fees. It is
worth noting that the Airport expenditures have increased dramatically due to the Terminal
Redevelopment Program.
The City also has a number of internal service funds such as Fleet and Information Management Services.
Internal service funds exist to account for the financing of goods and services provided by one City
agency or department to another.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-5
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund Departments FY 20 Adopted Budget FY 21 Adopted Budget FY 22 Rec'd Budget Increase/ Decrease Percentage Change
Economic Development 2,185,424 2,388,562 2,514,914.68 126,352.68 5.29 %
Human Resources 2,800,540 2,629,008 3,267,669 638,661 24.29 %
Mayor's Office 3,760,985 3,883,065 4,761,780 878,715 22.63 %
Council Office 4,403,611 4,226,075 4,551,159 325,084 7.69 %
Justice Courts 4,667,126 4,726,866 4,850,906 124,040 2.62 %
Attorney's Office 7,117,830 7,123,638 8,133,002 1,009,364 14.17 %
Finance Department 8,253,528 8,387,673 8,727,757 340,084 4.05 %
911 Communications Bureau
8,271,454 8,260,571 8,888,505 627,934 7.60 %
Public Lands — — 18,828,718 NA NA
Community & Neighborhoods 25,130,072 24,318,570 23,615,117 (703,453) (2.89) %
Fire Department 42,552,583 42,737,520 45,587,400 2,849,880 6.67 %
Public Services 46,548,274 46,655,226 34,341,928 (12,313,298) (26.39) %
Police Department 82,235,729 79,097,332 83,370,502 4,273,170 5.40 %
Non Departmental 92,496,881 91,695,897 98,299,196 6,603,299 7.20 %
Total 330,424,037 326,130,003 349,738,555 4,779,833 78.34 %
General Fund Expenditures
Economic Development Human Resources
Mayor's Office Council Office
Justice Courts Attorney's Office
Finance Department 911 Communications Bureau
Public Lands Community & Neighborhoods
Fire Department Public Services
Police Department Non Departmental
FY 21 Adopted Budget
FY 22 Rec'd Budget
—20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-6
General Fund Revenues by Type - 2015-2022
FY 2015 Actuals FY 2016 Actuals FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Actuals FY 2020 Actuals FY 2021 Budget FY 2022 Rec'd
Property Taxes w/ PILOT 79,844,219 85,025,403 89,071,896 90,414,308 94,654,243 99,342,715 99,417,103 99,545,540
Sales and Use Taxes 57,873,242 59,927,247 62,776,248 67,940,454 99,403,846 116,199,002 100,797,099 109,556,477
Franchise Taxes 28,132,535 27,972,665 28,418,423 28,418,423 27,238,435 26,863,146 26,812,125 27,702,125
Licenses & Permits 24,271,698 28,689,152 35,004,151 30,608,768 36,960,240 32,637,293 28,601,482 29,750,132
Fines & Forfeitures 7,482,483 6,477,606 6,728,836 5,567,814 3,316,215 2,567,145 3,938,848 3,474,457
Intergovernmental 5,732,098 5,453,584 6,855,998 5,791,774 6,066,496 5,086,254 4,444,400 4,644,018
Charges & Fees 5,562,367 4,063,532 5,358,872 5,671,710 5,573,679 4,283,760 4,428,069 3,934,568
Parking 3,155,436 3,324,616 3,436,592 3,404,582 3,509,898 2,771,331 3,347,986 2,693,554
Other Revenue 24,736,731 44,399,610 36,270,649 39,643,865 38,231,125 35,993,002 54,342,891 68,437,684
Total Operating Revenue 236,790,809 265,333,415 273,921,665 277,461,698 314,954,177 325,743,648 326,130,003 349,738,555
Th
ou
s
a
n
d
s
Other Revenue
Parking
Charges & Fees
Intergovernmental
Fines & Forfeitures
Licenses & Permits
Franchise Taxes
Sales and Use Taxes
Property Taxes w/ PILOT
FY 20
1
5
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
FY 20
1
6
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
FY 20
1
7
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
FY 20
1
8
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
FY 20
1
9
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
FY 20
2
0
A
c
t
u
a
l
s
FY 20
2
1
B
u
d
g
e
t
FY 20
2
2
R
e
c
'
d
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
$250,000
$275,000
$300,000
$325,000
$350,000
$375,000
This stacked bar graph depicts the various types of revenue collected for the Salt Lake City General Fund
and how some of these revenues have fluctuated over the years. In FY 2016, the Other Revenues
increased primarily because of a new requirement that RDA-related property tax be passed through the
City’s General Fund. It is also worth noting that sales tax revenues have increased markedly starting in FY
2019 due to the recently implemented Funding Our Future 0.5% increase in Salt Lake City’s sales tax rate.
The Other Revenue category has also been impacted by anticipated American Recover Act grant funds.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-7
GENERAL FUND REVENUE - FY 2021 Adopted V. 2022 Rec'd Budgets
General Fund Revenue
FY 2021 Adopted Budget FY 2022 Rec'd Budget Increase/ Decrease Percentage Change
Property Tax 97,908,209 99,545,540 1,637,331 1.64 %
RDA Related Property Tax 13,510,246 14,096,642 586,396 4.16 %
Sales and Use Tax 100,797,099 109,556,477 8,759,378 8.00 %
Franchise Tax 26,812,125 27,702,125 890,000 3.21 %
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,508,894 1,562,042 53,148 3.40 %
Intergovernmental Revenue 4,444,400 4,644,018 199,618 4.30 %
Charges for Services 4,428,069 3,934,568 (493,501) (12.54) %
Other Revenue 51,553,635 58,464,249 6,910,614 11.82 %
Interfund Transfers In 20,281,706 22,032,894 1,751,188 7.95 %
Available Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 4,885,620 8,200,000 3,314,380 40.42 %
Total 326,130,003 349,738,555 23,608,552 7.24 %
FY 2022 GF Revenue
Property Tax
99,545,540
28.5%
RDA Related Property Tax
14,096,642
4.0%
Sales and Use Tax
109,556,477
31.3%
Franchise Tax
27,702,125
7.9%
Intergovernmental Revenue
4,644,018
1.3%
Charges for Services
3,934,568
1.1%
Other Revenue
58,464,249
16.7%
Interfund Transfers In
22,032,894
6.3%
Available Fund Balance/Cash Reserves
8,200,000
2.3%
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-8
General Operations
Interest & Sinking Fund Library Total
FY 2010 0.003261 —0.000702 0.003963
FY 2011 0.00337 0.001076 0.000766 0.005212
FY 2012 0.003451 0.001124 0.000783 0.005358
FY 2013 0.003574 0.001097 0.000846 0.005517
FY 2014 0.003465 0.001064 0.00082 0.005349
FY 2015 0.003787 0.001066 0.000783 0.005636
FY 2016 0.003619 0.000989 0.000747 0.005355
FY 2017 0.003617 0.000941 0.000705 0.005263
FY 2018 0.003482 0.000772 0.00083 0.005084
FY 2019 0.003285 0.000692 0.000791 0.004768
FY 2020 0.003205 0.000648 0.000741 0.004594
FY 2021 0.002942 0.000713 0.000015 0.00367
History of Total Property Tax Rate
2010-2021
FY
20
1
1
FY
20
1
2
FY
20
1
3
FY
20
1
4
FY
20
1
5
FY
20
1
6
FY
20
1
7
FY
20
1
8
FY
20
1
9
FY
20
2
0
FY
20
2
1
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
0.0055
0.0060
Property Tax Rates
in Salt Lake City
According to Utah State Code, municipalities cannot assess properties for more property tax revenue
than was generated in the previous year, with the exception of new growth. As property values generally
increase or decrease, property tax rates fluctuate accordingly. The accompanying graph (above)
demonstrates how the boom in property values in the City affected the property tax rates that were
assessed during the earlier years shown on the table above. It is also apparent in recent years as well.
Sales Tax Revenues in Salt Lake City
The table shown below demonstrates a steady increase in sales tax revenues in Salt Lake City over the
past several years. A sharp increase came with the implementation of the additional one-half-percent
sales tax increase that is used for funding our future. The anticipated drop in revenue from FY2020 to
FY2021 was the result of the economic downturn brought on by the COVID 19 pandemic. In FY2022, the
City anticipates sales and use tax revenues to increase to nearly the FY 2020 amount as the economy
recovers.
Fiscal Year Sales & Use Tax Receipts
FY 2013 Actual 53,775,978 8.34 %
FY 2014 Actual 55,380,938 2.98 %
FY 2015 Actual 57,873,243 4.50 %
FY 2016 Actual 59,927,247 3.55 %
FY 2017 Actual 62,776,248 4.75 %
FY 2018 Actual 67,940,454 8.23 %
FY 2019 Actual 99,403,846 46.31 %
FY 2020 Actual 110,652,000 11.32 %
FY 2021 Budget 100,797,099 (8.91) %
FY 2022 Budget 109,556,447 8.00 %
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-9
FY 2021-22 Related Ordinance Changes and Other
Budgetary Actions
Revenue Related Ordinances
Consolidated Fee Schedule Adoption and Changes – An ordinance amending the Salt Lake City
Consolidated Fee Schedule to modify various fees included therein in accordance with the changes
presented in the budget. The changes include adjustments to the CPI; Water, Sewer and Storm Water
rates; and a change in the work of public way fees.
Budget Ordinances
Budget Adoption – An ordinance adopting the City budget, excluding the budget for the Library Fund
which is separately adopted, and the employment staffing document of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year
2021-22.
Budget Adoption of the Salt Lake City Library – An ordinance adopting the budget and staffing
document for the Library Fund of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Tax Rate of Salt Lake City and the City Library, including the Judgement Levy – An ordinance
adopting the rate of tax levy, including the levy for the Library Fund, upon all real and personal property
within Salt Lake City made taxable by law for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Adopting the Mayor’s Recommended Budget as the Tentative Budget of Salt Lake City – An
ordinance adopting the Tentative Budgets of Salt Lake City, including the Tentative Budget of the Library
Fund, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Budget Resolutions
Budget Adoption of the Local Building Authority (LBA) - A resolution adopting the final budget for the
Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Adopting the Mayor’s Recommended Budget as the Tentative Budget of the Local Building
Authority – A resolution adopting the Tentative Budgets for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local
Building Authority of Salt Lake City, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Budget Adoption of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) - A resolution adopting the final budget for the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Adopting the Mayor’s Recommended Budget as the Tentative Budget of the Redevelopment
Agency of Salt Lake City – A resolution adopting the Tentative Budgets of the Redevelopment Agency of
Salt Lake City, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
Human Resources Issues
Compensation Plan Ordinances – Ordinances adopting the compensation plan as ordinance for all
appointed and non-represented employees of Salt Lake City.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Adoption Ordinance(s) – Ordinance(s) approving the
Memorandum of Understanding(s) and wage agreements between Salt Lake City Corporation and the
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 1004; the International Police
Association’s Local 75; and the International Association of Firefighters Local 81.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-10
Other Policy Issues
Public Lands Department Creation - Ordinance to create the Department of Public Lands
Engineers Report To the Director of Public Services - Ordinance removing Engineers from reporting to
Community and Neighborhoods and having them report to the Director of Public Lands.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-11
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 SALT LAKE CITY PROFILE / BUDGET-IN-BRIEF
A-12
This page intentionally left blank
Budget Summary
The last year was an especially challenging year. For Salt Lake City, the challenges were felt by residents,
businesses and the employees who work for the City. In spite of those challenges, Salt Lake City was able
to overcome and come out strong and ready to move forward. Fiscal year 2022 represents the first step
in recovery for the City. While many areas struggled, the City was able to maintain a healthy sales tax
base and had better than expected revenues from permits carrying us through the challenges of FY2021.
For fiscal year 2022, the City enacted a budget committee to help the Mayor in budget decision making.
The Budget Committee consisted of 6 Department Directors, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the Budget
Director. The committee was present as each Department presented their budget initiatives to the
Mayor. The committee then met multiple times to weigh the many options presented and provide
recommendations to the Mayor. The committee and the Mayor collaborated to compile a balanced
budget that would provide the City with a plan to move forward and break out of the challenges from the
previous year.
In Preparation for the budget Mayor Mendenhall listed four areas as her priorities. Those were:
• Our Growth: Harnessing our growth for the good of all residents:
• Our Environment: Leading the way on environmental resilience and stewardship;
• Our Communities: Creating inclusive and equitable opportunities for all: and
• Our City Family: Supporting employees’ physical, mental, and economic well-being.
The Mayor and committee considered these priorities as they made budgetary decisions. Another
component that was considered was the possibilities of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) available to the
City. With available funding from the American Rescue Plan, Salt Lake City has the opportunity to initiate
generational change. The Mayor and the budget committee considered options to help lead that
transformation. Mayor Mendenhall considered programs and positions that could help the City move
forward and meet the needs of residents and businesses now and into the future.
This budget reflects the promise extended by the American Rescue Plan and a continuation of the
positive revenues the City carried through the current fiscal year. The budget provides for an expansion
of services to carry Salt Lake City forward to a bright future.
REVENUES
Salt Lake City revenue across all funds for fiscal year 2022 are $1,334,241,569. This represents an
increase of 9.4% over fiscal year 2021 budgeted revenues. The increase is the result of additional revenue
from rate increases at public utilities and the recognition of a portion of anticipated revenues from the
American Rescue Plan. The largest contributors to City revenues are the Airport, Public Utilities and
General Fund. Airport revenues are budgeted at $260.0 million while Public Utilities total revenue across
all funds is $421.2 million. The General Fund FY2022 budget is $349.7 million including use of fund
balance.
The City uses conservative projections and maintains adequate reserves in each fund to insure long-term
financial stability. For the general fund, Salt Lake City creates its annual budget based on historical trend
average of on-going revenues. From these averages the City then projects future growth, one-time
revenues and potential new revenues to establish a final revenue projection. This projection becomes the
basis of the budget for the Mayor and administration to create a balanced budget.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-1
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
For fiscal year 2022, total general fund revenue increased by 3.75%. The increase is associated with
projected increases in sales tax and revenue from the ARP. For FY2022 the City projected significant
increases in sales tax, permits and interfund reimbursements. The City also budgeted $2.2 million in
additional revenue to be considered with policy and ordinance changes including a proposal to budget
property tax revenues at FY2021 projected levels.
To help the City through the Covid-19 recovery phase the City used fund balance reserves to cover
projected deficits. While fund balance reserves were used the amount used still allowed the City to
maintain a projected 15% fund balance for fiscal year 2022.
Sales Tax is budgeted to increase by $8.8 million bringing the projected amount in line with revenue the
City saw in fiscal year 2020. Other notable increases in revenue were building permits that are budgeted
to increase by $4.7 million, Franchises taxes are up almost one million dollars due to increased rates
within Public Utilities, and interfund reimbursement is up $1.4 million from a letter of agreement
between the Airport and the Fire Department.
Noteworthy decreases in revenue are business licenses are projected to be $1.6 million lower than fiscal
year 2021 budget, interest expense is budgeted $660,000 below last fiscal year while the City continues to
see decreases in parking meter and parking fines from decreased traffic in the City.
Lastly, the budget also includes a one-time transfer to the General Fund of $915,195 from the Insurance
and Risk Internal Service Fund due to a single health insurance premium holiday.
EXPENSES
Total expense for Salt Lake City is budgeted at $1,789,303,140 across all funds. This represents an
increase of $512.4 million from last fiscal year, or a 28.6% increase. Total Airport budget is set at just over
$706.5 million due to anticipated costs for the airport expansion, while Public Utilities is budgeted at
$420.5 million and the General Fund at $349.7 million.
The budget includes the addition of 75.7 full-time positions (FTEs) across all funds. The largest increases
are in the General Fund (42.85), Public Utilities (17) and IMS (15).
GENERAL FUND EXPENSE
General Fund expense increased by $23.6 million an increase of 6.75% from FY2021. Major changes to
expense include salary, pension and benefit changes totaling $4.2 million. The budget also includes the
addition of 42.85 FTEs at an anticipated cost of approximately $3.7 million.
The General Fund budget introduces some organizational shifts. The reorganization described below is
one step forward to building a “one city” approach. Along with the formal organizational structures, city
leadership is putting in place informal but essential work teams that bring together talent across
departments for coordinated project and planning work. For example, the Development Review Team
was created several years ago to give developers a one-stop shop so they are not surprised as they
design a project. The ERP software implementation team is another example that brings employees
together to implement a very large, multi-year, city-wide system.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-2
The budget creates the Public Lands Department. COVID made obvious what we have always known; our
open spaces, parks, trails, and golf courses are not a luxury, they are essential. Salt Lake City residents
know that our access to parks, open space and public lands are one of the benefits of living here.
This is the vital role that our parks and natural spaces play in Salt Lake City. They are one of our most
foundational civic assets, providing environmental, social and economic benefits. Investing in public lands
through improved infrastructure, community engagement and place-based strategies can also address
long-standing social and economic divides. Increased walk ability and urban connectivity will put more
residents in close proximity to our parks.
Youth & Family is moving from Department of Public Services to Department of Community &
Neighborhoods. One of CAN’s core functions is community services. There is no division in the city whose
core function is closer to the community than Youth & Family. Serving the youth of our city in out of
school, and after school programs, Youth & Family fills an essential gap in services – often in our most
vulnerable and at-risk communities. They will be integral to CAN’s focus on stabilizing the community
through equitable investment, partnerships, and programs.
Engineering is moving from Community and Neighborhoods to Public Services. Engineering serves all city
departments, other than the Airport, as they plan for and maintain city infrastructure. While that will
continue, the proposed reorganization will bring general fund asset development and management
together under one leadership structure. Additionally, the Capital Asset Development Manager will move
from the Capital Asset Real Estate Services team to Engineering. Greater efficiencies and coordination will
be the expected outcome.
Emergency Management is moving to Fire. The events of 2020 provided the best justification possible for
the city to make a strong investment in our ability to respond to all emergencies. This restructuring will
bolster Salt Lake City’s highly skilled and dedicated Emergency Management Division with additional staff
who are dedicated to the Emergency Management Mission to prepare for, mitigate and recover from
natural and man-made disasters that impact Salt Lake City. This team will not only address the needs of
our internal customers (City departments and employees) but also those of the greater SLC community. It
is vital that we address the separate, yet equally critical, needs of these two distinct audiences to best
prepare ourselves and our community to respond in the event of an emergency.
We are re-titling the Office of Human Rights to the Office of Equity and Inclusion in the Mayor’s Office.
Starting with the hiring of a new Chief Equity Officer and two positions in Mayor's Office, we will bolster
this team with two FTE’s that currently reside in CAN and a Consumer Protection position that currently
sits in Finance. By adding this team to our already dynamic and diverse employees in the Mayor’s Office,
we stand poised to take on the implementation of the highly anticipated Citywide Equity Plan.
The budget also includes recommendations from the City’s new Racial Equity in Policing Commission. The
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing was formed by the Mayor and City Council in July 2020 to
examine SLCPD’s policies, culture, and budget and any City policies that influence SLCPD’s culture or
policies. The Commission is composed of individuals who represent a broad and diverse range of
communities of color, expertise, and viewpoints in Salt Lake City. The Commission’s six core members
were selected by the Mayor and City Council to lead in the structure of the Commission, invite others to
participate, and to create the space for productive and inclusive discourse with the broad group of
Commissioners and the diversity of opinions therein. The Commission now includes 21 members.
The Commission has formed three subcommittees: police training, policies and practices, and school
safety. These subcommittees are creating community-informed recommendations, that will be delivered
to the Mayor and City Council Department for further action. An independent facilitator assists this
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-3
Commission in its work, which is also supported by staff from the Mayor’s Office and the City Council
Office.
Current Commission initiatives reflected in the Mayor’s Recommended FY21-22 Budget include:
• Funding for the Peer Court Program, a restorative justice program working to combat the
disproportionate involvement of marginalized youth in the juvenile justice system by providing
accountability outside of the criminal justice system.
• New Senior Advisor position in the Mayor’s Office to focus on equity in education.
• Additional ongoing funding for Crisis Intervention Training for all SLCPD officers.
• Funding for 6 full-time social workers to fully staff the SLCPD’s co-responder program.
Other notable changes include budget considerations for the implementation of a new enterprise
resource planning (ERP) system, funding for the purchase of fire apparatus at $4.0 million dollars and a
contribution to CIP of $17.7 million.
Salary, Benefit and Compensation Costs
The largest portion of the general fund budget is personnel costs. The total cost for compensation
included in the budget is $215.9 million. This represents a 5.3% increase over FY2021. Budgeted salary,
pension and benefit increases totaled $4.1 million for general fund employees.
The budget includes honoring merit increases scheduled for award throughout FY2022 to all represented
employees (AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500
series employees) at estimated cost of $1.6 million to the general fund (2.3 million for all funds).
Additionally, although negotiations will be ongoing at the time the FY2019-20 budget is submitted to the
City Council, the Administration has included in the budget an amount equivalent to at least 1% of the
base salaries for represented employees. The distribution of actual employee pay increases is subject to
negotiations resulting in a tentative agreement and ratification according to the Collective Bargaining
Resolution. Non-Represented employees, (000, 300, 600, 800 and 900 series) will receive a 1% general
increase to their base salary.
As recommended by the Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee, the budget includes market
adjustments for certain benchmarked employee groups in the city who lag significantly behind market
pay rates by more than 5%. The projected costs for market adjustments are approximately $154,700 for
the general fund ($499K for all funds).
The City continues to operate a single high deductible health plan. The Utah Retirement Systems (URS)
requires the city’s medical plan reserve be maintained at a level to cover claims for a minimum of 55 days
and a maximum of 100 days of premiums. This year the budget includes a premium increase of 3.5% to
the Summit STAR plan. The needed increase is to continue to keep up with trend, as identified by PEHP’s
Actuary, from year to year. The cost of the insurance changes and enhancements is $764 thousand for
the general fund ($1.3 million for all funds).
Capital Improvement Program
The Capital Improvement Fund is used for payment of sales tax bond debt service and other
infrastructure improvements including streets, sidewalks, city buildings, curb, gutter, street lighting,
parks, open space, trails and bicycle facilities. More information on the specific projects funded this year
is available in the Capital Improvement Section of this Book. Detailed information will be provided in the
Mayor’s recommended CIP Book that will be published soon.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-4
The budget includes a General Fund contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund of $17.7 million
including funding from the Funding Our Future sales tax. The contribution for new projects is at $7.04
million for fiscal year 2022. This amount will be added to potential bond funding and other funding to
continue to enhance the capital assets of the City.
The total FY2021 CIP exceeds $703.1 million with the inclusion of various projects funded by the
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, the Department of Airports, Public Utilities, Golf, federal and
state partnerships, Class “C” Funds, Impact Fees and the General Fund. Most of this funding is from
construction of the new Airport ($390.9 million) and Public Utility improvements ($276.5 million).
Funding Our Future Sales Tax
To maintain our commitment to transparency, we have once again separated the Funding Our Future
budget—nearly $36.5 million dollars—to show use in the priority areas of housing, transit, streets, and
public safety including . Funding supports a total of 105 FTE’s as well as setting aside funding for CIP.
Housing - The budget allocates $5.2 million toward affordable housing through land discounts and
financing, incentivized rent assistance and service to the most vulnerable.
Transit –$4.5 million is budgeted for the first three lines of the frequent transit network (FTN), with an
additional $1.1 million in funding for additional routes. $1.1 million in funding is also provided for an on-
demand ride service to help residents reach transit networks.
Streets - The budget includes continuing funding for the new streets team funded last year and additional
equipment to expand the reach of that team. Additionally, the budget includes $2.3 million for new
infrastructure CIP projects.
Public Safety – The budget allocates funding for 50 police officers over the past two years to improve the
safety of our communities, including City parks. The budget also includes funding for additional
dispatchers as well as a contribution for fire apparatus.
Other Notable Expenses
The budget transfers the small business loan administrator from the HAND division to Economic
Development. This will help the Department of Economic Development meet the challenges with the new
loan programs associated with the current pandemic. The budget also transfers the Gallivan employees
to the RDA. These positions are funded through the Gallivan Utah Center Owner’s Association.
The budget includes an increase for Emergency Management to purchase Web EOC and to support
increases to the City’s citywide radio system. Funding is also transferred from each department to IMS to
purchase Adobe Enterprises for all City Departments.
CONCLUSION
The FY 2021-2022 budget will allow Salt Lake City to rise above the challenges of the last fiscal year. The
budget will establish the base for generational change and will set a course for both economic and
cultural recovery. The budget supports the core values and services of the City and will allow City
residents to continue to enjoy a safe, healthy, and vibrant Salt Lake City.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-5
Revenue and Other Sources
GENERAL FUND (FC 10):
Property Taxes 98,064,182 97,908,209 99,545,466
RDA Related Property Tax 13,245,339 13,510,246 14,096,716
Sale and Use Taxes 116,199,002 100,797,099 109,556,477
Franchise Taxes 26,863,146 26,812,125 27,702,125
Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,278,532 1,508,894 1,562,042
TOTAL TAXES 255,650,201 240,536,573 252,462,826
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,086,254 4,444,400 4,644,018
Charges for Services 3,523,747 4,428,069 3,934,568
Other Revenue 54,240,359 51,553,635 58,464,249
Interfund Transfers In 20,574,064 20,281,706 22,032,894
TOTAL OTHER REVENUES 83,424,424 80,707,810 89,075,729
SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 339,074,625 321,244,383 341,538,555
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 4,885,620 8,200,000
TOTAL GENERAL FUND SOURCES 339,074,625 326,130,003 349,738,555
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-6
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND (FC 83, 84 & 86):
Intergovernmental Revenue 8,484,754 3,154,706 3,492,211
Sale of Land 405,921 200,000 200,000
Other Revenue 2,918,915 224,554 5,122,554
Bond Proceeds 20,200,935 — —
Interfund Transfers In 11,359,150 15,782,971 9,166,589
Interfund Transfers In-Impact fees — 5,058,011 8,276,103
Impact fees 12,712,664 — —
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND REVENUES 56,082,339 24,420,242 26,257,457
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 672,979
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 56,082,339 25,093,221 26,257,457
ENTERPRISE FUNDS:
AIRPORT (FC 54, 55 & 56)
Intergovernmental Revenue 31,124,710 3,945,500 2,950,500
Charges for Services 209,772,021 239,123,500 244,960,200
Other Revenue 25,636,529 31,823,000 10,078,899
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND REVENUES 266,533,260 274,892,000 257,989,599
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 601,373,856 27,419,600 448,802,901
TOTAL AIRPORT FUND SOURCES 867,907,116 302,311,600 706,792,500
GOLF (FC 59)
Charges for Services 6,514,371 7,425,389 7,761,704
Other Revenue 64,825 400 768,500
Interfund Transfers In 1,191,078 1,613,567 1,869,909
TOTAL GOLF FUND REVENUES 7,770,274 9,039,356 10,400,113
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL GOLF FUND SOURCES 7,770,274 9,039,356 10,400,113
RDA (FC 92)
Charges for Services 30,954,894 1,557,335 1,458,035
Other Revenue 45,355,312 36,157,249 39,517,586
Interfund Transfers In 15,835,339 16,518,035 16,966,582
TOTAL RDA FUND REVENUES 92,145,545 54,232,619 57,942,203
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL RDA FUND SOURCES 92,145,545 54,232,619 57,942,203
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-7
REFUSE COLLECTION (FC 57)
Charges for Services 12,084,784 11,793,195 12,940,410
Other Revenue 1,816,813 808,099 7,277,904
TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION FUND REVENUES 13,901,597 12,601,294 20,218,315
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 3,914,143 4,495,190
TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION FUND SOURCES 13,901,597 16,515,437 24,713,505
SEWER UTILITY (FC 52)
Charges for Services 45,383,441 50,321,000 58,128,437
Other Revenue 8,282,856 148,909,301 220,599,323
TOTAL SEWER UTILITY FUND REVENUES 53,666,297 199,230,301 278,727,760
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 39,067,152 13,408,098 —
TOTAL SEWER UTILITY FUND SOURCES 92,733,449 212,638,399 278,727,760
STORM WATER UTILITY (FC 53)
Charges for Services 10,794,137 9,743,500 10,716,550
Other Revenue 820,521 1,002,670 7,082,200
TOTAL STORM WATER UTILITY FUND REVENUES 11,614,658 10,746,170 17,798,750
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 930,755 7,215,690 1,402,263
TOTAL STORM WATER UTILITY FUND SOURCES 12,545,413 17,961,860 19,201,013
WATER UTILITY (FC 51)
Charges for Services 83,655,585 71,012,328 86,838,106
Other Revenue 3,834,354 49,645,304 33,709,402
TOTAL WATER UTILITY FUND REVENUES 87,489,939 120,657,632 120,547,508
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 2,602,186 5,675,561 6,818,047
TOTAL WATER UTILITY FUND SOURCES 90,092,125 126,333,193 127,365,555
STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT (FC 48)
Charges for Services 4,258,690 4,230,298 4,101,769
Other Revenue 119,716 56,500 89,000
TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND REVENUES 4,378,406 4,286,798 4,190,769
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 475,729 1,092,899 1,508,894
TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT FUND SOURCES 4,854,135 5,379,697 5,699,663
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-8
HOUSING LOANS & TRUST (FC 78)
Intergovernmental Revenue — 500,000 890,000
Charges for Services 1,132,239 4,000 4,000
Other Revenue 2,597,385 13,195,000 10,985,000
Interfund Transfers In 16,463,021 6,640,000 1,250,000
TOTAL HOUSING LOANS & TRUST FUND REVENUES 20,192,645 20,339,000 13,129,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 2,909,016 2,992,000
TOTAL HOUSING LOANS & TRUST FUND SOURCES 20,192,645 23,248,016 16,121,000
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS:
FLEET MANAGEMENT (FC 61)
Charges for Services 12,240,437 12,816,053 2,400
Other Revenue 3,943,070 1,261,940 17,665,894
Interfund Transfers In 11,893,100 5,000,000 10,269,716
TOTAL FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND REVENUES 28,076,607 19,077,993 27,938,007
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 131,278 152,568
TOTAL FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND SOURCES 28,076,607 19,209,271 28,090,575
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY (FC 85)
Other Revenue 233,497 20,000 20,000
Interfund Transfers In 2,767,963 2,767,963 2,767,963
TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND REVENUES 3,001,460 2,787,963 2,787,963
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 67,240 145,950
TOTAL GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY FUND SOURCES 3,001,460 2,855,203 2,933,913
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (FC 65)
Charges for Services 17,125,146 17,345,710 24,250,240
Other Revenue 1,680,869 — —
Interfund Transfers In — — —
TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT. FUND REVENUES 18,806,015 17,345,710 24,250,240
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 943,977 52,247
TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT. FUND SOURCES 18,806,015 18,289,687 24,302,487
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-9
INSURANCE & RISK MANAGEMENT (FC 87)
Charges for Services 46,361,295 48,144,566 51,305,318
Other Revenue 200,071 288,057 200,000
TOTAL INSURANCE AND RISK MGMT. FUND REVENUES 46,561,366 48,432,623 51,505,318
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 1,785,271 2,976,402 1,434,171
TOTAL INSURANCE AND RISK MGMT. FUND SOURCES 48,346,637 51,409,025 52,939,489
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDS:
CURB/GUTTER (FC 20)
Special Assessment Taxes 13,844 3,000 3,000
Other Revenue 26,713 — —
TOTAL CURB /GUTTER S.A. FUND REVENUES 40,557 3,000 3,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 155,174 — —
TOTAL CURB /GUTTER S.A. FUND SOURCES 195,731 3,000 3,000
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS:
CDBG OPERATING (FC 71)
Intergovernmental Revenue — 3,509,164 5,341,332
Interfund Transfers In 4,700,000 — —
TOTAL CDBG FUND REVENUES 4,700,000 3,509,164 5,341,332
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — —
TOTAL CDBG FUND SOURCES 4,700,000 3,509,164 5,341,332
EMERGENCY 911 DISPATCH (FC 60)
E911 Telephone Surcharges 4,579,264 3,850,000 3,850,000
Other Revenue 57,715 75,000 75,000
TOTAL E911 FUND REVENUES 4,636,979 3,925,000 3,925,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — 131,856
TOTAL E911 FUND SOURCES 4,636,979 3,925,000 4,056,856
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-10
MISC. GRANTS OPERATING (FC 72)
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,248,752 2,655,028 16,517,971
Other Revenue 1,224,690 5,606,016 420,000
Interfund Transfers In 350,000 — —
TOTAL MISC. GRANTS OPERATING FUND REVENUES 6,823,442 8,261,044 16,937,971
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 10,588,785 — —
TOTAL MISC. GRANTS OPERATING FUND SOURCES 17,412,227 8,261,044 16,937,971
MISC. SPEC. SERV. DISTRICTS (FC 46)
Special Assessment Taxes 532,337 1,550,000 1,550,000
Other Revenue 7,423 — —
Interfund Transfers In — — —
TOTAL MISC. SPEC. SERV. DISTRICTS FUND REVENUES 539,760 1,550,000 1,550,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 605,585 — —
TOTAL MISC. SPEC. SERV. DISTRICTS FUND SOURCES 1,145,345 1,550,000 1,550,000
OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (FC 73)
Special Assessment Taxes — — —
Charges for Services 99,423 — —
Other Revenue 265,782 — 273,797
Interfund Transfers In — — —
TOTAL OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES 365,205 — 273,797
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND SOURCES 365,205 — 273,797
SALT LAKE CITY DONATION FUND (FC 77)
Contributions 552,901 500,000 527,000
Other Revenue 2,147,589 1,880,172 2,225,565
Interfund Transfers In — — —
TOTAL DONATION FUND REVENUES 2,700,490 2,380,172 2,752,565
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — — —
TOTAL DONATION FUND SOURCES 2,700,490 2,380,172 2,752,565
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-11
QUARTER CENT SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION (FC 69)
Transfer from Salt Lake County — — —
Other Revenue 4,700,000 4,467,000 7,700,000
TOTAL QUARTER CENT REVENUES 4,700,000 4,467,000 7,700,000
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used — 3,104,945 —
TOTAL QUARTER CENT SOURCES 4,700,000 7,571,945 7,700,000
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS:
DEBT SERVICE (FC 81)
Property Taxes 17,362,742 21,196,660 17,315,863
Intergovernmental Revenue 4,082,326 2,419,710 2,463,923
Bond proceeds 82,470 — —
Other Revenue (253,288) — —
Interfund Transfers In 11,972,534 11,502,213 10,335,637
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES 33,246,784 35,118,583 30,115,423
Fund Balance/Cash Reserves Used 13,909,576 2,400,818 735,000
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND SOURCES 47,156,360 37,519,401 30,850,423
TOTAL REVENUE BUDGET 1,102,348,250 1,194,081,047 1,323,820,645.28
TOTAL USE OF FUND BALANCE 671,494,069 73,713,321 476,871,087
GRAND TOTAL OF SOURCES 1,773,842,319 1,267,794,368 1,800,691,732
Expenses and Other Uses
GENERAL FUND RESERVES
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
General Fund 4,099,447 4,516,175 4,551,159
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,099,447 4,516,175 4,551,159
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
General Fund 3,885,212 3,883,065 4,761,780
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,885,212 3,883,065 4,761,780
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Airport Fund 266,533,260 302,311,600 706,792,500
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-12
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 266,533,260 302,311,600 706,792,500
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY
General Fund 6,933,580 7,123,638 8,133,002
Governmental Immunity Internal Svc. Fund (967,398) 2,855,203 2,933,913
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 3,968,858 — —
Insurance & Risk Mgmt. Internal Svc. Fund 3,835,426 4,113,406
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,339,434 13,814,267 15,180,321
DEPT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
General Fund 24,497,495 24,318,570 23,615,117
Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation 273,914 7,571,945 5,307,142
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 4,426,086 — 2,392,858
DEPT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 24,771,409 31,890,515 28,922,259
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
General Fund 2,010,905 2,388,562 2,514,915
Redevelopment Agency Fund 41,290,827 54,232,619 —
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 50,854,627 — —
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 43,301,732 56,621,181 2,514,914.68
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
General Fund 8,391,680 8,387,673 8,727,757
IMS - IFAS 1,466,680 5,086,937
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Risk 35,562 35,562
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,021,647 9,889,915 13,850,256
FIRE DEPARTMENT
General Fund 42,269,607 42,737,520 45,587,400
FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 42,269,607 42,737,520 45,587,400
HUMAN RESOURCES
General Fund 2,675,240 2,629,008 3,267,669
Insurance & Risk Mgmt. Internal Svc. Fund 44,937,823 47,538,037 48,790,521
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-13
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
HUMAN RESOURCES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47,613,063 50,167,045 52,058,190
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Information Management Service Fund 14,240,960 16,823,007 19,215,550
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 3,970,650 — —
INFO. MGMT. SERVICES INTERNAL SERVICES FUND TOTAL EXPENDITURES 16,823,007 19,215,550
JUSTICE COURT
General Fund 4,405,308 4,726,866 4,850,906
JUSTICE COURT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,405,308 4,726,866 4,850,906
POLICE DEPARTMENT
General Fund 82,744,714 79,097,332 83,370,502
POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 82,744,714 79,097,332 83,370,502
PUBLIC LANDS
General Fund — — 18,828,718
Golf Enterprise Fund — — 9,697,417
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — 702,696
PUBLIC LANDS TOTAL EXPENDITURES — — 28,526,135
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Fund 46,334,048 46,655,226 34,341,928
Golf Enterprise Fund 7,858,889 8,484,897 —
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 483,438 554,459 —
Fleet Management Internal Service Fund 24,279,893 19,209,271 28,090,574
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 3,796,714 — —
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 70,613,941 65,864,497 62,432,502
911 COMMUNICATION BUREAU
General Fund 8,204,000 8,260,571 8,888,505
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU TOTAL EXPENDITURES 8,204,000 8,260,571 8,888,505
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Sewer Utility Enterprise Fund 92,733,449 212,638,399 268,213,796
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — 10,513,964
Storm Water Utility Enterprise Fund 12,545,413 17,961,860 19,201,013
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-14
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Water Utility Enterprise Fund 90,092,125 126,333,193 127,365,555
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Street Lighting Enterprise Funds 4,854,135 5,379,697 5,699,663
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 200,225,122 362,313,149 420,480,027
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT
Refuse Fund 13,180,361 16,515,437 24,713,505
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 721,236 — —
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT TOTAL EXPENDITURES 13,180,361 16,515,437 24,713,505
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Redevelopment Agency Fund — — 57,942,203
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES — — 57,942,203
NON DEPARTMENTAL
General Fund 40,194,845 91,405,797 98,299,196
Curb/Gutter Special Assessment Fund 195,731 3,000 3,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Street Lighting Special Assessment Fund — — —
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
CDBG Operating Special Revenue Fund 273,914 3,509,164 5,341,332
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 4,426,086 — —
Emergency 911 Dispatch Special Rev. Fund 4,033,127 3,789,270 4,056,856
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 603,852 135,730 —
Housing Loans & Trust Special Rev. Fund 6,252,692 23,248,016 16,121,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 13,939,953 — —
Misc. Grants Operating Special Rev. Fund 17,412,227 8,261,044 16,937,971
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Misc. Spec. Svc. Districts Special Rev. Fund 1,145,345 1,550,000 1,550,000
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Other Special Revenue Funds 331,086 — 273,797
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 34,119 — —
Salt Lake City Donation Fund 2,231,410 2,380,172 2,752,565
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 469,080 — —
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-15
Debt Service Funds 47,156,360 37,519,401 30,850,423
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves — — —
Capital Projects Fund 33,933,282 25,093,221 26,257,457
Increase Fund Balance/Cash Reserves 21,852,047 — —
NON DEPARTMENTAL TOTAL EXPENDITURES 153,160,019 196,759,085 202,443,597
GEN FUND BAL/CASH RESERVES
TOTAL EXPENSE BUDGET 956,044,495 1,211,958,607 1,787,082,213
TOTAL INC TO FUND BALANCE 53,782,595 135,730 13,609,518
GRAND TOTAL OF USES 1,009,827,090 1,212,094,337 1,800,691,731
NET CHANGE TO FUND BALANCE (617,711,474) (73,577,591) (463,261,569)
Governmental Fund Type:
TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 276,646,081 326,130,003 349,738,555
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 4,099,447 4,516,175 4,551,159
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 3,885,212 3,883,065 4,761,780
SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEY 6,933,580 7,123,638 8,133,002
COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS 24,497,495 24,318,570 23,615,117
DEPT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2,010,905 2,388,562 2,514,915
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 8,391,680 8,387,673 8,727,757
FIRE DEPARTMENT 42,269,607 42,737,520 45,587,400
HUMAN RESOURCES 2,675,240 2,629,008 3,267,669
JUSTICE COURTS 4,405,308 4,726,866 4,850,906
POLICE DEPARTMENT 82,744,714 79,097,332 83,370,502
PUBLIC LANDS — — 18,828,718
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT 46,334,048 46,655,226 34,341,928
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU 8,204,000 8,260,571 8,888,505
NON DEPARTMENTAL 40,194,845 91,405,797 98,299,196
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 25,427,109 27,061,595 36,219,663
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 47,352,091 37,522,401 30,853,423
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 33,933,282 25,093,221 26,257,457
Proprietary Fund Type:
TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 86,494,497 91,763,186 108,266,463
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 486,191,435 704,388,202 1,235,746,652
TOTAL EXPENSE BUDGET 956,044,495 1,211,958,607 1,787,082,213
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
ANNUAL FISCAL PERIOD 2021-22
MAYOR'S
ADOPTED RECOMMENDED
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-16
Revenue and Other Sources 293,332,497 32,797,506 326,130,003
Changes to FY21 Base Revenue
Sales and Use Tax 5,956,884
Sales Tax Option (1/2 Percent) 2,802,494
RDA Property Tax 594,707
Property Tax Adjustment (628,442)
Franchise Tax 890,000
PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) 53,148
Business/Regulatory Licenses (1,600,684)
Permits 4,702,006
Intergovernmental revenue 199,618
Charges for Service (518,238)
Fines and Forfeitures (464,391)
Parking Meter revenue (660,000)
Interest income (629,528)
Miscellaneous revenue (641,771)
Interfund reimbursement 1,409,938
Transfers 365,000
CPI Adjustment 377,633
Inland Port Tax Increment 983,242
Inland Port Tax Increment - Contra Revenue (983,242)
Convention Hotel Tax Increment 10,116
Convention Hotel Tax Increment - Contra Revenue (10,116)
Total Base Changes 9,405,880 2,802,494 12,208,374
Proposed Changes in Revenue Resulting from Policy and Ordinance Changes
Judgment Levy (66,835)
Estimated Property Tax for New Growth 1,324,297
Property Tax Stabilization 1,000,000
Total Revenue Changes from Policy and Ordinance Changes
2,257,462 2,257,462
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-17
One-Time Revenues
Remove Airport Building Permits (2,300,000)
Remove Health Insurance Premium Holiday (1,830,389)
Remove CDBG Transfer for CARES/Misc Grants (423,332)
Remove Transfer from Debt Service for North Temple Viaduct
(996,159)
Remove Transfer from CIP (City Daycare Project) (250,000)
Remove Transfer from CIP (Recapture Completed Projects) (422,979)
Remove Airport Reimbursement for Body Cameras
(129,000)
Remove Budgeted Use of Fund Balance (4,885,620)
ARA Revenue Loss 10,000,000
One-time Use of Fund Balance 4,900,000
REP Funding from FY2021 (remaining) 2,300,000
One Time Use of Fund Balance from Underserved Neighborhood Holding Account
1,000,000
Fire Reimbursement for Deployments 515,000
Reallocated prior year Housing Plan funding 750,000
Health Insurance Premium Holiday 915,195
Total One-Time Revenue 8,392,716 750,000 9,142,716
Grand Total Revenue Changes 20,056,058 3,552,494 23,608,552
Grand Total Revenue 313,388,555 36,350,000 349,738,555
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-18
Expenses and Other Uses
City Council:
FY21 Beginning Balance 4,226,075 35.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 243,979
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 35,759
Insurance rate changes 13,172
Living Wage Adjustment 910
Salary Proposal 31,264
Total City Council 4,551,159 35.00 0 0.00 4,551,159 35.00
Legislative Non-Departmental
FY21 Beginning Balance 290,100 0.00 0 0.00
No Changes
Total City Council 290,100 0.00 0 0.00 290,100 0.00
Mayor:
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,799,755 25.00 83,310 1.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 283,148
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 166,145
Insurance rate changes 8,744
Living Wage Adjustment 3,795
Salary Proposal 30,241
Reclassify Census Coordinator to Citywide Volunteer Coordinator
83,310 1.00 (83,310) (1.00)
Transfer ADA & Equity Coordinator positions from CAN
288,576 2.00
Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst position from Finance 83,216 1.00
REP Commission Senior Staff Position (Funding is in Non Departmental)
1.00
Sponsorship Awards 5,000
Cultural Ambassador pilot program 9,850
Total Mayor 4,761,780 30.00 0 0.00 4,761,780 30.00
Attorneys Office:
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,123,638 50.25
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 66,603
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-19
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 31,843
Insurance rate changes 19,984
Salary Proposal 55,480
BA#5 - New - Sr City Attorney 173,978 1.00
BA#5 - New - Sr City Attorney 173,978 1.00
BA#5 - New - Legal Secretary 87,748 1.00
BA#5 - New - Assistant City Recorder 97,612 1.00
Social Media Retention 15,588
Office Victim Advocate - Grant Funding Match 18,500
Assistant City Prosecutor (10 Months) 268,050 3.00
Total Attorney 8,133,002 57.25 0 0.00 8,133,002 57.25
Community and Neighborhoods
FY21 Beginning Balance 23,242,118 197.00 1,076,452 7.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (101,089)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 658,084
Insurance rate changes 77,552
CCAC Adjustments [10 Months] 107,553
Merit Changes 58,448
Salary Proposal 179,963
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Mgr (105,920) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist (80,054) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist (83,930) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist (90,916) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget
(53,400)
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst (106,458) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst (108,646) (1.00)
Transfer ADA & Equity Coordinator positions to Mayor's Office
(288,576) (2.00)
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods Department (Personnel Costs)
1,812,153 18.00
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-20
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods Department (Operational Costs)
251,345
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department (Personnel Costs)
(4,864,910) (44.00)
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department (Operational Costs)
(178,402)
CAN Deputy Director of Community Services [10 Months]
158,750 1.00
HAND Office Facilitator [Revenue Offset] 79,836 1.00
HAND Operational Costs [Revenue Offset] 40,164
Homeless Services
Homeless Cut #1 - CCC/Green Team Reductions (6 Months) (115,000)
Sales Tax Option - Transit
No change in CAN (see Non- Departmental)
Sales Tax Option - Housing Plan
Build A More Equitable City (from Non-Departmental) 388,000
Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance (from Non-Departmental)
53,000
Incentivized Rent Assistance (from Non-Departmental) 671,620
Mortgage Assistance (from Non-Departmental) 50,000
Housing Plan - Marketing home ownership programs (from Non-Departmental $300,000)
300,000
Housing Plan - Service Models for most vulnerable (from Non-Departmental $535,380)
525,380
Shared Housing 62,000
Total Community and Neighborhood 20,568,719 166.00 3,046,398 6.00 23,615,117 172.00
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-21
Economic Development
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,388,562 18.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (8,383)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 104,634
Insurance rate changes 6,812
Merit Changes 5,792
Salary Proposal 17,498
Total Economic Development 2,514,915 18.00 0 0.00 2,514,915 18.00
Finance:
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,387,673 69.70
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (29,493)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 62,676
Insurance rate changes 29,916
Merit Changes 17,138
Salary Proposal 64,316
BA#5 - New - Consumer Protection Analyst 45,644 1.00
Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst position to Mayor's Office
(83,216) (1.00)
Deputy Director [10 Months] 143,603 1.00
Business Analyst 89,500 1.00
Total Finance 8,727,757 71.70 0 0.00 8,727,757 71.70
Fire:
FY21 Beginning Balance 42,737,520 366.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (306,333)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 272,562
Insurance rate changes 164,636
Plan A Payout [One-Time] 161,243
Merit Changes 346,049
Salary Proposal 340,686
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - Battalion Chief (Changed from EM Manager)
142,920 1.00
BA#7 - New - Fire Captain 124,776 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Training Program Specialist 114,849 1.00
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-22
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Community Preparedness Coordinator
88,924 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Multi Language Media Coordinator
98,918 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer from PD - EM Critical Infrastructure Liaison 89,608 1.00
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Operational Costs 107,294
Airport Rescue Firefighting Expenses (ARFF) 352,300
Fire Department Deployment Expense Reimbursement [One-Time]
515,000
Emergency Management Phase 2 236,448 2.00
Total Fire 45,350,952 372.00 236,448 2.00 45,587,400 374.00
Human Resources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,629,008 21.20
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 33,586
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 97,183
Insurance rate changes 10,088
CCAC Adjustments [10 Months] 3,502
Salary Proposal 25,266
BA#4 - New - Deputy HR Director (.85) 147,991 0.85
Human Resources Analyst - ERP 111,075 1.00
HR Supervisor - Recruitment [10 Months] 101,020 1.00
Human Resources Technician [10 Months] 108,950 2.00
Total Human Resources 3,267,669 26.05 — 0.00 3,267,669 26.05
Justice Courts
FY21 Beginning Balance 4,726,866 42.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (14,055)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 73,500
Insurance rate changes 16,876
Merit Changes 12,292
Salary Proposal 35,427
Total Justice Courts 4,850,906 42.00 — 0.00 4,850,906 42.00
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-23
Police:
FY21 Beginning Balance 70,347,769 648.00 8,749,563 63.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (1,745,264)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 270,501
Insurance rate changes 253,328
CCAC Adjustments [10 Months] 43,645
Merit Changes 865,184
Salary Proposal 657,270
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - Emergency Manager (134,122) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Training Program Specialist (114,849) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Community Preparedness Coordinator
(88,924) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Multi Language Media Coordinator
(98,918) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Critical Infrastructure Liaison (89,608) (1.00)
BA#7 - Transfer to Fire - EM Operational Costs (107,294)
BA#7 - Social Worker Change 841,997
BA#7 - Encampment Cleanup 650,000
Versaterm contractual changes 39,391
Legislated Action Requiring Budget [10 Months] 60,833 1.00
Police Officer Mental Health Responder [10 Months] 100,000 1.00
Increased Public Mental Health Responders (Funding in Non- Departmental) [3@10 Months and 3@6 Months]
6.00
Street Racing Initiative 70,000
Police Staffing from the 2021 Holding Account (from Non- Departmental)
2,800,000
Total Police 74,620,939 645.00 8,749,563 69.00 83,370,502 714.00
Public Lands:
FY21 Beginning Balance — —
Living Wage Adjustment 21,230
Transfer Public Lands Division from Public Services Department (Personnel Costs)
10,956,781 110.35
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-24
Transfer Public Lands Division from Public Services Department (Operational Costs)
6,415,644
Public Lands Department Development [Ongoing] 536,583 4.00
Public Lands Department Development [One Time] 14,400
North Temple Grounds Keeper — 1.00
Public Lands New Properties/Amenities [Ongoing] 338,413 1.00
New Recreational Trail System [Ongoing] 304,167 2.00
Contractual Increases 79,000
Utilities Increases 162,500
Total Public Lands 18,828,718 118.35 — 0.00 18,828,718 118.35
Public Services:
FY21 Beginning Balance 44,302,195 310.35 2,353,031 19.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget (57,548)
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 808,235
Insurance rate changes 124,784
Living Wage Adjustment 1,290
Merit Changes 260,156
Salary Proposal 228,013
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Deputy Director (176,436) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Strategy and Special Projects Manager
(100,714) (1.00)
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget
(30,200)
Transfer Public Lands Division to Public Lands Department (Personnel Costs)
(10,956,781) (110.35)
Transfer Public Lands Division to Public Lands Department (Operational Costs)
(6,415,644)
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods Department (Personnel Costs)
(1,812,153) (18.00)
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods Department (Operational Costs)
(251,345)
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-25
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department (Personnel Costs)
4,864,910 44.00
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department (Operational Costs)
178,402
Engineer [9 Months] 92,255 1.00
Landscape Architect [9 Months] 169,833 2.00
Licensed Architect [9 Months] 88,477 1.00
Engineering Information and Records Specialist [9 Months] 42,375 1.00
Engineering New Position Increases 9,593
Contractual Increases 115,100
Utilities Increases 128,500
Budget and Management Analysis [Ongoing] 52,800
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [Ongoing] 80,000
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [One-Time] 69,500
Streets Response Team FTE [Ongoing] 53,300 1.00
Increase 1/2 Asphalt Budget [Ongoing] 120,000
Total Public Services 31,666,097 229.00 2,675,831 20.00 34,341,928 249.00
911 Communications Bureau
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,260,571 100.00
FY22 Base personal services projection less FY21 budget 104,461
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 171,250
Insurance rate changes 37,768
Merit Changes 98,566
Salary Proposal 62,439
32 Hour Work Week Pilot Program [6 Months] 153,450 8.00
Total 911 Dispatch Bureau 8,735,055 100.00 153,450 8.00 8,888,505 108.00
Non Departmental: Original Budget Proposed Changes Original Budget Proposed Changes TOTAL PROPOSED
FY21 Beginning Balance
Governmental Transactions
Airport Trail Reimbursement 103,887 103,887
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-26
Non Departmental:Original Budget Proposed Changes Original Budget Proposed Changes TOTAL PROPOSED
Fire SCBA 197,000 197,000
Police Body Cameras and Vehicle Integration 780,422 512,578 1,293,000
City Resident Bus Pass (HIVE) 1,260,000 1,260,000
Contract for Animal Services [BA#5 Contractual Adjustment $44,192]
1,866,295 44,192.00 1,910,487
Demographic Contract 50,000 50,000
Interest Expense for TRANS Bonding/Note 350,000 350,000
Jazz Festival 0
Jordan River Commission (Membership) 14,000 14,000
Municipal Elections 275,000.00 275,000
Retirement Payouts 635,000 61,000.00 696,000
Sorenson Center with County 1,014,800 1,014,800
Tuition Aid program 300,000 300,000
Washington D. C. Lobbyist 75,000 75,000
Inter-Governmental Transfers
Capital Improvement Fund:
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service on Bonds 8,731,712 (1,089,332) 7,642,380
Debt Service on ESCO and Crime Lab Lease 877,105 19,395 896,500
Bond for ESCO Debt (55,399) 55,399
Debt Service Transfer to LBA for Fire Station Debt Service
Ongoing Commitments
Transfer to CIP for ongoing commitments 498,133 1,027,474 1,525,607
Facilities Capital Replacement 350,000 350,000
Parks Capital Replacement 250,000 250,000
New Projects 3,907,824 (446,842) 3,460,982
Capital Maintenance Fund (TBD)
Capital Improvement Projects Fund (TBD)
CIP Projects (TBD) 1,380,000 (100,000)1,280,000
Infrastructure Projects (TBD) 2,400,000 (100,000)2,300,000
Transit Plan - FTN Improvements (TBD) 1,100,000 (1,100,000)
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-27
Non Departmental:Original Budget Proposed Changes Original Budget Proposed Changes TOTAL PROPOSED
Council Identified - Underserved Neighborhoods & Communities of Color [Remove One-Time]
1,669,138 (1,669,138)
Triggered CIP from new growth
Fleet Fund:
Fleet - Replacement Fund 5,165,600 (65,600) 5,100,000
Streets Fleet Equipment Replacement 950,916 950,916
Fire Apparatus Replacement 4,000,000 4,000,000
Fire Emergency Management Vehicles 105,000 105,000
Public Service Concrete Maintenance Equipment 58,000 58,000
Public Services Engineering Position Increases Vehicles (2) 55,800 55,800
Fleet - Centralized Fleet Maintenance 6,303,103 315,600 138,500 6,757,203
Golf Fund:
Golf (Living Wage and CCAC Salary Adjustments Transfer) 246,000 124,100 370,100
Golf ESCO Payment Transfer [One-Time] FY2021 460,585 (460,585)
Golf ESCO Payment Transfer [One-Time] FY2022 484,000 484,000
Golf ESCO Bonding Savings (34,601) 34,601
Golf Admin Fee Transfer 306,582 9,197 315,779
Golf IMS Fee Transfer 200,000 200,000
Golf Fund Balance Deficit Transfer [One-Time] 500,000 500,000
Governmental Immunity Fund 2,767,963 2,767,963
Information Management Services Fund:
IMS Services 11,396,867 11,396,867
Budget Amendment Changes 715,729 80,054 795,783
Contractual Changes 577,803 577,803
Technical & Inflationary Increases 152,392 152,392
Initiatives 1,030,250 350,000 1,380,250
New positions 467,652 467,652
Insurance and Risk Management Fund 2,164,883 82,734 2,247,617
Public Utilities Funds:
Public Utilities (HIVE - Pass through expense) 61,000 61,000
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-28
Non Departmental:Original Budget Proposed Changes Original Budget Proposed Changes TOTAL PROPOSED
Public Utilities - Land Swap payment 200,000 200,000
GF Costs for Street lighting 50,000 50,000
GF Costs for Street Lighting in Enhanced Service Areas 54,420 54,420
SAA Street Lighting 20,000 20,000
Redevelopment Agency Fund 13,501,935 594,707 14,096,642
Municipal Contributions & Civic Support
Mayor - Receptions/Employee Appreciation 20,000 20,000
ACE Fund 200,000 200,000
Board and Commissions honoraria [FY2021 REP Fund Balance]
26,000 26,000
Diversity Outreach (CoCs, etc.) 3,000 3,000
Fair Park Public Market from Underserved Neighborhoods Holding Account
1,000,000 1,000,000
Housing Authority Transitional Housing 85,000 85,000
Legal Defenders 1,292,774 1,292,774
Local Business Marketing Grants 20,000 20,000
Local First 20,000 20,000
Music Licensing Fees 7,000 7,000
National League of Cities and Towns 11,535 11,535
Rape Recovery Center 30,000 30,000
Sister Cities 10,000 10,000
Salary Contingency 1,613,986 1,613,986
Salt Lake City Arts Council (transferred to ED for PT Employees)
612,500 612,500
Salt Lake City Foundation 3,000 3,000
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 50,000 50,000
Sugar House Park Authority 218,891 5,904 224,795
Tracy Aviary 674,922 674,922
US Conference of Mayors Membership 12,242 12,242
Utah Economic Development Corporation (Remove $30,000 Study [One-Time])
108,000 108,000
Utah Foundation Membership 10,000 10,000
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-29
Non Departmental:Original Budget Proposed Changes Original Budget Proposed Changes TOTAL PROPOSED
Utah League of Cities and Towns Membership 160,684 160,684
World Trade Center Membership [BA#7 Addition] 50,000 50,000
YWCA - FJC Wrap around services 45,000 45,000
Inn Between [One-Time] [Remove in FY2022] 30,000 (30,000) 0
Police Department and Racial Equity In Policing Funding
Police Officer Training [One-Time $150,400] 322,800 (117,400) 205,400
Social Worker Program [BA#7 - Correct Accounting Error] 2,411,727 (1,589,008) 139,390 962,109
Increased Mental Health Responders (Funding in Non- Departmental) [3@10 Months and 3@6 Months]
450,000 450,000
Racial Equity in Policing [moved to Police Department $] 2,800,000 (2,800,000) 0
Commission of Racial Equity & Policing 100,000 20,000 120,000
REP Commission Senior Staff Position [FY2021 REP Fund Balance]
190,000 190,000
REP Commission Peer Court Support [FY2021 REP Fund Balance]
20,000 20,000
REP FY2021 Holding Account [FY2021 REP Fund Balance] 1,970,000 1,970,000
Sales Tax Option - Housing Plan
Housing Plan - Build a more equitable City (move to CAN-HAND $388,000)
300,000 (300,000)0
Housing Plan - Community Land Trust (Eliminated) 500,000 (500,000)0
Housing Plan - Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance (move to CAN-HAND $53,000)
350,000 (350,000)0
Housing Plan - Incentivized Rent Assistance (move to CAN-HAND $671,620)
900,000 (900,000)0
Housing Plan - Mortgage Assistance (move to CAN-HAND $50,000)
500,000 (500,000)0
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-30
Non Departmental:Original Budget Proposed Changes Original Budget Proposed Changes TOTAL PROPOSED
Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing (transfer to RDA) 2,590,000 2,590,000
Housing Plan - Marketing home ownership programs (move to CAN_HAND $300,000)
300,000 (300,000)0
Housing Plan - Service Models for most vulnerable (move to CAN-HAND $525,380)
200,000 (200,000)0
Sales Tax Option - Transit Plan
Transit Plan - Key Routes 4,700,000 (200,000)4,500,000
Transit Plan - On Demand Ride Services (Smaller Service Area) 1,100,000 1,100,000
Transit Plan - Bus Service Mobilization for 1000 North bus route
1,101,319 1,101,319
Transit Plan - UTA Outreach 100,000 100,000
Total Non Departmental 75,295,329 3,063,010 16,110,468 3,540,289 98,009,096
TOTAL GENERAL FUND General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
General Fund Total Expenses and Other Uses Budget 315,226,108 1,910.35 34,512,447 105.00 349,738,555 1,897.00
GENERAL FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE General Fund Sales Tax Option TOTAL FY2022 Budget
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-31
CIP Fund (FC 83)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 24,420,242
Eliminate FY2021 GF funding (Including Funding Our Future, less Debt Service and LBA Transfer)
(15,782,971)
Eliminate FY2021 Class C funding (3,000,000)
Eliminate FY2021 Impact fee funding (5,058,011)
Eliminate FY2021 funding from additional sources (579,260)
FY2022 GF Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service)14,125,469
FY2022 General Fund Funding our Future 3,580,000
FY2022 Less amount transferred directly to debt service including LBA (8,538,880)
FY2022 Class C Funding (Excluding transfer directly to Debt Service)3,021,706
FY2022 Impact Fee Funding (Excluding transfer directly to LBA Debt Service)8,276,103
FY2022 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding 4,900,000
FY2022 Community Development Block Grant 322,000
FY2022 Funding from additional sources 571,059
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,837,215 26,257,457
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 25,093,221
Eliminate FY2021 Ongoing Commitment Funding (1,522,687)
Eliminate FY2021 Maintenance Funding (2,948,507)
Eliminate FY2021 Capital Projects Funding (11,472,697)
Eliminate FY2021 Class C Funding (2,046,329)
Eliminate FY2021 Streets Impact Fee Funding (4,177,733)
Eliminate FY2021 Cost Overrun and Percent for Art (263,634)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to Debt Service (154,706)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to Debt Service - Class C (953,671)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to Debt Service/LBA - Impact Fees Fire (880,278)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer to General Fund (Completed CIP Project Funding)(422,979)
Eliminate FY2021 Transfer Out from City Daycare Project to GF (250,000)
FY2022 Ongoing Commitment Funding 1,583,423
FY2022 Maintenance Funding GF, Funding our Future 300,000
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-32
FY2022 Maintenance Funding ¼¢ Sales Tax 400,000
FY2022 Capital Projects Funding 7,425,520
FY2022 Class C Funding 2,046,329
FY2022 Streets Impact Fees Funding 491,520
FY2022 Parks Impact Fees Funding 6,800,450
FY2022 ¼¢ Sales Tax Funding 4,500,000
FY2022 Community Development Block Grant 322,000
Cost Overrun and Percent for art 280,200
Transfer to Debt Service - General Fund 148,505
Transfer to Debt Service - Class C 975,377
Transfer to Debt Service/LBA Impact Fees Fire 984,133
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,164,236 26,257,457
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,000
Change in Special Assessment Fees 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 3,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 3,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Misc. Special Service Districts (FC 46)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 1,550,000
Change in revenue from New Assessment 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 1,550,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 1,550,000
Change in expense from New Assessment 0
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 1,550,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-33
Street Lighting Enterprise Fund (FC 48)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance-base lighting 4,286,798
Street lighting fees (126,729)
Reduction in interest income 32,500
Reduction in other revenues (1,800)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (96,029)4,190,769
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance-base lighting 5,379,697 1.52
Personnel services 1.20 133,223
Charges for service 185,040
Debt services 1,703
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2.72 319,966 5,699,663
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (1,508,894)
Water Utility (FC 51)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 120,657,632
Metered water sales 15,850,038
Interest income (317,896)
Other revenue (36,486)
Impact fees 600,000
Aid to construction from development (22,020)
Sale of equipment (94,760)
Bond proceeds (16,089,000)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (110,124)120,547,508
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 126,333,193 270.22
Personnel services 6.51 2,753,856
Operating & maintenance 50,128
Charges for service 3,770,278
Capital outlay 906,945
Capital improvements (8,330,000)
Cost of bond issuance (89,000)
Debt services 1,970,155
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 276.73 1,032,362 127,365,555
Budgeted revenues and other sources over (6,818,047)
(under) expenditures and other uses
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-34
Sewer (FC 52)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 199,230,301
Sewer utility service revenue 7,819,937
Interest income (821,301)
Other revenues 0
Impact fees 0
Aid to construction from development (583,177)
Other sources 0
WIFIA Loan 680,000
Bond Proceeds 72,402,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 79,497,459 278,727,760
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 212,638,399 122.01
Personnel services 4.54 209,462
Operating & maintenance 76,074
Charges for service 1,072,403
Capital outlay 655,164
Capital improvements 49,793,413
Cost of bond issuance 402,000
Debt services 3,366,881
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 126.55 55,575,397 268,213,796
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 10,513,964
Storm Water Utility (FC 53)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 10,746,170
Stormwater utility service revenue 974,050
Interest income (80,470)
Other operating revenues 3,000
Sale of equipment (4,000)
Bond Proceeds 6,160,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 7,052,580 17,798,750
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-35
Storm Water Utility (FC 53)(Continued)
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 17,961,860 34.82
Personnel services 4.75 586,853
Operating & maintenance 3,600
Charges for service (59,570)
Capital outlay (164,000)
Capital improvements 587,500
Cost of bond issuance 34,200
Debt Service 250,570
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 39.57 1,239,153 19,201,013
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (1,402,263)
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 274,891,999
Change in operating revenues 1,506,500
Change in passenger facility charges 0
Change in grants and reimbursements (377,000)
Change in customer facility charges (618,000)
Change in airport general revenue bonds 0
Change in interest income (17,413,900)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (16,902,400)257,989,599
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 302,311,600 610.80
Increase in operating expenses 24,361,800
Decrease in Passenger Incentive Rebate (5,702,200)
Increase in interest expense 12,244,600
Increase in capital equipment 4,093,700
Increase in capital improvements projects 369,483,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 610.80 404,480,900 706,792,500
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (448,802,901)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-36
Refuse (FC 57)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 12,601,294
Refuse Collection Revenues 0
Other Misc. Revenues (6,484)
Recycling Proceeds 0
Landfill (SLVSWMF) dividends (42,500)
Sale of equipment and vehicles 85,000
Principal & Interest for CIK Loan Repayment 0
Finance Proceeds for Equip Purchases (see corresponding expense)5,676,289
FY22 Waste & Recycling Can Collection 8% Fee Increase 1,189,716
FY22 Transfer from GF to Refuse Fund E&E to cover revenue shortfall 440,000
FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds 275,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 7,617,021 20,218,315
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 16,515,438 63.00
Financed vehicle purchases (see corresponding revenue)5,708,289
Lease payments for equipment purchases 826,383
Fleet maintenance 246,000
Fleet fuel (5,000)
Tipping fees (482,288)
Personal services base to base changes 92,151
Personal services salary increase 54,530
Personal services insurance, pension changes 34,152
Personal services overtime/other 4,092
IMS Network & Admin Costs 232,530
PUBS Billing Allocation Costs 52,124
Misc operational expenses 337,432
Remove FY21 One-time Sustainability Projects Budget (175,000)
FY22 C-REP SLC Anchor City Contractual Participation Expense 275,000
FY22 Sustainability Projects New Requests 655,000
FY22 Waste & Recycling Call-to-Haul Program Enhancement 30,000
FY22 Waste & Recycling Delong Yard Facility Improvements (Asphalt $85K, Modular Dock $210K)
295,000
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-37
FY22 Sustainability Ongoing Hourly Position 1040 Hours 17,672
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 63.00 8,198,067 24,713,505
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (4,495,190)
Golf Fund - Operations (FC 59)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,307,092
Green Fees 213,562
Driving Range 4,780
Cart Rental 5,300
Retail Sales (33,455)
Other 15,708
General Fund Transfer (IMS, Admin Fees)205,693
Debt Proceeds - Lease Capital 768,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,179,588 9,486,680
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,687,696 34.65
Eliminate Assistant Professional Position (1.00)(74,720)
Personal Services adjustments from organizational changes 3,127
Personal Services (COLA, Living Wage Increases)170,932
Retail Merchandise 6,088
Operating Supplies 36,180
Increase for Utilities 62,950
Charges and Services 106,680
City Charges (IMS, Admin Fees)16,593
Debt Service Payments (Carts)(58,153)
Operating Equipment Cash Purchases 257,575
Equipment Lease Capital 768,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 33.65 1,295,252 8,982,948
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 503,732
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-38
Golf Fund - CIP Dedicated (FC 59)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 732,264
Green Fees 5,720
Green Fees ($1 per 9 hole increase)124,800
Transfer from GF for ESCO 50,649
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 181,169 913,433
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 797,201
Debt Service Payments (ESCO)50,649
Capital Expenditures (133,381)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0.00 (82,732)714,469
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 198,964
Emergency 911 (FC 60)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,925,000
No Change 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 3,925,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,789,270
Remove CAD-to-CAD One-Time Funding from FY2021 (117,145)
Remove Emergency Notifications System One-Time Funding for FY2021 (22,125)
CAD-to-CAD Sharing 85,010
Versaterm Data Sharing Hub 26,200
NICE Radio Logger Upgrade - Vesta 30,765
Motorola NICE Redundant GP Server 63,218
APCO IntelliComm Software 201,663
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 267,586 4,056,856
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (131,856)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-39
Fleet Management (FC 61) - Maintenance
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 12,616,184
Car Wash billing increase 6,000
Fuel revenue impact 100,382
Work Order billings 501,183
Loaner pool budget moved to Maintenance budget 2,400
Other revenue - now must pay to discard recycled oil and adj scrap metal sales (41,411)
Adding back operational cut 246,580
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 815,134 13,431,318
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 12,596,994 45.00
FY21 Base personal service adjustments (101,061)
Salary Increase and Merit changes 37,825
Increase in health insurance 49,676
Annual fuel calibrations on fuel dispensing equipment 7,500
Annual fuel upgrades 50,000
Fuel impact 108,282
Increase for IMS charges 99,125
Increase for utilities 10,185
Increase in City charges (IMS, Admin Fees)15,134
Loaner pool budget moved from Replacement budget 27,069
Miscellaneous (41,490)
Moved GPS expense to Fleet from GF 179,600
Parts 3% increase 133,467
Adding back operational cut 246,580
Total Expenses and Other Uses Budget 45.00 821,892 13,418,886
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 12,432
Fleet Management (FC 61) - Replacement
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 6,461,809
Increased leased purchases to stay under $4M debt service cap 2,000,000
Transfer from GF for Debt Service (292,654)
Transfer from GF for Replacement of Vehicles 5,504,370
Streets Funding our Future purchases 58,000
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-40
Vehicle sales at auctions 212,975
Estimated VW Grant Revenue & Expense 564,589
Loaner pool moved to Fleet Maintenance (2,400)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 8,044,880 14,506,689
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 6,612,277
Capital outlay with cash, including UC cars 599,696
Debt Service - Current year lease purchases reduced $2.3M to stay under $4M debt service limit
250,139
Debt Service - Prior Years (542,792)
New vehicle prep, parts, outsourced labor & admin 205,934
Funding our Future - Public Safety vehicles 4,000,000
Funding our Future - Streets vehicles 950,916
Streets Funding our Future purchases 58,000
Increased leased purchases to stay under $4M debt service cap 2,000,000
Estimated VW Grant Revenue & Expense 564,589
Loaner pool moved to Fleet Maintenance fund (27,069)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0.00 8,059,413 14,671,690
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (165,001)
Information Management Services (FC 65)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 17,345,710
Change in Transfer from General Fund 3,373,880
Change in Transfer from Transportation 215,869
Change in Transfer from Public Utilities 1,251,699
Change in Transfer from Airport Fund 2,295,374
Change in Payment from Redevelopment Agency 25,839
Change in Transfer from Sustainability Fund 223,554
Change in Transfer from Golf Fund (195,967)
Change in Transfer from Fleet Fund 139,161
Change in Transfer from Risk Fund (33,506)
Change in Transfer from Govt Immunity Fund 3,511
Change in Payment from Library (340,884)
One-Time Fund Balance Transfer from GF (54,000)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 6,904,530 24,250,240
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-41
Information Management Services (FC 65)(Continued)
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 18,289,687 69.00
Change in Personnel Expense 206,788
Budget Amendment Changes
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Mgr 1.00 105,920
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 80,054
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 83,930
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 90,916
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Deputy Director 1.00 176,436
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Strategy and Special Projects Manager 1.00 100,714
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Strategy and Special Projects Manager 1.00 100,714
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget 30,200
BA#6 - Transfer to IMS - Innovations Team Support Budget 53,400
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst 1.00 106,458
BA#7 - Transfer to IMS - GIS Programmer Analyst 1.00 108,646
Contractual Changes
- ERP Software Subscription 750,000
- Microsoft Additional Licensing 54,855
- Various Software Contracts 324,536
Technical & Inflationary Increases
- Administrative Fees 95,000
- Software Support Services 24,449
- ESRI Advantage Program 65,000
- Penetration Testing 50,000
Initiatives
- ERP Software Implementation 2,000,000
- Website Enhancements 125,000
- Server Infrastructure 180,000
- PSB Network Infrastructure (FOF)350,000
New Positions
- ERP Conversion Manager 1.00 164,756
- Network Engineer - Cyber Security 1.00 122,236
- Network Engineer - Unified Communications [10 Months]1.00 122,236
- Software Services - Data Engineer [9 Months]1.00 127,404
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-42
- Network Engineer - Enterprise Backup and Wireless [10 Months]1.00 122,236
- Civic Engagement Specialist 1.00 90,916
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 84.00 6,012,800 24,302,487
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (52,247)
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC69)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,571,945
Remove Appropriation of Fund Balance (3,104,945)
Change in revenue 1,033,000
County local option sales tax from State FY21 1,100,000
County local option sales tax from State FY22 1,100,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 128,055 7,700,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 7,571,945
Personnel Changes 7,142
Remove Appropriation of Fund Balance (3,104,945)
Remove FY2021 One Time Project Funding (4,067,000)
Transfer to CIP 4,900,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (2,264,803)5,307,142
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 2,392,858
CDBG Operating (FC 71)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,509,164
Change in Federal Funds 1,832,168
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,832,168 5,341,332
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 3,509,164
Change in Federal Funds 582,168
Transfer to Housing 1,250,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,832,168 5,341,332
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-43
Misc. Grants Operating (FC 72)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,261,044
Change in Federal Grant Revenue (21,851)
Change in Program Income
Change in Appropriation of Cash (5,186,016)
American Rescue Plan 13,884,794
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 8,676,927 16,937,971
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 8,261,044
Change in Approved Grant Expenditures (5,207,867)
American Rescue Plan Grant
- Revenue Replacement [Transfer to General Fund] 10,000,000
- Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)
1.00 93,829
- Associate Planners (CAN)3.00 235,000
- Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager (CAN)
1.00 160,000
- Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)1.00 90,633
- Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)
711,350
- Arts Council Staffing & Operational Costs (ED)3.00 350,000
- Business & Cultural Districts (ED)1.00 150,000
- Economic Development Strategic Plan (ED)50,000
- Economic Development Staff (ED)2.00 290,000
- Tech Lake City (ED)45,000
- Construction Mitigation (ED)200,000
- American Express Card Merchant Fees (Finance)40,000
- Grant Administrator (Finance)1.00 101,020
- Grant Manager (Finance)1.00 95,000
- Business Analyst (Finance)1.00 89,500
- Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000
- MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)4.00 136,762
- MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700
- Forest Preservation and Growth Program 1.00 219,000
- Forest Preservation and Growth [One-Time]95,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 8,676,927 16,937,971
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-44
Other Special Revenue Fund (FC73)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 0
Appropriation of Cash 273,797
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 273,797 273,797
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 0
Change in Expenditures 273,797
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 273,797 273,797
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Donation Fund (FC 77)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,380,172
Change in Revenue 500,000
Change in Revenue from GUCOA (127,607)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 372,393 2,752,565
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,380,172
Change in Transfer to GF 500,000
Change in GUCOA Expense (127,607)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 372,393 2,752,565
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
Housing (FC 78)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 20,339,000
Change in Transfer from GF 0
Change in Transfer from GF for FOF (5,640,000)
Change in Transfer from CDBG 250,000
Change in Federal Grant Income 0
Change in Program Income 390,000
Change in Interest Income (616,700)
Change in Miscellaneous Income/Sale of Property 42,000
Change in Appropriation of Cash (479,300)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-45
Change in Loan Principal and Escrow Payments (1,156,000)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (7,210,000)13,129,000
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 23,248,016
Change in Loan Disbursements and Associated Expenses (5,996,016)
Change in Funding Our Futures Expenses (5,640,000)
Change in Other Expenses (100,000)
Change in Interest Expense (40,000)
Change in Note Payable & T&I Payments 59,000
Change in Transfer to General Fund 750,000
Change in Transfer to RDA Fund 2,590,000
Change in Transfer to CDBG Fund 1,250,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (7,127,016)16,121,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (2,992,000)
Debt Service (FC 81)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 35,118,583
Change in G. O Property Tax (3,880,797)
Change in Debt Service from RDA 44,213
Change in Debt Service from Internal Transfers
Change in Transfer from General Fund (1,011,168)
Change in Transfer from CIP (154,750)
Change in Transfer from Refuse (340)
Change in Transfer from Fleet (318)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget (5,003,160)30,115,423
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 37,519,401
Change in Debt Service Payments and related expenses (6,668,978)
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget (6,668,978)30,850,423
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (735,000)
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-46
Government Immunity (FC 85)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,787,963
Change in transfers in
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 2,787,963
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 2,855,203 8.50 78,710
Change in Personnel Expense 0.50
Change in Other Expense
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 9.00 78,710 2,933,913
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses (145,950)
Insurance and Risk Management (FC 87)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY21 Beginning Balance 48,432,623
Change in transfers in 416,347
Insurance Changes 2,573,614
Change in transfer from the General Fund 82,734
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 3,072,695 51,505,318
Expenses and Other Uses
FY21 Beginning Balance 51,409,025 6.10
Change in Personnel Expense 20,716
BA#4 HR Director (.15)0.15 26,615
HR Supervisor - Insurance [10 months]1.00 108,950
Claims/Admin Assistant [10 Months]0.50 61,987
Change in Health Insurance 2,573,614
Change in Property Insurance Premium & Excess Premium 166,280
Change in Brokerage Fee 25,000
Change in Comm Crime Bonds & Cyber Liability 18,927
Change in SDI Admin Fee 5,124
Change in Overhead Expenses (38,724)
Remove Fund Balance Transfer for FY2021 (2,876,049)
Transfer out of Fund Balance for Premium Holiday FY2022 1,438,025
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 7.75 1,530,464 52,939,489
Budgeted revenues and other sources over (1,434,171)
(under) expenditures and other uses
OTHER FUND KEY CHANGES
ISSUE
FY2021 Adopted Budget
Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-47
LBA KEY CHANGES
ISSUE FY2020 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2020 Budget FY2021 Budget
Local Building Authority (FC66)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY20 Beginning Balance 2,219,250
Change in Building Lease Revenue 3,975
Change in Transfers In 295,997
Appropriation of Cash (298,297)
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,675 2,220,925
Expenses and Other Uses
FY20 Beginning Balance 2,219,250
Change in Debt Service (1,125)
Change in Project Costs 2,800
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,675 2,220,925
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-48
Central Business District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 25,066,500 2,506,650 27,573,150
Interest Income 300,000 50,000 350,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 25,366,500 2,556,650 27,923,150
Expenses and Other Uses
Taxing Entity Payment (60%)15,039,900 1,503,990 16,543,890
Eccles Debt Service Block 70 RDA Match 2,638,112 469,628 3,107,740
Transfer to Administration 2,506,650 250,665 2,757,315
Commercial Development Loan Program 250,000 (250,000) 0
Miscellaneous Property Expense 800,000 175,000 975,000
TI Reimbursement Jazz Arena 700,000 107,710 807,710
Gallivan Maintenance 528,543 (5,405) 523,138
TI Reimbursement 222 South Main 500,000 169,688 669,688
Gallivan Programming 200,000 200,000
Gallivan Administration 351,492 (11,010) 340,482
Eccles Debt Service Reserve 1,537,449 262,551 1,800,000
Parking Ramp Leases 64,355 64,355
Capital Expenditures - Japantown -{Holding Account}- 250,000 (250,000)
Capital Expenditures - Storefront Revitalization -{Holding Account}-
133,832 133,832
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 25,366,500 2,556,650 27,923,150
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-49
West Capitol Hill
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income 100,000 50,000 150,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 100,000 50,000 150,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Transfer to Administration 100,000 50,000 150,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 100,000 50,000 150,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
West Temple Gateway
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income 50,000 50,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 50,000 50,000
Transfer to Administration 50,000 50,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 50,000 50,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Depot District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 3,844,278 76,886 3,921,164
Interest Income 180,000 20,000 200,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 4,024,278 96,886 4,121,164
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-50
Depot District (Continued)
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement Gateway 1,200,000 65,520 1,265,520
Primary Housing Fund 768,856 15,377 784,233
Capital Expenditures - 100 S Utilities -{Holding Account}-388,981 (388,981) 0
Capital Expenditures - Station Center Infrastructure -{Holding Account}-
0 332,179 332,179
Transfer to Administration 576,642 11,533 588,175
Grant Tower Debt Service 275,800 (200) 275,600
TI Reimbursement Alta Gateway 260,000 119,960 379,960
TI Reimbursement Homewood Suites 110,000 (4,064) 105,936
Miscellaneous Property Expense 100,000 20,000 120,000
TI Reimbursement Cowboy Partners Liberty Gateway 94,000 (24,439) 69,561
TI Reimbursement Cicero 50,000 (50,000) 0
Capital Expenditures - Environmental Remediation Sites 3 & 4 -{Holding Account}-
200,000 200,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 4,024,278 96,885 4,121,163
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Granary District
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 608,945 12,179 621,124
Interest Income 40,000 5,000 45,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 648,945 17,179 666,124
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-51
Granary District (Continued)
Expenses and Other Uses
Adaptive Reuse loan program -{Holding Account}- 396,814 (396,814) 0
Capital Expenditures - Community/Cultural Initiative -{Holding Account}-
443,731 443,731
Primary Housing Fund 121,789 2,436 124,225
Transfer to Administration 91,342 1,827 93,169
TI Reimbursement Artspace Commons 34,000 (34,000) 0
Miscellaneous Property Expense 5,000 5,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 648,945 17,180 666,124
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
North Temple
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 426,810 8,536 435,346
Interest Income 14,000 1,000 15,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 440,810 9,536 450,346
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Catalytic Project -{Holding Account}-
270,086 19,182 289,268
Primary Housing Fund 85,362 1,707 87,069
Capital Expenditures - 10% School Construction Fund -{Holding Account}-
42,681 (12,207) 30,474
Transfer to Administration 42,681 854 43,535
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 440,810 9,536 450,346
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-52
Block 70
Revenue and Other Sources
Private Fundraising 800,000 (800,000) 0
Transfer From CBD Taxing Entity Payments 4,043,171 66,029 4,109,200
Transfer From CBD Eccles Debt Service RDA match 2,638,112 469,628 3,107,740
Transfer from CBD Eccles Debt Service Reserve Account 1,537,449 262,551 1,800,000
Tax Increment 1,884,631 37,693 1,922,323
Interest Income 50,000 (50,000) 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 10,953,363 (14,099) 10,939,263
Expenses and Other Uses
Eccles Theater Debt Service 8,070,927 (2,718) 8,068,209
Reserve for Eccles Debt Service 480,959 (390,342) 90,617
Regent Street Bond Debt Service 981,087 467,653 1,448,740
Taxing Entity Payments (30%) 565,390 11,307 576,697
Fundraising Fulfillment 150,000 -50,000 100,000
Eccles Theater- Operating Reserve for Ancillary Spaces 475,000 0 475,000
Property and Liability Insurance 50,000 (50,000) 0
Regent Street Parking Structure Capital Reserves -{Holding Account}-
100,000 0 100,000
Regent Street Maintenance 80,000 0 80,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 10,953,363 (14,100) 10,939,263
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-53
North Temple Viaduct
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 1,158,313 23,166 1,181,479
Interest Income 1,500 6,000 7,500
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,159,813 29,166 1,188,979
Expenses and Other Uses
Debt Service Payment to Salt Lake City 1,142,438 28,819 1,171,257
Transfer to Admin 17,375 347 17,722
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,159,813 29,166 1,188,979
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Northwest Quadrant
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 0 1,500,000 1,500,000
Interest Income 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 1,500,000 1,500,000
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement NWQ Phase I 0 500,000 500,000
Transfer to Secondary Housing 0 350,000 350,000
Shared Costs -{Holding Account}-0 350,000 350,000
Transfer to Primary Housing 0 150,000 150,000
Transfer to Admin 0 150,000 150,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 1,500,000 1,500,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses 0
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-54
Stadler Rail
Revenue and Other Sources
Tax Increment 0 71,000 71,000
Interest Income 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 71,000 71,000
Expenses and Other Uses
TI Reimbursement 0 56,800 56,800
Transfer to Primary Housing 0 7,100 7,100
Transfer to Admin 0 7,100 7,100
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 71,000 71,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Revolving Loan Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
FY17 Beginning Balance
Interest on Investment 470,000 0 470,000
Principal Payments 275,000 (220,000) 55,000
Interest on Loans 107,000 (82,000) 25,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 852,000 (302,000) 550,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Available to Lend 852,000 (302,000) 550,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 852,000 (302,000) 550,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-55
Program Income Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Parking Structure Income 1,242,335 1,242,335
Rents 315,000 (99,300) 215,700
Interest Income 250,000 0 250,000
Loan Repayments 88,000 (60,000) 28,000
Interest on Loans 10,500 (4,000) 6,500
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,905,835 (163,300) 1,742,535
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Commercial Revitalization Program -{Holding Account}-
0 667,535 667,535
Professional Services 299,009 991 300,000
Miscellaneous Property Expense 300,000 300,000
Capital Expenditures - Sustainability Technical Assistance Program -{Holding Account}-
0 200,000 200,000
Transfer to Administration 176,611 (176,611) 0
Marketing and Sales 25,000 0 25,000
Project Area Seed Funds 505,215 (505,215) 0
Capital Expenditures - Gallivan Repairs -{Holding Account}-
250,000 0 250,000
Capital Expenditures - Project Area Art -{Holding Account}-
250,000 (250,000) 0
Project Area Creation 100,000 (100,000) 0
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,905,835 (163,300) 1,742,535
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-56
Secondary Housing Fund (formerly Project Area Housing Fund)
Revenue and Other Sources
Interest Income 44,000 0 44,000
Transfer from NWQ 0 350,000 350,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 44,000 350,000 394,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Capital Expenditures - Housing Development Loan Program -{Holding Account}-
394,000
Infill Housing Development 44,000 (44,000) 0
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 44,000 (44,000) 394,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Primary Housing Fund (formerly Citywide Housing Fund)
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer from Depot 768,856 15,377 784,233
Interest Income 225,000 0 225,000
Transfer from NWQ 0 0 150,000
Transfer from Granary 121,789 2,436 124,225
Loan Repayments 82,547 (31,547) 51,000
Interest on Loans 80,225 -10,225 70,000
Transfer from Stadler Rail 0 7,100 7,100
Transfer from North Temple 85,362 1,707 87,069
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 1,363,779 (15,152) 1,498,627
Expenses and Other Uses
Housing NOFA 1,363,779 (1,363,779) 0
Housing Development Loan Program -{Holding Account}-
0 498,627 498,627
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-57
Strategic Site Acquisition -{Holding Account}-0 1,000,000 1,000,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 1,363,779 134,848 1,498,627
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
NWQ Housing Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
UIPA Housing Allocation 0 250,000 250,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 0 250,000 250,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Housing Development Loan Program -{Holding Account}-
0 250,000 250,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 0 250,000 250,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Housing Development Fund
Revenue and Other Sources
Funding Our Future Land Discounts and Financing 2,590,000 0 2,590,000
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 2,590,000 0 2,590,000
Expenses and Other Uses
Housing Development Loan Program -{Holding Account}-
2,590,000 0 2,590,000
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-58
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 2,590,000 0 2,590,000
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
Administration
Revenue and Other Sources
Transfer from Central Business District 2,506,650 250,665 2,757,315
Transfer from Depot District 576,642 11,533 588,175
Transfer from West Capitol Hill 100,000 50,000 150,000
Transfer from Granary District 91,342 1,827 93,169
Transfer from West Temple Gateway 50,000 0 50,000
Transfer from North Temple 42,681 854 43,535
Transfer From Program Income Fund 176,610 (176,610) 0
Transfer from North Temple Viaduct 17,375 347 17,722
Transfer from Northwest Quadrant 0 150,000 150,000
Transfer from Stadler Rail 0 7,100 7,100
Transfer from FC77 1,171,996 (1,171,996) 0
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 4,733,296 (876,281) 3,857,015
Expenses and Other Uses
RDA Personnel 2,100,484 19.0 154,148 2,254,632
Gallivan Personnel 1,171,996 13.0 (1,171,996) 0
Administrative Fees 800,000 139,683 939,683
Operating & Maintenance 308,116 51,884 360,000
Charges and Services 202,700 0 202,700
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment 150,000 (50,000) 100,000
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 4,733,296 32.0 (876,281) 3,857,015
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-59
GRAND TOTALS
TOTAL Revenue 54,232,619 57,942,203
TOTAL Expense 54,232,619 57,942,203
CIP Allocations detailed on Cap Projects tab 4,738,562 7,729,646
Appropriation of Fund Balance — —
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY KEY CHANGES
FUND FY2021 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2021 Budget
FY2022 Recommended Budget
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-60
MULTI-AGENCY DRUG TASK FORCE KEY CHANGES
ISSUE FY2020 Adopted Budget Full Time Equivalent Changes from FY2020 Budget FY2021 Budget
Multi-Agency Drug Task Force (FC41)
Revenue and Other Sources
FY20 Beginning Balance 1,763,746
Remove FY2021 Funding (1,763,746)
Appropriation of Cash Balance from Forfeiture 1,567,118
Appropriation of Cash Balance from Restitution 466,455
Total Revenues and Other Sources Budget 269,827 2,033,573
Expenses and Other Uses
FY20 Beginning Balance 1,763,746
Remove FY2021 Expense (1,763,746)
Change in Operating Expense 2,033,573
Total Expenditures and Other Uses Budget 269,827 2,033,573
Budgeted revenues and other sources over
(under) expenditures and other uses —
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-61
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
B-62
This page intentionally left blank
DEBT POLICIES
The City's debt policy is defined by State statute to maintain the City's "Aaa/AAA" general obligation bond
ratings, as rated by Moody's and Fitch, respectively, or other rating agencies. Accordingly, the City will
continually monitor all outstanding debt issues and trends in key economic, demographic, and financial
data, including a periodic review of important debt ratios and debt indicators. The City will make all debt
service payments in a timely and accurate manner. The City will fully comply with all IRS arbitrage rebate
requirements and the bonds' post-issuance compliance regulations. In the preparation of official
statements or other bond-related documents, the City will follow a policy of complete disclosure of its
financial and legal conditions.
The City's practice is to also adhere to the following guidelines:
1.State law limits general obligation bonded debt use for general purposes to 4 percent of the
adjusted fair market value of the City's taxable property.
2.State law also limits general obligation bonded debt for water, sewer, and lighting purposes to 4
percent of the adjusted fair market value of the property plus any unused portion of the amount
available for general purposes.
3.The City combines a pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to keep the debt burden
sufficiently low to merit the “Aaa/AAA” general obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient
available debt capacity in an emergency.
4.The City limits debt to projects that cannot be reasonably funded in a single year and to terms
that are consistent with the useful life of the project being undertaken.
5.The City seeks the least costly financing available. All debt commitments are reviewed centrally by
the City Treasurer who looks for opportunities to combine issues or for alternative methods that
will achieve the lowest possible interest rates and other borrowing costs.
6.The City will continually analyze whether it would be advantageous to refund bond issues based
on market and budgetary conditions.
7.The City will issue Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes only to meet short-term cash flow liquidity
needs. To exempt the notes from the arbitrage rebate, the sizing of the notes and the timing of
cash flows will meet the “safe harbor” provisions of the Federal Tax Code.
8.The City will invest bond and note proceeds as well as all funds that are pledged or dedicated to
the payment of debt service on those bonds or notes by following the terms of the borrowing
instruments or if silent or less restrictive, then according to the terms and conditions of the Utah
State Money Management Act and Rules of the State Money Management Council.
9.The City will maintain outstanding debt at a level such that revenues are equal to or greater than
200% of the maximum annual debt service.
10.The City currently has $106,525,000 of outstanding general obligation debt. This is well below the
4 percent (of fair market value) statutory limits, which places the City’s general obligation
borrowing limit at $1,671,333,777. The City currently does not use general obligation debt for
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 1
water, sewer, or lighting purposes. However, the full 8% may be used for water, sewer, and
electric purposes but if it is so used, then no general obligation bonds may be issued in excess of
8% for any purpose.
Computation of Legal Debt Margin (in millions, as of June 30, 2020)
Legal Debt Margin General Purposes4%
Water, Sewer, and Lighting4%Total8%
General Obligation Debt Limit 1,671 1,671 3,343
Less Outstanding General Obligation Bonds (107) — (107)
Legal Debt Margin 1,565 1,671 3,236
2019 Fair market value of property -- $41,783,344,419
Source: Utah State Property Tax Division
SIGNIFICANT FUTURE DEBT PLANS
Lease Revenue Bonds, Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds
The City administration continuously evaluates the City’s funding of its Capital Improvement Program,
and proceeds of lease revenue bonds and additional bonds will be considered as one of the sources for
funding the City’s capital infrastructure.
The City is currently considering issuing sales tax revenue bonds for the purpose of refunding the Sales
Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2012A, Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Series 2013B, Lease Revenue Bonds Series
2013A, and Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2014A, as wells as funding various projects within the City.
Special Assessment Area (SAA)
The City has no short-term plans to issue assessment area bonds.
General Obligation Bonds
A special bond election held on November 6, 2018, gave voter authorization to the City to issue up to $87
million in general obligation bonds to fund all or a portion of the costs of improving various streets and
roads throughout the City and related infrastructure improvements. The first block of $20 million of the
authorization was issued in October 2019. The second block of $17.745 million of the authorization was
issued in September 2020. An additional issuance of approximately $23 million may take place in the
calendar year 2021.
Major Programs and Future Debt Considerations
The City will issue approximately $1.15 billion in additional general airport revenue bonds in the future to
complete the $4.45 billion “New SLC,” formerly known as the Airport Redevelopment Program. The
program is currently expected to be completed by 2025.
Public Utilities revenue bonds of approximately $503 million are expected to be issued over the next
seven years to fund the Department of Public Utilities capital improvement program. A major focus of
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 2
the Department’s budget is the rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure. The largest
planned projects are the new water reclamation facility to meet regulatory requirements, improvements
to three water treatment plants, phased construction of a new water conveyance line to expand service
and provide redundancy, water, sewer, and stormwater utility infrastructure work necessitated by street
improvements projects pursuant to the City’s passage of the general obligation bond for that purpose.
The Department will also be utilizing proceeds from a $348,635,000 Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan secured to finance the construction of the water reclamation facility. The loan
will be drawn through 2024.
The City has applied to obtain a $7,000,000 loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) to finance a
neighborhood parking structure, a 926-stall garage, located between 400 and 500 West and 600 and 700
South in Salt Lake City. If approved, a loan will bear an interest rate at or above the market interest rate.
The loan term will not exceed 15 years. The City may pledge all or a portion of sales tax revenue as a
revenue source to the repay of the loan.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 3
DEBT STRUCTURE
Salt Lake City Outstanding Debt Issues
(RDA bond information has been excluded from this list)
(as of June 30, 2021)
Amount of Final Principal
Original Issue Maturity Date Outstanding
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT
Series 2010B (Public Safety Facilities) 100,000,000 6/15/2031 54,650,000
Series 2013A (Refunded a portion of Series 2004A) 6,395,000 6/15/2024 2,115,000
Series 2015A (Refund 2013B Sports Complex) 14,615,000 6/15/2028 7,825,000
Series 2015B (Refund 2009A, 2011, 2013C Open Space) 4,095,000 6/15/2023 630,000
Series 2017B (Refund Portion of 2010A) 12,920,000 6/15/2030 11,875,000
Series 2019 (Streets) (Refund Series 2017A) 22,840,000 6/15/2039 16,300,000
Series 2020 (Streets) 17,745,000 6/15/2040 13,130,000
TOTAL: 106,525,000
PUBLIC UTILITIES REVENUE BONDS
Series 2009 (Taxable) 6,300,000 2/1/2031 3,150,000
Series 2010 Revenue Bonds 12,000,000 2/1/2031 6,545,000
Series 2011 Revenue Bonds 8,000,000 2/1/2027 3,300,000
Series 2012 Improvement and Refunding '04 Bonds 28,565,000 2/1/2027 8,865,000
Series 2017 Public Utilities Revenue and Refunding (2008) 72,185,000 2/1/2037 66,145,000
Series 2020 Revenue Bonds 157,390,000 2/1/2050 157,390,000
TOTAL: 245,395,000
SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
Series 2012A (North Temple Projects) 15,855,000 10/1/2032 10,845,000
Series 2013B (Streetcar/Greenway Projects) 7,315,000 10/1/2033 5,470,000
Series 2014B (CIP Projects) 10,935,000 10/1/2034 8,430,000
Series 2016A (Refund 2009A) 21,715,000 10/1/2028 17,910,000
Series 2019A (Refund 2007A) 2,620,000 4/1/2027 2,095,000
Series 2019B (Refund 2013A) (Federally Taxable) 58,540,000 4/1/2038 57,740,000
TOTAL: 102,490,000
MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
Series 2014 (1300 S & 1700 S Streets) 8,800,000 4/1/2024 2,820,000
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY LEASE REVENUE BONDS
Series 2013A (Glendale Library) 7,180,000 10/15/2034 5,505,000
Series 2014A (Marmalade Library) 7,095,000 4/15/2035 5,530,000
Series 2016A (Fire Station #14) 6,755,000 4/15/2037 5,755,000
Series 2017A (Fire Station #3) 8,115,000 4/15/2038 7,555,000
TOTAL: 24,345,000
AIRPORT REVENUE BONDS
Series 2017A 826,210,000 7/1/2047 826,210,000
Series 2017B 173,790,000 7/1/2047 173,790,000
Series 2018A 753,855,000 7/1/2048 753,855,000
Series 2018B 96,695,000 7/1/2048 96,695,000
TOTAL: 1,850,550,000
_______________________________________
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 4
FY 2021-22 REVENUE
This section includes a general discussion of the Salt Lake City's major revenue sources. The City has eight
major funds which include: General Fund, Golf Fund, Refuse Fund, Water Fund, Sewer Fund, Storm Water
Fund, Street Lighting Fund, Airport Fund and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Fund. These funds and
their major revenue sources are discussed below.
REVENUE POLICIES
1.The City projects its annual revenue through analytical processes and adopts its budget using
conservative estimates and long-term forecasting.
2.The City minimizes the use of one-time revenue to fund programs incurring ongoing costs.
3.Once taxes and fees are assessed, the City aggressively collects all revenues due.
4.The City pursues abatement programs and other ways to reduce the effect of taxes and fees on
those least able to pay.
5.To the extent that the City’s revenue base is insufficient to fund current services, the City will
explore all potential options to reduce the cost of government services; examine the effect of
reducing the level of government services; and finally, consider new user fees or increases in
existing fees. Should these three alternatives fail to offer a suitable solution, the City may increase
tax rates as a last resort.
6.The City reviews the budget for those programs that can be reasonably funded by user fees. This
review results in a policy that defines cost, specifies a percentage of the cost to be offset by a fee,
and establishes a rationale for the percentage. When establishing these programs, the City
considers:
•Market pricing;
•Increased costs associated with rate changes;
•The ability of users to pay;
•The ability of individuals to make choices between using the service and paying the fee, or
not using the service;
•Other policy considerations. (For example, setting fines high enough to serve as a
deterrent; or pricing fees to even out demand for services.)
7. The City adjusts user fee rates annually based on an analysis of the criteria established in policy six
above. The City pursues frequent small increases as opposed to infrequent large increases.
8. The City considers revenue initiatives consistent with the following:
•Finding alternatives that address service demands created by the City's large daytime
population;
•Finding alternatives that allocate an equitable portion of service costs to tax-exempt
institutions;
•Finding alternatives to formulas which use residential population to distribute key revenues
such as sales tax and gasoline tax; and
•Pursuing opportunities for citizen volunteerism and public/private partnerships.
FORECASTING METHODOLOGY
Salt Lake City revenue forecasts are compiled using historical, time-series, trend, and simulation models.
These models focus primarily on past experiences and trends, but modifications are made based upon
simulations reflecting anticipated economic activities and proposed initiatives. The projected revenues
using these models are based upon anticipated economic growth, anticipated fee or tax increases, as well
as any new initiatives being proposed.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 5
The City has several financial auditors that regularly track and report on revenue collections and
projections. Projections are monitored for precision and revisions are made throughout the year. This
information is used to help forecast the upcoming year’s revenue.
As part of the City’s modeling efforts, year-to-date cumulative revenue collections are monitored and
compared to previous years to identify changes in revenue streams that may indicate areas of concern.
GENERAL FUND
The General Fund is the principal fund of the City and is used to account for resources traditionally
associated with governments which are not required to be accounted for in another fund. The General
Fund accounts for the normal activities of the City such as Police, Fire, Public Works, Parks and
Community Development. These activities are funded through taxes, fees, fines and charges for services.
The majority of the City’s General Fund revenue comes from three sources - property taxes $101,183,084
(28.93%), sales taxes $109,556,477 (31.33%), and franchise taxes $27,702,125 (7.92%). These sources are
impacted by local and national economic trends and activities. Major increases or decreases in any one
of these three taxes can have a significant impact on City operations.
PROPERTY TAX
Property tax revenue is Salt Lake City's principal source of General Fund revenue, providing 28.93% of
total projected revenue in FY 2021-22. Property tax revenue is projected to increase in FY 2021-22.
Salt Lake County calculates the Certified Tax Rate and expected revenue for each taxing entity. State Tax
Code requires taxing entities to adopt the county’s property tax revenue forecast as their own, unless
they go through the truth-in-taxation process and raise the rate above the certified rate.
SALES TAX
Sales tax revenue is Salt Lake City's is a significant source of General Fund revenue, providing 31.33% of
total projected revenue in FY 2021-22. Sales tax revenue is projected to increase in FY 2021-22 as a result
of robust retail spending. Sales tax revenue is forecast using time-series and trend analysis in
conjunction with various modeling scenarios which anticipate economic events that may impact the City.
The forecast includes comparing the State of Utah’s projections with City’s projections to determine if the
City’s projections are reasonable.
FRANCHISE TAX
Franchise tax revenue is another major source of General Fund revenue, comprising 7.92% of projected
General Fund revenue in FY 2021-22. Franchise tax revenue is expected to increase in FY 2021-22, due to
a proposed increase in water rates. Franchise tax revenue is forecast using time-series and trend
analysis, as well as input from utility company representatives.
OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUE
The remaining General Fund revenues make up 31.82% of the total and are comprised of:
•Licenses and Permits
•Intergovernmental Revenue
•Charges, Fees and Rentals
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 6
•Fines
•Parking Meter Collections
•Interest Income
•Miscellaneous Revenue, Transfers and Interfund Reimbursements.
The following table summarizes total General Fund Revenue by major category.
GENERAL FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Property Taxes 86,037,385 84,530,904 91,020,673 94,654,243 99,342,715 99,417,103 101,183,084
Sales and Use Taxes 59,927,248 60,883,816 64,512,732 99,599,360 116,199,002 100,797,099 109,556,477
Franchise Taxes 27,972,665 29,051,786 30,301,186 27,042,921 26,863,146 26,812,125 27,702,125
Licenses and Permits 28,692,096 29,643,527 28,651,754 36,960,240 32,637,293 28,601,482 29,750,132
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,453,586 6,189,654 6,049,454 6,006,496 5,086,254 4,444,400 4,644,018
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,202,170 5,188,415 5,252,494 5,573,679 4,283,760 4,428,069 3,934,568
Fines 6,477,608 7,558,329 7,251,705 5,140,777 3,753,706 3,938,848 3,474,457
Parking Meter Collections 3,324,615 2,991,246 3,549,584 3,509,898 2,771,331 3,347,986 2,693,554
Interest Income 754,322 1,200,000 1,290,000 3,904,270 2,910,778 1,900,682 1,271,154
Miscellaneous Revenue 5,292,440 5,370,694 5,255,384 5,256,974 4,521,107 4,014,037 3,372,266
Interfund Reimbursement 11,051,278 10,275,747 11,054,188 16,363,850 20,574,064 20,281,706 22,032,894
General Fund Revenue 240,185,413 242,884,118 254,189,154 304,012,708 318,943,156 297,983,537 309,614,729
Other Financing Sources:
Transfers 7,867,962 5,393,053 6,954,179 7,564,418 6,800,493 9,750,600 17,902,686
Proceeds from Sale of Property 405,396 353,121 — — —
Revenue and Financing Sources 248,458,771 248,630,292 261,143,333 311,577,126 325,743,648 307,734,137 327,517,415
Property Tax for RDA* 11,317,136 10,284,464 13,245,339 13,510,246 14,021,140
Available Fund Balance/Cash Reserves
387,868 380,025 1,510,094 4,885,620 8,200,000
Total General Fund 272,848,337 322,241,615 340,499,081 326,130,003 349,738,555
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 7
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
General Fund Major Revenue Sources
Property Taxes
Sales and Use Taxes
Franchise Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental Revenue
Charges, Fees, and Rentals
Fines
Parking Meter Collections
Interest Income
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interfund Reimbursement
Ac
tua
l
FY15
-
1
6 Ac
tua
l
FY16
-
1
7 Ac
tua
l
FY17
-
1
8 Ac
tua
l
FY18
-
1
9 Ac
tua
l
FY19
-
2
0
Bu
dg
e
t
FY20
-
2
1
Bu
dg
e
t
FY21
-
2
2
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
Golf Enterprise Fund
The Golf Enterprise Fund accounts for the operations at six public golf course locations; Bonneville,
Forest Dale, Glendale, Mountain Dell, Nibley Park and Rose Park.
The City’s golf courses are operated as an enterprise fund where revenue collected at the golf course
through user fees supports operational and maintenance expenses, capital improvement costs and any
debt that may be incurred by the golf courses.
Revenue in this fund is generated by user fees including green fees, CIP $1 fees, cart rental fees, range
ball fees, merchandise purchases, lessons, concessionaire rental fees, etc. Revenue is projected based on
historical patterns and forecasts of trends in the local market area.
The FY 2021-22 Golf Fund budget for revenue and expense follows closely with 5 year historical averages.
In addition, strategic price increases are being implemented that will have an impact on revenues for FY
2021-22. Golfers are charged an additional $1 per 9-hole round fee with the listed green fee to be placed
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 8
in the Golf CIP Fund to be used toward golf course improvements. It is proposed for FY2021-22 to
increase the Golf CIP Fund fee to $2 per 9-hole round beginning in January 2022.
GOLF FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY 15-16 ActualFY 16-17 ActualFY 17-18 ActualFY 18-19 ActualFY 19-20 BudgetFY 20-21 BudgetFY 21-22
Golf Revenue
Green Fees 3,985,988 3,523,614 3,603,022 3,569,078 4,259,235 3,836,821 4,050,383
Golf Car Rental 1,399,370 1,339,722 1,509,488 1,461,066 1,471,019 1,527,525 1,532,825
Driving Range Fees 322,728 281,448 287,606 322,722 223,848 335,651 340,431
Retail Merchandise Sales 768,412 717,439 719,688 781,478 646,749 775,000 741,545
CIP Fee on rounds, passes 317,918 298,424 310,524 298,724 324,383 306,280 436,800
Miscellaneous 809,505 737,118 1,150,279 1,038,407 1,417,090 2,258,079 3,298,129
Total Golf Fund 7,603,921 6,897,765 7,580,607 7,471,475 8,342,324 9,039,356 10,400,113
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Golf Fund Revenue Summary
Golf Revenue
Green Fees
Golf Car Rental
Driving Range Fees
Retail Merchandise Sales
CIP Fee on rounds, passes
Miscellaneous
Actua
l
FY 15
-
1
6
Ac tua
l
FY 16
-
1
7
Ac
tua
l
FY 17
-
1
8
Actua
l
FY 18
-
1
9
Actua
l
FY 19
-
2
0
Bu
dg
e
t
FY 20
-
2
1
Bu
dg
e
t
FY 21
-
2
2
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 9
Refuse Enterprise Fund
The Refuse Enterprise Fund Class consists of two funds:
•Operations Fund
•Environmental & Energy Fund
Revenue for the Operations Fund comes from refuse collection fees, inter-fund reimbursements and
miscellaneous revenue. City residents are charged refuse collection fees based on the type and size of an
individual resident’s refuse can(s). These fees are calculated to recover the fund’s operational costs when
combined with the other sources of revenue described above. The Operations Fund revenue is
forecasted based on known factors such as the number of refuse cans in service, along with scheduled
events such as equipment replacement and changes in contractual agreements.
Voluntary residential curbside glass recycling services, which were introduced in FY12-13, continues to be
offered. Those using this service are charged a separate monthly fee; no fee increase is proposed for this
service in FY 2021-22.
The Environmental & Energy Fund receives a dividend from the Landfill (Salt Lake Valley Solid Waste
Management Facility / SLVSWMF) on an ongoing basis. This is the primary source of revenue for this fund.
As the Landfill garbage tonnage has decreased in recent years, so has the related dividend to its partners.
Revenues from recycling proceeds have been another source of revenue in the past for this fund.
Recycling proceeds have been eliminated over the last couple of years due to the volatility and
regulations in global recycling markets. The Department does not expect to receive any recycling
proceeds for the FY 2021-22 budget year due to the Chinese recycling market regulation changes and the
global recycling market prices. One-time sustainability project costs related to air quality, energy
efficiency, and sustainable food have been funded in the past by the $5,500,000 portion of the $7,000,000
one-time distribution from the Landfill which was received during FY10-11. These funds have now been
fully obligated, any new projects will be funded by the Environmental & Energy Fund balance. The FY
2021-22 budget request includes funding from General Fund to subsidize reduced funding sources.
REFUSE FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Refuse Revenue
Landfill / SLVSWMF Dividends 713,799 638,210 710,483 681,152 557,041 557,500 515,000
Refuse Collection Fees 11,344,725 11,345,341 11,118,760 11,397,708 11,223,400 11,235,694 12,425,411
Interfund Reimb & Misc 710,195 1,031,192 829,324 1,766,089 1,235,243 808,099 1,601,615
Total Refuse Fund 12,768,718 13,014,743 12,658,567 13,844,949 13,015,684 12,601,294 14,542,026
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 10
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Refuse Fund Revenue
Refuse Revenue
Landfill / SLVSWMF Dividends
Refuse Collection Fees
Interfund Reimb & Misc
Actua
l
FY15-
1
6
Actua
l
FY16-
1
7
Actua
l
FY17-
1
8
Actua
l
FY18-
1
9 Actua
l
FY19-
2
0
Budge
t
FY20-
2
1
Budge
t
FY21-
2
2
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
Water Utility Fund
The Water Utility Fund operates as an enterprise fund. The Water Utility exists to provide treated water to
current city residents, maintain the City’s water infrastructure, and to engage in conservation activities
related to the City’s water supply for future generations. The service area of the fund covers a total of 141
square miles and includes more than 350,000 residents. The service area includes the geographic area
within the Salt Lake City boundaries, as well as the east bench of the Salt Lake Valley outside Salt Lake
City boundaries, including to portions of the cities of Mill Creek, Holladay, Cottonwood Heights, South Salt
Lake, Murray, and Midvale. The Water Utility also has jurisdictional responsibilities to protect about 190
square miles of source water area in the headwaters of the Wasatch Mountains. The Water Utility
provides administrative utility billing services for the Sewer Utility, the Stormwater Utility, the Street
Lighting Utility, the Refuse Fund, and the Hive Program.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary billing rates needed to generate enough revenue to
fund the operations of the utility. Independent rate studies are conducted every several years to gather
public input and to structure rates in accordance with industry standards and community values.
Forecasted FY 2021-22 revenues reflect a proposed rate increase of 8%. The rate increase is applied to
the current four-tiered, inclining block rate structure.
Revenue received from metered water usage is the Water Utility’s main source of operating revenue
(94%). Other revenue categories include interest income, miscellaneous revenue, impact fees, and inter-
fund reimbursements.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 11
WATER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Water Revenue
Water Sales and Service 65,042,979 72,840,335 73,199,176 75,103,958 81,995,776 71,012,328 86,838,106
Interest Income 430,178 385,558 725,120 1,424,203 970,343 715,896 398,000
Permits, Fines & Other 684,794 340,075 453,482 523,688 480,673 343,460 460,970
Interfund Billing Services 1,920,289 2,185,655 2,267,207 2,394,985 2,370,157 2,921,828 2,966,142
Total Water Fund 68,078,239 75,751,624 76,644,985 79,446,834 85,816,949 74,993,512 90,663,218
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Water Fund Revenue Summary
Water Revenue
Water Sales and Service
Interest Income
Permits, Fines & Other
Interfund Billing Services
Actua
l
FY15-
1
6
Actua
l
FY16-
1
7
Actua
l
FY17-
1
8
Actua
l
FY18-
1
9
Actua
l
FY19-
2
0
Budge
t
FY20-
2
1
Budge
t
FY21-
2
2
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 12
Sewer Utility Fund
The Sewer Utility Fund operates as an enterprise fund. The Sewer Utility exists to manage the collection
and treatment of wastewater within Salt Lake City’s corporate boundaries. The Sewer Utility is increasing
capacity and expanding service of the sewer collection system to meet growth requirements related to
the new State Correctional Facility, the Airport expansion, and new development anticipated in the
Northwest Quadrant of Salt Lake City. The Sewer Utility operates the City’s sewer collection and sewer
treatment infrastructure which includes 655 miles of pipeline, several pump stations and a water
reclamation facility. The water reclamation facility is being rebuilt in order to meet new environmental
regulations, and construction is occurring in phases to be completed by the regulatory compliance
deadline of January 1, 2025. The first phase of construction began in FY 2019-20, and design work for
future phases is ongoing.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary billing rates needed to generate enough revenue to
fund the operations of the utility. The Sewer Utility charges customers based on average winter water use
volume and strength of produced waste. Independent rate studies are made every several years to
gather public input and to structure rates in accordance with industry standards and community values.
Forecasted FY 2021-22 revenues reflect the anticipated impacts of water use patterns in differing
customer classes and proposed 18% rate increase. The rate increase is distributed within a seven-tiered
block rate structure and is necessitated by the construction of the water reclamation facility.
In FY 2021-22 the main source of operating revenue for the sewer utility fund will be charges for sewer
services (99%). Other revenue categories include fines, interest income, survey permits, and
miscellaneous revenue.
SEWER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Sewer Revenue
Sewer Services 21,827,387 24,733,019 33,735,176 39,687,904 45,142,610 50,321,000 58,128,437
Interest Income 152,711 756,830 1,387,613 2,161,835 1,035,061 992,301 171,000
Permits, Fines, and Other 153,033 197,242 545,939 298,228 285,917 282,000 328,500
Total Sewer Fund 22,133,131 25,687,091 35,668,727 42,147,967 46,463,588 51,595,301 58,627,937
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 13
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Sewer Fund Revenue
Sewer Revenue
Sewer Services
Interest Income
Permits, Fines, and Other
Actua
l
FY15-
1
6
Actua
l
FY16-
1
7
Actua
l
FY17-
1
8
Actua
l
FY18-
1
9
Actua
l
FY19-
2
0
Budge
t
FY20-
2
1
Budge
t
FY21-
2
2
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
Storm Water Utility Fund
The Stormwater Utility operates as an enterprise fund. It exists to convey runoff and stormwater, and to
maintain the quality of stormwater discharge within Salt Lake City boundaries. It is also responsible for
mitigating flooding caused by stormwater runoff. The Stormwater Utility operates stormwater collection
infrastructure system which includes 350 miles of drainage pipe and 27 lift stations.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary fees needed to generate enough revenue to fund the
operations of the utility. The Utility charges costumers for these services based on units calculated as
equivalent residential units (ERU), or ¼ acre determined by area of the customer’s property that is
impervious. A previously planned 10% rate increase was deferred last year due to economic uncertainty
surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. The FY 2021-22 budget includes the 10% rate increase or
approximately $0.55 per equivalent residential (ERU) per month.
Revenues received from stormwater fees are the Utility’s main source of operating revenue (98%). Other
revenue categories include interest income and miscellaneous revenue.
STORM WATER FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Storm Water Revenue
Storm Water Services 8,218,844 8,423,972 8,510,707 9,555,773 10,720,158 9,743,500 10,716,550
Interest Income 39,491 79,254 115,773 184,128 129,047 199,670 119,200
Permits, Fines, & Other 32,425 16,933 47,327 50,687 85,397 50,000 62,000
Total Storm Water Fund 8,290,760 8,520,159 8,673,807 9,790,589 10,934,602 9,993,170 10,897,750
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 14
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Storm Water Fund Revenue
Storm Water Revenue
Storm Water Services
Interest Income
Permits, Fines, & Other
Actua
l
FY15-
1
6
Actua
l
FY16-
1
7
Actua
l
FY17-
1
8
Actua
l
FY18-
1
9
Actua
l
FY19-
2
0
Budge
t
FY20-
2
1
Budge
t
FY21-
2
2
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
Street Lighting Fund
The Street Lighting Utility operates as an enterprise fund. It exists to manage the City’s street lighting
infrastructure facilitating safer vehicle and pedestrian travel at night. Streetlights are provided at each
intersection on long blocks and as needed on mid blocks. SLCDPU provides base level street lighting
service on a city-wide basis and enhanced street lighting services for decorative lighting to two residential
neighborhoods and to one commercial area. Total system conversion to high efficiency lighting remains a
high priority of this Utility.
Revenues are forecast by anticipating the necessary fees needed to generate enough revenue to fund the
operations of the utility. Street lighting fees are based on units calculated as an equivalent residential unit
(ERU) which is determined by front footage of property. The base lighting rates were established in 2013
at $3.73 per month per ERU. The average Salt Lake City residence is one ERU, while commercial,
institutional, and industrial properties vary. (ERU). Rates were also established in 2015 for each enhanced
lighting service areas. No rate changes are proposed in the FY 2021-22 budget or forecast in the
immediate future. A rate study is planned for FY 2022.
Revenue received from street lighting fees are the Utility’s main source of revenue (99%). Other revenue
categories include interest income and miscellaneous revenue.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 15
STREET LIGHTING FUND REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Street Lighting Services 3,263,790 4,222,564 4,207,007 4,301,424 4,258,440 4,230,298 4,101,769
Interest Income 14,753 48,352 88,339 147,727 119,716 8,000 40,500
Other 74,499 7,786 180,558 300 250 659 659
Total Street Lighting Fund 3,353,043 4,278,702 4,475,905 4,449,450 4,378,406 4,238,957 4,142,928
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Street Lighting Fund Revenue
Street Lighting Services
Interest Income
Other
Actua
l
FY15-
1
6
Actua
l
FY16-
1
7
Actua
l
FY17-
1
8
Actua
l
FY18-
1
9
Actua
l
FY19-
2
0
Budge
t
FY20-
2
1
Budge
t
FY21-
2
2
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 16
Airport Enterprise Fund
The Salt Lake City Department of Airports manages Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA), Tooele
Valley Airport and South Valley Regional Airport (SRVA).
The Airport served 20 million passengers in FY2020 which was down approximately 23% due to sudden
drop in passenger traffic due to Covid-19. Salt Lake City International Airport serves a multi-state region
and consists of three air carrier runways and a general aviation runway and is classified as a large hub
airport. In September of 2021, the Airport opened portions of phase one of the new airport, which
included a new terminal, the gateway center, concourse A west and a new parking garage. A portion of
concourse B west was opened in October of 2020. By the end of April of 2021, the old Airport facilities
were demolished to make way for Phase two of the new airport. Phase two of the new airport is
scheduled to bring on new gates to concourse A east as soon as the spring of 2023 and will be completed
once concourse B east is finished in the fall of 2025.
Tooele Valley Airport is a general aviation reliever airport to SLCIA. It has one runway and support
services are on-demand only. South Valley Regional Airport is also a general aviation reliever airport. It
also has one runway and is a base for a Utah National Guard military helicopter unit.
The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund. It is not supported by property taxes, general funds of
local governments or special district taxes. Capital funding requirements for FY 2021-22 are met from
earnings, passenger facility charges, customer facility charges, general airport revenue bonds (GARBs),
Federal Aviation Administration grants under the Airport Improvement Program, and State grants.
MAJOR SOURCES OF AIRPORT FUND REVENUE
Revenues are forecast by reviewing and analyzing lease agreements, operating costs, capital projects,
product inflation and passenger levels. Revenues for FY 2021 have been impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic. However, projected revenues for FY 2021-22 are higher as passenger traffic begins to recover.
A major source of revenue (63%) is generated from the airlines. Air carriers pay on a cost-of-service basis
for the services they receive. Rates are set annually based on direct operating cost, cost of capital, and an
amortization on asset investment. The formula used for this system is considered a hybrid structure in
the aviation industry and is based on the ten-year airline use agreement (AUA) that went into effective on
July 1, 2014. It provides $1 per enplaned passenger revenue sharing, not to exceed 30% of net remaining
revenue, and is credited to the air carriers on a monthly basis. Enplaned passengers decreased 22.9% in
FY2020 when compared to FY2019 and are projected to decrease 28.9% for FY2021 due to decreased
passenger traffic because of Covid-19. The projected budget for FY 2021-22 shows a 60.3% increase in
enplaned passengers as passenger traffic begins to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.
The second major source of revenue (30%) is generated from the Airport concessions. This includes
revenue from food and retail concessions as well as car rental and parking fees. Retail concessions, and
food and beverage are projected to increase compared to FY2021 due to more concessions opening and
more passengers traveling through the Airport. Parking revenue is also projected to increase as more
people start traveling once they have been fully vaccinated. While business travel is projected to return
in FY 2021-22, it may take several years for the majority of business travel to return which accounts for a
large percentage of the Airport parking revenue. Remaining revenues are generated through cost
recovery of ground transportation costs, and lease contracts on buildings, office space and hangars. The
Airport also receives a portion of the State aviation fuel tax.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 17
In FY2012, the Airport began collecting customer facility charges (CFC) to fund a new rental car facility.
These charges increased from $4 to $5 in FY2013 and will remain at $5 for FY2022. The customer facility
charges will meet the financial requirements to build the rental car service and quick turnaround
facilities, plus the portion of the garage related to rental cars. The rental car service and quick turnaround
facilities were completed in FY2016 but the Airport will continue to collect CFCs for the portion of the
garage related to rental cars.
SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
OPERATING REVENUE COMPARISON
Actual FY 2016 Actual FY 2017 Actual FY 2018 Actual FY 2019 Actual FY 2020 Budget FY 2021 Budget FY 2022
Operating Revenue:
Concession 74,623,000 82,528,100 87,274,206 92,910,800 75,372,000 69,052,500 74,786,600
Airline 62,454,000 66,639,100 70,571,102 75,636,600 77,312,000 160,209,700 158,154,100
Other Rental 14,896,800 17,808,100 20,708,160 18,992,400 18,739,000 21,270,400 19,098,400
Total Operating Revenue
151,973,800 166,975,300 178,553,468 187,539,800 171,423,000 250,532,600 252,039,100
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Airport Operating Revenue
Concession
Airline
Other Rental
Ac tual
F
Y
2
0
1
6
Ac tual
F
Y
2
0
1
7
Ac tual
F
Y
2
0
1
8
Ac tual
F
Y
2
0
1
9
Ac tual
F
Y
2
0
2
0
Bu dget
F
Y
2
0
2
1
Bu dget
F
Y
2
0
2
2
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 18
RDA Fund
The primary revenue source for the RDA’s redevelopment efforts is tax increment. Tax increment is the
increase (or “increment”) in the property taxes generated within a project area over and above the
baseline value of property taxes that were in place at the time a project area was established. Property
values increase as an area is revitalized through investment, thereby creating tax increment. When an
RDA project area is established, the RDA and the participating taxing entities enter into agreements that
determine the amount of tax increment that will continue to flow to the taxing entities, and the portion
that will be reinvested by the RDA into the project area for a defined period of time. The participating
taxing entities continue to receive the baseline property tax during the life of a project area.
The establishment of a project area and the collection of tax increment funds must be approved by the
RDA Board of Directors and any participating local taxing entities (e.g. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Salt
Lake City School District, Metro Water District, Central Utah Water Project, Salt Lake Mosquito Abatement,
and Salt Lake City Library). Not all taxing entities participate in every project area.
Per Utah State Statute, tax increment proceeds must be spent within the project area where they
originated or be found by the RDA Board of Directors to directly impact that project area.
In addition to tax increment revenues from its various project areas, the RDA also has the following
revenue sources:
1.Interest Income. The RDA receives interest on cash balances.
2.Temporary Property Income. The RDA receives lease revenues from various rentals, including
several parking garages in the Central Business District Project Area.
3.RDA Loan Interest Income. The RDA receives interest generated from loans it administers. The
amount of interest received varies depending on the number of outstanding loans at any given
time.
4.Land Sale Proceeds. The RDA routinely sells property as part of its redevelopment efforts.
RDA revenues are forecast for each project area by analyzing previous years’ tax increment received and
adjusting conservatively based on current real estate market conditions. Other income from interest,
lease revenues, and RDA loan interest is also considered.
The FY 2021-22 forecasted RDA Fund revenue budget is $43,565,621.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 19
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVENUE SUMMARY
ActualFY14-15 ActualFY15-16 ActualFY16-17 ActualFY17-18 ActualFY18-19 ActualFY19-20 BudgetFY20-21 BudgetFY21-22
Redevelopment Agency Revenue
Block 70 13,003,385 7,574,160 3,895,176 1,892,423 2,159,178 3,161,881 2,195,823 1,922,323
Central Business District
9,739,854 26,711,741 26,874,661 23,135,282 25,461,421 32,681,146 31,460,698 27,923,150
West Capitol Hill
311,973 475,397 562,604 548,155 1,547,706 153,711 626,903 150,000
West Temple Gateway
550,052 570,622 11,626 703,224 60,753 59,685 50,000 50,000
Depot District 3,940,782 4,141,737 3,616,380 3,806,559 3,895,569 5,533,602 5,555,538 4,121,164
Granary District 328,437 350,220 426,686 530,373 625,878 781,648 966,661 666,124
Housing Development Trust Fund
— — — — — 2,590,000 2,590,000 2,590,000
North Temple 252,238 359,509 195,081 294,575 425,243 543,258 647,123 450,346
North Temple Viaduct
— — 343,699 542,952 1,123,104 1,558,258 2,102,028 1,188,979
Sugar House 1,648,175 2,096,804 2,397,460 3,593 1,126 — — —
Program Income 1,424,647 1,572,846 1,589,699 2,142,572 2,441,059 1,721,281 1,905,835 1,742,535
Northwest Quadrant — — — — — 198 1,684,441 1,500,000
Stadler Rail — — — — — 70,419 101,927 71,000
NWQ Housing Fund (UIPA)
— — — — — — — 250,000
Primary Housing Fund (Citywide Housing)
43,933 89,379 662,815 454,620 350,096 356,658 387,772 346,000
Secondary Housing Fund (Project Area Housing)
22,995 546,094 22,484 30,782 45,303 43,617 44,000 44,000
Revolving Loan 527,990 266,713 386,599 3,855,771 761,162 819,332 852,000 550,000
Total Redevelopment Agency Revenue
31,794,461 44,755,222 40,984,970 37,940,881 38,897,598 50,074,694 51,170,749 43,565,621
FY 2017 Revolving Loan Fund includes Budget adopted through April 11, 2017, all other funds include budget adopted through March 31, 2017.
Citywide Housing Fund and Project Area Housing Fund includes interest and land sale proceeds only. Revolving loan fund includes interest only.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 20
Period Ending
$
(M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Redevelopment Agency Revenue Summary
Redevelopment Agency Revenue
Block 70
Central Business District
West Capitol Hill
West Temple Gateway
Depot District
Granary District
Housing Development Trust Fund
North Temple
North Temple Viaduct
Sugar House
Actu
a
l
FY
14
-
1
5
Actu
a
l
FY
15
-
1
6
Actu
a
l
FY
16
-
1
7
Actu
a
l
FY
17
-
1
8
Actu
a
l
FY
18
-
1
9
Actu
a
l
FY
19
-
2
0
Bu
dg
e
t
FY
20
-
2
1
Bu
dg
e
t
FY
21
-
2
2
-20,000,000
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 21
FY21 Legislative Intents
Revised October 21, 2020
FY 2021 Legislative Intents
a. 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, and
potentially add a function to the Human Resources Department to enhance the independence of the
Internal Affairs unit.
Administration Response:
•Park Rangers: The Police Department has established a bike squad assigned to park patrols and
is working closely with parks staff to identify the most effective use of these park patrol units. The
Administration is also looking at other models around the country with the goal of enhancing the
work these squads do with additional resources focused on customer service. Ideally, these
additional resources would provide a combination of education and compliance of park rules,
environmental services, and historical and cultural interpretation. Utilizing this model would not
eliminate the need for the park patrol bike squads – whose focus is to enforce state and local laws
and provide quick response in our public spaces when called.
•Social Workers: The Social Workers are working with officers assigned to the Crisis Intervention
Team in a Co-responder model. The social workers have expressed concerns regarding a potential
shift in this model, because they often respond to dangerous situations that ultimately require a
police officer. The Department and the Administration are committed to continuing to evaluate
the co-responder model to ensure that City residents are getting the best and most helpful
response to calls for service, and that social workers and officers remain safe on the job.
•Internal Affairs Unit: The Police Department is actively working with Human Resources to
enhance the oversight of the Internal Affairs Unit and is in the process of hiring a Civilian Director.
A Civilian Director will ensure that the IA unit operates professionally and with the continuity and
experience that is required to best serve the Department and the City’s residents.
b. 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.
Administration Response: The Council hired an auditor to evaluate the Police Department Budget and
the presentation to Council by Matrix was scheduled on 4/20/2021.
c. CARES Act Funding. The Council intends to use forthcoming CARES act funding to prioritize the
community needs consistent with the equity principles being discussed.
Administration Response: Budgeted use of CARES Act fund was prioritized according to the
requirements of this intent.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 22
d. Ban Military Equipment. The Council intends to work with the Attorney’s Office to create an
ordinance that prohibits the City from accepting grant awards for federal military equipment. The
ordinance may include any foreseeable exceptions for the Council’s consideration.
Administration Response: In the fall of 2020, the City Attorney’s Office worked with the Council to draft
an ordinance banning acceptance of military equipment. This ordinance was passed on October 6, 2020
at Ordinance No. 46 of 2020.
e. 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.
Administration Response: While the first step of this reporting and transparency goal was the adoption
of the body camera ordinance in 2020, the Attorney’s Office looks forward to engaging with the Council
on additional reporting requirements for internal information collected by and related to the Police
Department.
f. Tuition Reimbursement and Police Officer Education. It is the intent of the Council to
encourage the Administration to assure that the City’s tuition reimbursement program is accessible to
Police Department staff members and that the Police Department has a system to provide the flexibility
necessary for staff to seek degrees, particularly in fields that relate to public safety, human relations,
communications, community building, criminal justice, psychology and other areas that add value to their
work. Further, the Council encourages the Administration to include strong advanced education
requirements in their promotion and hiring process.
Administration Response: On January 12, 2021, the Council received a briefing from Debra Alexander,
CHRO, about tuition reimbursement in the Police Department. Records maintained in Human Resources
reveal four hundred forty-one (441) employees in the Police Department had utilized the tuition
reimbursement program in the years 2015 through 2020. On average, for those years, about sixty-three
(63) employees each year received tuition reimbursement. However, in years 2019 and 2020, about
eighty (80) employees utilized the program - an increase of about 25%. The increased utilization may due,
in part, to enhanced reimbursement limits and an increasing emphasis on formal education in public
safety. Consistent with Internal Revenue requirements, an employee may receive up to four thousand
dollars ($4,000) in reimbursement. The program reimburses an employee for amounts s/he spends on
tuition, fees and books. The Police Department has continued to place an emphasis on educational
attainment, when applicable, during its recruitment and promotion processes.
g. CIP and County Transportation Funds. It is the intent of the Council that future years Quarter-
Cent County Transportation Funds go through a process that involves community input and considers
other CIP needs, potentially combined with a redefined CIP process.
Administration Response: The Quarter-Cent County Transportation Funds are now included as a
funding source in the Capital Improvement Program Process that involves the Community Development
and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board and Mayor’s recommendations based on CIP needs
and available funds.
h. Communicating Impact of Budget Reductions. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration return with a communication strategy to inform the public about the likelihood of
reduced service levels in City parks and public lands due to budget reductions.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 23
Administration Response: In response to the Council’s Legislative Intent request, the City’s Parks and
Public Lands division created a communication plan that entailed several means of outreach to the
public. These include:
•A newsletter: The division will include/has included the Key Messaging in monthly newsletters.
These newsletters are sent to approximately 2,500 people during the last week of each month.
•Social Media: Social media posts with the Key Messaging have been and will continue to be made
on Public Lands’ account. As of November 2020, Public Lands had 1,878 followers on Facebook,
2,434 followers in Instagram, and 1,024 followers on Twitter.
•Website: Since the coronavirus pandemic began, Public Lands has been regularly updating a
COVID-19 webpage with information specific to our operations and the use of related properties:
bit.ly/slcpplcovid19
•Community Councils: Emails have been and will continue to be sent to all Salt Lake City community
councils that includes our Key Messaging.
•Stakeholders: Public Lands has been and will continue to send out Key Messaging by email to a list
of approximately 150 stakeholders.
•Public Lands Staff: The Key Messaging has been and will continue to be shared in an email and
printed memo to all Public Lands staff members.
This messaging has been tailored to both the Summer/Fall 2020 and the Winter 2020/Spring 2021 time
periods.
Note: A more comprehensive document detailing the efforts Parks and Public Lands has made in
response to this Legislative intent will be provided as backup documentation accompanying this
response.
i. Golf CIP Fund Plan. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration clarify the long-term plan
for the Golf Enterprise Fund’s CIP fund.
Administration Response: Public Lands and the Golf Division is very interested in the prospect of
developing a long-term plan for the Golf Enterprise Fund’s CIP fund. At this time however, with the
instability and uncertainty of the ability of Golf revenues to cover operational expenses, a short-term plan
is proposed.
Note: A more comprehensive short-term Golf CIP Fund Plan will be provided as backup documentation
accompanying this response.
j. Historic Park Design Guidelines. It is the intent of the Council that a briefing with the
Administration be scheduled in order to discuss the steps and funding necessary to create design
guidelines for the City's historic parks. Next steps would be identified pending the briefing discussion.
Administration Response: In response to this Legislative Intent, the Parks and Public Lands division has
created a report that provides detail of:
•The background of the City’s cultural landscapes
•The purpose and need of placing high value on preserving these landscapes
•Recommendations for moving forward on specific sites
•Efforts that are a work in progress
•Details on departmental coordination
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 24
•Next steps, and
•A comprehensive list of parks/cultural landscapes with recommendation for consultant services
and cost estimates.
Note: The full report in response to the Legislative Intent will be provided as backup documentation
accompanying this response.
k. 4th Avenue Well Noise Reduction. It is the intent of the Council that the Department of Public
Utilities continues to consider additional noise-reducing options for the new 4th Avenue Well project.
Administration Response: The noise impact of the 4th Avenue Well Project is a priority issue for Public
Utilities in the design and construction of the project. Below are key points related to this issue:
•The department’s architects and engineers have incorporated noise reduction into the building
design to reduce the noise to meet County requirements;
•A consultant has been hired to advise on noise reduction;
•County requirements will at least be met, and it is anticipated that any noise generated by the well
will be below the County’s requirements.
•The anticipated noise output upon completion of the well project won’t be greater than current
ambient measurements.
•The well project is predicted to be in the low 30s dBA, while the measured nighttime ambient is 50
dBA.
•Further details are in a report from Spectrum Engineering who will also perform post construction
sound level measurements to confirm the noise reduction efforts. The direct link to the Spectrum
Engineering report on our 4th Avenue Well project site is
https://0dc33739-402d-4038-9f7a-52ebc40e00aa.filesusr.com/
ugd/3a2d4f_4a35d2c0f8d84d168150b70c2b88c20c.pdf.
l. Fund Balance Floor Goal. The Council intends to continue the legislative intent from last year
setting a minimum fund balance “floor” at 14%.
Administration Response: The General Fund fund balance currently stands at more than 15%.
m. Transfer Housing Trust Fund Development Loans and Payments. 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.
Administration Response: HAND continues to work with the RDA, the Attorneys, and Finance regarding
the transfer of the Housing Trust Fund or HTF (aka HDTF) portfolio. The portfolio resides in HAND’s loan
management system (N4F), and HAND continues to maintain the loans. The key component of
transferring the portfolio requires ordinance modifications regarding the current Housing Trust Fund
Ordinance that includes process for the HTF Advisory Board. For example, the HTFAB does not currently
have the authority to make a recommendation to the RDA Board, only to the Mayor and City Council.
Clarification from Council/Board on moving forward with the proposed structure from RDA staff will
guide future process for the HTFAB and would assist in proposed modifications. HAND will continue to
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 25
work with CAN Leadership, the RDA, the Attorneys, and Finance on proposed code modifications and
identifying appropriate fund classes and cost centers to enable the transfer.
n. Calculate RDA Legislation Impacts. It is the intent of the Council that the Finance Department
and the RDA work together to calculate the impact on City resources of changes proposed in 2019 and
2020 to State RDA legislation.
Administration Response: The approved RDA legislation provides the City with the option to establish a
new CRA tax rate to provide an ongoing funding source that enables the Agency to continue carrying out
its work in supporting the City’s short and long-term needs. If the option was taken, the City Council/RDA
Board would have significant control over key factors to be memorialized with an Interlocal Agreement
between the City and Agency. These include adoption of an implementation plan to set priorities and
guide investment, determination of the amount of revenue the Agency could collect through the tax rate
and any earmark or allocation of funds to specific initiatives.
The legislation does not decrease the City’s current revenue. The direct impact to the City’s General Fund
is not realizing the increase in revenue that is typically expected when RDA project areas expire. As each
area expires, the City and CRA tax rates would be incrementally adjusted in a way that reallocates the
City’s participating share of increment from that project area to the RDA as ongoing revenue, with the
intention of maintaining overall tax neutrality. Once the CRA tax rate is established, both the City and RDA
would realize future new growth at the same rate, as both entities would share the entire City as its tax
base.
When it comes to the City’s current capacity to utilize the revenue created by new growth in RDA project
areas to mitigate the impact of sudden emergencies such as COVID-19, the main factor is how the City
budgets the new growth. If the City does not intentionally earmark the new revenue for specific initiatives
or a rainy-day fund, it will likely be absorbed into the General Fund and applied toward one-time or
ongoing expenses. Another important consideration is that if the timing doesn’t align with a project area
expiring in the same year as the significant event, the new revenue would not be available for use at that
time.
If the City Council established a new CRA tax rate, it would essentially redirect the revenue created by
new growth in the RDA project areas to the Agency as a separate taxing entity that has the flexibility to
support the entire City in times of crisis. RDA staff worked with the Finance Department to draft an
overall analysis on the legislation which includes the calculation of the tax rate and recommendations
from Finance on how to maintain tax neutrality. The amendments included in the final version of the
legislation would not impact the analysis or tax rate calculation.
o. 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 decriminalized. 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.
Administration Response: The City Attorney’s Office has two clerks from the University of Utah Law
School starting in May 2021 and we are excited to engage them in this analysis and process. The clerks’
work product will be a chart that can be shared with both the Council and Administration so both
branches can prioritize sections of City Code to potentially decriminalize.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FINANCIAL POLICIES
C- 26
This page has been intentionally left blank
Capital Improvement Program 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. Two elements guide the City in
determining the annual schedule of infrastructure improvements and budgets. This includes the current
fiscal year's capital budget.
Salt Lake City’s FY 2021-22 budget appropriates $703,068,753 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class “C”
Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private
funds. The Salt Lake City Council considers their input in determining which projects will be
recommended for funding in this budget. The Enterprise Fund recommendations are consistent with
each respective business plan. These plans were developed in cooperation with the respective advisory
boards and endorsed by the Administration. The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City fund
recommendations are consistent with Board policy. All grant-related CIP recommendations are
consistent with applicable federal guidelines and endorsed by the Administration.
Capital Improvement Program Book (CIP Book)
Salt Lake City’s FY2021-22 budget presents all CIP projects in its own document, the CIP book. By creating
and providing City Council a CIP book the City believes it will provide more clarity and transparency
regarding the recommended capital improvement projects. Major General Fund projects Transportation
Infrastructure, Local Street Reconstruction, ADA Improvements and Sidewalk Rehabilitation for the
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide, total
appropriation of $11,090,091 is proposed. Of this amount the budget appropriates $3,732,742 general
fund, $2,046,329 of Class “C” fund, and $7,291,970 of Impact Fee funds. Projects include traffic signal
upgrades, transportation safety improvements, and pedestrian and neighborhood byway enhancements.
Parks, Trails and Open Space Parks, Trails, and Open Space capital improvement proposed budget
includes a total appropriation of $7,786,889 from various funding sources. Projects include various
improvements in Jordan Park, Pioneer Park, RAC, Poplar Park, Three Creeks, Sugar House, Glendale Water
park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park. Liberty Park, Pioneer Park, Warm Springs Park, Memory Grove Park,
Poplar Park, Taufer Park, Cottonwood Park, Foothills trails, and Allen Park.
Public Facilities Public Facilities' capital improvement proposed budget includes a total appropriation of
$1,252,230 is for improvements a Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire deferred capital
replacement projects that are long overdue.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
D-1
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Debt Service Projects
Sales Tax Series 2012A Bond 333,514 333,514
Sales Tax Series 2013B Bond 530,801 530,801
Sales Tax Series 2014B Bond 744,951 744,951
Sales Tax Series 2016A Bond 2,009,296 2,009,296
Sales Tax Series 2019 A Bond 366,151 366,151
Sales Tax Series 2022 Bond 3,657,667 3,657,667
B & C Roads Series 2014 975,377 975,377
ESCO Debt Service to Bond 896,500 896,500
ESCO Steiner Debt Service 0
ESCO Parks Debt Service 0
Fire Station #3 483,233 483,233
Fire Station #14 500,900 500,900
Debt Service Projects Total 8,538,880 0 975,377 984,133 0 0 10,498,390
On
g
o
i
n
g
Ongoing Projects
Crime Lab 560,869 560,869
Facilities Maintenance 350,000 350,000
Parks Maintenance 250,000 250,000
Ongoing Projects Total 1,160,869 0 0 0 0 0 1,160,869
Ot
h
e
r
O
n
g
o
i
n
g
Other Ongoing
Community and Neighborhoods - Surplus Land RES 200,000 200,000
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 0 0 0 0 0 571,059 571,059
Maintenance Funded Projects
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Multimodal Street Maintenance 200,000 200,000
Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 21,429 278,571 300,000
Trails Maintenance 200,000 200,000
0
Maintenance Funded Projects Total 21,429 278,571 0 0 400,000 0 700,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
D-2
Ne
w
C
I
P
New/Maintenance Projects Total
Kensington Byway Ballpark 500,000 500,000
400 South Viaduct Trail 310,000 90,000 500,000 900,000
1700 South Corridor Transformation 317,792 35,300 353,092
A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 416,667 416,667
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 3,200,000 3,200,000
Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 400,000 444,400
Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 75,000 675,000 750,000
Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000 85,000
Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 6,223 312,056 318,279
Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 150,736
900 South 9Line RR Crossing 28,000 172,000 200,000
Pavement Conditions Survey 3,571 171,429 175,000
Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 349,026 84,307 433,333
Urban Trails 6,500 1,038,500 1,045,000
Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 484,146 484,146
Area Studies 201,000 201,000
Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop 374,864 374,864
200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement 37,422 415,800 453,222
Local Link Construction 50,000 450,000 500,000
Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove and Replace 183,834 183,834
Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan 354,167 354,167
Liberty Park Basketball Court 99,680 99,680
Neighborhood Byways 104,500 940,500 1,045,000
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000 70,000
700 South Westside Road Configuration 223,450 291,000 514,450
900 South Signal Improvements 96,500 233,500 70,000 100,000 500,000
Multimodal Intersections & Signals 0
Corridor Transformations 25,398 282,200 307,598
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
D-3
Ne
w
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
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
Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation 300,000 300,000
Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design for 200 East linear Park 610,000 610,000
Street Improvements 2021/2022 2,046,329 2,046,329
Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations 51,700 104,378 156,078
Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000 420,000
Capital Asset Replacement Program 1,252,230 1,252,230
RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 180,032
New Projects Total 4,249,391 3,176,129 2,046,329 7,291,970 4,500,000 0 21,263,819
Cost Overrun 88,514 71,600 160,114
Percent for Art 66,386 53,700 120,086
Total General Fund/Other Fund/Class C Fund/Impact Fee Fund/CDBG Fund/Surplus Land Fund CIP Projects.
14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 571,059 34,474,337
Other Capital Improvement Programs
CD
B
G
City Infrastructure Projects ( CIP Engineering/Transportation)
SLC Transportation-route 4 Frequent Transit Route 322,000 322,000
Total CDBG 322,000 322,000
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Airport CIP Projects
Pump House #5 Renovations 928,000 928,000
Pump Station & Diversion Valve 1,300,000 1,300,000
Gate 39 Reconstruction 165,000 165,000
North Cargo Apron Development 25,605,000 25,605,000
Taxiway F Reconstruction 580,000 580,000
Taxiway P, N, & H3 Pavement 1,620,000 1,620,000
Taxiway Q Pavement Rehabilitation 1,646,000 1,646,000
Bureau of Land Management Access Road 1,660,000 1,660,000
Bureau of Land Management Apron 2,731,000 2,731,000
Landside Lighting Wire Replacement 1,566,000 1,566,000
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
D-4
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 219,500 219,500
Roadway Entrance feature and Landscape 250,000 250,000
GA Zone 3 Corporate Hangar Site Develop 1,205,000 1,205,000
Terminal Redevelopment Program 164,849,000 164,849,000
North Concourse Program 186,614,000 186,614,000
Total Airport CIP Projects 390,938,500 390,938,500
Go
l
f
Golf CIP Projects
Maintenance Equipment 257,575 257,575
Range Improvements 177,836 177,836
Tee Box Leveling 60,000 60,000
Total Golf CIP Projects 495,411 495,411
Pu
b
l
i
c
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Public Utilities CIP Projects
Water Main Replacements 18,019,000 18,019,000
Treatment Plant Improvements 7,350,000 7,350,000
Deep Pump Wells 1,630,000 1,630,000
Meter Chang-Out Programs 2,500,000 2,500,000
Water Service Connections 2,950,000 2,950,000
Reservoirs 1,650,000 1,650,000
Pumping Plants and Pump Houses 1,550,000 1,550,000
Culverts, Flumes & Bridges 1,533,000 1,533,000
Distribution Reservoirs 2,350,000 2,350,000
Landscaping 68,000 68,000
Treatment Plants 191,045,826 191,045,826
Collection Lines 32,405,000 32,405,000
Lift Stations 2,685,000 2,685,000
Storm Drain Lines 7,362,500 7,362,500
Riparian Corridor Improvements 250,000 250,000
Detention Basins 50,000 50,000
Landscaping 168,000 168,000
Storm Water Lift Stations 700,000 700,000
Street Lighting Projects 2,240,000 2,240,000
Total Public Utilities CIP Projects 276,506,326 276,506,326
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
D-5
RD
A
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) CIP Projects
Station Center Infrastructure 332,179 332,179
Total RDA CIP Projects 332,179 332,179
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
bi
l
i
t
y
Total Sustainability CIP Projects
No Projects 0
Total Sustainability CIP Projects 0 0
Total Enterprise and Other Fund CIP 668,594,416 668,272,416
GRAND TOTAL 14,125,469 3,580,000 3,021,706 8,276,103 4,900,000 669,165,475 702,746,753
Salt Lake City
General Fund / Class C / Impact Fee / Enterprise Fund / Other CIP Summary
Fiscal Year 2022
PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX OTHER TOTAL
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
D-6
This page has been intentionally left blank
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
E-1
Office of the City Council
Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 3,266,228 3,671,914 4,000,958
O & M 13,560 58,800 58,800
Charges & Services 621,558 783,461 779,501
Capital Expenditures 6,392 2,000 2,000
Total Office of the City Council 3,907,738 4,516,175 4,841,259
DIVISION BUDGETS
Community Affairs 3,767,738 4,226,075 4,551,159 35.00
Legislative Non-Departmental 140,000 290,100 290,100
Total Office of the City Council 3,907,738 4,516,175 4,841,259
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 3,907,738 4,516,175 4,841,259 35.00
Total Office of the City Council 3,907,738 4,516,175 4,841,259
FTE by Fiscal Year 35.00 35.00 35.00
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
4,000,958
O & M
58,800
Charges & Services
779,501
Capital Expenditures
2,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
E-2
Office of the City Council
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 243,979
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 13,172
This increase reflects the cost of insurance for the City Council as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 35,759
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Living Wage Adjustment 910
The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed new living wage estimates released through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator that increased the 2020 living wage to $15.11 per hour. The Mayor has proposed moving to the new living wage rate over a period of two years. This funding represents the Council Office portion of that change.
Salary Proposal 31,264
This increase reflects the City Council Office portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
E-3
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
E-4
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF MAYOR
E-5
Office of the Mayor
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 3,264,371 3,150,762 4,006,865
O & M 170,997 87,585 84,703
Charges & Services 432,984 644,218 669,712
Capital Expenditures 6,870 500 500
Total Office of the Mayor 3,875,222 3,883,065 4,761,780
DIVISION BUDGETS
Community Affairs 35,023 76,025 734,111
Legislative Non-Departmental 3,840,200 3,807,040 4,027,669 30.00
Total Office of the Mayor 3,875,222 3,883,065 4,761,780
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 3,875,222 3,883,065 4,761,780 30.00
Total Office of the Mayor 3,875,222 3,883,065 4,761,780
FTE by Fiscal Year 24.00 25.00 30.00
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
84.1%
O & M
1.8%
Charges & Serv…
14.1%
Capital Expenditures
0.0%
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF MAYOR
E-6
Office of the Mayor
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 283,148
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 8,744
This increase reflects the cost of insurance for the City Council as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 166,145
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated, and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Living Wage Adjustment 3,795
The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed new living wage estimates released through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator that increased the 2020 living wage to $15.11 per hour. The Mayor has proposed moving to the new living wage rate over a period of two years. This funding represents the Mayor's Office portion of that change.
Salary Proposal 30,241
This increase reflects the Mayor's Office portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Policy Issues
Reclassify Census Coordinator to Citywide Volunteer Coordinator 0
The Mayor is proposing to shift funding for the new Citywide Volunteer Coordinator, formerly the Census Coordinator, out of Funding Our Future funding.
Transfer ADA & Equity Coordinator Position from CAN 288,576
In the FY20 budget two positions were added to Community and Neighborhoods to address equity issues. Those positions are proposed to be transferred into the Mayor's Office to support the Chief Equity Officer and provide staff to meet equity initiatives.
Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst Position from Finance 83,216
In BA#5 funding was increased in the Finance department to bring the Consumer Protection Analyst position to full-time. This position is proposed to be transferred into the Mayor's Office to support the Chief Equity Officer and provide staff to meet equity initiatives.
REP Commission Senior Staff Position (Funding is in Non-Departmental)0
The REP Commission Senior Staff position will provide assistance to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. The position will help facilitate the goals of the commission. The position will be housed in the Mayor's Office, but finding will be in Non-Departmental.
Sponsorship Awards 5,000
Funding is proposed to cover sponsorships for non-profits at small events, such as sponsorship tables.
Cultural Ambassador Pilot Program 9,850
The Community Ambassadors program will increase access to city government for diverse communities. Young adults will serve as ambassadors and help develop points of access to local government for community members who may not currently have the knowledge, language skills, or cultural confidence to navigate city systems.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF MAYOR
E-7
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF MAYOR
E-8
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 911 COMMUNICATION BUREAU
E-9
911 Dispatch Bureau
Department Vision Statement
We will strive to form a partnership with our officers and firefighters to create a safe and healthy
community where our citizens can work and live.
Department Mission Statement
Salt Lake City 911 will maintain a high state of readiness to provide a caring and committed link between
our officers, firefighters, and citizens of Salt Lake City.
Department Overview
The 911 Communications Bureau provides dispatch services for Salt Lake City and Sandy City residents.
They process all emergent and non-emergent calls in both municipalities. The dispatchers work
cooperatively with the Fire Departments and Police Departments that they serve and Sandy Animal
Services to address the needs of the public.
The 911 Bureau is managed by an at-will director that reports to the Office of the Mayor. The total FTEs
for the 911 Communications Bureau stands at 108.0 The majority of these FTEs answer calls 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year, and answered over 780,000 calls last year. These specialized dispatchers require
rigorous training each year and are held to high standards of quality response.
911 Communications Bureau Performance Measures
Performance Measures 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Answer phones within 15 seconds at least 95.24% of thetime
94.05%97.79%98.03%95.24%95.24%
Answer phones within 40 seconds at least 98.47% of thetime
97.60%99.26%99.33%98.47%98.47%
*911 Comm gathers performance measurement information on a calendar year basis. Actuals for FY 19 are forthcoming.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 911 COMMUNICATION BUREAU
E-10
Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
Elyse Haggerty, Acting Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 7,548,229 7,297,731 7,926,661
O & M 59,011 42,400 42,400
Charges & Services 245,819 860,440 859,444
Capital Expenditures 102,640 60,000 60,000
Total 911 Communications Bureau 7,955,699 8,260,571 8,888,505
DIVISION BUDGETS
City Administration 7,955,699 8,260,571 8,888,505 108.00
Total 911 Communications Bureau 7,955,699 8,260,571 8,888,505
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 7,955,699 8,260,571 8,888,505 108.00
Total 911 Communications Bureau 7,955,699 8,260,571 8,888,505
FTE by Fiscal Year 100.00 100.00 108.00
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
7,926,661
O & M
42,400
Charges & Services
859,444
Capital Expenditures
60,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 911 COMMUNICATION BUREAU
E-11
911 Communications Bureau
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 104,461
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 37,768
This increase reflects a change in insurance costs for the 911 Communication Bureau as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Merit Changes 98,566
The 911 Communication Bureau FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500 series employees.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 171,250
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Salary Proposal 62,439
This increase reflects the 911 Communication Bureaus portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Policy Issues
Sales Tax Option: 32 Hour Work Week Pilot Program (6 Months)153,450
All Public Safety Dispatchers schedules will change and they will only be required to work 32-hours a week while earning the same annual salary. In addition, all leave time (Vacation, PL, Holidays) will be cut in half. Even with those time off reductions, the employees will still net an additional 52 days off per year.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 911 COMMUNICATION BUREAU
E-12
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
E-13
Department of Airports
Airport Overview
The Salt Lake City Department of Airports manages Salt Lake City International Airport (SLCIA), Tooele
Valley Airport, and South Valley Regional Airport (SRVA). Salt Lake City International Airport serves a
multi-state region and consists of three air carrier runways and a general aviation runway and is
classified as a large hub airport. The Airport served 20 million passengers in FY2020 which is down
approximately 23% due to sudden drop in passenger traffic due to Covid-19. In September of 2020, the
Airport opened portions of phase one of the new airport, which included a new new terminal, the
gateway center, concourse A west and a new parking garage. A portion of concourse B west was opened
in October of 2020. By the end of April of 2021, the old Airport facilities were completely demolished to
make way for phase two of the new airport. Phase two of the new airport is scheduled to bring on new
gates to concourse A east as soon as the Spring of 2023, and will be completed once concourse B east is
finished in the fall of 2025.
Tooele Valley Airport is a general aviation reliever airport to SLCIA. It has one runway and support
services are on-demand only. South Valley Regional Airport is also a general aviation reliever airport. It
also has one runway and is a base for a Utah National Guard military helicopter unit.
The Department of Airports is an Enterprise Fund. It is not supported by property taxes, General Funds of
local governments or special district taxes. Capital funding requirements for FY2022 are met from
earnings, passenger facility charges, customer facility charges, general airport revenue bonds (GARBs),
Federal Aviation Administration grants under the Airport Improvement Program, and State grants.
Mission and Vision Statement
The mission of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports is to develop and manage a system of airports,
owned by Salt Lake City, which provides quality transportation facilities and services to optimize
convenience, safety, and efficiency for aviation customers. The vision is to achieve excellence and
unprecedented customer service in making Salt Lake City among the most convenient and efficient air
transportation centers in the world.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Pass the Transportation Security Administration's annual security inspection, TSR 1542 Security Regulations
Passed Passed Passed Pass Pass
Pass the annual certification by the FAA per Regulation 139 Passed Passed Passed Pass Pass
Maintain airfield runway operating capacity rate of not less than 95%>95%>95%>95%>95%>95%
The Airport Enterprise Fund will maintain adequate cash reserves of 25% of their operating expenditures >25%>25%>25%>25%>25%
Target cost per enplaned passenger of not greater than $7.00 $3.83 $3.90 5.41 $11.07*$11.56*
*Reflects impacts of COVID-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
E-14
Salt Lake City Department of Airports
William W. Wyatt, Department Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 49,378,080 50,326,582 55,030,100
O & M 12,375,788 15,828,800 14,898,000
Charges & Services 59,063,711 78,786,200 93,673,000
Interest & Bond Expenses 85,497,741 133,500,000 145,744,600
Capital Expenditures 758,406,547 23,720,018 397,296,800
Transfers Out — 150,000 150,000
Total Department of Airports 964,721,866 302,311,600 706,792,500
DIVISION BUDGETS
Office of the Director 1,496,570 1,474,149 1,957,882 6.00
Finance & Accounting 847,528,604 179,438,443 546,122,886 16.50
Operation 28,553,223 35,324,474 48,453,663 196.80
Commercial Services 3,508,802 5,920,613 7,749,320 16.00
Maintenance 62,148,110 62,650,446 73,664,874 294.50
Planning and Environmental 1,424,392 1,673,617 1,926,509 9.00
Engineering 3,099,929 3,781,775 3,850,577 31.00
Information Technology 7,629,328 10,353,415 12,844,706 37.00
Public Relations and Marketing 970,002 1,667,467 1,673,083 4.00
Airport Police 8,362,907 27,201 8,549,000
Total Department of Airports 964,721,866 302,311,600 706,792,500
FUNDING SOURCES
Airport Fund 227,348,218 280,636,600 315,634,500 610.80
Airport Terminal Redevelopment 737,373,648 21,675,000 391,158,000
Total Department of Airports 964,721,866 302,311,600 706,792,500
FTE by Fiscal Year 563.80 610.80 610.80
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
E-15
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
55,030,100
O & M
14,898,000 Charges & Services
93,673,000
Interest & Bond Expenses
145,744,600
Capital Expenditures
397,296,800
Transfers Out
150,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
E-16
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
E-17
Office of the Salt Lake City Attorney
Department Vision Statement
Our goal is to be valued and trusted partners, recognized and relied upon for our expertise, creativity,
and commitment to advancing the City’s goals.
Department Mission Statement
The City Attorney’s Office’s mission is to provide high-quality, timely legal advice to the City and be relied
upon as a trusted, productive, and positive City team member.
Department Overview
The Office of the Salt Lake City Attorney includes a section responsible for civil matters and
administration, a section responsible for risk management, and a section responsible for prosecutions or
criminal matters and the Office of the City Recorder.
The Office of the Salt Lake City Attorney strives to supervise and coordinate efforts of its four Divisions.
From an administrative perspective, the Office closely coordinates with Risk Management on litigation
matters and claims submitted against the City. The City Attorney also works with the Prosecutor’s Office
on budgetary and administrative matters and works with the Recorder’s Office to serve the City’s goals of
transparency and compliance with the law.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actuals 2021 Projected
Maintain an hourly rate for services provided by the City
Attorney's Office (CAO) to less than 50% of the average
rates the City pays for outside counsel
40%50%50%50%
Maintain the number of open litigation holds to less than a
10% increase from year to year 7% Decrease 3% Decrease 1% increase
Maintain the number of open litigation cases to less than a
10% increase from year to year 11% Increase 11% Decrease 1% increase
Maintain a disposition rate of 85% or higher.90%90%80%85%
Have City Council Minutes approved and available to the
public within 30 days at least 95% of the time.90%95%70%95%
Number of GRAMA requests received by the City annually 10,393 14,899 14,929 15,500
Annual percentage increase in GRAMA requests (27)%36%.2%
Process, activate, and digitize all contracts entered into on
behalf of Salt Lake City within three working days 100% of
the time
100%100%90%100%
Number of workers’ compensation claims filed, based on
date of injury 279 275 571 570
Number of property damage claims filed, based on date of
loss.215 241 172 209
Number of bodily injury claims filed, based on date of loss 41 30 31 34
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
E-18
Salt Lake City Attorney's Office
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 6,855,512 7,222,400 8,360,964
O & M 57,925 84,758 98,845
Charges & Services 5,162,826 6,476,269 6,689,672
Capital Expenditures 2,482 30,840 30,840
Total Attorney's Office 12,078,746 13,814,267 15,180,321
DIVISION BUDGETS
City Attorney's Office (Civil Division) 3,993,987 5,739,430 6,390,080 14.00
City Recorder 714,112 757,487 831,105 7.75
Risk Management 4,040,775 3,835,426 4,113,406 2.50
Prosecutor's Office 3,329,872 3,481,924 3,845,730 35.50
Total Attorney's Office 12,078,746 13,814,267 15,180,321
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 6,806,712 7,123,638 8,133,002 57.25
Governmental Immunity Fund 1,898,782 2,855,203 2,933,913 9.00
Risk Fund 3,373,252 3,835,426 4,113,406 2.50
Total Attorney's Office 12,078,746 13,814,267 15,180,321
FTE by Fiscal Year 60.75 60.75 68.75
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
E-19
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services, 8,360,964
O & M, 98,845.44
Charges and Services, 6,689,671.…
Capital Expenditures, 30,840
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
E-20
Office of the Salt Lake City Attorney
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted General Fund budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 66,603
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 19,984
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Attorneys’ Office as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 31,843
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Salary Proposal 55,480
This increase reflects the Attorney's Office portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
BA #5: Senior City Attorney 173,978
The budget includes continuing funding for a new Senior City Attorney position to address increased workload the attorney's office has seen over the past few years. This position will deal with litigation and help with police matters, giving the current employee relief as he manages both the Deputy City Attorney and Chief Counsel to Police Department positions.
BA #5: Senior City Attorney 173,978
During budget amendment #5 the Attorney's Office received funding for an additional Senior City Attorney to meet increased demands. The budget includes ongoing funding for this position.
BA #5: Legal Secretary 87,748
During budget amendment #5 the Attorney's Office received funding for an additional Legal Secretary to assist the attorneys with their increased demands. The budget includes ongoing funding for this position.
BA #5: Assistant City Recorder 97,612
During budget amendment #5 the Attorney's Office received funding for an additional Assistant City Recorder due to the increased demands of running the office in a virtual world. The budget includes ongoing funding for this position.
Policy Issues
Social Media Retention 15,588
The retention of social media accounts is currently completed through the software service Archive Social. Due to the urgency of addressing the retention of social media posts/comments, the cost of this software has been paid with vacancy savings. There is a plan to complete an RFP process to procure an equitable solution for the City's social media retention needs.
Office Victim Advocate - Grant Funding Match 18,500
The City has applied for funding for a Victim Advocate through a grant, the budget provides funding for the required match the grant.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
E-21
Three Assistant City Prosecutors (10 Months) 268,050
The budget proposes funding an additional three Assistant City Prosecutor positions. These additional positions will help maintain current service levels for the Salt Lake City Community. Additional defense attorneys were funded by the Indigent Defense Commission, which allows one defense attorney to be assigned in the Salt Lake City Justice Court arraignment courtroom. The additional defense presence has changed the dynamic in the courtroom to the extent that additional prosecutors will help facilitate the due process benefit sought from the placement of defense attorneys to talk to defendants at first appearance.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
E-22
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
E-23
Department of Community & Neighborhoods
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
1 CAN Administration
2 Building Services
3 Housing and Neighborhood Development
4 Planning
5 Transportation
6 Youth and Family
Mission Statement
The Community and Neighborhood Department of Salt Lake City provides leadership, policies, and
programming that promotes a culturally vibrant, diverse, economically vital community through livable
growth and development practices, and strong community partnerships.
1.DRIVE INNOVATION: We generate and implement innovative ideas to make Salt Lake City “A Great
American City” known for responsible growth, sustainability, and livability.
2.COMMUNICATE: We continuously develop and share information with employees, stakeholders,
partners, and City leaders to foster input and empower decision-making.
3.SUPPORT OUR LEADERSHIP: We will support the Mayor and City Council by providing them
recommendations and input based on best professional practices on how to accomplish their
objectives.
4.OPERATE RESPONSIBLY: We responsively and proactively manage the on-going functions and
resources of our Department while encouraging, driving, and leading appropriate change and growth.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Building Services Number of building safety and code compliance inspections completed 43,443 50,068 50077 50,000 50,000
Transportation Number of Annual Service Requests (stop signs, speeding, signal timing, parking, etc.) 817 723 724 650 700
Planning Number of Planning Applications received annually 1,062 1,122 1097 1,050 950
HAND Residents Assisted - Federal Direct 5,005 7,330 4733 23450 23450
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
E-24
Salt Lake City Department of Community & Neighborhoods
Blake Thomas, Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 20,183,002 20,951,254 18,737,743
O & M 485,220 291,464 (336,596)
Charges & Services 3,073,148 10,647,797 5,438,755
Capital Expenditures 1,790 — 182,357
Transfers Out — — 4,900,000
Total Community and Neighborhoods 23,743,160 31,890,515 28,922,259
DIVISION BUDGETS
Building Services 6,916,166 6,829,984 6,394,224 59.00
Office of the Director 1,826,173 2,082,132 1,858,219 12.00
Engineering 5,026,456 5,049,187 — —
Housing & Neighborhood Development 3,802,582 4,344,767 6,267,401 22.00
Planning 3,209,657 3,321,084 4,196,225 37.00
Transportation 2,962,125 10,263,361 8,034,077 26.00
Total Community and Neighborhoods 23,743,160 31,890,515 28,922,259
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 23,469,246 24,318,570 23,615,117 172.00
Transportation Fund 273,914 7,571,945 5,307,142 3.00
Total Community and Neighborhoods 23,743,160 31,890,515 28,922,259
FTE by Fiscal Year 207.00 207.00 175.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
E-25
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
18,737,743
Charges & Services
5,438,755
Capital Expenditures
182,357
Transfers Out
4,900,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
E-26
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes -101,089
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 77,552
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Department of Community and Neighborhoods as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Merit Changes 58,448
The Department of Community and Neighborhoods FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500 series employees.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 658,084
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
CCAC Adjustments (10 Months)107,553
This budget includes market adjustments for positions determined to be severely lagging behind market as determined by the Citizen’s Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Salary Proposal 179,963
This increase reflects the Department of Community and Neighborhoods portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
BA #6: Civic Engagement and Innovations Team Transfers to IMS -414,220
A number of positions and resources were moved from the Mayor's Office, Public Services, IMS and Community and Neighborhoods in Budget Amendment #6 of FY 2021. The Administration was looking to take transformational steps with regards to enterprise technologies and improved business practices. It was determined that an Innovations Team was required. This team will take on larger enterprise projects like the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) effort. This reduction represents the reduction of costs associated with the positions and resources moved from Community and Neighborhoods.
BA #7: GIS Position Transfers to IMS -215,104
Two GIS positions were transferred from Community and Neighborhoods to IMS in Budget Amendment #7 of FY 2021. The move was done because the two positions work directly in the GIS function for the City which resides in IMS.
Policy Issues
Transfer ADA & Equity Coordinator Positions to Mayor's Office -288,576
The budget recommends moving the ADA and Equity Coordinator positions to the Mayor's Office.
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods Department 2,063,498
Public Services Department transfer of personnel and operational costs of Youth and Family Services to Community and Neighborhoods Department.
Transfer Engineering Division to Public Services Department -5,043,312
Community and Neighborhoods Department transfer of personnel and operational costs of the Engineering Division to Public Services.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
E-27
CAN Deputy Director of Community Services (10 Months)158,750
The budget recommends funding for a CAN Deputy Director of Community Services. This deputy will oversee Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) and Youth and Family in close coordination with the Deputy Director of Development Services. The Deputy will implement cross-departmental working groups that are focused on the well being and upward mobility of all City residents. The Deputy will also work closely with community partners to ensure the preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing in addition to implementing a resident displacement and mitigation plan.
Homeless Services Cut - CCC/Green Team Reduction (6 Months)-115,000
Advantage Services and Wasatch Community Gardens Green Team farm area will time out in the near future. Based on the limited number of successful graduates of the program and feedback from Advantage Services on overhead and program implementation challenges, eliminating the program after December of 2021 is recommended.
Sales Tax Option: Build a More Equitable City (From Non-Departmental)388,000
Funding is being recommended for the Build a More Equitable City program funded through Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
Sales Tax Option: Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance (From Non-Departmental 53,000
The budget includes a recommendation of funding for the Expanded Housing Opportunity program - Landlord Insurance. This program will be funded with Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
Sales Tax Option: Incentivize Rent Assistance (From Non-Departmental)671,620
The budget includes funding for the Incentivized Rent Assistance program funded through Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
Sales Tax Option: Mortgage Assistance (From Non-Departmental)50,000
The budget includes funding for the Mortgage Assistance program funded through Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
Sales Tax Option: Housing Plan - Marketing Home Ownership Programs (Move to CAN-HAND) 300,000
Funding is being recommended for the Marketing Home Ownership programs funded through Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
Sales Tax Option: Housing Plan - Service Models for Most Vulnerable (Move to CAN-HAND)525,380
The budget includes a recommendation of funding for the Housing Plan - Service for Most Vulnerable program that is funded with Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
Sales Tax Option: Shared Housing 62,000
Funding is being recommended for the Shared Housing programs funded through Funding Our Future dollars. It is recommended that this be moved from the Non-Departmental budget to Community and Neighborhoods.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2020-21 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
E-28
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E-29
Department of Economic Development
Department Vision Statement
Salt Lake City, the capital city of Utah, seeks to serve as a regional leader for commerce, culture and
recreation, research and innovation, sustainability, and inclusiveness.
Department Mission Statement
The Department of Economic Development’s (Department) mission is to build Salt Lake City as a vibrant,
beautiful, prosperous, diverse, and authentic place. We do this as a professional organization through
partnerships, business development, arts and culture, place-making, revitalization, and redevelopment,
while promoting the City’s many attributes.
Department Overview
The Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development is working hard to make Salt Lake City a better
place to not only build a business, but also build a life. Along with overseeing Economic Development
initiatives, the Department focuses on Business Development and growing the arts through the Salt Lake
City Arts Council (Arts Council). These teams have aligned resources and streamlined processes to grow
and nurture a city that fosters gainful job creation, thriving business districts and neighborhoods, and a
diverse arts and culture scene.
The Department of Economic Development has established a building services liaison for businesses/
developers to provide guidance on design review and submittal processes throughout the city. The
Department has grown partnerships with key players in the Utah Economic Development ecosystem.
Notably, the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCUtah), Governor's Office of Economic
Development (GOED), Visit Salt Lake and Salt Lake County. Also, the Department has developed local
partnerships with entities that include, Salt Lake City Arts Foundation, the Downtown Alliance, Suazo
Business Center, the Salt Lake Chamber and the Diverse Chambers of Commerce in the Salt Lake City
Area.
*Department Performance Measurements
Business Development Performance Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Site Visits to Prospective & Local Businesses 242 317 189 >225 >225
New Leads Generated 331 322 211 >300 >300
New Opportunities Created from Leads 128 159 147 >110 >110
WINs (Written Impact Narrative) co-published investment successes with companies
17 13 11 >15 >15
*Note: It is important to recognize that during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it has been difficult to perform
some of the activities that are part of the work of the Economic Development Team. The Department
created several programs related to the pandemic and these programs impacted our regular metrics.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E-30
Arts Council Mission Statement
The mission of the Salt Lake City Arts Council is to promote, present, and support artists and arts
organizations in order to facilitate the development of the arts and expand awareness, access, and
engagement.
FY20-21 HIGHLIGHTS
•The Arts Council launched two new grant opportunities this year.
◦Artist Career Empowerment grants awarded 38 artists support to help stimulate, advance,
and empower their creative interests and commercial enterprises. Grant awards ranged
from $500 to $2,000 and a total of $41,050 in awards was approved by the Arts Council
Board.
◦The Racial Equity and Inclusion grants was designed to cultivate greater and more
consistent efforts and outputs related to racial equity, justice, inclusion, and liberation for
nonprofits in our arts and culture sector. Five organizations were funded with awards
ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 and $10,000 in total awards was approved by the Arts
Council Board.
•The City Council approved the 1.5% for art ordinance revision for CIP public art funds. With this
change, Salt Lake City has become leaders in the state as the only city in Utah to support public art
at this level. This percent for art increase comes on the heels of the RDA also approving their 1.5%
Art Policy for RDA related projects.
•With the cancellation of the in-person 2020 Twilight Concert Series, the Arts Council launched the
Light Up Locals Musician Fund and digital benefit concert. This fund awarded $500 is support to
fifty-six Salt Lake City based working musicians.
•The Arts Council participated in the Open Streets program and scheduled artists who have
previously participated in the Living Traditions Festival, Brown Bag Concert Series, and Twilight
Concert Series.
•As the Cultural Core Contract Manager, the Arts Council met monthly with the Cultural Core
Budget Committee who approved new bylaws as well as cohesive plans for artist selection
processes and an inclusion draft plan. Salt Lake County also approved that they had restored full
annual funding for 2021 after a temporary pause due to financial concerns related to COVID-19.
•During this fiscal year, the Arts Council launched the Living Legacy program. This video series
engages diverse Living Traditions community in showcasing a collaborative narrative on how these
various communities keep their traditions and legacies alive today. A total of 11 videos have been
created so far with several more in the works to be published over the next few months.
•Over the last year the Arts Council has worked hard to increase diversity & equity of Boards &
Staff. The Arts Council Oversees 3 boards all of which have 40-50% composition of BIPOC and
multi-racial identities, as well as other underrepresented groups such as the LGBTQ, veteran, and
differently abled community. The Arts Council Staff identifies as 40% multi-racial/BIPOC
•During the last year of adapting due to COVID-19 precautionary measures, the Finch Lane Gallery
was able to implement several new gallery offerings which we plan to continue including virtual-
walk through of galleries, and online artwork sales. Additionally, at the Art Barn we hosted a
participatory work in partnership with Sugarspace that was an outdoor interactive pop-up
monument reflecting on anti-racism.
Arts Council Performance Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Attendees 82,029 49,444 35,771.00 35,000 40,000.00
Artists Served 1,446 1,839 843 1,500 1,500
Total Grants Awarded 94 109 116 110 150
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E-31
Department of Economic Development
Ben Kolendar, Department Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 1,614,341 1,935,663 2,059,032
O & M 28,938 64,800 43,800
Charges & Services 338,607 388,099 412,083
Capital Expenditures 4,165 — —
Total Economic Development 1,986,051 2,388,562 2,514,915
DIVISION BUDGETS
Economic Development 1,221,364 1,543,203 1,638,170 12.00
Arts Council 564,440 595,359 626,745 6.00
Cultural Core 200,247 250,000 250,000
Total Economic Development 1,986,051 2,388,562 2,514,915
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 1,986,051 2,388,562 2,514,915 18.00
Total Economic Development 1,986,051 2,388,562 2,514,915
FTE by Fiscal Year 16.00 18.00 18.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E-32
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
2,059,032O & M
43,799.88
Charges and Services
412,082.8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E-33
Department of Economic Development
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (8,383)
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY 2019-20 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2020. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 6,812
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Department of Economic Development as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Merit Changes 5,792
The Department of Economic Development FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500 series employees.
Salary Proposal 17,498
This increase reflects the Department of Economic Development's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 104,634
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Policy Issues
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E-34
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
E-35
Finance Department
Department Vision Statement
As stewards of public resources, we continually strive to excel in providing accurate, clear, relevant,
complete and timely information through the development and implementation of innovative programs
and processes.
Department Mission Statement
In the spirit of service and dedication, the Finance Department develops efficient and sustainable
solutions to manage and safeguard Salt Lake City’s financial resources.
Department Overview
The Finance Department consists of six divisions: the Treasurer’s Office, Purchasing and Contracts,
Accounting and Financial Reporting, Internal Audit and Financial Analysis, Revenues and Collections, and
Policy and Budget. Grants Acquisition and Management is also housed within the department. Each
division is vital to Salt Lake City’s financial health and functionality.
•Accounting and Financial Reporting is responsible overall for payroll, payments and financial
reporting required by state law.
•Policy and Budget primarily focuses on ushering anything budget-related within the City’s
financial functions through all the required steps in the budgeting and budget amendment
process.
•Purchasing and Contracts Management staff are responsible for researching, developing,
procuring, and contracting for operational supplies and services required for each City
department to function within its defined scope.
•Internal Audit and Financial Analysis functions entail auditing internal processes, investigating
fraud, waste and abuse, performing cost analysis and data analysis.
•Revenue and Collections functions entail helping all departments collect on all past-due
revenues and ensure that revenues are coming into the City in a timely manner.
•The Treasurer’s Office has the primary responsibility of ensuring the City’s fiduciary
responsibilities relating to the collection, management, and disbursement of public funds are
handled responsibly.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Maintain a General Fund Balance between 15% and 18%12.19%14.60%21.36%>15%>15%
Maintain the City’s prestigious AAA rating AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
E-36
Salt Lake City Department of Finance
Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 6,895,704 7,314,031 7,522,703
O & M 231,786 688,674 689,174
Charges & Services 1,367,941 1,839,210 4,485,379
Capital Expenditures 591 48,000 1,153,000
Total Department of Finance 8,496,022 9,889,915 13,850,256
DIVISION BUDGETS
Accounting & Financial Reporting 2,076,438 2,300,087 2,517,068 18.00
Policy & Budget 625,223 472,416 559,958 3.00
Purchasing & Contracts 921,027 1,010,666 1,011,626 10.00
Revenue & Collections 1,856,122 1,989,817 2,004,412 26.00
Internal Audit & Financial Analysis 833,896 924,172 936,046 6.00
Treasurer's Office 1,588,911 1,726,077 1,734,209 9.00
OneSolution Maintenance 594,405 1,466,680 5,086,937
Total Department of Finance 8,496,022 9,889,915 13,850,256
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 7,866,055 8,387,673 8,727,757 71.70
IMS Fund 594,405 1,466,680 5,086,937
Risk Fund 35,562 35,562 35,562 0.30
Total Department of Finance 8,496,022 9,889,915 13,850,256
FTE by Fiscal Year 70.00 70.00 72.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
E-37
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
7,314,031
O & M
688,674
Charges and Services
1,839,210
Capital Expenditures
48,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
E-38
Department of Finance
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (29,493)
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 29,916
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Finance Department as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 62,676
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated, and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Merit Changes 17,138
The Finance Department's FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500 series employees.
Salary Proposal 64,316
This increase reflects the Department of Finance's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
BA #5: New Consumer Protection Analyst 45,644
The budget recommends continued funding of the Consumer Protection Analyst position added in BA #5 of FY 2021. This position will assist with areas such as landlord/tenant complaints, pest control, landlord references, retaliation, and timely repairs.
Policy Issues
Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst Position to Mayor's Office (83,216)
With the newly created equity area in the Mayor's Office, the Finance Department feels moving the Consumer Protection Program and FTE to the equity area within the Mayor's Office will create a solid resource for the equity unit and the Consumer Protection Program . This program can still carry out the vision that was introduced in the Finance Department but it would be more collaborative under the Mayor's Office.Finance Department Deputy Director (10 Months) 143,603
The Mayor is recommending the addition of a Deputy Director position for the Finance Department. This position will assist with several of the department's managerial needs, including implementing the new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system that is currently in process.
Business Analyst 89,500
With the increasing number and complexity of the software packages and business systems that the Finance Department uses and is implementing, there is an increasing need for additional Business System Analysts. Additional government regulations and requirements, as well as more sophisticated data needs, is creating a need for more expertise in the operating details while at the same time requiring a better understanding of how all the City information fits together - of how Finance systems and processes, and other City systems and processes, need to communicate and work together and how different data set can be combined to create meaningful information, a need that an additional Business System Analyst will help mitigate.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
E-39
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
E-40
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FIRE DEPARTMENT
E-41
Fire Department
Department Vision Statement
The Salt Lake City Fire Department provides exceptional emergency services with progression and
efficiency.
Department Mission Statement
Prepare Effectively. Respond Professionally. Impact Positively.
Department Overview
The Salt Lake City Fire Department specializes in urban structural firefighting, emergency medical
services, and emergency management. The Department has 374 full-time equivalent positions,
divided into two battalions, serving in 14 stations covering 97 square miles.
All Firefighters hold a certification as Emergency Medical Technicians (Basic Life Support). The
Department also has firefighters trained to specialty levels of Engineer, Hazmat, Airport Rescue
Firefighter (ARFF), Swift Water Rescue (SWR) and, Heavy Rescue (HRT), improving customer service
delivery.
The Fire Administration Division comprises the Logistics, Community Relations, Fire Prevention,
Medical Services, and Technology Division. Logistics provides support for all fire apparatus the
department uses and they maintain the fire facilities' and fire equipment. Fire Prevention reviews all
buildings and proposed new construction. Medical Services overseas the Mobile Response Team, CPR
training, and Continuing Medical Education for the department. Technology oversees all radio
upkeep, station alerting, and computer programs related to the department.
Fire Operations consist of Station Operations, Airport Operations, and the Training Division.
Firefighters are trained and ready to respond, meeting our core mission of service to the public. The
department maintains four firefighters per emergency unit to operate at the most effective & efficient
level possible and to protect firefighters from dangers associated with fighting fires. Each fire unit
assigned to the Operations Division is required to perform monthly business inspections. Firefighters
assigned to the Airport are the first responders to the airfield and trained to the specialty level of
Airport Rescue Firefighter (ARFF).
Department Performance Measurements
Performance Measures 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Improved turnout times Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target
Reduce Operational Injuries Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target Ahead of Target
Fire Prevention will complete 4,300 inspections per year 7,833 7,692 4,835 >4,300 >4,300
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FIRE DEPARTMENT
E-42
Salt Lake City Fire Department
Karl Lieb, Fire Chief
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 39,714,144 39,633,347 41,291,239
O & M 1,271,105 1,234,050 1,620,900
Charges & Services 1,301,188 1,711,923 2,517,061
Capital Expenditures 116,969 158,200 158,200
Total Fire Department 42,403,407 42,737,520 45,587,400
DIVISION BUDGETS
Fire Administrative Services 6,709,576 6,610,353 6,849,396 62.00
Fire Communications Division 81,224 — —
Fire Office of the Chief 2,025,205 2,399,143 4,168,893 9.00
Fire Operations 33,587,401 33,728,024 34,569,111 303.00
Total Fire Department 42,403,407 42,737,520 45,587,400
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 42,403,407 42,737,520 45,587,400 374.00
Total Fire Department 42,403,407 42,737,520 45,587,400
FTE by Fiscal Year 366.00 366.00 374.00
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services: 41,291,239
O & M
1,620,900
Charges & Services
2,517,061
Capital Expenditures: 158,200
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FIRE DEPARTMENT
E-43
Fire Department
Changes discussed below represent changes to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (306,333)
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 164,636
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Fire Department as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Plan A Payout [One-Time] 161,243
Funding is budgeted meet contractual obligations from previous years for payment of leave amounts.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 272,562
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated, and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Merit Changes 346,049
The Fire Department's FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500 series employees.
Salary Proposal 340,686
This increase reflects the Fire Department's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
BA #7: Transfer from PD - Emergency Management Division 767,289
In Budget Amendment #7 of FY2021, the Emergency Management Division was moved from the Police Department to the Fire Department. This funding increase is associated with that move in addition to an additional FTE for a Fire Captain.
Policy Issues
Airport Rescue Firefighting Expenses (ARFF) 352,300
This expense request includes the direct costs that are incurred on behalf of the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, such as ARFF personnel uniforms, physicals, PPE, Worker's Comp claims, and staffing backfill, as well as Station 11 & 12 Expenses.
Fire Department Deployment Expense Reimbursement [One-Time] 515,000
During Fiscal Year 2021 the Fire Department deployed personnel an resources to support fires in the west. The Department received partial reimbursement for these expenses in fiscal year 2021, but anticipates receiving the remaining funds in fiscal year 2022.
Emergency Management Phase 2 236,448
The budget recommends additional for the Emergency Management Division within SLCFD. The funding includes an additional Fire Captain, a new Accountant and other costs associated with providing enhanced services to the City.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 FIRE DEPARTMENT
E-44
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
E-45
Human Resources
Department Vision Statement
To help Salt Lake City thrive through sustainable and effective human resource business practices,
policies and investment in the City’s greatest asset, her employees, to work collaboratively within
departments and with city leaders.
Department Mission Statement
We deliver best-in-class service and programs, add strategic value to Salt Lake City Corporation, promote
an engaged and dedicated workforce committed to the highest levels of public service. We are focused
on attracting the best talent, promoting opportunities for growth and development, and providing fair
and competitive compensation packages for all employees.
Department Overview
The Department of Human Resources is a team of 26 full-time employee and provides services for all
City employees.
· The Administrative Team establishes goals and manages the operations of the HR department.
· Benefits ensures employees have comprehensive and competitive benefits packages including medical,
dental, vision and life insurance programs, a large portfolio of voluntary benefits and an employee
health clinic.
· Compensation and Classification is responsible for ensuring that the city maintains a competitive and
equitable position with respect to pay. This is achieved by conducting numerous salary surveys each
year and recommending necessary market adjustments and general wage increases employees need to
maintain a competitive pay position.
· Employee Relations manages all disciplinary actions, and ADA compliance requests for city employees.
Members of this team are the front-line HR representatives for departments across the city. This team
also manages the City’s leave programs including FMLA, short-term and long-term disability benefits.
· Workplace Equity investigates workplace violations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and City
policy, ensuring that the City is a safe and enjoyable place for all to be employed.
· Employees’ University manages a robust learning and development program including new employee
orientation, supervisor boot camp, soft skill courses and access to thousands of online.
· Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) works closely with IMS to manage the maintenance and
integration of HR’s various technology systems.
· Recruiting and Onboarding is responsible for recruiting all positions city-wide with a focus on a diverse
and well-qualified City workforce. Additionally, this team has developed a comprehensive on-boarding
and off-boarding process.
Funding for the department is provided by the general and risk funds.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
E-46
Department Performance Measurements
Performance Measures 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Improve employee knowledge and understanding of HR information through a minimum of 40 HR emails. NA ≥40 ≥40 ≥40 ≥40
Respond to all EEO complaints including conducting an investigation when appropriate in an average of 60 days or less.NA ≤60 61.7 ≤60 ≤60
Human Resource Consultants will attend a minimum of 30 departmental meetings each fiscal year. NA 30 30 30 30
Increase number of employees that have attended instructor-led training.NA 994 1016 1200 1200
Achieve a 2% increase in 457 enrollments.NA ≥2% Increase ≥2% Increase ≥2% Increase
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
E-47
Salt Lake City Department of Human Resources
Debra Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 2,975,583 2,872,558 3,664,201
O & M 32,030 65,714 67,714
Charges & Services 42,426,061 44,388,287 46,923,811
Total Human Resources 46,580,890 50,202,607 52,093,752.20
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administration 851,121 774,250 969,385 17.05
Recruiting & Onboarding 498,078 414,757 723,927 5.00
Employees University 276,610 309,350 316,298 2.00
Civilian Review Board 162,525 164,460 166,296 1.00
HR Information Systems 103,791 99,724 105,124 1.00
Employee Relations 771,008 866,467 986,639
Risk & Insurance Admin 872,777 982,442 1,099,332
Total Human Resources 46,580,890 50,202,607 52,093,752.20
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 2,663,132 2,629,008 3,267,669 26.05
Risk Management Fund 43,917,758 47,573,599 48,826,083 4.95
Total Human Resources 46,580,890 50,202,607 52,093,752.20
FTE by Fiscal Year 26.00 25.00 31.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
E-48
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services: 3,664,201
O & M
67,714
Charges & Services: 46,923,811
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
E-49
Department of Human Resources
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted General Fund bud-
get.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 33,586
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 10,088
This reflects an increase in the cost of insurance for the Human Resources Department as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 97,183
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
CCAC Adjustment (10 Months)3,502
This budget includes market adjustments for positions determined to be severely lagging behind market as determined by the Citizen’s Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Salary Proposal 25,266
This increase reflects the Department of Human Resource's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
BA #4: Deputy HR Director (.85)147,991
The HR Deputy Director position was restored in budget amendment #5 of FY 2021. Although the postion was eliminated in the FY 2021budget, it became clear thats staffing in Human Resources (HR) is significantly lower than professional staffing minimums. This position is needed to meet the existing operational requirements. The General Fund covers 85% of the position costs.
Policy Issues
Human Resources Information Systems Analyst - ERP 111,075
The budget includes funding for and HR Information Systems Analyst. This position will be devoted to the facilitation, coordination, implementation and migration of existing HRIS data into the City’s new Enterprise Resource Programs (ERP). Duties will include: acting as a strategic partner – internally and externally – to ensure ERP/HRIS functionality; troubleshooting systems and/or data maintenance errors and ensuring systems meet the City’s vision and operational need.
HR Supervisor - Recruitment (10 Months)101,020
The Mayor is also recommending the addition of an HR Supervisor - Recruiting. This position will be a working, lead supervisor with front line responsibility for recruitment functions. These duties will include: assisting departments with the administration the recruitment function, developing, and implementing innovative and proactive approaches to diverse outreach, coordinating the flow of work, assigning tasks and ensuring timely, accurate process management.
2 Human Resources Technician Positions (10 Months)108,950
The budget also includes funding for two Senior HR Technicians. These positions will provide support for employee compliance, onboarding, records management and recruitment. Duties will include: administrative support to the Civilian Review Board; processing and monitoring employee appeal hearing requests; processing/troubleshooting/entering employee information (onboarding and change maintenance) in Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) and assisting employees and the public with personnel information, files and employment status.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
E-50
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
E-51
Information Management Services
Department Vision Statement
Modernize municipal government through sustainable technology solutions.
Department Mission Statement
Our mission is to provide reliable service, tools, and support of the city’s digital assets by utilizing industry
standards to develop consistent, uniform, and accessible systems, at reasonable rates, empowering users
with the solutions they need to accomplish their goals.
Department Overview
Salt Lake City’s Information Management Services department assists Salt Lake City employees in
providing essential city services through technology. The department has five divisions:
Administration Division
The Chief Information Officer (CIO) is the Information Management Services department director and
works with department/division heads across the City and partners to deliver technology solutions that
modernize municipal government and connect the City to its constituents.
The Administrative Services and Asset Management team oversees the business and supply chain
activities within IMS. They manage the daily operations of accounts payable, budget, office management
duties, procurement, receiving, management, and disposal of all I.T. hardware and software assets for
the City.
The Enterprise Project Management team coordinates with City departments to help them navigate I.T.
systems and projects. Working with departments, they create project plans and resource allocations
necessary to accomplish the given task and see the projects and solutions through the product life-cycle.
Data Analytics and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Lead by the Chief Data Officer/Geographic Information Officer (CDO), a new role in the City, the division is
responsible for overseeing the City’s enterprise GIS and data analysis solutions. They assist departments
in using data to drive informed decision-making processes. The team also assists the City in its
transparency initiatives by “opening up” the City by creating and providing public accessible data sets and
solutions.
Infrastructure Technology and Security Division
Lead by the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), the division is responsible for the vast I.T.
infrastructure across the city and ensuring that the network systems and users are secure and have
maximum uptime. The division consists of Network Engineering, Network Security, Unified
Communications, Server Administration, and Field Services. This division is responsible for network
infrastructure, network security, server installation and maintenance, unified communications
implementation and maintenance, field services, help desk services, and on-site support for all city
employees.
This division strives for continual uptime of more than 60 city-owned properties. We are continually
looking for ways to improve efficiencies, reduce power consumption, consolidate services and systems,
and exceed our customer’s expectations.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
E-52
Media Services Division
Salt Lake City Media Services is the in-house simulcast, content creation, and communications consulting
division of Information Management Services. Our services are accessible to every department and
division, city-wide.
Software Services
Lead by the Chief Technology Officer (CTO), the team designs, develops, integrates, and maintains
software solutions that the City procures or develops. They also maintain City databases and create
custom reporting solutions.
The team is working with departments to reduce the software footprint and standardize enterprise
solutions. The application portfolio still sits at almost 200 applications, but several enterprise solutions
have slowed the growth, and several antiquated systems have been collapsed into new centralized
systems.
Innovations Team
This new team is lead by the new Chief Innovations Officer (CIO). They have been tasked with
modernizing the city processes and procedures to bring a new high level of efficiency and accuracy. One
of their biggest tasks is implementing a new ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) system, which will be a
multi-year, multi-million dollar project that will help streamline and improve the finance, accounting,
asset management, and human resources systems.
IMS Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Citywide I.T. assets inventoried on an annual basis.9%21%33%75%100%
Case Closed by staff within standard response thresholds based on priority, severity, and system.89%95%89%99%99%
Objective and Key Results (OKR) and Continuous Feedback and Recognition (CFR) Program implemented in department.
—%—%33%65%100%
Projects that followed agile project management methodology.20%35%65%80%100%
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
E-53
Salt Lake City Department of Information Management Services
Aaron Bentley, Chief Information Officer
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 8,140,674 8,585,059 10,339,163
O & M 329,662 207,268 250,205
Charges & Services 5,527,965 5,750,955 6,679,641
Interest & Bond Expenditures 661,990 — —
Capital Expenditures 934,696 2,279,725 1,946,541
Total IMS 15,594,986 16,823,007 19,215,550
DIVISION BUDGETS
Application Administration & Support 2,032,895 2,092,395 2,325,449
Department Leadership & Administrative Services 1,758,991 1,628,922 2,667,011 4.00
Capital Projects 82,677 86,800 161,800
Centralized Computing 200,538 1,421 —
Enterprise Software Systems 1,887,125 1,722,721 2,043,801 4.00
Information Security Systems 138,900 331,238 381,238
Infrastructure Technical Team 2,709,008 3,043,196 3,317,543 4.00
Infrastructure Technical Services 1,146,429 2,379,019 1,968,204 28.00
Software Development Services 1,642 — —
Multimedia Services SLCTV 602,437 612,007 1,116,012 10.00
PC Replacement 798,194 566,275 566,275
Software Services 4,173,987 4,358,102 4,090,633 30.00
User Support 62,165 911 —
Data Analytics and GIS 0 0 577,584 4.00
Total IMS 15,594,986 16,823,007 19,215,550
FUNDING SOURCES
IMS Fund 15,594,986 16,823,007 19,215,550 84.00
Total IMS 15,594,986 16,823,007 19,215,550
FTE by Fiscal Year 71.00 71.00 84.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
E-54
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Service…
O & M, 250,205
Charges & Servic…
Capital
Expenditures,
1,946,541
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
E-55
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Changes discussed below represent changes to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 206,788
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY 2021 - 2022 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Contractual Increases 1,129,391
The increase for contractual changes reflects the increase from the vendors for our continuing maintenance and support.
ERP System 2,000,000
The City implements many systems used to provide software support that has been unified in recent years into single software packages created to streamline and implement better unity at organizations through a single software package. The City’s needs have outgrown the current software vendor’s capacity. Therefore a new ERP system is being reviewed and considered. This budget amount is for implementing the software alone during the FY22 fiscal year and does not reflect the total cost or the system’s annual maintenance.
Technical & Inflationary Increases 234,449
These are items that have annual contractual increases associated with their costs and needed and required new software. We have also included the cost to perform a required bi-annual penetration test of our network.
Website Enhancements 125,000
The Salt Lake City website needs a few enhancements, which will aid in the site’s stability. These enhancements are not a refresh but a new design to focus on the items that will allow virtual meetings such as the board meeting to be more reliable. We do feel that it is essential for the entire community to have access to these meetings. A stable website is the most effective way to make sure that the community at large has access to the information about what the City is doing and how to get the resources they need that we provide for them.
BA #6: City Innovations Team in IMS 822,284.00
The team will also improve coordination and resources between the Civic Engagement Team and IMS Media Services. A further step to improve engagement is to combine SLC Media Services and the Civic Engagement Team into a city-wide communications/engagement team outside of the Mayor’s Office.
BA #7: Move City GIS Personal to the IMS GIS Division 215,104.00
The Administration moved two FTE's from Community and Neighborhoods to IMS. The individuals work directly in the GIS function for the City. The amendment consolidates these two employees within IMS and the GIS division there.
Policy Issues
Staffing Increase 749,784.00
Increased staffing to accommodate the increased capacity of new and existing software, increased infrastructure, cloud management services, Telecom, and the unified command system.
PSB Network Infrastructure 350,000.00
To update and maintain the current PSB Network Infrastructure for reliability and improved connection speed.
Server Infrastructure 180,000.00
Multiple servers have been in service past their useful life. This will also assist in the city network, which concurrently assists in the ERP project implementation. This synergistic project has multiple great benefits at several levels of operation.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
E-56
JUSTICE COURT
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 JUSTICE COURT
E-57
Salt Lake City Justice Court
Mission Statement
Ensure the highest standards of justice, professionalism, responsiveness, and respect for those we
serve.
Vision Statement
Creating a court that is just, equitable, and trusted by all.
Court Core Values
Excellence
Having the desire to succeed and the motivation to reach our full potential, going above and
beyond to accomplish the task at hand.
Respect
Recognize and appreciate the value of each individual and their experience and situation.
Integrity
Doing what we say we are going to do, applying honesty and accountability with openness.
Community
Bridging the gap between the Court, community and other agencies, improving access
to resources and information.
Unity
Supporting one another and fostering growth while reaching our goals and adhering to
our values.
Department Overview
The Salt Lake City Justice Court is the largest municipal court in the State of Utah with a very high volume
of misdemeanor cases. The Court is a limited jurisdiction court under the umbrella of the Utah State
Court system. We are proud to be part of the Salt Lake City portfolio of public institutions and to serve
the citizens and visitors of this great city.
The Justice Court is responsible for and processes Class B and C misdemeanor, infractions and small
claims cases; jury trials, appeals and expungements, video hearings, prisoner transports, and daily
interaction with jails throughout the State of Utah. The court monitors and tracks probation, warrants,
community service, and restitution, collections of monetary penalties, appeals, expungements, and plea-
in-abeyance cases. We also provide traffic school, coordination of language interpreter services
and any ADA needs that arise.
The Justice Court judiciary, employees, and security team are dedicated to open and transparent access
to the court, bringing justice for all, and providing a safe and civil environment for dispute resolution.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 JUSTICE COURT
E-58
Department Performance Measures
Performance Measures FY2018 Actual FY2019 Actual FY2020 Actual FY2021 YTD FY2022 Target State Average
Access & Fairness - Percent of Justice Court customers satisfied with service received.95%95%NA NA >90%NA
Time to Disposition - 95% of criminal case dispositions should meet established guidelines for Time to Disposition (6 months).
90%89%88%83%>95%81%
Age of Acting Pending Cases - 95% of all criminal cases should have a disposition within a 180-day time frame.85%83%44%44%>95%57%
Criminal Case Clearance Rate - A Clearance Rate of 100% means the court has disposed of as many cases as were filed, i.e., the court is keeping up with it's incoming caseload.
100%103%158%102%>100%95%
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 JUSTICE COURT
E-59
Salt Lake City Justice Court
Curtis Preece, Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 3,982,182 4,108,349 4,231,849
O & M 42,921 59,116 65,507
Charges & Services 425,720 549,401 543,550
Capital Expenditures — 10,000 10,000
Total Justice Court 4,450,822 4,726,866 4,850,906
DIVISION BUDGETS
Justice Court 4,450,822 4,726,866 4,850,906 42.00
Total Justice Court 4,450,822 4,726,866 4,850,906
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 4,450,822 4,726,866 4,850,906 42.00
Total Justice Court 4,450,822 4,726,866 4,850,906
FTE by Fiscal Year 44.00 42.00 42.00
.
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
4,231,849
O & M
65,507
Charges and Services
543,550
Capital Expenditures
10,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 JUSTICE COURT
E-60
Salt Lake City Justice Court
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (14,055)
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 16,876
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Justice Court as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Merit Changes 12,292
The Justice Court's FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 73,500
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated, and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Salary Proposal 35,427
This increase reflects the Justice Court's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 JUSTICE COURT
E-61
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 JUSTICE COURT
E-62
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
E-63
Police Department
Department Vision Statement
“We will build upon the noble traditions of integrity and trust to foster a culture serve, respect, and compassion
toward our employees and the community we serve.”
Department Mission Statement
“We will serve as guardians of our community to preserve life, maintain human rights, protect property, and
promote individual responsibility and community commitment.”
Department Overview
The Salt Lake City Police Department serves the 200,000+ residents of Salt Lake City, and a daytime population
which exceeds 300,000, with 714 general fund FTEs in budget for Fiscal Year 2022. The Department consists of the
Office of the Chief which oversees two Bureaus–Operations Bureau and Administrative & Operational Support
Bureau.
The Police Department will continue working to ensure professional public safety and response to the community in
the future. The Department is working closely with the Mayor’s Office and the Salt Lake City Council on a proactive
approach to meet the needs of the community. The Police Department is working to review policies, increase
transparency, improve training, and enhance community involvement while upholding the Mission and Vision of the
Department, serving the community, and improving community relations.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Response Time: Maintain a six- minute or better response time for priority 1 calls for service from time of dispatch.
6:19 6:02 5:50 6:00 6:00
Response Time: the mean average police response time for priority 1 calls for service from the time the call was received to the time the first officer was listed on scene.
10:51 10:13 11:37 <10:00 <10:00
Social Work & Homeless Outreach: 200 referrals per quarter for services, jobs, housing, education, benefits, substance abuse or mental health treatment.
1972 1751 1089 1450 1450
IA: Review all cases of Officer Involved Critical Incidents for referral to training unit for improvements in training.
100%100%100%100%100%
Crime Lab: Maintain officer wait time for priority 1 cases at 20 minutes or less.
21:42 15:41 *FY 2020 Data: 22:25 <20 Minutes <20 Minutes
Gangs: Provide gang outreach services and participate in a gang free education program monthly.
12 12 12 12 12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
E-64
Police Department
Mike Brown, Chief of Police
FY 2019-20 Actuals FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 77,053,418 73,033,179 77,138,057
O & M 1,152,635 2,120,089 2,255,251
Charges & Services 4,175,226 3,944,064 3,977,194
Capital Expenditures (4,204) — —
Total Police Department 82,377,074 79,097,332 83,370,502
DIVISION BUDGETS
Office of the Chief 5,656,963 3,928,611 5,971,363 21.00
Operations 49,386,319 47,049,774 49,964,121 327.00
Administration and Support Operations 26,789,623 27,371,263 27,382,796 366.00
Emergency Management 544,169 696,858 52,222 —
Total Police Department 82,377,074 79,046,506 83,370,502
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 82,377,074 79,097,332 83,370,502 714.00
Total Police Department 82,377,074 79,097,332 83,370,502
FTE by Fiscal Year 711.00 711.00 714.00
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
77,138,057
O & M
2,255,251
Charges & Services
3,977,194
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
E-65
Police Department
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes -1,745,264
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 253,328
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Police Department as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Merit Changes 865,184
The Police Department's FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees; Fire 400 & 901 series employees; and Police 500 series employees.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 270,501
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
CCAC Adjustments (10 Months)43,645
This budget includes market adjustments for positions determined to be severely lagging behind market as determined by the Citizen’s Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
Salary Proposal 657,270
This increase reflects the Police Department's portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
BA #7: Transfer Emergency Management to Fire -526,421
In budget amendment #7 of FY 2021, the Emergency Management division of Police was moved to the Fire Department. This funding reduction is associated with that move.
BA #7: Social Worker Change 841,997
Budget amendment #7 of FY 2021 moved funding for social workers that was mistakenly placed in Non-Departmental back to the Police Department budget.
BA #7: Encampment Cleanup 650,000
The budget includes a continuation of funding established in budget amendment #7 of FY 2021 for overtime for health department neighborhood re-establishments.
Policy Issues
Versaterm Contractual Changes 39,391
Funding is included for changes to the Versaterm contract for FY 2021.
Legislated Action Requiring Budget 60,833
The budget establishes a new civilian analyst position necessary for use of force reporting as required by legislation adopted in the 2021 legislative session. The funding is for 10 months of the position's costs.
Police Officer Mental Health Responder (10 Months)100,000
The budget includes funding to establish a mental health professional position associated with the Law Enforcement Wellness program.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
E-66
Increased Mental Health Responders (Funding in Non-Departmental) (3 @ 10 Months and 3 @ 6 Months)0
The budget recommends funding to increase the number of mental health responders for the department. This includes for a total of six positions which will be funded through the Non-Departmental budget. Three positions will be funded for 10 months of the year, and three positions will be funded for six months of the year.
Street Racing Initiative 70,000
The Mayor is recommending funding to provide enhanced mitigation and enforcement of street racing in the City.
Police Staffing from the 2021 Holding Account (From Non-Departmental)2,800,000
The budget moves funding from the holding account in Non-Departmental to the Police Department to cover the annual costs of two classes hired at the end of fiscal year 2021. Those classes consisted of a lateral hiring class as well as a new recruit class to meet the staffing needs within the Police Department.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
E-67
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 POLICE DEPARTMENT
E-68
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
E-69
Department of Public Lands
Department Vision Statement
The Department of Public Lands’ four divisions is tasked with planning, construction coordination, and
public land acquisition with a community-based approach. In coordination with our many City partners,
we protect, grow and enhance natural landscapes, trees, and outdoor green spaces for the health,
beauty, and recreational opportunities of residents and visitors to the Capital City.
Department Mission Statement
The mission of Public Lands is to make Salt Lake City more livable by improving public health, protecting
our environment, executing transformative parks and public spaces, and connecting people. We do this
by planning, building, and caring for the City’s essential infrastructure, including parks, trails, urban
forest, golf courses, cultural landscapes, recreational amenities, and natural lands.
Public Lands Department Overview
Parks Division oversees and is responsible for all City Parks, SLC Cemetery, and the Regional Athletic
Complex. The combined mission of these programs is to provide outdoor green spaces and services for
the public to enjoy by planning for future development, continued maintenance, and preservation.
Golf manages the operations of six full-service golf courses throughout the city. Golf operations include
the maintenance of all green spaces, programming of golf clinics, tournaments, leagues, instruction
programs, and managing the course retail pro shops, cafes, and driving ranges and cart fleet
maintenance and rentals.
Planning & Ecological Services oversees planning efforts, including master plans, facility improvement
plans, resource management plans, and development and implementation of Departmental initiatives
and capital projects. This includes advancing the ecological health and biodiversity of the public lands
system and improving the quality, accessibility, and equity of Department lands and resources.
Urban Forestry manages approximately 86,000 trees with 25,000 vacant planting sites (located in city
parks, on city facility properties, and along city streets and trails). Collectively the City’s trees form a vast
living infrastructure that serves to moderate urban temperatures, clean our air, buffer city noise and light
pollution, reduce energy consumption, promote healthy recreation, and increase property values.
Department Performance Measures
Performance Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 YTD 2021 Goal*FY22 Target
% of Foothill Trails System Completed 0.43 0.43 0.53 0.62 0.65
Ratio of trees planted to trees removed (a number greater than one indicates expansion)Na 1.23 1.48**>2 >2
Increase golf cart sales revenue by 5%NA -0.0321 0.0068 ≥2%≥2%
Ratio of maintained acres per maintenance FTE NA 12.79 17.55 10.41 12
*FY 21 are goals only.
**Numbers are goals only and do not reflect the 2020 windstorm or the 1,000 trees initiative.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
E-70
Public Lands Department
Kristen Riker, Director (Upon Advice and Consent)
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 0 0 16,064,438
O & M 0 0 3,011,172
Charges & Services 0 0 7,495,384
Capital Expenditures 0 0 1,459,011
Bonding/Debt/Interest Charges 0 0 496,130
Total Department of Public Lands 0 0 28,526,135
DIVISION BUDGETS
Public Lands Administration 0 0 3,098,610 17.35
Parks 0 0 11,529,647 78.00
Urban Forestry 0 0 2,846,418 15.00
Trails & Natural Lands 0 0 1,354,022 8.00
Golf 0 0 9,697,417 33.65
Total Department of Public Lands 0 0 28,526,114
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 0 0 18,828,697 118.35
Golf 0 0 9,697,417 33.65
Total Department of Public Lands 0 0 28,526,114
FTE by Fiscal Year 0.00 0.00 152.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
E-71
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services,
16,064,438
O & M, 3,011,172
Charges & Services,
7,495,384
Capital
Expenditures,
1,459,011
Bonding/Debt/Interest
Charges, 496,130
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
E-72
Department of Public Lands
The Department of Public Lands was created in FY 2022 by moving the Parks and Golf functions from The
Department Public Services. The Department has four divisions and is tasked with planning, construction
coordination, and public land acquisition with a community-based approach. In coordination with our
many City partners, we protect, grow and enhance natural landscapes, trees, and outdoor green spaces
for the health, beauty, and recreational opportunities of residents and visitors to the Capital City.
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget when the
components of the new department still resided in Public Services.
Living Wage Adjustment 21,230
The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed new living wage estimates released through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator that increased the 2020 living wage to $15.11 per hour. The Mayor has proposed moving to the new living wage rate over a period of two years. This funding represents the Public Lands Department portion of that change.
Transfer of Public Lands Division from Public Services 17,372,425
Public Services Department transfer of personnel and operational costs of the Public Lands Division in the Public Lands Department.
Public Lands Department Creation and Development 550,983
This initiative restructures the Public Land Division to manage current and increasing administrative responsibilities and achieve the Mayor’s goals of keeping up with growth, putting the community first, and moving to environmentally sustainable infrastructure.
Public Lands New Properties/Amenities 338,413
Funding is proposed to cover ongoing maintenance of newly acquired City properties and amenities
New Recreational Trail System [Ongoing] 304,167
To create/expand two major regional trail systems that impact both west-side and east-side SLC communities, including developing a recreational 'water trail' in SLC's west-side.
Contractual Increases 79,000
CPI Adjustment for increases to contracts.
Utilities Increases 162,500
Increases to cover utility (i.e. electricity, natural gas, water, etc.) and fuel increases.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
E-73
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
E-74
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-75
The Department of Public Services
The Department of Public Services’ various divisions provide essential services to residents, businesses,
and visitors; emergency response and recovery; and internal services that support all other city functions.
The Department’s vision is to be responsive to and anticipate the needs of a growing, diverse, and vibrant
city. Public Services manages much of the ongoing stewardship of the city’s built infrastructure. Beginning
in fiscal year 2022, the Department’s asset management work will expand to include capital asset
development and implementation with the inclusion of the Engineering Division in the Department.
Strategic goals this year will be to create a life-cycle picture of capital assets from conception to renewal;
improve emergency capabilities; continue critical workforce evolution planning; optimize technology tools
for asset management and forecasting; and invest in diversity, inclusion, and equity work to support both
our employees and the public we serve.
Mission Statement
Public Services is a team of professionals who value integrity, diversity, and equity. We are committed to
providing essential municipal services and vibrant green spaces for Salt Lake City while implementing
efficiencies and environmentally conscious practices, which strive to make life better throughout the
community.
Public Services Department Overview
Administrative Services provides centralized administrative services to the divisions to fulfill the
Department mission of “making lives better.” A team of administrative professionals supports
Department programs by providing a solid and stable management infrastructure, coordinated
communications, financial analysis, technological innovation, and strategic development that support the
divisions, who in turn provide quality services to the community and other internal stakeholders.
Compliance operates the crossing guard program, pay station maintenance, parking enforcement, the
Main City Library parking garage, digital parking permits, and the customer service office.
Engineering provides capital project planning, design, and construction; surveying and mapping services;
and right-of-way permitting and inspections. Engineering is responsible for ensuring services comply with
Federal, State and City requirements.
Facilities are responsible for the stewardship of all 77 Public Services facilities and the maintenance of
the Central and Sugarhouse Business District’s public plazas, rights-of-way, and green-ways. Facilities
manage the capital asset program and implement projects to reduce building energy consumption.
Fleet procures and maintains 1,562 City vehicles and 2,774 pieces of equipment, provides fuel at 15
locations, supplies a vehicle loaner pool, operates a car wash facility, a wash bay facility, and operates an
internal parts room.
Streets performs the maintenance, repair and emergency response for asphalt roads, asphalt surface
treatments, signs and traffic signals, traffic markings and striping, street and bike lane sweeping, 50/50
sidewalk, concrete repair, sidewalk grinding and ADA ramp upgrades, snow and ice control, and after-
hour response.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-76
Department Performance Measurements
Performance Measures FY2019 Actual FY2020 Actual FY2021 Target FY2022 Target FY2023 Target
Maintain full coverage of required school crossings, with crossing guard staff during the school year.45 minutes ≤ 36 minutes ≤ 40 minutes ≤ 40 minutes ≤ 40 minutes
Maintenance Productivity: Maintain productivity of total work orders on-time at 90% or greater 87%82%≥ 90%≥ 90%≥ 90%
Fleet: Maintain mechanic productivity rate during work hours at 90% or greater 92%95%≥ 90%≥ 90%≥ 90%
Streets: Complete 155 lane miles of surface treatments 99.5 lane miles 130.84 lane miles 155 lane miles 155 lane miles 155 lane miles
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-77
Salt Lake City Department of Public Services
Lorna Vogt, Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 35,476,402 37,955,963 27,942,824
O & M 12,790,006 12,963,805 10,904,779
Charges & Services 12,458,025 15,220,837 8,593,176
Interest & Bond Expense 4,073,575 4,629,507 3,798,924
Capital Expenditures 11,429,026 3,205,967 10,897,439
Transfers Out 372,037 373,315 295,361
Total Dept of Public Services 76,599,070 74,349,394 62,432,503
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administrative Services 1,959,181 2,264,397 2,331,467 15
Gallivan and Special Events — — —
Golf 7,971,468 8,484,897 —
Youth and Family 2,024,062 1,996,086 —
Compliance 2,834,586 3,677,533 3,801,531 29.00
Facility Services 9,036,275 8,888,664 9,132,553 47.00
Fleet 24,048,018 19,209,271 28,090,575 45.00
Streets 12,388,287 13,152,368 13,759,381 110.00
Engineering — — 5,316,996 48.00
Parks 9,812,385 10,571,311 —
Public Lands Administration 2,408,645 2,047,556 —
Trails and Natural Lands 1,442,477 1,263,874 —
Urban Forestry 2,673,686 2,793,437 0
Total Dept of Public Services 76,599,070 74,349,394 62,432,503
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund 44,579,585 46,655,226 34,341,928 249.00
Fleet Fund 24,048,018 19,209,271 28,090,575 45.00
Total Dept of Public Services 68,627,602 65,864,497 62,432,503
FTE by Fiscal Year 421.00 409.00 294.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-78
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
27,942,824
O & M
10,904,779Charges & Services
8,593,176
Interest & Bond Expense
3,798,924
Capital Expenditures
10,897,439
Transfers Out
295,361
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-79
Department of Public Services
Changes discussed below represent adjustments to the FY 2020-21 adopted budget.
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (57,548)
Base to base changes compares personal services costs adopted as part of the FY2021 budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of the calendar year 2021. Changes in this category incorporate changes in personal services at the individual staff level, including pay adjustments, reclassifications, career ladders, and benefits changes that happened in the first part of the current fiscal year.
Insurance Rate Changes 124,784
This increase reflects a change in the cost of insurance for the Department of Public Services as described in the Budget Summary section of the Budget Book.
Merit Changes 260,156
The Department of Public Services FY2022 scheduled increases for all represented employees covered under an MOU. Employees included are AFSCME 100, 200 & 330 series employees.
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 808,235
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City put a soft hiring freeze in place. Projected savings for six months was calculated, and department budgets were reduced accordingly. The amount reflected replaces the FY 2021 budget reduction.
Salary Proposal 228,013
This increase reflects the Department of Public Services portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary portion of the Mayor's Recommended Budget Book.
Living Wage Adjustment 1,290
The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed new living wage estimates released through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator that increased the 2020 living wage to $15.11 per hour. The Mayor has proposed moving to the new living wage rate over a period of two years. This funding represents the Public Services Department portion of that change.
BA #6: Transfer of Innovations Team to Information Management Services Fund (307,350)
In Budget Amendment #6 of FY2021, the Innovations Team was moved from the Public Services to the Information and Management Services Fund. This funding decrease includes 2 FTE's of support and the operation budget.
Transfer Public Lands Division to Public Lands Department (17,372,425)
Public Services Department transfer of personnel and operational costs of the Public Lands Division in the Public Lands Department.
Transfer Youth and Family Division to Community and Neighborhoods Department (2,063,498)
Public Services Department transfer of personnel and operational costs of Youth and Family Services to Community and Neighborhoods Department.
Transfer Engineering Division from Community and Neighborhoods Department 5,445,845
Community and Neighborhoods Department transfer of personnel and operational costs of the Engineering Division to Public Services. This also includes additional FTEs to assist with the increased workload of the Engineering Division.
Contractual Increases 115,100
CPI Adjustment for increases to contracts.
Utilities Increases 128,500
Increases to cover utility (i.e. electricity, natural gas, water, etc.) and fuel increases.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-80
Budget and Management Analysis [Ongoing] 52,800
Positions will be reclassified to grades that align with current city Financial Analyst and Budget Analyst positions.
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [Ongoing] 80,000
This initiative aims to extend the life of City’s concrete roads and would be done on a 15-yr. maintenance cycle by maintaining 11 of the city’s 170 lane miles of concrete roadways per year.
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [One Time] 69,500
Initiative creates a maintenance plan for the 170 concrete road lane miles within Salt Lake City. Replacing these sealants and cleaning the joints will extend the life of the City’s concrete roads.
Streets Response Team FTE [Ongoing] 53,300
FTE with provide additional resource to provide consistent and timely response times to service calls. Additional duties would be accomplished and a reduction or elimination of overtime and callbacks.
Increase 1/2 Asphalt Budget [Ongoing] 120,000
This asphalt budget increase would allow the Streets Division to have additional candidates for chip and slurry seal treatments. These surface treatments are much more sustainable and cost effective then a roadway reconstruction or an asphalt overlay.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-81
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
E-82
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
E-83
Department of Public Utilities
Department Mission and Vision Statement
To serve our community and protect our environment by working to continuously improve water,
wastewater, stormwater, and street lighting services in a sustainable manner. We strive to uphold the
values of Service, Leadership, Integrity, Flexibility, Efficiency, and Stewardship.
Department Overview
The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) provides water, sewer, stormwater, and street
lighting services. SLCDPU provides sewer, stormwater, and street lighting to the approximately 200,000
residents of Salt Lake City. The service area for SLCDPU’s water utility is much larger and provides
drinking water to more than 360,000 people in Salt Lake City and portions of Mill Creek, Holladay,
Cottonwood Heights, Murray, Midvale, and South Salt Lake. SLCDPU manages the four utilities as
separate enterprise funds under one administrative management structure. SLCDPU develops and
implements fees, rates and rate structures that are approved annually by the Salt Lake City Council.
SLCDPU's work in each of its four utilities is vital to public health, environment, economy, and quality of
life. Our 452 employees are responsible to ensure the environment is protected, and that the public has
access to clean, reliable, and affordable water resources. SLCDPU is extremely accountable to the public
in its implementation of these services. In fulfilling this important responsibility, SLCDPU is regulated by
(1) federal and state agencies pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act, and
the state’s drinking water and water quality statutes and rules; (2) federal and state statutes regarding
water resources, water quality, and flood control; and (3) local health department regulations concerning
drinking water and wastewater. SLCDPU, in turn, enforces numerous regulations concerning water,
stormwater, and sewer, primarily contained in Chapter 17 of Salt Lake City’s ordinances. SLCDPU is also
responsible for regulating the Riparian Corridor Overlay Zone found in Chapter 21 of Salt Lake City’s
ordinances.
Department Performance Measurements
Measure 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 YTD 2022 Target
Water Quality: Water Quality Turbidity is a measure of water clarity by indicating how cloudy it is. The national benchmark is less than 0.1 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).
<0.03 NTU <0.03 NTU 0.02 NTU <0.03 NTU <0.03 NTU
Energy Use: AWWA Water-Energy Efficiency median is 6,881 thousand British thermal units per year per million gallons (Kbtu/yr./MG).
1,882 Kbtu/yr/MG 1,840 Kbtu/yr/MG 2,024 Kbtu/yr/MG 2,202 Kbtu/yr/MG 1,840 Kbtu/yr/MG
Water Use: Average Per Capita Water Use in Gallons per Capita per Day (gpcd as of 12/31).
199 gpcd 195 gpcd 172 gpcd 186 gpcd <200 gpcd
Sewer: Clean greater than 35% of the sewer collection system.46% of System 45% of System 59% of System 37% of System >35% of System
Stormwater: Linear feet (LF) of lines replaced, rehabilitated, or installed.11,039 LF 2,183 LF 13,295 LF 12,893 LF 21,700 LF*
*Target based on annual CIP planning.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
E-84
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
Laura Briefer, Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 34,446,333 41,961,790 45,645,184
O & M 5,882,570 7,605,558 7,735,360
Charges & Services 43,818,584 55,674,279 60,642,430
Interest & Bond Expense 3,766,084 17,248,778 23,185,287
Capital Expenditures 99,831,314 239,225,139 282,674,161
Transfers Out 583,605 597,605 597,605
Dept of Public Utilities 188,328,490 362,313,149 420,480,027
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administration 765,167 1,494,211 1,509,257 36.00
Finance 15,599,479 21,498,258 23,560,363 50.00
Engineering 6,894,301 10,697,504 10,954,589 48.00
Water Quality 30,028,163 33,707,416 36,729,449 56.00
Water Reclamation 9,164,651 10,687,414 11,520,150 69.00
Water Resources 1,221,468 1,857,598 2,376,821 11.00
Maintenance 18,994,860 23,184,029 24,920,746 182.00
GIS 2,074,574 2,712,452 3,088,854
CIP and Debt Service 103,585,828 256,474,267 305,819,798
Dept of Public Utilities 188,328,490 362,313,149 420,480,027
FUNDING SOURCES
Street Lighting Fund 3,857,553 5,379,697 5,699,663 2.72
Water Fund 89,177,125 126,333,193 127,365,555 283.16
Sewer Fund 83,625,949 212,638,399 268,213,796 126.55
Storm Water Fund 11,667,863 17,961,860 19,201,013 39.57
Dept of Public Utilities 188,328,490 362,313,149 420,480,027
FTE by Fiscal Year 427.00 435.00 452.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
E-85
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services: 45,645,184
O & M
7,735,360 Charges & Services
60,642,430
Interest & Bond Expense
23,185,287
Capital Expenditures
282,674,161
Transfers Out: 597,605
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
E-86
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
E-87
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT AND CORE VALUES
The mission of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) is to revitalize neighborhoods and
business districts to improve livability, spark economic growth, and foster authentic communities, serving
as a catalyst for strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities,
commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability.
We foster a set of core values that collectively support the revitalization of Salt Lake City’s communities:
ECONOMIC GROWTH // We act as a responsible steward of public funds, taking a long-term view of
investment, return, and property values.
COMMUNITY IMPACT // We prioritize projects and programs that demonstrate commitment to
improving equity and quality of life for residents and businesses in Salt Lake City.
NEIGHBORHOOD VIBRANCY // We cultivate distinct and livable built environments that are contextually
sensitive, resilient, connected, and sustainable.
DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW
Since 1969, the RDA has played a pivotal role in revitalizing many areas of Salt Lake City. Under the Utah
Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act, the RDA has the charge and financial tools to
address blight and disinvestment in specific parts of the City. By working with communities and
development partners, the RDA is transforming areas suffering from social, environmental, physical, or
economic challenges into neighborhoods and commercial districts that are characterized by a variety of
useful amenities, vital housing opportunities, successful local businesses, connected public spaces,
renewed infrastructure, and public art. As owner of the Gallivan Center, the RDA also works with the
adjacent property owners to oversee the maintenance and programming of the 3.5-acre downtown
plaza.
To accomplish its goals to enhance livability and trigger economic investment, the RDA utilizes a powerful
set of financial, planning, and revitalization tools to support redevelopment within communities
throughout the City. The RDA achieves its goals through direction from its RDA Board of Directors (the
same members as the Salt Lake City Council) and is administered by its Executive Director (Salt Lake City
Mayor). Together with the Gallivan Center, the RDA has a total of 32 positions led by the Director and
Deputy Director. The staff conducts the daily operations of the RDA as well as maintenance and
operations of the Gallivan Center.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
E-88
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
Danny Walz, Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals
FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 1,815,624 2,100,484 2,254,632
O & M 2,276,649 1,108,116 1,299,683
Charges & Services 21,881,937 31,782,155 30,100,552
Interest & Bond Expense 5,150,135 13,984,334 15,962,163
Capital Expenditures — 4,085,534 8,325,173
Total RDA 31,124,345 53,060,623 57,942,203
DIVISION BUDGETS
Administration 3,454,246 3,561,300 3,857,015
Block 70 6,016,523 10,953,363 10,939,263
CBD 17,125,075 25,366,500 27,923,150
City Wide Housing — 1,363,779 1,498,627
Depot 2,233,062 4,024,278 4,121,164
Granary 35,843 648,945 666,124
Housing Trust Fund — 2,590,000 2,590,000
No Temple 33,370 440,810 450,346
No Temple Viaduct 1,526,826 1,159,813 1,188,979
NWQ — — 1,500,000
NWQ Housing — — 250,000
Program Income Fund 636,245 1,905,835 1,742,535
Project Area Housing 16,478 44,000 394,000
Revolving Loan Fund — 852,000 550,000
Stadler Rail — — 71,000
WCH 20,996 100,000 150,000
WTG 25,681 50,000 50,000
Total RDA 31,124,345 53,060,623 57,942,203
FUNDING SOURCES
Redevelopment Agency Fund 46,304,564 53,060,623 57,942,203
Total RDA 46,304,564 53,060,623 57,942,203
FTE by Fiscal Year 19.00 19.00 19.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
E-89
FY 2022 DEPT BUDGET
Personal Services
2,254,632
O & M
1,299,683
Charges & Services
30,100,552
Interest & Bon…
15,962,163
Capital Expenditures
8,325,173
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
E-90
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
Organizational Structure
Fiscal Year 2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
E-91
Department of Sustainability Overview
Vision Statement
The Sustainability Department supports the vision of leading the way on resilience and environmental
stewardship.
Mission Statement
The Sustainability Department develops goals and strategies to protect our natural resources, reduce
pollution, slow climate change, and establish a path toward greater equity, resiliency, and empowerment
for the community.
Department Overview
The Department of Sustainability aims to develop goals and strategies to protect our natural resources,
reduce pollution, slow climate change, and establish a path toward greater resiliency and vitality for all
aspects of our community. The Department is organized in two separate divisions: The Waste & Recycling
Division and the Environment & Energy Division. The Waste & Recycling Division is responsible for
managing the City’s regular refuse and recycling collection services and is funded by refuse collection
fees. The Environment & Energy Division develops plans and policies to preserve and improve our built
and natural environments and provide residents information on Salt Lake City's sustainability issues. This
division is funded primarily by landfill dividends and recycling proceeds when available. The Department
currently operates with 63 full-time equivalent positions (FTE’s).
Department Performance Measurement
Measure 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Target 2022 Target
Increase percent of residential waste stream diverted from the landfill through recycling and composting
38.75%39.29%≥40%≥40%
50% renewable electricity generation for municipal operations by 2023 13.70% (est.)13.00% (est.)≥13%≥13%
100% renewable electricity generation for community by 2030 14% (est.)18% (est.)≥15%≥18%
Reduce community greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2040 4,805,478 (est.)4,498,525 (est.)4,620,000 4,620,000
SLCGreen Total social media followers (INSTAGRAM, Facebook, and Twitter) 15,954 17,624 18,250 19,250
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
E-92
Salt Lake City Department of Sustainability
Vicki Bennett, Director
FY 2019-20 Actuals FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget FY 2021-22 FTE
DEPARTMENT BUDGET
Personal Services 5,065,175 5,431,882 5,664,486
O & M 199,981 301,399 308,099
Charges & Services 7,370,791 8,198,393 9,062,484
Interest & Bond Expense 2,004,922 1,952,294 2,778,676
Capital Expenditures 1,067,312 357,569 6,625,859
Transfers Out 427,354 273,900 273,900
Total Department of Sustainability 16,135,535 16,515,437 24,713,504
DIVISION BUDGETS
Environment & Energy 1,890,077 1,300,967 2,140,946 7.00
Waste & Recycling 14,245,458 15,214,470 22,572,558 56.00
Total Department of Sustainability 16,135,535 16,515,437 24,713,504
FUNDING SOURCES
Refuse Fund 16,135,535 16,515,437 24,713,504 63.00
Total Department of Sustainability 16,135,535 16,515,437 24,713,504
FTE by Fiscal Year 63.00 63.00 63.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
E-93
FY 2022 Department Budget
Personal Services
5,664,486
O & M 308,099
Charges & Services
9,062,484
Interest & Bond Expense 2,778,676
Capital Expenditures
6,625,859
Transfers Out
273,900
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
E-94
Non-Departmental
FY 2019-20 Actuals FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget
Governmental Transactions
Salt Lake City Arts Council 648,600 612,500 612,500
Retirement Payouts 645,887 635,000 696,000
Carpet and Paint for Plaza 349 135,576 0 0
Contract with U of U for Demographic Project 25,000 50,000 50,000
Sorenson Center w/ County 645,119 1,014,800 1,014,800
Jordan River Membership 14,108 14,000 14,000
Washington DC Consultant 0 75,000 75,000
Tuition Aid Program 315,578 300,000 300,000
Municipal Elections 263,533 0 275,000
Animal Services Contract 1,753,024 1,866,295 1,910,487
Annual Financial Audit 1,200 0 0
Interest Expense 0 315,000 315,000
Bonding/Note Expense 0 35,000 35,000
Jazz Festival 33,214 0 0
Annual Financial Audit 140,000 0 0
Council - Dignitary Gifts Rece 5,000 0 0
Police Department Body Cameras 0 1,200,000 1,293,000
Governmental Transactions Total 4,625,838 6,117,595 6,590,787
Inter-Governmental Transfers
Ground Transportation GF Expense 50,000 0 0
Public Utilities - Land Swap Payment 400,000 0 200,000
Capital Improvements Project Fund 10,359,150 9,885,957 8,201,851
Transfer to Debt Service Fund 11,048,864 9,553,418 9,503,618
Fire SCBA 210,000 197,000 197,000
Transfer to LBA for Fire Station Debt Service 495,701 0 0
Fleet Replacement Fund 11,893,100 5,165,600 10,269,716
Transfer to RDA 15,835,339 13,501,935 14,096,642
Transfer to Golf 181,000 246,000 0
Golf (Living Wage and CCAC Salary Adjustment Transfer 0 0 370,100
Golf Fund ESCO FY 2020 445,078 0 0
Golf Fund ESCO FY 2021 0 460,585 0
Golf Fund ESCO FY 2022 0 0 484,000
Golf ESCO Bonding Savings 0 -34,601
Golf Admin Fee Transfer 0 306,582 315,779
Golf IMS Transfer 0 200,000 200,000
Golf Fund Balance Deficit Transfer (One-time)500,000 500,000 500,000
Golf Course CCAC (One-time)65,000 0
Transfer to Water Fund (HIVE Pass Through)0 61,000 61,000
Housing Sales Tax Plan (Transfer to the Housing Fund)3,300,000 5,640,000 2,590,000
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-95
Transfer to Governmental Immunity 2,767,963 2,767,963 2,767,963
IFAS Account IMS Transfer 780,069 780,069 780,069
10 Year Plan - Airport Trail Reimbursement Required by FAA Corrective Action Plan 103,887 103,887 103,887
General Fund Costs for Streetlighting 101,386 124,420 124,420
Hive Pass Pass-Through Expense 867,240 1,260,000 1,260,000
Transit Sales Tax Plan (Transfer to the Transit Fund)0 4,800,000 0
Community Investment Priorities 0 1,669,138 1,000,000
Inter-Governmental Transfers Total 59,403,777 57,188,953 53,026,045
Interfund Charges
Information Management Services Fund 11,011,486 10,616,798 13,990,678
Risk Management Premium 2,164,702 2,164,883 2,247,617
Centralized Fleet Management 6,303,319 6,534,603 6,757,203
Interfund Charges Total 19,479,507 19,316,284 22,995,498
Municipal Contributions & Civic Support
Legal Defenders 1,615,967 1,292,774 1,292,774
SL Area Chamber of Commerce 0 50,000 50,000
Sugar House Park Authority 197,407 218,891 224,795
Diversity Outreach 0 3,000 3,000
Utah League of Cities and Towns 182,879 160,684 160,684
National League of Cities and Towns 62,107 11,535 11,535
Tracy Aviary 634,922 674,922 674,922
Sister Cities 1,853 10,000 10,000
ACE Fund (Previously Signature Events)239,666 200,000 200,000
Dignitary Gifts/Receptions/Employee Appreciation 25,657 20,000 20,000
Housing Authority Transitional Housing 84,160 85,000 85,000
Regional Economic Development Funding 108,000 108,000 108,000
US Conference of Mayors 0 12,242 12,242
Local Business Marketing Program 56,932 40,000 40,000
Utah Legislative / Local Lobby - Moved to Mayor's Office in 2020 38,314 0 0
Music Licensing Fees 0 7,000 7,000
Legislative Support - Council 16,923 0 0
Utah Foundation 10,000 10,000 10,000
Rape Recovery Center 30,000 30,000 30,000
YWCA - FJC Wrap Around Services 45,000 45,000 45,000
Homeless Res Center Refund 76,892 0 0
United Nations Conference Support 100,000 0 0
The Inn Between 0 30,000 0
Boards & Commission Honoraria 0 0 26,000
Salt Lake City Foundation 0 0 3,000
World Trade Center Membership 0 0 50,000
Municipal Contributions & Civic Support Total 3,526,678 3,009,048 3,063,952
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-96
Police Department and Racial Equity in Policing Funding
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing 0 100,000 120,000
Police Training 0 322,800 205,400
Police Department Social Worker Funding 0 2,411,727 822,719
FOF Police Department Social Worker Funding 0 139,390 589,390
Police Department Racial Equity in Policing 0 2,800,000 0
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Staff 0 0 190,000
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Peer Court 0 0 20,000
Racial Equity in Policing Holding Account 0 0 1,970,000
Police Department and Racial Equity in Policing Funding Total 0 5,773,917 3,917,509
Sales Tax Option: Housing Plan
Transit Key Routes 4,149,723 0 4,500,000
On-Demand Ride Services 0 0 1,100,000
Transit Pass Analysis 20,033 0 0
Outreach New Routes 120,635 0 100,000
Bus Service Mobilization 0 0 1,101,319
Salary Negotiation Holding Account 0 0 1,613,986
Sales Tax Option: Housing Plan Total 4,290,391 0 8,415,305
General Fund Total 91,326,192 91,405,797 98,009,096
Special Revenue Fund Accounting
CDBG Operating Funds 3,534,116 3,509,164 5,341,332
Downtown SID / CBID & Other 1,145,345 1,550,000 1,550,000
Salt Lake City Donation Fund 2,231,409 2,380,172 2,752,565
E911 Fund 4,033,127 3,789,270 4,056,856
Housing Loans and Trust 9,739,089 23,248,016 16,121,000
Miscellaneous Grants 12,661,999 8,261,044 16,937,971
Other Special Revenue 331,086 0 273,797
Total Special Revenue Fund Accounting 33,676,171 42,737,666 47,033,521
Debt Service Funds
Debt Service Funds 114,881,731 37,519,401 30,850,423
Special Improvement District Funds 195,731 3,000 3,000
Total Debt Service Funds 115,077,461 37,522,401 30,853,423
Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Fund 20,351,740 25,093,221 26,257,457
Impact Fees 11,359,049 0 0
Capital Projects Maintenance Fund 2,519,503 0 0
Total Capital Projects Funds 34,230,292 25,093,221 26,257,457
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-97
Funding Sources FY 2019-20 Actuals FY 2020-21 Adopted Budget
FY 2021-22 Recommended Budget
General Fund 97,714,093 91,695,897 98,009,096
Special Improvement Districts Funds 195,731 3,000 3,000
Miscellaneous Special Service District Fund 1,145,345 1,550,000 1,550,000
Emergency 911 4,033,127 3,789,270 4,056,856
CDBG Operating Fund 3,534,116 3,509,164 5,341,332
Misc Grants Operating Funds 12,661,999 8,261,044 16,937,971
Salt Lake City Donation Fund 2,231,409 2,380,172 2,752,565
Other Special Revenue Funds 331,086 0 273,797
Housing Funds 9,739,089 23,248,016 16,121,000
Debt Service Funds 114,881,731 37,519,401 30,850,423
Capital Projects Fund 20,351,740 25,093,221 26,257,457
Impact Fees Fund 11,359,049 0 0
Capital Projects Maintenance Fund 2,519,503 0 0
Non Departmental Total 280,698,018 197,049,185 202,153,497
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-98
Non-Departmental
The Non-departmental portion of the budget provides a financial reporting and budgeting section to
account for all General Fund monies transferred to other funds, grants, and other special revenue funds.
It provides accounting for funds that do not programmatically belong to any particular City department. It
includes an accounting of the City’s debt service and capital improvement programs. It is also used to
monitor disbursements of monies for civic organizations that provide a service on behalf of Salt Lake City
but are not legal entities of the City.
Policy Issues
Debt Service on Bonds -49,800
The proposed budget recommends changes to debt service including a $105,199 reduction on debt service on bonds and a $55,399 increase in ESCO debt costs.
CIP Projects -1,684,106
The proposed budget recommends a decrease of $1,684,106 in CIP projects. For more detail please refer to the CIP section of the budget book.
Contract for Animal Services 44,192
The amount required by the County for Animal Services will increase based on contract requirements.
Municipal Elections (One-Time)275,000
The budget includes one-time funding to be used to contract with Salt Lake County to conduct municipal elections in 2021.
Retirement Payouts 61,000
The budget includes additional funding toward covering an anticipated increase in the cost of retirement payouts.
Council Identified - Underserved Neighborhoods & Communities of Color (Remove One-Time)-1,669,138
One-Time funding set aside to meet potential community needs is being removed from the budget.
Fair Park International Market from Underserved Neighborhoods Holding Account 1,000,000
Funding has been set aside to assist with the Fair Park International Market to assist in the revitalization of the North Temple area.
Fleet Replacement Fund 5,104,116
Increased funding is being recommended for fleet replacement. This will an approximately $160,000 general fund increase to be used for Fire emergency vehicles. Funding Our Future sales tax option funds will be used for two vehicles for Engineering, and approximately $5,000,000 Streets equipment, Fire apparatus replacement, and concrete maintenance equipment.
Centralized Fleet Maintenance 315,600
The budget includes an increase in funding for the Fleet Divisions centralized fleet maintenance fund.
Golf Fund Transfer 191,313
An increase in funding for Golf is being recommended. This increase includes a slight adjustment to the ESCO payment transfer, living wage and CCAC salary adjustments, and an increase to the Golf admin fee transfer.
Information Management Services Fund Transfer 3,373,880
Funding is proposed to meet technology needs in the City. The funding will provide for the new City Employee Resource Planning (ERP) software as well as new support staff and increases in contractual and other supply costs.
Risk Management Fund Transfer 82,734
The budget includes an increase in the amount transferred to the Risk Management Fund.
Public Utilities Land Swap 200,000
The Public Utilities land swap payment was postponed during FY 2021. The budget reestablished the payment per the agreement the City entered into with Salt Lake County.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-99
Redevelopment Agency Fund Transfer 594,707
The amount of tax revenue attributed to the RDA is anticipated to increase over what was budgeted for FY 2021. Based on the estimates, the budget adjusts the base amount to be transferred from the General Fund to the RDA Fund. The costs are offset directly by revenue.
Boards and Commissions Honoraria 26,000
Funding is proposed to provide a stipend for those serving on Salt Lake City's boards and commissions.
Salary Contingency 1,613,986
Funding has been set aside to cover future anticipated salary items.
Salt Lake City Foundation 3,000
Funding is being recommended for overhead expenses for the Salt Lake City Foundation.
Sugar House Park Authority 5,904
The budget includes funding for inflationary increases for the Sugar House Park Authority.
World Trade Center Membership 50,000
Funding is being included for World Trade Center membership fees.
Police Officer Training -117,400
Police Department training funds were transferred to Non-Departmental in FY 2021 to allow the newly created Commission on Racial Equity in Policing an opportunity to review police training. A portion of this was one-time funding that is now being reduced.
Social Worker Program - Correcting Accounting Error -1,589,008
In the FY2021 budget funding for the Police Department Social Worker program was transferred to Non-Departmental. The transfer was doubled in error. The error was fixed in BA#7 in FY2021 and needs to be changed in the annual budget.
Sales Tax Option: Increased Funding for Mental Health Responders 450,000
This funding is recommended to increase the co-responder model that allow police officers and social workers to work together in responding to cases.
Racial Equity in Policing - Moved to Police Department -2,800,000
Funding moved from the Police department associated with the City's Racial Equity in Policing efforts is now being moved back from Non-Departmental to the Police department budget.
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing 20,000
Funding is proposed to provide an annual honoraria for those serving on the Racial Equity in Policing and for additional administrative costs of the commission.
Racial Equity in Policing Senior Staff Position 190,000
The REP Commission Senior Staff position will provide assistance to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. The position will help facilitate the goals of the commission. The position will be housed in the Mayor's Office, but finding will be in Non Departmental.
Racial Equity in Policing Peer Court Support 20,000
Funding is being recommended to help support the non-profit Peer Court that is addressing juvenile judiciary needs in the City.
Racial Equity in Policing Holding Account 1,970,000
In the FY2021 budget $2.8 million was set aside for recommendations from the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. The remaining funding is proposed to be held in a holding account to address additional recommendations from the commission.Sales Tax Option: Housing Plans - Moves and Reductions -3,050,000
Housing initiatives previously transferred to the Housing Trust Fund will be transferred to Community and Neighborhoods to ensure transparency and consistency with funding our future dollars.
Sales Tax Option: Transit Plan - Key Routes -200,000
The amount previously funded for bus service operational costs was determined to be too high. The service will continue uninterrupted with this reduction in funding.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-100
Sales Tax Option: Transit Plan - On-Demand Ride Services (Smaller Service Area)1,100,000
Funding for this pilot will provide on-demand service throughout the residential West Side giving residents corner-to-corner shared rides between home, neighborhood destinations, and fixed route transit stops. The service will be provided in partnership with UTA, and will be similar to UTA on Demand by Via service currently being piloted in southern Salt Lake County. The pilot could include electric vehicles in the fleet. Such a service would better serve West Side residents while also allowing for improvements in fixed route service, especially the planned 600 North / 500 East route.
Sales Tax Option: Transit Plan - Bus Service Mobilization for 1000 North Bus Route 1,101,319
The budget includes funding for the startup costs for bus service along 1000 North / South Temple planned to launch in Aug. 2022, including UTA recruitment of operators and mechanics, hiring, training, route planning and testing; initial vehicle lease payments during training and testing.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-101
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 NON-DEPARTMENTAL
E-102
This page intentionally left blank
STAFFING DOCUMENT
This section reflects the official staffing document for FY 2021-22. The staffing document inventories
individual positions and pay grade classifications within each division. It includes the total number of
authorized positions and job classifications for each department by division and fund. The total number
of all positions in the City is tallied on the initial summary page.
Any change made to the City staffing document that increased costs but did not increase the number of
positions was presented to the City Council for review. Any change in the total number of positions
requires the approval of the City Council.
The total numbers of positions are presented for the last two fiscal years (2019-20 and 2020-21), as well
as the staffing level for FY 2021-22. Changes from the previous fiscal year’s budget are noted and
explained in the column entitled Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY 2021-22.
Changes are noted as follows:
RECLASSIFICATIONS
•If a reclassification resulted in a pay grade change only, the notation would be, for example, Changed
to _________/from 29
•If a reclassification resulted in a change of title only, the notation would be, for example, Changed to
_________/from Personnel Director.
•If a reclassification resulted in a change of grade and title, the notation would be, for example,
Changed to_________/from Personnel Director (29)
REORGANIZATIONS
•If a position or part of a position has been transferred to a different part of the organization the
notation would be, for example, Transferred to_________/from Employee Services.
•If a percentage of the position were transferred, the notation would be, for example, .25 Transferred
to _________/from Employee Services.
•If a position or percentage of a position were transferred to another department, the notation would
be, for example, Transferred to Department of_________, Division of_________/from Employee Services.
•There will be offsetting notations in the receiving area of the organization to explain from where the
position or percentage of the position was transferred.
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-1
NEW POSITIONS
•A position which has been added to the official staffing document in Fiscal Year 2021-22 is noted as
New Position.
ELIMINATED POSITIONS
•A position which has been removed from the official staffing document for the FY 2021-22 is noted as
Position eliminated.
POSITION HELD VACANT
•A position which is being held vacant in the official staffing document for the fiscal year 2021-22 is
noted as Position held vacant.
POSITION TITLE ABBREVIATIONS
•H indicates an hourly position
•PT indicates a part-time position
•S indicates a seasonal position
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-2
STAFFING DOCUMENT SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEARS 2019-20 THROUGH 2021-22
Budget Budget Budget FY 21-22
DEPARTMENT 2019-20 2020-21 2021-2022 Variance
GENERAL FUND
Attorney's Office 50.25 50.25 57.25 7.00
City Council 35.00 35.00 35.00 0.00
911 Communications Bureau 100.00 100.00 108.00 8.00
Community and Neighborhood 204.00 204.00 172.00 (32.00)
Economic Development 16.00 18.00 18.00 —
Department of Finance 69.70 69.70 71.70 2.00
Fire 366.00 366.00 374.00 8.00
Human Resources 22.05 21.20 26.05 4.85
Justice Courts 44.00 42.00 42.00 —
Mayor's Office 24.00 26.00 30.00 4.00
Police 711.00 711.00 714.00 3.00
Public Lands ——118.35 118.35
Public Services 341.35 329.35 249.00 (80.35)
Non-Departmental 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 1983.35 1972.50 2015.35 42.85
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Airport 563.80 610.80 610.80 0.00
Golf 34.65 34.65 33.65 (1.00)
Public Utilities 427.00 435.00 452.00 17.00
Sustainability 63.00 63.00 63.00 0.00
ENTERPRISE FUND TOTAL 1088.45 1143.45 1159.45 16.00
INTERNAL SERVICE AND OTHER FUNDS
Information Mgmt Svcs 71.00 69.00 84.00 15.00
Fleet Management 45.00 45.00 45.00 0.00
Government Immunity 8.50 8.50 9.00 0.50
Risk Management 6.25 6.10 7.45 1.35
Transportation Fund 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
INTERNAL SERVICE & OTHER FUND TOTAL 133.75 131.60 148.45 16.85
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 19.00 32.00 32.00 0.00
TOTAL POSITIONS 3224.55 3279.55 3355.25 75.70
TOTAL GRANT FUNDED POSITIONS 0.00 1.00 27.00 26.00
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-3
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City Council
Council Person xxx 7.00 7.00 7.00
Executive Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director-City Council 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Advisor City Council 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Associate Deputy Director -Council 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Public Policy Analyst 33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Operations Mgr/Mentor 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Community Facilitator
Community Facilitator 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Operations Mgr/Mentor
Public Policy Analyst II 31 3.00 3.00 3.00
Council Office Communication Director 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Analyst 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Analyst/Public Engagement 28 3.00 2.00 2.00
Public Engage/Comm Specialist II 28 0.00 1.00 1.00
Constituent Liaison/Public Policy Analyst 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Public Engagement & Comm Special 26 0.00 2.00 2.00
Constituent Liaison 26 3.00 2.00 2.00
Assistant to Council Executive Director 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Council Admin Asst 24 5.00 5.00 5.00
RPT Council Staff Asst 26 2.00 1.00 1.00
CITY COUNCIL TOTAL 35.00 35.00 35.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
City Administration
Mayor xxx 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chief of Staff 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Chief Administrative Officer 41 0.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief of Staff 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Advisor 39 4.00 3.00 3.00
Communications Director 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications Deputy Director 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy Advisor 29 1.00 2.00 2.00
REP Commission Senior Staff Position 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Associate Director of Community Empowerment 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Liaison 26 3.00 5.00 5.00
ADA & Equity Program Coordinators 26 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from Community & Neighborhood Dept.
Consumer Protection Analyst 16 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Finance Dept.
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-4
Executive Assistant 24 4.00 5.00 5.00
Office Manager Mayor's Office 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Community Outreach Sp & E Coord 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Census Coordinator (23)
Census Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Community Outreach Sp & E Coord (24)
Communication & Content Mgr 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant 19 2.00 2.00 2.00
Front Office Clerk 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
City Administration Total 24.00 26.00 30.00
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR TOTAL 24.00 26.00 30.00
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU
911 Dispatch Director 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 Dispatch Deputy Director 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 Dispatch Operations Mgr 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
911 Dispatch Supervisor 24 10.00 10.00 10.00
911 Dispatch Dispatcher I-III 14-18 82.00 82.00 90.00 8 New Positions
911 Dispatch Dispatcher I-III Unfunded 14-18 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU TOTAL 100.00 100.00 108.00
DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Office of the Executive Director
Executive Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
ORAT Director 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant -Appointed 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Coordinator 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 1.00 1.00
Executive Director's Office Total 5.00 6.00 6.00
Public Relations Division
Director Airport Public Relations & Marketing 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Air Service Development Manager 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior Manager Air Services Development
Senior Manager Air Services Development 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Air Service Development Manager
Airport Communication Manager 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Community Outreach Manager
Airport Community Outreach Manager 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Communication Manager
Airport Communication Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Public Relations Manager
Airport Public Relations Manager 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Communication Coordinator
Public Relations Total 4.00 4.00 4.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-5
Planning and Environmental Division
Director of Airport Plan/Cap Program 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Environmental Program Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Senior Planner 30 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 changed from Airport Principal Planner
Airport Principal Planner 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Senior Planner
Airport Senior Environmental Sustainability Coordinator 31 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Environmental Sustainability Coordinator
Airport Environmental Sustainability Coord 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Airport Environmental Sustainability Coordinator
Airport Planning Programs Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Associate Planner
Associate Planner 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Planning Programs Coordinator
Environmental Specialist II 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Environmental Specialist I
Environmental Specialist I 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Environmental Specialist II
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning & Environmental Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Finance and Accounting Division
Director of Finance and Accounting 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Controller 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Finance Manager 37 2.00 1.00 1.00
Construction Finance Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst III 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Auditor III 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Auditor II 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Accountant I
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant III 27 5.00 5.00 5.00
Accountant II 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Airport Procurement Specialist 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant I 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Auditor II
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 2.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 14 2.00 0.00 0.00
Part-Time/Accounting Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50
Finance and Accounting Total 22.50 16.50 16.50
Maintenance Division
Director of Maintenance 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Maintenance Director 36 0.00 0.00 4.00 3 changed from Airport Maintenance Superintendent, 1 changed from Technical Systems Program Mgr
Airport Maintenance Operations Superintendent 34 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Maintenance Director
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-6
Airport Fleet Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Maintenance Superintendent 32 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Maintenance Director
Aviation Services Manager 31 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 changed from Facilities Maintenance Contract Coordinator
Airport Maintenance Ops Support Mgr 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Facilities Assets Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Maintenance Manager 31 3.00 3.00 3.00
Facilities Maint Warranty/Commission Mgr 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical Systems Program Mgr 29 2.00 3.00 2.00 1 changed to Assistant Maintenance Director
Tech Systems Analyst IV 28 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Maintenance Electrician I (Apprentice)
Computer Maint Mgmt Systems Administrator 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Computer Maint Systems Supervisor
Computer Maint Systems Supervisor 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Computer Maint Mgmt Systems Administrator
Airport Fleet/Warehouse Operations Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Contract Administrator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Facility Maint Supervisor 27 2.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Airport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Plant Coordinator Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Maintenance Supervisor
Aviation Srvs Tech Sys Adm 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Civil Maint Warranty 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Manager 26 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Facility Maintenance Coordinator
HVAC Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Services Supervisor 25 4.00 4.00 4.00
Facility Maint Supervisor 25 21.00 21.00 13.00 8 changed to Airport Maintenance Supervisor
Airport Signs Graphic Design Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Coordinator 25 21.00 21.00 25.00 2 changed from Facility Maintenance Manager, 2 from Facilities Contract Compliance Specialist
Airport Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 10.00 8 FTE's changed from Facility Maint Supervisor, 1 from Plant Coordinator Supervisor
Electronic Security Technician 24 14.00 14.00 12.00 2 changed to Airfield Maintenance Electrician
Management Analyst 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Grounds/Pavement Super 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Contract Coordinator 22 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Aviation Services Manager
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-7
Facility Support Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 4.00 2 changed from Painter II, 2 changed from General Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 20.00 22.00 3.00 19 changed to Airfield Maintenance Electrician
Airfield Maintenance Electrician 25 0.00 0.00 21.00 19 changed from Maintenance Electrician IV, 2 changed from Electronic Security Technician
Airfield Electrical Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 4.00 3 changed from Carpenter II, 1 moved from Operations - Paging Operator
HVAC Tech II 21 8.00 8.00 8.00
Airport Lead Sign Technician 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Fleet Mechanic 21 4.00 6.00 5.00 1changed to Fleet Mechanic II
Plumber II 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Budget & Special Projects
Airport Procurement Specialist 21 0.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Warehouse Operator
Airport Budget & Special Projects Coordinator 20 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Plumber II
Airport Maintenance Mechanic II 20 6.00 0.00 0.00
Airfield Maint. Equip. Operator IV 20 23.00 23.00 23.00
Airport Lighting & Sign Technician 20 3.00 5.00 5.00
Carpenter II 20 7.00 9.00 6.00 3 changed to Airfield Electrical Supervisor
General Maintenance Worker 20 2.00 8.00 6.00 2 changed to Facility Support Coordinator
Fleet Body Repair and Painter 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mechanic I/II 20 19.00 19.00 20.00 1 changed Senior Fleet Mechanic
Painter II 20 5.00 7.00 5.00 2 changed to Facility Support Coordinator
Office Facilitator I/II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities Contract Compliance Specialist 19 0.00 8.00 6.00 2 changed to Facility Maintenance Coordinator
Facility Maint. Contract Repair Senior Repair Technician 19 2.00 0.00 0.00
Facility Maint Contract Repair Tech II 19 3.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Florist 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airfield Maint. Equipment Oper III 18 61.00 66.00 66.00
Maintenance Electrician I (Apprentice)17 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Tech Systems Analyst IV
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 2.00 4.00 1 changed from Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport & 1 changed from Airport Procurement Specialist
Warehouse Sup Worker-Airport 14 0.00 2.00 1.00 1 changed to Senior Warehouse Operator
Fleet Services Worker 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Intern 0.50 0.50 0.50
Maintenance Division Total 266.50 293.50 294.50
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-8
Engineering Division
Director - Airport Engineering 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer VII 36 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Architect 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Engineer Project Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Senior Architectural Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer VI 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Senior Architect 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Geographic Information System Mgr 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer V 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Surveyor 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Construction Manager 27 3.00 3.00 3.00
Engineering Tech VI 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Engineering Tech V 24 3.00 3.00 3.00
Architectural Associate IV 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Construction Project Coordinator 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator III 22 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Field Technician 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Records Program Specialist 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Division Total 31.00 31.00 31.00
Operations Division
Chief Operating Officer 39 0.00 1.00 1.00
Director of Airport Operations 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Operations Director 38 0.00 0.00 3.00 3 changed from Airport Operations - Superintendent
Airport Operations Superintendent - Security Comm 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Operations Director
Airport Operations Superintendent - Landside 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Operations Director
Airport Operations Superintendent - Terminals 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Assistant Operations Director
Airport Operations Manager - Ground Transportation 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager / Parking 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Airfield 29 16.00 16.00 14.00 1 changed to Airport Operations Manager - Terminals, 1 changed to Airport Operations Manager - Customer Service
Airport Operations Manager Airfield/FBO 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Terminals 29 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Airport Operations Manager - Airfield
Airport Operations Manager -Safety 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-9
Airport Operations Manager - Security 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager / Communications 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Manager - Customer Service 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Operations Manager - Airfield
Airport Customer Service Supervisor 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Operations Supervisor - Airfield
Airport Training Coordinator 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Safety Program Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 3.00 1 changed from Airport Landside Operations Supervisor, 1 changed from Airport Operations Specialist - Airfield
Airport Operations Supervisor - Airfield 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Customer Service Supervisor
Airport Landside Operations Supervisor 25 13.00 13.00 12.00 Changed to Safety Program Coordinator
Airport Operations Duty Agent Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Supervisor / Access Control 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Access Control Coordinator 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Landside Operations Officer
Management Analyst 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior Secretary
Airport Operations Supervisor / Communications 24 5.00 5.00 5.00
Airport Operations Training Supervisor Communications 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engagement Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Specialists - Airfield 23 22.00 22.00 21.00 Changed to Safety Program Coordinator
Airport Operations Specialists - Terminal 23 25.00 25.00 25.00
Airport Operations Customer Service Representative 23 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Senior Secretary
Airport Operations Agent - FBO 23 6.00 6.00 6.00
Airport Operations Duty Agent 23 0.00 14.00 14.00
Employment Services Coordinator 21 1.00 2.00 1.00 Changed to Airport Operations Coordinator
Airport Commercial Vehicle Ins 18 3.00 3.00 3.00
Airport Landside Operations Officer 18 37.00 37.00 36.00 Changed to Airport Operations Access Control Coord
Air Operations Security Spec 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
Airport Operations Lead Coordinator 17 4.00 4.00 4.00
Airport Operations Coordinator 16 0.00 0.00 14.00 8 changed from Airport Operations Coord II, 5 changed from Airport Operations Coord I, 1 changed from Employment Services Coordinator
Airport Operations Coord II 16 8.00 8.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Operations Coordinator
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-10
Senior Secretary 15 3.00 3.00 0.00 Changed to Office Facilitator II, Airport Operations Customer Service Rep, Part-Time Operations Intern
Access Control Specialist 15 5.00 7.00 7.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Operations Coord I 14 5.00 5.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Operations Coordinator
Paging Operator 10 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Maintenance - Airfield Electrical Sup
Part-Time Operations Technician 1.50 1.50 2.50 Changed from Senior Secretary
Part-Time Operations Intern 1.00 1.00 1.00
Regular Part-Time/Paging Operator 10 0.30 0.30 0.30
Operations Division Total 176.80 197.80 196.80
Commercial Services Division
Director Administration and Commercial Services 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Commercial Manager Airport 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts & Procurement Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Property & Real Estate Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Development Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Tenant Relations Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Property Specialist II 27 1.00 1.00 3.00 1 changed from Airport Property Specialist I, 1 changed from Contracts Specialist II
Airport Contract Specialist I 27 1.00 2.00 2.00
Commercial Program Specialist 27 0.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Contracts Specialist II 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Property Specialist II
Airport Risk Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Risk Management Coordinator
Airport Risk Management Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Risk Manager
Airport Property Specialist I 24 2.00 2.00 1.00 Changed to Airport Property Specialist II
Admin Assistant / GRAMA Coord 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Secretary II 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Administrative Secretary
Administrative Secretary 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Administrative Secretary II
Commercial Services Division Total 14.00 16.00 16.00
Information Technology Services Division
Airport Information Management Services Director 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Information Technology Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Airport Special Systems Manager 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Airport Tech Systems Superintendent
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-11
Airport Tech Systems Superintendent 36 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Airport Special Systems Manager
Software Engineer III 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Engineering Team Manager 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Network System Engineer II
Network System Engineer III 33 1.00 1.00 3.00 2 changed from Network System Engineer II
Network System Engineer II 31 4.00 4.00 1.00 2 changed to Network System Engineer III, 1 FTE changed to Network Engineering Team Manager
Software Support Admin II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical System Program Manager 29 3.00 3.00 3.00
Network Support Team Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Support Administrator III 27 8.00 8.00 7.00 Changed to Network Support Administrator II
Technical Systems Analyst IV 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical Systems Analyst III 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Technical Systems Analyst II
Network Support Administrator II 25 8.00 9.00 10.00 Changed from Network Support Administrator III
Technical Systems Analyst II 24 1.00 2.00 3.00 Changed from Technical Systems Analyst III
Network Support Administrator I 23 2.00 2.00 2.00
Information Technology Services Division Total 35.00 37.00 37.00
SLC DEPT OF AIRPORTS TOTAL 563.80 610.80 610.80
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Office of City Attorney
City Attorney 42 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of City Attorney Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
Legal Support
General Fund
Deputy City Attorney 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Division Chief Senior City Attorney 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 changed from Senior City Attorney
Senior City Attorney 39 9.50 9.50 8.50 1 New Position BA#5, 2 changed to Division Chief Senior City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney 34 0.50 0.50 0.50
First Assistant City Prosecutor 34 2.00 2.00 2.00
Assistant City Prosecutor 29 3.00 3.00 3.00 1 changed from Associate City Prosecutor
Associate City Prosecutor 26 9.00 9.00 12.00 3 New Positions; 1 changed to Assistant City Prosecutor
Paralegal 21 4.50 4.50 4.50
Prosecutor Law Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-12
Legal Secretary III 18 1.00 1.00 3.00 New Position BA#5, 1 changed from Government Immunity
Senior Prosecutor Assistant 17 3.00 3.00 6.00 3 changed from Prosecutor Assistant
Prosecutor Assistant 16 7.00 7.00 4.00 3 changed to Senior Prosecutor Assistant
Legal Support Total 41.50 41.50 47.50
City Recorder
City Recorder 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Asst City Recorder Operations 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 changed to Minutes and Records Clerk
Asst City Recorder Records Spec 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 changed to Minutes and Records Clerk
Minutes and Records Clerk 19 0.00 0.00 2.00 1 changed from Asst City Recorder Operations; 1 changed from Asst City Recorder Records Spec.
Deputy Recorder 26 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 New Position BA#5, changed from grade 19 to 26
Senior Records Technician 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 changed to Associate Records Technician
Associate Records Technician 18 1.00 1 changed from Senior Records TechnicianRPT/Records Clerk 0 0.75 0.75 0.75
City Recorder Total 6.75 6.75 7.75
Risk Management Fund
Risk Manager 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Risk Management Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 0.00 0.00 0.50 New Position
Subtotal of Risk Mgmt Fund 2.00 2.00 2.50
Governmental Immunity Fund
Division Chief Senior City Attorney 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Senior City Attorney
Senior City Attorney 39 3.50 3.50 3.50 1 New Position BA#5, 1 changed to Division Chief
Assistant City Attorney 34 0.50 0.50 0.50
Claims Adjuster 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Legal Secretary III 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 moved to general fund
Claims Specialist 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Paralegal 21 2.50 2.50 2.50
Office Facilitator I 18 0.00 0.00 0.50 New Position
Subtotal of Gov Imm Fund 8.50 8.50 9.00
CITY ATTORNEY TOTAL 60.75 60.75 68.75
General Fund 50.25 50.25 57.25
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-13
Risk Management Fund 2.00 2.00 2.50
Governmental Immunity Fund 8.50 8.50 9.00
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
CAN Admin Office of the Director
CAN Admin Office of the Director
CAN Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
CAN Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 New Position
CAN Financial & Administrative Services Dir 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
CARES Policy and Program Manager 32 1.00 2.00 1.00 1 Transferred to Engineering
Civic Engagement Mngr, Spec, Asst 21-31 0.00 4.00 0.00 4 Transferred to IMS Innovations Team
Civic Engagement Innovations Manager 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
CARES Real Property Mngr, Agent, Spec 21-31 1.00 4.00 4.00
CIP Manager, Specialist 25-31 0.00 2.00 2.00
CARES Capital Asset Division Manager 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
Civic Engagement Manager 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
CARES Real Property Agent 26 2.00 0.00 0.00
ADA & Equity Program Coordinators 26 0.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to the Mayor's Office
ADA Community Liaison 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Cares Capital Improv Program Specialist 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 2.00 0.00 0.00
Small Business Loan Officer 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Assistant 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
CARES Office Facilitator 18-19 1.00 0.00 0.00
CAN Admin Office of Director Total 18.00 18.00 12.00
Building Services
Building Official 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Building Serv & Licensing Manager 32 3.00 3.00 3.00
Development Review Spvr, Sr, Planner I-III 25-30 0.00 8.00 1.00 7 Transferred to Planning
Development Review Supervisor 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Economic Dev Business Coord 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Plans Examiner Sr, Chief, I-III 25-29 0.00 10.00 10.00
Building Inspector Sr, I-III 19-29 0.00 22.00 22.00
Civil Enforcement Spvr, Insp, Officer I-III 17-29 0.00 9.00 9.00
Housing/Zoning Specialist 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Building Inspector 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Plans Examiner 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Plans Examiner 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Housing/Zoning Inspector 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-14
Sr. Development Review Planner 27 2.00 0.00 0.00
Housing/Zoning Legal Investigator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Building Inspector I-III 19-27 21.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Protection Engineer 29 2.00 1.00 1.00
Development Review Planner I- II 25 4.00 0.00 0.00
Plans Examiner I-II 25 6.00 0.00 0.00
Review Processor Supervisor 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 2.00 0.00 0.00
Civil Enforcement Officer I- II 17-19 8.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Permit Processor I-II 14-16 4.00 5.00 5.00
Office Facilitator I-III, Sr Secretary 15-19 0.00 5.00 5.00
Senior Secretary 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Technician II 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Building Services Total 66.00 66.00 59.00
Engineering
City Engineer 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
Deputy City Engineer 36 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
Engineer II-VII 27-36 13.00 12.00 0.00 12 Transferred to PS
Architect City, Sr, Mngr, III 29-36 0.00 4.00 0.00 4 Transferred to PS
GIS Mngr, Coord, Anaylst, Spec 24-33 0.00 7.00 0.00 2 Transferred to IMS, 5 Transferred to PS
Survey City, Prof Land 26-30 0.00 3.00 0.00 3 Transferred to PS
City Architect 36 1.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Manager 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Architect 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Systems Coordinator 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
City Surveyor 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Landscape Architect III 29 2.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to Y&F
Engineering Const Program Project Manager 29 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Transferred to PS
Pub Way Concrete/Pave Manager 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Technician IV-VI 23-27 8.00 9.00 0.00 9 Transferred to PS
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 2.00 0.00 0.00
Professional Land Surveyor/GIS Specialist 26 2.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Support Services Manager 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
GIS Specialist 24 2.00 0.00 0.00
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
GIS Tech II 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to PS
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-15
Eng Info and Records Spec 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 1 Transferred to PS
Engineering Total 46.00 46.00 0.00
Housing & Neighborhood Development
Director, HAND 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director HAND 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
HAND Policy and Prog Manager, Spec 26-32 0.00 5.00 5.00
Housing Program Manager 29 2.00 0.00 0.00
Homeless Manager, Coord 26-29 0.00 2.00 2.00
Homeless Manager 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
HAND Project Policy 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant III 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Principal Planner 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Manager Housing 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Homeless Strategies & Outreach 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Dev Programs Specialist 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Dev Grant Admin 26 2.00 3.00 3.00
CD Programs & Grant Specialist 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Rehab Spec, Officer I-II 22-25 0.00 5.00 5.00
Housing Rehab Specialist 25 2.00 0.00 0.00
Housing & Rehab Loan Officer 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Rehab Specialist I-II 22-23 2.00 0.00 0.00
Housing Loan Administrator 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 New Position
Housing & Neighborhood Dev Total 21.00 21.00 22.00
Planning
Planning Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Planning Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Manager 33 3.00 3.00 3.00
Planning Programs Supervisor 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Development Review Spvr, Sr, Planner I-III 25-30 0.00 0.00 7.00 7 Transferred from Building Services
Planner Senior, Principal, Assoc 24-28 0.00 21.00 21.00
Senior Planner 28 8.00 0.00 0.00
Urban Designer 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Principal Planner 27 10.00 0.00 0.00
Associate Planner 24 2.00 0.00 0.00
Administrative Secretary 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Graphic Design Tech 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Planning Total 30.00 30.00 37.00
Transportation
Director of Transportation Planning 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-16
Deputy Director of Transportation 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer II-VII 36 6.00 7.00 7.00
Transportation Program Manager 33 3.00 2.00 2.00
Transit Program Planner I-III 25.28 6.00 7.00 7.00
Traffic Control Center Super, Oper I-II 23-26 0.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Control Center Super 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Special Projects Analyst 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Tech I-II 23 4.00 4.00 4.00
Traffic Control Center Oper I-II 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Traffic Control Center I 21 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II, Tech 15-19 1.00 2.00 2.00
Office Technician I 12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Transportation Total 26.00 26.00 26.00
Youth & Family Division
Youth & Family Div Director 35 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Associate Director Youth City 29 0.00 0.00 2.00 2 Transferred from PS
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Engineering
Senior Community Programs Manager 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 7.00 7 Transferred from PS
Events Coordinator Sorenson 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from PS
Program Assistant 14 0.00 0.00 4.00 4 Transferred from PS
Youth City Coordinator 10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Youth & Family Total 0.00 0.00 19.00
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD TOTAL 207.00 207.00 175.00
General Fund 204.00 204.00 172.00
1/4 Cent Transportation Fund 3.00 3.00 3.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development
Economic Development Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technology & Innovation Strategic Ind Advisor 34 0.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 29 to 34
Director of Business Development 32 0.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from from 29 to 32.
Economic Development Manager 29 5.00 4.00 4.00
ED Project Coordinator 25 2.00 3.00 3.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Economic Development Total 10.00 12.00 12.00
Arts Council
Arts Council Executive Director 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-17
Arts Council Assistant Director 29 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from 27 to 29
Arts Council Program Coordinator 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Public Art Program Manager 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Arts Council Total 6.00 6.00 6.00
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 16.00 18.00 18.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Redevelopment Agency
Chief Operating Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief Operating Officer 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Project Manager 33 2.00 2.00 2.00
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
Project Manager 29 7.00 7.00 7.00
Communications Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
Communications Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 0.00
Property Administrator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Manager 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant II 21 1.00 1.00 0.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II Non-Union 19 0.00 0.00 2.00
Office Facilitator I 18 2.00 2.00 0.00
Redevelopment Agency Total 19.00 19.00 19.00
Gallivan Plaza
Custodian II 11 0.00 1.00 1.00
Office Technician I 12 0.00 1.00 1.00
General Maintenance Worker II 16 0.00 5.00 5.00
Office Facilitator II Non-Union 19 0.00 1.00 1.00
Plaza Marketing/Activities Supr 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Gallivan Event Adv/Mktg Manager 25 0.00 2.00 2.00
Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 0.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 0.00 1.00
Plaza & Comm Events Div Director 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Redevelopment Agency Total 0.00 13.00 13.00
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TOTAL 19 32 32
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Office of the Fire Chief
Fire Chief 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Chief 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Fire Chief 35 2.00 2.00 2.00
Administrative Secretary II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-18
Financial & Admin Svs Manager 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant I-III 18-27 0.00 2.00 3.00 1 New Position
Office of the Fire Chief Total 5.00 8.00 9.00
Community Relations
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Recruiting/Outreach Specialist 20 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Public Education Specialist 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Relations Total 6.00 0.00 0.00
Finance
Financial & Admin Svs Manager 32 1.00 0.00 0.00
Accountant I-III 18-27 2.00 0.00 0.00
Finance Total 3.00 0.00 0.00
Logistics
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-28 3.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Support Services Total 7.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Division
Director Emergency Communications 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Public Safety Technology Systems Coordinator 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Communication Tech 20 1.00 0.00 0.00
Communications Division Total 3.00 0.00 0.00
Training
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 3.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Training Total 7.00 0.00 0.00
Operations
Battalion Chief 33 6.00 6.00 6.00
Captain 30 52.00 65.00 65.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 197.00 222.00 222.00
Fire Fighter Unfunded 22-27 10.00 10.00 10.00
Operations Total 265.00 303.00 303.00
Airport Operations
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 10.00 0.00 0.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-19
Fire Fighter 22-27 30.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Total 41.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Medical
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 2.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 8.00 0.00 0.00
Community Health Care Paramedic 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Medical Total 13.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Prevention
Battalion Chief 33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Captain 30 3.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 7.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Prevention Specialist 17 3.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 2.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Prevention Totals 16.00 0.00 0.00
Fire Administrative Services
Battalion Chief 33 0.00 6.00 7.00 1 Transferred from Police & Reclassified from Emergency Management Program Director
Captain 30 0.00 12.00 14.00 2 New Positions
Recruiting/Outreach Specialist 20 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Fighter 22-27 0.00 21.00 21.00
Community Health Care Paramedic 24 0.00 2.00 2.00
Public Education Specialist 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Logistics Coordinator 19 0.00 2.00 2.00
Director Emergency Communications 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Public Safety Technology Systems Coordinator 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Communication Tech 20 0.00 1.00 1.00
Emergency Mgt Multi-Language Media Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Emergency Mgt Training Program Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Community Preparedness Coordinator 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Emergency Mgt Critical Infrastructure Liaison 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 3.00 3.00
Fire Prevention Specialist 17 0.00 3.00 3.00
Office Technician I 12 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fire Administrative Services Total 0.00 55.00 62.00
FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 366.00 366.00 374.00
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Accounting Total
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-20
Chief Financial Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Business Sys Analyst Team Lead 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Controller 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Sys Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Systems Admin 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Payroll & Accounting Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
City Payroll Administrator 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Grants Acq/Project Coordinator 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sr Payroll Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Payroll Kronos Specialist 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
City A/P Coordinator 20 2.00 2.00 2.00
Accounting Total 14.00 14.00 16.00
Financial Reporting/Budget
Deputy Controller 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 2.00 2.00
Financial Analyst IV (RDA)32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant IV 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Staffing/Position Control Specialist 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Property Control Agent 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Reporting/Budget 6.00 6.00 6.00
Internal Audit & Financial Analysis
Director Int Audit & Fin Analysis 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Financial Analyst Auditor 32 4.00 4.00 4.00
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Internal Audit & Financial Analysis Total 6.00 6.00 6.00
Revenue & Collections
Director Revenue & Collections 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Collections Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Licensing Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst III 29 2.00 1.00 1.00
Landlord/Tenant License Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead Collections Officer 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Collections Officer 20 4.00 4.00 4.00
Consumer Protection Analyst 0.00 0.00 0.00 New Position BA#5, transferred to Mayors Office
Business License Officer 17 2.00 3.00 3.00
Business License Processor II 16 4.00 3.00 3.00
Business License Processor I 14 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-21
Revenue & Collections Total 19.00 19.00 19.00
Civil Action Unit
Lead Hearing Officer Referee Coord.19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hearing Officer Referee Coord II 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Hearing Officer Referee Coord I 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Civil Action Unit 3.00 3.00 3.00
Purchasing
Chief Procurement Officer 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Contracts Administrator 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Purchasing Consultant 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Procurement Specialist II 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Procurement Specialist I 24 1.00 2.00 2.00
Contract Development Specialist 23 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contracts Process Coordinator 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Purchasing Total 10.00 10.00 10.00
Treasurer's Office
City Treasurer 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Treasurer 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cash & Investment Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 2.00 2.00 2.00
Cashier Administrator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst I 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Payment Processor 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Treasurer's Office Total 9.00 9.00 9.00
Policy & Budget
City Budget Director 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Budget & Policy Analyst 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Policy & Budget Analyst 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Budget and Policy Total 3.00 3.00 3.00
FINANCE 70.00 70.00 72.00
General Fund 69.70 69.70 71.70
Risk Fund 0.30 0.30 0.30
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resource Administrative SupportChief Human Resource Officer 41 0.00 0.80 0.80
Human Resource Mgmt Director 41 0.80 0.00 0.00
Deputy Chief Human Resource Officer 37 0.00 0.00 0.85 Changed from Human Res Deputy Director
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-22
Human Resource Deputy Director 37 0.85 0.00 0.00 New position BA#5, changed to Deputy Chief Human Resource Officer BA#7
Civilian Review Board Investigator 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Recruiting & Onboarding Mgr 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.80 0.80 0.80
Human Resources Supervisor - Recruitment 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Compensation and Classification Anaylst 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resources Leave Specialist 29 0.00 0.80 0.80
Senior HR Recruiter 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Human Resource Leave Coordinator 27 0.80 0.00 0.00
Employee Marketing & Communications 25 0.80 0.80 0.00 Changed to Human Resource Business Partner II (29)
HR Office Administrator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Benefits Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Benefits Analyst (25)
Benefits Analyst 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Senior Benefits Analyst (27)
HR Recruiter 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to Sr HR Tech (19), Assoc HR Recruiter (21)
Associate HR Recruiter 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist (21)
Senior HR Technician 19 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from HR Admin & Onboarding Specialist (21)
Senior HR Technician 19 0.00 0.00 2.00 New positions
Administrative Support Total 11.05 13.20 17.25
Departmental Consultants
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 0.00 0.00 0.00
Employee Relations/EEO Manager 34 0.00 1.00 1.00
Labor & Employee Relations 34 1.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Program Specialist 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Business Partner II 29 0.00 5.00 5.80 Changed from Employee Marketing & Comm (25)
Senior Human Resource Consultant 29 6.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Consultant 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Associate 22 0.00 0.00 0.00
Departmental Consultants Total 9.00 6.00 6.80
Training
Education Program Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Learning and Development Specialist 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Training & Development Coord (24)
Training & Development Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Learning and Development Specialist (27)
Human Resource Management Total 2.00 2.00 2.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-23
Benefits
Chief Human Resource Officer 41 0.00 0.20 0.20
Human Resource Mgmt Director 41 0.20 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Deputy Director 37 0.15 0.00 0.15
Human Resource Program Mgr II 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
HRIS Business Analyst 30 0.20 0.20 0.20
Human Resources Supervisor - Benefits 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Human Resource Leave Specialist 29 0.00 0.20 0.20
Human Resource Leave Coordinator 27 0.20 0.00 0.00
Human Resource Business Partner II 29 0.00 0.00 0.20 Changed from Employee Marketing & Comm (25)
Employee Marketing & Communications 25 0.20 0.20 0.00 Changed to Human Resource Business Partner II (29)
Senior Benefits Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Benefits Analyst (25)
Benefits Analyst 25 2.00 2.00 1.00 Changed to Senior Benefits Analyst (27)
Benefits Total 3.95 3.80 4.95
Human Resources Total 26.00 25.00 31.00
General Fund 22.05 21.20 26.05
Risk Fund 3.95 3.80 4.95
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Department Leadership and Administration
Chief Information Officer 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst II-III 24-29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Solution Manager 34 4.00 0.00 0.00
Executive Assistant 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Department Leadership and Administration Totals 7.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Services
Financial Manager I 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst II-III 24-29 0.00 0.00 2.00 The titles of these individuals have been renamed. This does not affect the pay of these employees.
Asset Management Administrator 26 0.00 1.00 0.00
Inventory Control Specialist 24 0.00 1.00 0.00
Purchasing and Administration Totals 0.00 3.00 3.00
Infrastructure Technology Services (ITS)Chief Information Security Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Network Engineering Team Manager 34 0.00 1.00 2.00 New Position - ERP Manager
Network Security Manager 34 3.00 0.00 0.00
Network Systems Engineer I-III 27-33 7.00 9.00 12.00 New Position - Cyber security, Unified communications, and Enterprise Backup and Wireless.
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-24
INF Technology Support Manager 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
End User Team Manager 29 1.00 0.00 0.00
Dept Info tech Operation Team Lead 31 1.00 0.00 0.00
Network Support Administrator I - III 23-27 12.00 12.00 12.00
Asset Management Administrator 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Inventory Control Specialist 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Infrastructure Technology Services Totals 27.00 24.00 28.00
Geographical Information Systems
Chief Data Officer 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Programmer Analyst 30 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
Geo Info Systems (GIS) Coord 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Geographical Information Systems Totals 0.00 0.00 4.00
Software Services
Chief Technology Officer 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Director of Software Services 37 0.00 0.00 0.00
Software Engineer Team Lead 36 0.00 1.00 1.00
Enterprise Application Architect 37 1.00 0.00 0.00
Geo Info Systems (GIS) Coord 30 1.00 1.00 0.00 This position was moved to the GIS Team
Software Lead 34 0.00 4.00 2.00 1 moved to Tech Solution Manager and 1 moved to Software Support Admin.
Sr Software Engineer 35 2.00 1.00 1.00
Software Engineering Data Admin 36 3.00 4.00 3.00 This position was moved to the GIS Team
Software Engineer I-III 27-33 6.00 5.00 5.00
Software Engineer Team Manager 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Software Support Team Manager 34 3.00 0.00 0.00
Software Support Admin I-III 28-32 14.00 14.00 15.00 Moved from Software Lead
Tech Solution Manager 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Software Lead
Software Support Totals 32.00 32.00 30.00
Media and Engagement Services
Video Production Manager 3 1.00 1.00 1.00
Multimedia Production Spec I-III 23-31 4.00 4.00 4.00
Civic Engagement Program Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 5.00 1 New Position. 4 transferred from General Fund
Multimedia Production Services Totals 5.00 5.00 10.00
Enterprise Project Management
Technology Solution Team Lead 36 0.00 1.00 1.00
INF Tech Project Manager 35 0.00 1.00 1.00
Software Lead 34 0.00 2.00 2.00
Solution Management Totals 0.00 4.00 4.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-25
Innovations Team
Chief Innovations Officer 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position BA#6
Innovations Team Lead 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position BA#6
Senior Innovations Consultant 30 0.00 0.00 2.00 New Position BA#6
Solution Management Totals 0.00 0.00 4.00
INFORMATION MGMT SVCS TOTALS 71.00 69.00 84.00
JUSTICE COURT
Justice Court
Criminal Court Judge 37 5.00 5.00 5.00
City Courts Director 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Section Manager 26 2.00 2.00 2.00
Justice Court Supervisor 24 2.00 2.00 2.00
Accountant II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Case Managers 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Justice Court Lead Judicial Assistant 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
City Payment Processor 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant III 17 11.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant II 16 7.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant I 15 9.00 0.00 0.00
Justice Court Judicial Assistant I,II,III 15-17 0.00 25.00 25.00
Justice Court Total 44.00 42.00 42.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Office of the Police Chief
Chief of Police 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Chief 39 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Deputy Chief (32) / Transferred to Investigative
Lieutenant--Police 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial & Admin Services Manager 32 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Sergeant Police 29 1.00 1.00 4.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Police Public Relations Director 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Communications Administrative Director (37)
Communications Administrative Director 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Police Public Relations Director (29)
Police Officer 19-25 5.00 8.00 8.00
Mental Health Professional 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Accountant I-III 21-27 4.00 4.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Grant Acquis & Proj Fin Analyst 27 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Grants Acquisition/Project Coordinator 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol Bureau
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-26
Administrative Assistant Appointed 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Executive Assistant
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Administrative Assistant
Administrative Secretary I-II 18-21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Police Services Coordinator 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Administration
Graphic Design Specialist 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Graphic Designer 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech I-II 44545 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of the Police Chief Total 21.00 24.00 21.00
Administration and Operational Support Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Captain--Police 34 4.00 4.00 1.00 Transferred to Training and Investigations
Lieutenant--Police 32 5.00 5.00 1.00 Transferred to Investigative
Sergeant--Police 29 18.00 18.00 2.00 Transferred to Investigative
Financial & Admin Services Manager 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Accountant I-III 21-27 0.00 0.00 4.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Grant Acquis & Proj Fin Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Police Services Coordinator 20 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Records Director 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Lab/Evidence Room Manager Director 29 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Manager (29)
Police Officer I-III 19-25 118.00 147.00 7.00 Transferred to Investigative and Patrol
Public Safety Tech Systems Coordinator 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Crime Lab Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23 0.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 5.00 3.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Forensic Scientist Lab Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Quality Assurance Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Communications Tech 23 24 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to 24 from 23
Information Systems Supervisor 22 5.00 5.00 5.00
Forensic Scientist 21 5.00 5.00 5.00
Grama Coordinator/Paralegal 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mgt Services Supervisor Coordinator 18 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed from Supervisor
Sr Police Information Specialist 15 13.00 13.00 13.00
Technical Support Specialist 15 5.00 5.00 5.00
Office Facilitator 18-19 0.00 2.00 1.00 Transferred to Investigative
Office Tech I-II 44545 3.00 1.00 1.00
Police Information Specialist 13 16.00 16.00 16.00
Crime Lab Technician I-II 16-19 15.00 15.00 15.00
Evidence Technician I-II 16 7.00 7.00 6.00 Changed to Evidence Supervisor
Evidence Supervisor 23 1.00 Changed from Evidence Technician (16)
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-27
Victim Advocate 22 2.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Gang Outreach Coordinator 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Community Programs Manager (24) Transferred to Investigative
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Crime Statistics & Analysis Supervisor 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Management
Emergency Mgt Program Director 31 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Emergency Management City Wide Training & Exercise Coord 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Community Preparedness Coord.23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Emergency Management Asst Crit Infrastructure Liaison 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Outreach Program Administrator 25 1.00 1.00 0.00 Moved to Fire Department
Administration 239.00 268.00 96.00
Patrol Operations Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Captain Police 34 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed to Deputy Chief (37) / Moved to Training
Lieutenant--Police 32 17.00 18.00 12.00 Transferred to Investigative
Sergeant--Police 29 44.00 49.00 30.00 Transferred to Investigative and Training
Police Officer 19-25 348.00 310.00 279.00 Transferred to Investigative
Authorization - Early Hire Police Officer 19-25 20.00 20.00 0.00 Transferred to Training
Social Work Director 30 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Social Work Manager 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Social Work Case Worker 19 5.00 5.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Community Programs Manager 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Office of the Chief
LCSW/Mental Health Counselor 24 4.00 4.00 0.00 Transferred to Investigative
Administrative Secretary I 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Training and Airport Bureau
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 0.00 2.00 1.00 Transferred to Investigative
Office Tech I-II 44545 5.00 3.00 1.00 Transferred to Training and Airport Bureau
Patrol Operations 451.00 419.00 327.00
Investigative Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Office of the Chief
Captain Police 34 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from Administration
Lieutenant--Police 32 0.00 0.00 5.00 Transferred from Patrol
Sergeant--Police 29 0.00 0.00 18.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 111.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Social Work Director 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol
Social Work Manager 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Administration / Changed from LCSW (24)
Social Work Case Worker 19 0.00 0.00 8.00 Transferred from Patrol / New
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-28
LCSW/Mental Health Counselor 24 0.00 0.00 6.00 Transferred from Patrol / New
Victim Advocate Program Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Administration
Victim Advocate 22 0 0 2 Transferred from Administration
Community Programs Manager 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol / Changed from Gang Outreach Coordinator (15)
Crime Stats & Analysis Director 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Administration
Sr Police Intel Specialist 23 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from Administration / New
Police Intelligence Specialist 21 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from Administration
Office Facilitator I-II 18-19 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Investigative Bureau 0.00 0.00 167.00
Training and Airport Bureau
Deputy Chief--Police 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Captain / Moved from Operations
Captain Police 34 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from Administration
Lieutenant--Police 32 0.00 0.00 5.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Sergeant--Police 29 0.00 0.00 15.00 Transferred from Patrol
Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 58.00 Transferred from Patrol and Administration
Authorization - Early Hire Police Officer 19-25 0.00 0.00 20.00 Transferred from Patrol
Administrative Secretary I 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol
Office Tech I-II 44545 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from Patrol
Training and Airport Bureau 0.00 0.00 103.00
POLICE DEPARTMENT TOTAL 711.00 711.00 714.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Administrative Services
Public Services Department Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Admin Services Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 FTE moved to IMS
Operations Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Communications and Administration Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst Team Lead 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
CARES Policy & Program Manager 32 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 FTE from Community & Neighborhoods
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.35 0.35 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Safety Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Strategy & Special Project Manager 28 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 FTE moved to IMS
Communications Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 FTE moved from Compliance and changed from Parking Enforcement Officer (18)
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-29
Administrative Assistant Appointed 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Financial Analyst II 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 changed from Public Outreach and Information Liaison (21)
Financial Analyst I 21 2.00 2.00 2.00
Public Outreach and Information Liaison 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 changed to Management Analyst (24)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office of Director Total 15.35 15.35 15.00
Gallivan & Events Division
Gallivan Utah Center Program
Plaza & Comm Events Div Dir 32 0.95 0.00 0.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 0.00 0.00
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 1.45 0.00 0.00
Plaza Marketing/Activities Super 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.95 0.00 0.00
General Maint Worker I,II 16 5.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Tech I 12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Custodian II 11 1.00 0.00 0.00
Plaza & Comm Events Div Dir 32 0.05 0.00 0.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.55 0.00 0.00
Special Events Permit Manager 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Special Events Permit Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.05 0.00 0.00
Special Events Admin Asst 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Gallivan & Events Total 15.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering
City Engineer 39 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Deputy City Engineer 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer VII 36 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
City Architect 36 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer VI 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer V 33 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Manager 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Senior Architect 33 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
Senior Landscape Architect 33 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer IV 31 0.00 0.00 6.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Systems Coordinator 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Licensed Architect 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
City Surveyor 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Financial Analyst III 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer III 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-30
Landscape Architect III 29 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Const Program Project Manager 29 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
Pub Way Concrete/Pave Manager 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineer II 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Technician VI 27 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Programmer Analyst 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Professional Land Surveyor 26 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering GIS/Asset Management Specialist 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Procurement & Contracts Specialist 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Support Services Manager 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Specialist 24 0.00 0.00 3.00 Transferred from CAN
Civic Engagement Program Spec 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Tech V 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Tech IV Union 23 0.00 0.00 4.00 Transferred from CAN
GIS Tech II 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
Eng. Data/SID Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from CAN
Eng. Info and Records Spec 18 0.00 0.00 2.00 Transferred from CAN
Engineering Total 0.00 0.00 48.00
Golf Division
Golf Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Associate Director 33 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Manager 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.65 0.65 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Professional 30 5.00 5.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Course Super 27 to 36 holes 29 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
9-hole Golf Professional 27 2.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Course Super 18 holes 27 3.00 3.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Superintendent 9 Hole 25 2.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Assistant Golf Club Professional 20 7.00 7.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Assistant Golf Course Super 20 10.00 12.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Public Lands
Golf Division Total 34.65 34.65 0.00
Youth & Family Division
Youth & Family Div Director 35 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Associate Director Youth City 29 2.00 2.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Senior Community Programs Manager 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Community Programs Manager 24 7.00 7.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Events Coordinator Sorenson 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-31
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Program Assistant 14 4.00 4.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Youth City Coordinator 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred to CAN
Youth & Family Total 18.00 18.00 0.00
Compliance Division
Compliance Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Compliance Div Field Supervisor 27 2.00 1.00 1.00
Compliance Swing-Shift Field Supervisor 25 0.00 1.00 1.00
Special Projects Assistant 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from (19) Office Facilitator
Parking Pay Station Tech 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead Compliance Enforcement Officer 20 3.00 3.00 3.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to (21) Special Projects Assistant
Parking Enforcement Officer 18 18.00 18.00 17.00 1.0 FTE changed and moved to PS Admin Communications Coordinator (25)
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed 1.0 from (13) from Crossing Guard Coordinator
Crossing Guard Coordinator 13 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to (15) Office Tech II
Office Tech I 12 2.00 2.00 2.00
Compliance Total 30.00 30.00 29.00
Facilities Services Division
Building Maintenance Program
Facilities Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Facilities Commissioning Authority 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Business Systems Analyst I 28 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 1.00 1.00
Energy/Utilities Management Coordinator 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
District Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility Maintenance Supervisor 25 3.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Plumber III 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lead HVAC Technician 22 0.00 1.00 1.00
HVAC Technician II 21 3.00 2.00 2.00
Lead Bldg Maintenance Tech 21 5.00 5.00 0.00 Changed 5.0 to (21) Maintenance Specialist III
Maintenance Specialist III 21 0.00 0.00 5.00 Changed 5.0 from (21) Lead Bldg Maintenance Tech
Carpenter II 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Painter II 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I (16)
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-32
Gen Maint Worker IV 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to General Maintenance Worker II
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Specialist II 19 0.00 0.00 10.00 Changed 10.0 from (18) Building Equipment Operator II
Building Equipment Operator II 18 10.00 10.00 0.00 Changed 10.0 to (19) Maintenance Specialist II
General Maintenance Worker III 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from General Maintenance Worker IV
Building Equipment Operator I 17 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to (17) Maintenance Specialist I
Maintenance Specialist I 17 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed 1.0 from (17) Building Equipment Operator I
Equipment Operator 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
General Maintenance Worker III 16 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker I (16)
General Maintenance Worker I 16 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from General Maintenance Worker III (17)
Senior Facilities Landscaper 16 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech 16 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (20)
Office Technician II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Beautification Maintenance Worker II 13 3.00 3.00 3.00
Beautification Maintenance Worker I 12 2.00 2.00 2.00
Facilities Services Total 47.00 47.00 47.00
Fleet Management Division
Fleet Mgmt Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Operations Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Daily Operations Leader 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Asset Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mgmt Service Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Fleet Warehouse Super 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Metal Fabrication Tech 22 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Customer Service Advisor Lead 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Senior Mechanic 21 3.00 3.00 3.00
Fleet Mechanic 20 23.00 24.00 25.00 1 Changed from Fleet Mechanic Trainee (16)
Fleet Customer Service Advisor 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Mechanic Trainee 16 3.00 2.00 1.00 1 Changed to Fleet Mechanic (20)
Fleet Senior Warehouse Operator 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Parts Warehouse Support Worker 14 3.00 3.00 3.00
Fleet Maintenance Scheduler 12 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fleet Parts Delivery Driver 11 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Management Total 45.00 45.00 45.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-33
Streets Division
Streets Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 3.00 3.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Mgr 28 3.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor (25)
Streets Construction & Maintenance Supervisor 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Streets Operations Maintenance Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Streets Response Team Field Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 Changed from (21) Response Team Leader
Maintenance Supervisor 25 5.00 5.00 4.00 1 Changed to Operations Supervisor (27)
Traffic Signal Lead 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Traffic Signal Tech II 23 2.00 3.00 3.00
Response Team Leader 21 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.0 Changed to (24) SRT Field Supervisor
Streets Maintenance Lead 21 6.00 6.00 6.00
Traffic Maintenance Lead 21 2.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Signal Tech I 21 2.00 1.00 1.00
Concrete Finisher 20 10.00 10.00 10.00
Senior Asphalt Equipment Oper 20 12.00 12.00 12.00
Lead Equipment Operator 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Streets Response Team Member II 19 1.00 0.00 1.00 New position
Asphalt Equipment Oper II 18 38.00 38.00 38.00
Concrete Saw & Grinder Oper 18 2.00 2.00 2.00
Streets Response Team Member I 18 1.00 2.00 2.00
Traffic Maintenance Operator II 18 8.00 7.00 7.00
Communication and GIS Coordinator 18 0.00 1.00 1.00
Equipment Operator 17 5.00 5.00 5.00
Traffic Maintenance Operator I 16 2.00 3.00 3.00
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Communications Coordinator 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Streets Total 109.00 109.00 110.00
PUBLIC LANDS
Public Lands Administration
Public Lands Deputy Director 38 1.00 1.00 0.00
Associate Director Public Lands 33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Business Systems Analyst II 30 1.00 1.00 0.00
Landscape Architect III 29 1.00 1.00 0.00
Comm/Events & Marketing Mgr 29 0.00 1.00 0.00
PPL Project Manager 28 1.00 1.00 0.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-34
Program Support Coordinator 26 0.00 0.00 0.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 0.00
Public Relations Coordinator 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Usage Coordinator 21 1.00 1.00 0.00
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 1.00 1.00 0.00
Public Lands Administration Total 10.00 10.00 0.00
Parks Division
Parks Division Director 35 1.00 1.00 0.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 2.00 0.00
Regional Athletic Complex Manager 29 1.00 1.00 0.00
City Sexton 28 1.00 1.00 0.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 2.00 0.00 0.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 1.00 0.00
District Supervisor 25 7.00 8.00 0.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 1.00 0.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.00 1.00 0.00
Special Events Permit Manager 25 0.00 1.00 0.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 1.00 1.00 0.00
Metal Fabrication Tech 22 1.00 1.00 0.00
Events Coordinator 21 1.00 1.00 0.00
Plumber II 21 3.00 3.00 0.00
Central Control Irrigation Specialist 20 2.00 2.00 0.00
Concrete Finisher 20 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 1.00 1.00 0.00
General Maintenance Worker IV 19 3.00 3.00 0.00
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 0.00 1.00 0.00
Irrigation Technician 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parks Maint Worker Irrigation Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Florist 18 1.00 1.00 0.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech II 18 4.00 3.00 0.00
Cemetery Equipment Operators 17 4.00 4.00 0.00
Florist III 17 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Maint Worker III 16 1.00 0.00 0.00
Graffiti Response Field Tech 16 6.00 6.00 0.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 16.00 20.00 0.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I 16 1.00 2.00 0.00
Office Tech II 15 3.00 3.00 0.00
Parks Groundskeeper 12 9.00 10.00 0.00
Parks Total 72.00 80.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Division
Trails & Natural Lands Division Director 32 1.00 1.00 0.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-35
Open Space Lands Program Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
District Supervisor 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Natural Lands Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 0.00
Volunteer & Outreach Coordinator 19 1.00 1.00 0.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 5.00 2.00 0.00
Parks Groundskeeper 12 1.00 0.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Total 10.00 5.00 0.00
Urban Forestry Division
Urban Forestry Division Director 32 1.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forestry Program Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Forestry Crew Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 0.00
Forest Area Service Coordinator 22 3.00 3.00 0.00
Arborist III 21 4.00 5.00 0.00
Arborist II 19 6.00 4.00 0.00
Arborist I 18 0.00 1.00 0.00
Urban Forestry Total 15.00 15.00 0.00
PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT TOTAL 421.00 409.00 294.00
General Fund 341.35 329.35 249.00
Fleet Management Fund 45.00 45.00 45.00
Golf Fund 34.65 34.65 0.00
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT
Public Lands Administration Transferred from Public Services
Parks & Public Lands Director 41 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Deputy Director Public Lands (38)
Public Lands Deputy Director 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 New FTE
Finance Manager II 34 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 New FTE
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 Transferred from Public Services Admin
Business Systems Analyst II 30 0.00 0.00 1.00
Landscape Architect III 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Public Landscape Planner
Comm/Events & Marketing Mgr 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
PPL Project Manager 28 0.00 0.00 1.00
PPL Landscape Planner 28 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed 1.0 from Landscape Arch III (29) ; 1.0 New FTE
PPL Asset Manager 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Warehouse Supervisor PG24
Community & Building Partnership Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 New FTE
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Parks Division
Special Events Permit Manager 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Parks Division
Warehouse Supervisor 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Asset Manager PG 27
Parks Usage Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-36
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Moved from Parks Division
Warehouse Specialist 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Sr Warehouse Operator to Warehouse Specialist (PG15)
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Warehouse Specialist
Public Lands Administration Total 0.00 0.00 17.35
Parks Division Transferred from Public Services
Parks Division Director 35 0.00 0.00 1.00
Operations Manager 31 0.00 0.00 2.00
Regional Athletic Complex Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
City Sexton 28 0.00 0.00 1.00
Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 1.00
District Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 8.00
Maintenance Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 1.00
Advertising/Marketing Mgr 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Public Lands Admin
Special Events Permit Manager 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Public Lands Admin
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 0.00 0.00 1.00
Metal Fabrication Tech 22 0.00 0.00 1.00
Events Coordinator 21 0.00 0.00 1.00
Plumber II 21 0.00 0.00 3.00
General Maintenance Worker III 21 0.00 0.00 4.00 1 Changed from Concrete Finisher (20), 3 Changed from General Maintenance Worker IV (19)
Central Control Irrigation Specialist 20 0.00 0.00 2.00
Concrete Finisher 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III (21)
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III 20 0.00 0.00 1.00
General Maintenance Worker IV 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III (21)
Special Event Permit Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Moved to Public Lands Administration
Senior Florist 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech II 18 0.00 0.00 3.00
General Maintenance Worker II 18 1.00
Cemetery Equipment Operators 17 0.00 0.00 4.00
Graffiti Response Field Tech 16 0.00 0.00 6.00
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 0.00 0.00 20.00 1 new FTE, 1 Changed to General Maintenance Worker II (18)
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I 16 0.00 0.00 2.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 3.00
Parks Groundskeeper 12 0.00 0.00 10.00
Parks Total 0.00 0.00 78.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-37
Trails and Natural Lands Division Transferred from Public Services
PPL Deputy Director Planning & Ecological Services 38 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Division Director (32)
Trails & Natural Lands Division Director 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed 1.0 to Deputy Director (38)
Strategy & Special Projects Manager 28 1.00 1.0 New FTE
District Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Natural Lands Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 1.00
Graphic Design Specialist 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 New FTE
Stewardship and Education Coordinator 22 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Volunteer Coordinator (19)
Volunteer & Outreach Coordinator 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changed to Stewardship and Education Outreach (22)
Sr Natural Resource Technician 16 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from Senior Parks Groundskeeper (16)
Senior Parks Groundskeeper 16 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 New FTE, 2 Changed to Sr Natural Resource Technician (16)
Parks Groundskeeper 12 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trails and Natural Lands Total 0.00 0.00 8.00
Urban Forestry Division Transferred from Public Services
Urban Forestry Division Director 32 0.00 0.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Program Manager 29 0.00 0.00 0.00
Forestry Crew Supervisor 25 0.00 0.00 1.00
Forest Area Service Coordinator 22 0.00 0.00 3.00
Arborist III 21 0.00 0.00 5.00
Arborist II 19 0.00 0.00 4.00
Arborist I 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
Urban Forestry Total 0.00 0.00 15.00
Golf Division
Golf Division Director 35 0.00 0.00 1.00
Associate Director 33 0.00 0.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 0.00 0.65
Golf Professional III 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Added III to the end
Golf Course Super 27 to 36 holes 29 0.00 0.00 1.00
Golf Course Super 18 holes 27 0.00 0.00 3.00
Golf Professional II 26 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from 18-hole Golf Professional to Golf Professional II
Golf Superintendent 9 Hole 25 0.00 0.00 2.00
Golf Professional I 23 0.00 0.00 3.00 Changed from 9-hole Golf Professional to Golf Professional I; 2.0 changed from Assistant Golf Club Professional (20)
Player Development and Programs Mgr 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.0 changed from Assistant Golf Club Professional (20)
Assistant Golf Club Professional 20 0.00 0.00 4.00 2.0 changed to Golf Professional I (23); 1.0 changed to Player Development and Programs Mgr (21)
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-38
Assistant Golf Course Super 20 0.00 0.00 12.00
Office Facilitator II 19 0.00 0.00 1.00
Office Tech II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00
Golf Division Total 0.00 0.00 33.65
PUBLIC LANDS DEPARTMENT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 152.00
General Fund 0.00 0.00 118.35
Golf Fund 0.00 0.00 33.65
DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY
Waste & Recycling Division Refuse FundWaste & Recycling Div Director 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager I 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste & Recycling Operations Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Program Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Special Projects Analyst and Safety Coordinator 28 0.00 1.00 1.00
W&R Operations Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor to W&R Operations Supervisor (27)
Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 0.00 Changed from Maintenance Supervisor to W&R Operations Supervisor (27)
W & R Permit Coordinator 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
W & R Education & Permits Lead 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from W&R Education & Permits Lead to WR Program Lead (20)
WR Program Lead 20 0.00 0.00 2.00 Changed from W&R Education & Permits Lead and Office Tech II to WR Program Lead (20)
Waste & Recycling Equip Op II 18 29.00 28.00 29.00 Changed from Lead Equipment Operator to Waste & Recycling Equip Op II (18)
Senior Equipment Operator 19 4.00 4.00 4.00
Lead Equipment Operator 20 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed from Lead Equipment Operator to Waste & Recycling Equip Op II (18)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Tech II 15 4.00 4.00 3.00 Changed from Office Tech II to WR Program Lead (20)
W & R Education Specialist 15 5.00 5.00 5.00
Container Maintenance Worker 14 2.00 2.00 2.00
Waste & Recycling Total 56.00 56.00 56.00
Environ & Energy Division Refuse Fund
Sustainability Envir Director 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Deputy Director 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr Energy Climate Program Mgr 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-39
Sustainability Program Manager 29 1.00 1.00 3.00 Changed from Sustainability Community Manager & Sustainable Business Prog Coor to Sustainability Program Manager (29)
Sustainability Community Manager 28 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from Sustainability Community Manager to Sustainability Program Manager (29)
Sustainable Business Prog Coor 24 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from Sustainable Business Prog Coor to Sustainability Program Manager (29)
Special Projects Assistant 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Office Facilitator II to Special Projects Assistant (21)
Office Facilitator II 19 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed from Office Facilitator II to Special Projects Assistant (21)
Environ & Energy Division Refuse Fund 7.00 7.00 7.00
SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT (Refuse Fund) TOTAL 63.00 63.00 63.00
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
Administration
Director--Public Utilities 41 1.00 1.00 1.00
Deputy Director-Public Utilities 39 1.00 2.00 2.00
Executive Assistant 24 0.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant-Appointed 24 1.00 0.00 0.00
Chief Strategy & Innovations Officer 37 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
GIS Info Tech Systems Admin 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer III-VII 26-36 3.00 0.00 0.00
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Mgr 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Safety Program Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
PU Communications Engagement Manager 32 1.00 1.00 1.00
GIS Analyst II 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Change from a GIS Analyst (27)
GIS Coordinator 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
PU Surveyor 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Professional Land Surveyor/GIS Spec 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Analyst 27 3.00 4.00 3.00 1 Change to a GIS Analyst II (30)
Engineer II 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech VI 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Community & Engagement Coordinator 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Employee Development Manager 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Util Dev Review Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utility Planner & Development Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Locator Manager 25 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Utility Planner 24 0.00 0.00 0.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-40
GIS Specialist 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech III-V 21-24 4.00 0.00 0.00
GIS Leak Detection Tech II 23 2.00 2.00 2.00
GIS Technician II 23 1.00 0.00 0.00
Public Relations Coordinator 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech II 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Util Dev Review Specialist 19 3.00 4.00 4.00
Office Technician II 15 0.00 2.00 2.00
Records Technician 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr. Utilities Representative - Cont 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Utility Locator 19 8.00 8.00 8.00
Administration Total 41.00 34.00 36.00
Maintenance
Operations Maint Superintendent 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Distribution System Mgr 34 1.00 1.00 1.00
Computer Operation Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maint Support Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Maint Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
WW Collection Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Irrigation Canal Systems Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water System Maintenance Super 27 4.00 4.00 4.00
Water System Operation Super 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Electrical Operations Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Irrigation System Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Technical System Analyst III-IV 26-28 2.00 3.00 3.00
Water Service Coordinator 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Collection Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lift Station Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Maintenance Supervisor 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Meter Maintenance Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Office Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Supervisor 24 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Water Meter Tech 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Maint Coord Public Util 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Office Facilitator I 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Specialist 18 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Warehouse Operator 15 0.00 1.00 1.00
Warehouse Office Tech II 15 1.00 1.00 1.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. Office/Technical 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sr. Communications Coordinator-Public Util 15 6.00 6.00 6.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 6.00 6.00 6.00
Metal Fabrication Technician 22 3.00 3.00 3.00
Senior Water Dist System Operator 21 16.00 16.00 16.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-41
Senior Water System Maint Operator 21 16.00 16.00 16.00
Waste Water Collection Lead Maint Worker 21 6.00 6.00 6.00
WW Lift Station Lead Worker 21 0.00 0.00 4.00 3 Changed from Waste Water Lift Station Lead Wkr (20); 1 New Position
Drainage Maintenance Lead Worker 21 0.00 0.00 3.00 2 Changed from Drainage Maintenance Worker III (19), 1 New Position
General Maintenance Worker V 21 1.00 1.00 1.00 Changed to General Maintenance Worker III from a General Maintenance Worker V
Senior Pumps Maint Tech 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Concrete Finisher 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Irrigation Operator 20 4.00 4.00 4.00
Waste Water Lift Station Lead Wkr 20 3.00 3.00 0.00 3 Changed to WW Lift Station Lead Worker (21)
Water System Maintenance Operator I-II 17-19 27.00 27.00 27.00
Water Meter Tech I-III 18-19 6.00 6.00 6.00
Waste Water Coll Maint Worker II 19 12.00 12.00 12.00
Drainage Maintenance Worker III 19 10.00 10.00 9.00 2 Changed to Drainage Maintenance Lead Worker (21), 1 New Position
Pumps Maintenance Technician 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Facility/Building Maint Wkr 18 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fleet Maintenance Coordinator 18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Waste Water Lift Station Maint Wkr 18 3.00 4.00 4.00
Irrigation Operator II 17 3.00 3.00 4.00 1 New Position
Landscape Restoration Lead Wkr 17 1.00 1.00 1.00
Facility/Building Maintenance Wkr 15 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 New Position
Water Distribution Valve Operator 15 8.00 8.00 8.00
Water Maintenance Support Wkr 14 2.00 2.00 2.00
Custodian II 11 2.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Total 173.00 175.00 180.00
Water Reclamation Plant
Water Reclamation Manager 36 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Dept Manager 35 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineer VI 33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Rec Plant Operations & Maint Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Regulatory Compliance Manager 33 0.00 1.00 1.00
WRF Maintenance Manager 31 0.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Program Manager 30 1.00 0.00 0.00
Laboratory Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Industrial Pretreatment Program Coordinator 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Project Manager 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-42
Pretreatment Compliance Specialist 25 1.00 0.00 0.00
Waste Water Business Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
W.W. Plant Maintenance Coordinator 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Process Control Analyst 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Reclamation Safety Specialist 26 1.00 1.00 1.00
WRF Operations Supervisor 26 0.00 4.00 Changed from Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator
Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator 26 7.00 6.00 0.00 4 Changed to WRF Operations Supervisor; 2 Changed to WRF Operator III's (21)
Fats, Oils & Grease Program Supervisor 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
WRF FOG/Sewer Rate Program Supervisor 26 1.00 0.00 0.00
Instrumentation and Controls Technician II-IV 25-28 2.00 2.00 3.00 1 Changed from Painter II (20)
Technical Systems Analyst II-IV 24-28 0.00 0.00 0.00
Senior Laboratory Chemist 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 25 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lab Chemist 24 3.00 2.00 2.00
Water Reclamation Planner Scheduler 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Reclamation Facility Operator IV 23 0.00 0.00 4.00 Changed from WRF Operator III (21)
Waste Water Senior Operator 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 23 4.00 4.00 4.00
Pretreatment Sr Sampler Inspect 19 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Facilitator II Non Union 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Warehouse Operator 15 2.00 2.00 2.00
Office Technician II 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Sr Utilities Representative- Office /Technical 15 1.00 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Electrician IV 22 2.00 2.00 2.00
HVAC Technician II 21 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Plant Maint. Operator IV 21 8.00 8.00 8.00
Water Reclamation Facility Operator III 21 18.00 19.00 17.00 2 Changed from Water Reclamation Facility Lead Operator (26); 4 Changed to WRF Operator IV (23)
Painter II 20 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Instrumentation & Cntl Tech IV (28)
Waste Water Preventative Maint Worker 19 1.00 1.00 1.00
Waste Water Plant Maint. Operator I 15 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Reclamation Plant Total 69.00 69.00 69.00
Finance
Finance Administrator 39 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Manager III 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Financial Analyst IV 32 0.00 1.00 1.00
Customer Service Manager Public Utilities 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-43
Accountant IV 29 3.00 3.00 3.00
Financial Analyst III 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Metering Technologies Manager 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accountant III 27 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Metering Technologies Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Billing Office Supervisor 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Customer Services Supervisor 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Customer Service Accts/Coll Invent 18 6.00 6.00 6.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. - Generalist 15 9.00 9.00 9.00
Sr. Utilities Rep. - Customer Service 15 7.00 7.00 7.00
Advanced Metering Infrastructure Tech II 19 6.00 6.00 7.00 1 Changed from Water Meter Reader II (14)
Water Meter Reader III 18 1.00 1.00 2.00 1 Changed from Water Meter Reader II (14)
Water Meter Reader II 14 7.00 7.00 5.00 1 Changed to Advanced Meter Infra Tech II (19); 1 Changed to a Meter Reader III (18)
Finance Total 49.00 50.00 50.00
Water Quality & Treatment
Water Quality & Treatment Administrator 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Treatment Plant Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
L&C Cross Connection Control Manager 30 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Cross Connection Control Manager (26)
Regulatory Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Program Manager 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Watershed Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Quality Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Treatment Plant Assistant Manager 30 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lead and Copper Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Project Manager 27 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
Water Treatment Process Control Analyst 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
WTP Facility Manager/Supervisor 27 0.00 0.00 3.00 Change from Water Treatment Plant Lead Operator (26)
Cross Connection Control Manager 26 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to L&C Cross Conn. Control Manager (30)
Watershed Operations Supervisor 27 1.00 1.00 1.00
Technical System Analyst III 27 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Treatment Plant Lead Oper 26 3.00 3.00 0.00 Change to WTP Facility Manager/Supervisor (27)
Pretreatment Compliance Specialist 25 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storm Water Compliance Specialist 25 1.00 1.00 1.00
Storm Water Quality Coordinator 23 2.00 3.00 3.00
Cross Connections Control Coord 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Inspect/Permit Writer 23 0.00 0.00 0.00
Storm Water Technician II Union 22 0.00 0.00 2.00 Change from Stormwater Technician (21)
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-44
Storm Water Technician Union 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 Change to Stormwater Technician II (22)
Cross Connections Control Inspector 21 0.00 1.00 1.00
Pretreatment Sr Sampler Inspect 19 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quality Assur Sr Samp Cl Water 17 2.00 2.00 2.00
Lead Watershed Ranger 21 2.00 2.00 4.00 Change to Lead Watershed Ranger; 2 Changed from Watershed Ranger (19)
Watershed Ranger 19 5.00 5.00 4.00 2 Changed to Lead Watershed Ranger; 1 New Position
Water Plant Operator II 21 25.00 25.00 25.00
Water Quality & Treatment Admin Total 52.00 53.00 56.00
Water Resources
Water Resources Manager 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Department Special Projects Manager 30 0.00 0.00 0.00
Utilities Water Rights, Contracts and Property Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00
PU Sustainability Manager 29 0.00 1.00 1.00
Sustainability Program Manager 28 1.00 0.00 0.00
Water Conservation Program Manager 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Change to 30 from 26
Water Resources Eng/Scientist 27 2.00 2.00 2.00 Change to 27 from 26
Water Rights & Property Agent 26 0.00 1.00 1.00
Property & Water Contracts Asst 20 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hydrology Specialist Union 23 0.00 1.00 1.00
Conservation Technician 23 0.00 0.00 1.00 New Position
PU Records Prog Specialist 23 1.00 1.00 1.00
Water Rights Assistant 16 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water Resources Total 8.00 10.00 11.00
Engineering
Chief Engineer - Public Utilities 37 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer III-VII 29-36 12.00 16.00 23.00 Dev-2-VII,1V, 2IV, 5 New positions: 3 Engineer IV's (31) & 2 Engineer V's (33); 1 Changed from an Engineer VI (34) to and Engineer VII (36); 1 Changed from an Eng Tech VI (27); 1 Changed from an Eng Tech IV (23)
Sr Water Treatment Engineer 35 1.00 1.00 1.00
Project Control Specialist 31 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Construction Program/Projects Manager 29 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineer II 27 0.00 0.00 0.00
Engineering Tech II - VI 19-27 0.00 0.00 17.00 Combined all Engineering Techs under Engineering
Engineering Tech IV- VI 23-27 9.00 9.00 0.00 1 Changed to an Engineer IV (34), Transferred 8 to Engineering Tech II - VI
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-45
Engineering Tech III-V 21-24 0.00 5.00 0.00 1 Changed to an Engineer IV (31); 1 Transferred from Street lighting, Transferred 5 to Engineering Tech II - VI.
Eng Contracts Coord Public Util 22 1.00 1.00 2.00 Changed from Document Controls Specialist (18)
Engineering Tech III 21 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to Engineering Tech II - VI.
Engineering Tech II 19 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 Transferred to Engineering Tech II - VI.
Document Controls Specialist 18 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Engineering Contracts Coord P.U. (22)
Administrative Secretary 18 0.00 0.00 1.00 New position
Engineering Tech I 17 0.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Streetlighting from Engineering
Contracts Process Coordinator 17 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from Contracts Technician (15)
Contracts Technician 15 1.00 1.00 0.00 Changed to Contracts Process Coordinator (17)
Engineering Total 32.00 42.00 48.00
Street Lighting
Engineer V 33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Engineering Tech IV 23 1.00 1.00 0.00 Transferred to Engineering
Engineering Tech III 21 0.00 0.00 1.00 Changed from an Engineering Technician I (17)
Engineering Tech I 17 1.00 0.00 0.00 Transferred from Engineering to Streetlighting; Changed to an Engineering Technician III (21).
Street Lighting Total 3.00 2.00 2.00
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPT TOTAL 427.00 435.00 452.00
Water Utility Fund 270.22 276.65 283.16
Sewer Utility Fund 120.63 122.01 126.55
Storm Water Utility Fund 33.65 34.82 39.57
Street Lighting Fund 2.50 1.52 2.72
CITYWIDE GRANT FUNDED POSITIONS
Attorney's Office
Victim Advocate 0.00 0.00 1.00 Application Pending
Attorney's Office Total 0.00 0.00 1.00
Community & Neighborhoods
CARES Policy and Program Manager 25-27 0.00 0.00 3.00 Expires December 2022, with possible extensions
Youth and Family Program Manager 0.00 1.00 1.00 Extend with ARP Funding
Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
Associate Planners 0.00 0.00 3.00 Possible ARP Funding
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-46
Transportation Right of Way Utilization Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
Treasury Policy and Program Manager 25-27 0.00 0.00 2.00 Expires December 2021, with possible extensions
Community & Neighborhoods Total 0.00 1.00 11.00
Economic Development
Economic Development Manager 29 0.00 0.00 3.00 Possible ARP Funding
Project Manager 29 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
Arts Council Program Coordinator 25 0.00 0.00 2.00 Possible ARP Funding
Economic Development Total 0.00 0.00 6.00
Fire Department
Fire Fighter 22-27 0.00 0.00 4.00 Possible ARP Funding
Office Technician II 15 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 Transferred from Police - Fix the Bricks Grant
Fire Department Total 0.00 0.00 5.00
Finance Department
- Grant Administrator 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
- Grant Manager 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
- Business Analyst 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
Finance Department Total 0.00 0.00 3.00
Public Lands Department
Arborist 0.00 0.00 1.00 Possible ARP Funding
Public Lands Department Total 0.00 0.00 1.00
TOTAL GRANT FUNDED POSITIONS 0.00 1.00 27.00
Position Titles Grades 2019- 20 2020- 21 2021- 22 Changes from FY 2020-21 to FY2021-22
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-47
This page has been intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22 STAFFING DOCUMENT
F-48
This page intentionally left blank
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-1
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-2
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-3
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-4
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-5
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-6
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-7
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-8
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-9
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-10
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-11
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-12
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-13
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-14
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-15
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-16
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-17
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-18
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-19
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX A: LIBRARY
G-20
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX B: INSURANCE PREMIUMS
G-21
MAYOR'S
RECOMMENDED
BUDGET
Fiscal Year 2021-22
APPENDIX B: INSURANCE PREMIUMS
G-22
Items G1-G6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING
The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items
G-1 through G-6. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items G-1 through G-6 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted six grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them,
the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under
Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
1. 200 South Transit Priority Signal System – Transit Transportation Investment
Fund – (TTIF) Grant
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the
installation of a transit signal priority (TSP) system, traffic signal upgrades, and transit-
focused technology to allow the 200 South transit corridor to accommodate twelve bus
routes with 1,100 bus trips per day. The transmittal indicates that the Utah Transit
Authority’s (UTA) five-year plan estimates a 38% increase in bus operations for 200 South.
The City will work with UTA and UDOT to upgrade signal and technology systems to the
most current technology to further enhance the transit capacity of 200 South.
This project is ranked as priority two out of eight projects nominated by the City in 2021.
Grant Amount: $1,736,400
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Transit
Authority (UTA)
Page | 2
Match Requirement: $1,157,600 cash match – Source: Salt Lake City Streets Bond
passed in 2018.
NOTE: This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, which UDOT uses to
bookmark funding for highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects. The timeline for
the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically allocates
funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on
ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Nomination Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,
Brijette Williams
CC: Sarah Behrens, Janyce Fowles, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee
Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: April 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Transit Transportation Investment Fund - Transit: 200 South Transit Priority Signal System
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
GRANT PROGRAM: Transit Transportation Investment Fund – Transit (TTIF-TRANSIT)
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,736,400
DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: UDOT, Utah Transit Authority
DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required $1,157,600 □ In-Kind and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Division of Transportation requested $1,736,400 for the 200 South Transit Priority Signal System.
The project will install a transit signal priority (TSP) system, traffic signal upgrades, and transit-focused
technology to allow the 200 South transit corridor to accommodate 12 bus routes with 1,100 bus trips per day.
The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) 5-Year Plan estimates a 38% increase in bus operations for 200 South.
Salt Lake City will work with UTA and UDOT to upgrade signal and technology systems to the most current
technology to further enhance the transit capacity of 200 South.
The $1,157,600 match will be met through the Salt Lake City streets bond passed in 2018.
The 200 South TSP System is ranked as priority two out of the eight projects nominated by the City in 2021.
NOTE:
This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to bookmark funding for
highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects.
The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically
allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on
ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Items G1-G6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING
The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items
G-1 through G-6. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items G-1 through G-6 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted six grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them,
the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under
Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
2. 200 South Transit Hub End-of-Line Facilities -Transit Transportation
Investment Fund (TTIF) Grant
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the
construction of bus parking and layover for the 200 South East Downtown Transit Hub.
These amenities will allow drivers to leave their vehicles and take a break between routes.
The Administration indicates the leasing and operating and maintenance agreements
between the City and UTA are not yet determined. This project is ranked as priority six out
of eight projects nominated by the City in 2021.
Grant Amount: $1,468,320
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Transit
Authority (UTA)
Match Requirement: $978,880 cash match – Source: Salt Lake City’s Streets Bond
passed in 2018.
Page | 2
NOTE: As mentioned previously, this is a nomination process, rather than a typical application
process, which UDOT uses to bookmark funding for highway capacity, active transportation, and
transit projects. The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for
which the City typically allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is
likely to be available based on ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Nomination Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,
Brijette Williams
CC: Sarah Behrens, Janyce Fowles, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee
Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: April 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Transit Transportation Investment Fund - Transit: 200 South Transit Hub End-Of-Line Facilities
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
GRANT PROGRAM: Transit Transportation Investment Fund – Transit (TTIF-TRANSIT)
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,468,320
DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Utah Transit Authority
DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required $978,880 □ In-Kind and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Division of Transportation requested $1,468,320 for the 200 South Transit Hub End-Of-Line Facilities.
The project will construct bus parking and layover infrastructure in an East Downtown Transit Hub on 200 South.
The end-of-line facilities will enable drivers to securely leave their vehicles, use the restroom, get a bite to eat,
and take an end-of-line break.
Leasing and operating and maintenance agreements between the City and UTA are yet to be determined.
The $978,880 match will be met through the Salt Lake City streets bond passed in 2018.
The 200 South Transit Hub End Of Line Facilities is ranked as priority six out of the eight projects nominated by
the City in 2021.
NOTE:
This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to bookmark funding for
highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects.
The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically
allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on ongoing
funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Items G1-G6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING
The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items
G-1 through G-6. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items G-1 through G-6 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted six grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them,
the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under
Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
3. North Temple Active Transportation – Transit Transportation Investment
Fund – First and Last Mile (TTIF-FLM) Grant
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the
construction of a paved trail, improve and shorten pedestrian crossings, widen sidewalks,
and add trees and shading elements for the five-block stretch of North Temple from the
North Temple Frontrunner stop to downtown Salt Lake City.
This project is ranked as priority eight out of eight projects nominated by the City in 2021.
Grant Amount: $1,380,000
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Transit
Authority (UTA)
Match Requirement: $920,000 cash match – Source: the City’s Quarter Cent Sales Tax
funding and/or the City’s Transit Funding Our Future local option sales tax.
Page | 2
NOTE: As mentioned previously, this is a nomination process, rather than a typical application
process, which UDOT uses to bookmark funding for highway capacity, active transportation, and
transit projects. The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for
which the City typically allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is
likely to be available based on ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Nomination Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,
Brijette Williams
CC: Sarah Behrens, Janyce Fowles, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee
Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: April 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Transit Transportation Investment Fund - First & Last Mile: North Temple Active Transportation
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
GRANT PROGRAM: Transit Transportation Investment Fund – First & Last Mile (TTIF-FLM)
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,380,000
DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None
DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required $920,000 □ In-Kind and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Division of Transportation requested $1,380,000 for the North Temple Active Transportation.
The project will construct a paved multi-use trail, improve and shorten pedestrian crossings, widen
sidewalks, and add street trees and shading elements for the five-block stretch of North Temple from the
North Temple Frontrunner stop to downtown Salt Lake City.
The $920,000 match will be met through the City's quarter cent sales tax funding and/or the City's Transit
Funding Our Future local option sales tax.
The North Temple Active Transportation is ranked as priority eight out of the eight projects nominated by the
City in 2021.
NOTE:
This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to bookmark funding for
highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects.
The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically
allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on
ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Items G1-G6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING
The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items
G-1 through G-6. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items G-1 through G-6 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted six grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them,
the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under
Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
4. West Temple Walk Bike Transit Connections -Transit Transportation
Investment Fund-First & Last Mile (TTIF-FLM) Grant
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the
addition of physically separated bike lanes, pedestrian crossing improvements, and narrow
pedestrian crossing distances with curb extensions and refuge islands. These improvements
will be made as part of the West Temple Street Reconstruction scheduled for 2024 due to
deteriorating condition. This project is ranked as priority five out of eight projects
nominated by the City in 2021.
Grant Amount: $1,020,000
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
Match Requirement: $680,000 cash match – Source: Salt Lake City’s Streets Bond
passed in 2018.
Page | 2
NOTE: As mentioned previously, this is a nomination process, rather than a typical application
process, which UDOT uses to bookmark funding for highway capacity, active transportation, and transit
projects. The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the
City typically allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be
available based on ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Nomination Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,
Brijette Williams
CC: Sarah Behrens, Janyce Fowles, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee
Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: April 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Transit Transportation Investment Fund - First & Last Mile: West Temple Walk Bike Transit Connections
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
GRANT PROGRAM: Transit Transportation Investment Fund – First & Last Mile (TTIF-FLM)
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $1,020,000
DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None
DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required $680,000 □ In-Kind and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Division of Transportation requested $1,020,000 for the West Temple Walk Bike Transit Connections.
The project will add physically separated bike lanes, improve pedestrian crossings, and narrow pedestrian
crossing distances with a mix of curb extensions and refuge islands.
The active transportation infrastructure construction will take place as part of the West Temple Street
reconstruction which is scheduled for 2024 due to deteriorating overall condition.
The $680,000 match will be met through the Salt Lake City streets bond passed in 2018.
The West Temple Walk Bike Transit Connections is ranked as priority five out of the eight projects nominated by
the City in 2021.
NOTE:
This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to bookmark funding for
highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects.
The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically allocates
funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on ongoing funding
sources dedicated to transportation.
Items G1-G6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING
The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items
G-1 through G-6. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items G-1 through G-6 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted six grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them,
the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under
Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
5. Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway Grant -Transit
Transportation Investment Fund-First & Last Mile (TTIF-FLM) Grant
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the
construction of a north-south transportation route through the Westpointe and Jordan
Meadows neighborhoods running west of and parallel to Redwood Road. Amenities
planned for this location include mini-roundabouts at larger street intersections, curb
extension, bike ramps, bike lane striping, speed humps and wayfinding signage. This
project is ranked as priority four out of eight projects nominated by the City in 2021.
Grant Amount: $411,000
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
Match Requirement: $274,000 cash match – Source: Salt Lake City’s Quarter Cent Sales
Tax funding and/or the City’s Transit Funding Our Future local option sales tax.
Page | 2
NOTE: As mentioned previously, this is a nomination process, rather than a typical application
process, which UDOT uses to bookmark funding for highway capacity, active transportation, and
transit projects. The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for
which the City typically allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is
likely to be available based on ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Nomination Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,
Brijette Williams
CC: Sarah Behrens, Janyce Fowles, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee
Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: April 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Transit Transportation Investment Fund-First & Last Mile: Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood
Byway
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
GRANT PROGRAM: Transit Transportation Investment Fund – First & Last Mile (TTIF-FLM)
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $411,000
DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None
DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required $274,000 □ In-Kind and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
Division of Transportation requested $411,000 for the Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway.
The project will construct a north-south active transportation route through the Westpointe and Jordan
Meadows neighborhoods that runs west of and parallel to Redwood Road.
Planned active transportation infrastructure includes ultra-mini roundabouts at larger street intersections;
curb extensions and bike ramps; and bike lane striping, traffic calming, speed humps, and wayfinding.
• The $274,000 match will be met through the City's quarter cent sales tax funding and/or the City's Transit
Funding Our Future local option sales tax.
• The Westpointe/Jordan Meadows Neighborhood Byway is ranked as priority four out of the eight projects
nominated by the City in 2021.
NOTE:
• This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to bookmark funding for
highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects.
• The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically
allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on
ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Items G1-G6
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING
The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items
G-1 through G-6. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items G-1 through G-6 to a
future Consent Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
Council Sponsor: No sponsor / Budget item
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted six grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them,
the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under
Public Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
6. Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House – Transportation Investment Fund-Active
Transportation Grant
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the
construction of a two-way bike trail in the public right-of-way on the west side of Highland
Drive, and the construction of 200 feet of a trail along Sugarmont Drive just west of
Highland Drive. This work will be completed as part of the reconstruction of Highland
Drive planned for 2023. This project is ranked as priority one out of eight projects
nominated by the City in 2021.
Grant Amount: $372,000
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
Match Requirement: $248,000 cash match – Source: Salt Lake City Streets Bond passed
in 2018.
NOTE: This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to
Page | 2
bookmark funding for highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects. The timeline for
the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically allocates
funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on
ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Nomination Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,
Brijette Williams
CC: Sarah Behrens, Janyce Fowles, Jon Larsen, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee
Robinson, Linda Sanchez, Jordan Smith, Kory Solorio, Blake Thomas, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: April 2, 2021
SUBJECT: Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation: Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
GRANT PROGRAM: Transportation Investment Fund – Active Transportation (TIF-ACTIVE)
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $372,000
DEPARTMENT: Department of Community & Neighborhoods | Division of Transportation
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None
DATE SUBMITTED: March 29, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
Match Required $248,000 □ In-Kind and Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
The Division of Transportation requested $372,000 for the Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House.
The project will construct: 1) a high-quality two-way bicycle facility in the public right of way on the west side
of Highland Drive in the heart of Sugar House, and 2) 200 feet of a multi-use trail facility along Sugarmont Drive
just west of Highland Drive.
• The construction will take place in conjunction with the reconstruction of Highland Drive planned for 2023.
• The $248,000 match will be met through the Salt Lake City streets bond passed in 2018.
• The Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House is ranked as priority one out of the eight projects nominated by the City
in 2021.
NOTE:
• This is a nomination process, rather than a typical application process, that UDOT uses to bookmark funding for
highway capacity, active transportation, and transit projects.
• The timeline for the nominated projects (2023 – 2027) is beyond the horizon for which the City typically
allocates funding. Therefore, the match source is based on funding that is likely to be available based on
ongoing funding sources dedicated to transportation.
Item G7
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
PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Eight FY21
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to May 18th.
MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the FY 2020-21 final budget
of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document as shown on the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference.
A-1: Hire Lateral Class of Police Officers – ($314,899 – from $2.8 million Holding Account)
A-2: Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Training for Police Department – ($117,400 – from $322,800
Training Holding Account)
A-3: Donation to Switchpoint to Create Shelter for Low-Income Seniors and Veterans – ($2 million; –
One million each from General Fund’s Fund Balance and Funding Our Future’s Fund Balance)
I-1: (Tentative) Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) ($100,000 – $50,000 from General Fund Balance)
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:April 20, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Eight FY2021
________________________________________________________________________________
Budget Amendment Number Eight is a small amendment with no revenue impact and proposed expenses of $2 million.
The amendment includes two proposals from the Police Department to access funds set aside in the Non Departmental
budget during the FY21 annual budget process. The third item is a request to provide a grant using General Fund and
Funding Our Future fund balances to assist in the purchase of the Airport Inn. This amendment also includes one
potential Council-added item which would impact the General Fund in the amount of $50,000.
If this budget amendment is approved as requested by the Administration, with the inclusion of the Council-added item,
then the amount available in Fund Balance above the 13% minimum target would be $7.2 million. There are a total of
three items in Section A. The Administration has requested that this amendment be expedited.
Revenues Update
The Administration has provided the following information regarding City revenues: “The City is currently projecting a
$1.9 million decrease in budgeted revenue (as compared to the $4.4 million decrease projected in revenue for Budget
Amendment No. Seven). The largest portion of the decrease is attributed to a $1.7 million decrease in Fines and
Forfeitures, a $1.7 million decrease in Parking Meter Revenues and a $978 thousand decrease in Miscellaneous
Revenues. These decreases are offset by a projected net increase of $1.4 million in Licenses and Permits as well as a
$1.1 million increase in Sales Tax and a $750 thousand increase in sales tax attributable to Funding Our Future
revenues.
The increase in Licenses and Permits is in spite of airport parking/license tax showing a decrease due to decreased
travel as a result of COVID. The decrease in airport parking and licenses is $2,045,000. Innkeepers tax has also been hit
hard by COVID and is projecting a decrease of $1,717,500. According to recent news reports, hotels are experiencing
30% occupancy compared to this time of year in previous years. Business licenses are also expected to be below budget
due to trends for apartment units, new business license requests and business license renewal .
Project Timeline:
Set Date: April 20, 2021
1st Briefing: April 20, 2021
2nd Briefing (if needed): May 4, 2021
Public Hearing: May 4, 2021
Potential Action: May 18, 2021
Page | 2
These revenue losses are offset by gains in permits & zoning building permits (+$1.1M), plan check fees (+$1.5M), and
street excavation (+$1.96M due to a temporary boost from Google contract). Fines and Forfeitures are projected
below budget due to a decrease in parking ticket revenue of $750k. Justice Court fines are down $185k, while moving
violations are projected wat a loss of $699k. The Justice Court is following the order of the Administrative Office of the
Courts which is resulting in fewer court cases and no orders to pay fines, which are then subsequently not sent to
collections and no warrants are being issued. Traffic school revenue is down $61k and vehicle booting is projected to be
down $19k. Parking Meter Collection is slightly less than half of the previous fiscal year due to an overall decrease in
traffic downtown. This is driving the significant decrease of $1.7 million. Additionally, Miscellaneous Revenue has
also been affected by the pandemic with decreases in accounts receivable collections, special event revenue, fuel
reimbursement due to the Mayor’s emergency declaration and utility reimbursement.
Page | 3
Fund Balance Update
Fund Balance remains above fifteen percent, after projected use of fund balance in the current amendment and the
reduction in projected revenues.
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
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items)
A-1: Hire Lateral Class of Police Officers – ($314,899 from $2.8 million Holding Account)
The Police Department is requesting budget appropriation from the holding account approved by the Council as
part of the FY 21 annual budget, to hire 12 lateral officers. The Administration indicates this urgent need is to
address a shortage in officers available for call response:
See Attachment 1 for charts visualizing the impact of increased:
- Employee separations, retirements, and resignations
o 36 resignations is more than double the average in recent years
o 8 separations is double the average in recent years
- Leave by type and month, and
o Leave time spiked in September and October, and then again in February
- Calls for service
o The first two months of 2021 are significantly higher than the average in recent years but slightly
below call volume in January and February last year
Traditionally, hiring a lateral class has not been as “recruitment” oriented as a new officer class. Currently, due to
COVID restrictions, the Police Department is relying on social media and referrals to attract a pool of candidates for
the proposed lateral hiring class. The Administration has stated the following: “As the Police Department looks to
utilize lateral hiring in the short term, we will refocus efforts on lateral recruitment and diversity recruitment. This
will include analyzing social media announcements of lateral hiring classes and messages on diversity in the
workforce. We will continue to work with Human Resources and the Racial Equity in Policing (REP) Commission to
identify and implement changes and improvements in recruiting which will provide for a more diverse applicant
pool of officers.”
See Attachment 2 for a spreadsheet provided by the Police Department that projects officer staffing levels in FY22
under two scenarios. The first scenario assumes holding 30 officer FTE positions vacant through next fiscal year
and not hiring a lateral class in FY21. The result is further reductions in staffing levels averaging slightly less than
400 officers. The second scenario assumes a lateral class in FY21 and not holding any police officer FTE positions
vacant in FY22. The result is a slight increase in staffing levels averaging 412 officers.
The current available officers after factoring in accumulated use or lose leave time is 406 officers as of March 26,
2021. As of the same date, the Police Department has a total of 489 officers on staff of a total 569 authorized officer
FTEs of which 66 are Airport Police. It’s important to note that the Department’s staffing is cyclical as employees
retire or leave for other reasons. The total number of hired officers on staff and the number of available officers can
change daily. The assumptions in the projections such as four officer retirements per month could be higher or
lower next fiscal year.
Lateral Class Hiring:
Lateral officers would go through a complete background and interview process.
Lateral officers have the necessary law enforcement certification from Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST).
SLCPD Training Academy for SLCPD and City specific training (recommendation from the REP
Commission)
Field Training program – One on one training in the field. Provide for second officer on scene to handle
calls for service. During field training, officers will be scheduled to attend a community council meeting in
each district.
The Police Department has been working closely with Human Resources to analyze the departments diversity and
Page | 5
improvements that can be made. In 2020, most of the outreach and recruiting was suspended due to the pandemic
and budget limitations. The table below was prepared by the Administration for the REP Commission along with a
statement that the City’s demographic makeup “during the day fluctuates to include many other people that
commute to work from other cities along the Wasatch Front and we hire most of our people from the same
demographic. The Wasatch Front is the standard we usually compare ourselves to.”
The requested funding is split between $257,311 for personnel costs and $57,533 for supplies. If the Council
approves this request, then the holding account will have a remaining balance of $2,485,101.
See Attachment 3 for a Racial Equity in Policing Core Commissioners letter of support for the proposed lateral class.
The letter identifies implementation of REP Commission recommendations as an important factor for supporting
hiring lateral officers from other law enforcement agencies. Examples of those recommendations include
mandatory CIT training, Salt Lake City neighborhood specific cultural training and changes to questions asked of
candidates in the Police Chief’s interviews.
Policy Questions and Straw Poll Request:
➢Straw Poll – The Administration requested a straw poll if the Council supports this approach. It would
allow early steps in the hiring process to begin sooner such as
➢Funding Source – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the proposed use of the $2.8
million holding account for this item. An alternate funding source is general fund balance.
➢Training Changes – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how will training be different for these
new officers compared to past practices? The Council may wish to consider making future police funding
contingent on all officers receiving CIT training and maintaining certification.
➢Response Times and Crime Types – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if data is available
about response times overall and by crime type. Some public comments to the Council Office have claimed
response times have gotten longer during FY21.
A-2: Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Training for Police Department– ($117,400 from $322,800
Training Holding Account)
The Police Department is requesting budget appropriation from the training holding account to cover CIT training
costs. The Police Department has implemented additional CIT training for all sworn officers. This additional
training is in alignment with the recommendations of the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. The Police
Department has been proactive and scheduled Certification and Recertification Courses but will need overtime
budget to facilitate the increase in training. The overtime will be utilized to facilitate officers attending training on
overtime or paying overtime to backfill those positions for training as well as overtime for the social workers or
other CIT instructors that teach the classes.
The table below summarizes the status of police officer CIT training as of April 6, 2021. The Police Department
offered additional CIT trainings in February and March. Figures from February show the number of officers fully
certified increased from 110 to 179 in the last two months. If this funding is approved, then the Police Department
anticipates three 10-hour renewal courses would be offered in May for up to 90 officers. Also, a full 40-hour
academy class would be offered in May and another in June for up to 50 officers. Additional courses would be
Page | 6
offered next fiscal year to allow every officer to be fully certified. Council Members have previously acknowledged
that the SLCPD's form of CIT training is not identical to some other CIT models.
The Police Department is requiring CIT certification for all officers. The overtime is voluntary and available to
officers that are unable to attend while on duty. Additional funding for voluntary overtime is expected to increase
the pace of officers becoming fully certified, or to account for potential Council budget contingencies relating to CIT
training.
Note these figures are as of April 6, 2021
The Police Department has its own CIT instructors which includes three officers and one sergeant. All staff in the
social worker program also participate in CIT trainings. Sometimes METRO CIT also provides a social worker and
detectives from West Valley City to assist. It’s important to note that the CIT instructors are also the officers that co-
respond with social workers.
If the Council approves this request, then the training holding account will have a remaining balance of $205,400.
Policy Questions:
➢All Officers Certified Timing – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when every officer will be
able to attain full CIT certification. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration if new officers will
receive CIT certification as part of initial academy training or Field Training Officer (FTO).
➢# of CIT Instructors – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the current staffing levels of
CIT instructors impacts the Police Department’s ability to offer CIT trainings and ability to offer the co-
responder model where officers and social workers jointly deploy to a call for service.
A-3: Donation to Switchpoint to Create Shelter for Low-Income Seniors and Veterans –
($2,000,000 Total: One million each from General Fund’s Fund Balance and Funding Our Future’s
Fund Balance)
See Attachment 4 for Switchpoint’s original proposal to purchase the Airport Inn
The Administration is proposing issuing a donation of $2,000,000 to a coalition headed by Switchpoint to assist in
their purchase of the winter overflow shelter (Airport Inn at 2333 West North Temple). Switchpoint, is proposing to
purchase the property for extremely low-income seniors and veterans. The public benefit analysis usually required
for the City to donate funds or assets to a non-profit is satisfied by the budget amendment public hearing scheduled
for May 4.
Switchpoint indicates the project will provide 100 housing units, with at least 25% reserved for veterans. The
monthly rent will be $415/unit. In addition to housing, Switchpoint will provide access to on site integrated
treatment services for physical and behavioral health. The total cost of purchasing and refurbishing the housing
units and common areas will be about $80,000 per unit, significantly below the new construction costs of about
$200,000 per unit. Ongoing operating costs of the project, including professional support for needed services will
be fully supported by the rent paid by our residents. Total cost is $8,500,000 including $6,500,000 to purchase,
plus $2,000,000 to renovate. To date, Switchpoint has secured $1.75 million, and is working to secure additional
funding from private donors and other entities. If the Council approves the request, the purchase/renovation
funding gap would be $4.75 million.
The proposed shelter would not be permanent supportive housing but rather transitional, extended hotel stays. This
is different than single-room occupancy (SRO) or shared group living housing. The property is located within
St at u s # o f Offic e rs % o f T o t al
Fully Ce r t ifie d 1 7 9 3 5 %
Ne e d 4 -ho u r Re c e r t ific at io n 7 8 1 5 %
Ne e d 1 0 -ho u r Re ne wa l 1 2 0 2 4 %
No t Ce r t ifie d / Ne e d 4 0 -ho u r CI T A c ad e my 1 3 0 2 6 %
TOTA LS 5 0 7 1 0 0 %
C risi s I n t e rv en t io n T e am (C I T ) T rai n i n g b y Po lic e Offic e r St at u s
Page | 7
Airport Influence Zone A where residential uses are prohibited. Hotel uses are permitted in this zone if sound
mitigation measures are taken (such as thicker windows). As a result, rental agreements are limited to 30 days,
kitchen facilities may not be provided inside each room and on-site services may not be intensive.
Switchpoint is currently in discussions with additional donors and Salt Lake County for further funding. If the
project can secure full funding, then renovations are estimated to take three months.
Policy Questions:
➢Purchasing Other Properties to Create Housing – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if using
these funds to purchase other properties in the City to create low-income housing was or could be
evaluated. Some Council Members expressed interest in purchasing blighted and/or nuisance properties
and redeveloping them into affordable housing.
➢Coordination with Other Veterans Housing – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the 25
units reserved for veterans will be coordinated with other veteran dedicated housing nearby such as Valor
House, Freedom Landing and others.
Additional questions sent by staff:
The following questions were sent to the Administration and responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing
this staff report:
Is it correct that Switchpoint will own and operate the property? Are there other entities that would have an
ownership stake or be involved in ongoing operations?
Has the Administration (and/or Switchpoint) evaluated using these funds to purchase other properties in
the City to create housing dedicated to low-income seniors and veterans? Will using these funds reduce the
possibility of the City having adequate resources to purchase other properties that may serve this purpose?
How will affordability to low-income seniors and veterans be ensured over the long-term? Are there legal
steps Switchpoint plans to make, or that the City could require as a condition of the donation, to ensure
affordability over coming decades?
If Switchpoint is unable to secure full funding by the end of FY21, then would the $2 million drop to fund
balance and no longer be available for the redevelopment?
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
(None)
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
(None)
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3 – Grant Awards
(None)
Page | 8
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: (Tentative) Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Public Awareness and Education Campaign
($100,000; $50,000 from Fund Balance)|
This item is a placeholder in case the Council decides to approve using a ranked choice voting method for the 2021
municipal election. $50,000 of funding would come from the General Fund’s Fund Balance. A budget for another
$50,000 would be created to accept funds from external sources such as the Lieutenant Governor’s Office.
The Council is scheduled on April 20 at the formal meeting to consider a resolution approving the use of RCV for
the 2021 municipal election.
ATTACHMENTS
1. SLCPD Staffing and Calls for Service Charts
2. Projected Police Officer Staffing in FY2022 Two Scenarios
3. REP Core Commissioners Letter of Support for Lateral Class
4. Switchpoint’s original proposal to purchase the Airport Inn
ACRONYMS
CIT – Crisis Intervention Team
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
POST – Peace Officer Standards and Training
RCV – Ranked Choice Voting
REP – Racial Equity in Policing Commission
SLCPD – Salt Lake City Police Department
SLCPD STAFFING AND CALLS FOR SERVICE 03/01/2021
Separations, Retirements and Resignations Leaves
Calls for Service
2 3 4 5 8 0
21 22 29 21
25
3
5 9
18
19
36
9
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Separations Retirements Resignations
SEPARATIONS, RETIREMENTS, RESIGNATIONS
JANUARY 2016 - FEB 2021
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MA
R
201
9
AP
R
201
9
MA
Y
20
1
9
JUN
20
1
9
JUL
201
9
AU
G
20
1
9
SEP
201
9
OC
T
20
1
9
NO
V
201
9
DE
C
201
9
JAN
202
0
FEB
20
2
0
MA
R
202
0
AP
R
202
0
MA
Y
20
2
0
JUN
20
2
0
JUL
202
0
AU
G
20
2
0
SEP
202
0
OC
T
20
2
0
NO
V
202
0
DE
C
202
0
JAN
202
1
FEB
20
2
1
ADMIN LEAVE ERPL
FMLA/DLOA MILITARY
PARENTAL LEAVE SHORT TERM DISABILITY
WORKERS COMP TOTAL
DEPARTMENT LEAVES BY MONTH
14243 14849 15198
15309
18617 18144
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Jan & Feb 2016-2021
In January 2020 the Police Department had all sworn funded FTE's hired.
Authorized 3/26/2021 7/1/2021 12/31/2021 3/31/2022 06/31/2022
Staffing #569 523 511 517 505 517
Class 11/20 Unavailable 569 88
Class 2/21 Unavailable 569 26 26 26
Hold 30 FY 21 / FY 22 569 30 30 30 30 30
Hire 12/31/2022 569 0 0 30 30 30
Hire 4/1/2022 569 00 0024
Available 569 489 477 461 475 463
Use/Lose 569 17 17 17 0 0
Less Airport 66 66 66 66 66 66 Average
Staffing after use/lose 406 394 378 409 397 396.8
Total 553 541 547 535 547
Authorized 3/26/2021 7/1/2021 12/31/2021 3/31/2022 06/31/2022
Staffing #569 535 563 569 557 569
Class 11/20 569 88 0 0 0
Class 2/21 569 26 26 26 0 0
Class 7/21 569 30 30 30 30
Hold 30 FY 21 / FY 22 569 30
Hire 12/31/2022 569 30 30 30
Hire 4/1/2022 569 24
Lateral (4/21)569 12
Lateral (7/21)569 10
Available 569 489 489 483 497 485
Use/Lose 569 17 17 17 0 0
Less Airport 66 66 66 66 66 66 Average
Staffing after use/lose 406 406 400 431 419 412.4
Total 569 565 563 569 557 569
*Staffing considerations: special events, National League of Cities November 2021, protests, NBA All Star Game
February 2023, calls for Service, need for overtime may not be filled
On average: A class of 30 every 6 months will only add 3 fte's after 10 months of training based on an average
attrition of 4 per month and a loss of 3 during the training period
FY22 budget for funding police fte's will be needed to ensure the department can continually hire replacements
for staff that is leaving in order to re‐establish and maintain the staffing levels necessary when considering that
any officer in the academy is not eligible to take calls for service.
FY21: Establish budget for hiring in the current fiscal year that will allow the department to provide adequate
coverage for calls for service and major response.
Holding 30 FTE in FY 22
Hiring 30 FTE in FY 22 ‐ With Lateral Hires
April 9, 2021
Re: Support for Salt Lake City Police Department hiring
Dear Members of the City Council,
We write to you as the six “core commissioners” of the Salt Lake City Commission on Racial Equity
in Policing. Thank you for entrusting us with this critical role of examining the policy, budget, and
culture of the Salt Lake City Police Department.
We believe that it is part of our role to support Police Department initiatives that increase community
safety and officer training. As such, we write in support of City administration’s request in Budget
Amendment No. 8 for two police-related items. Both of these items provide an opportunity to enact
some of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission’s recommendations to the City:
•Funding to hire a lateral class of 12 police officers to replace officers lost through
retirements and resignations. As we discussed, this hiring will provide an opportunity to
introduce our recommendation that officers receive neighborhood-specific cultural training.
We also appreciate Chief Brown’s suggestion that we provide specific questions we would
like him to ask in the Chief’s interviews of candidates. If the Council approves this request,
we look forward to following up on these specific parameters of the hiring.
•Funding to complete Crisis Intervention Training for the department. It is essential that
officers receive CIT not only during their initial academy training, but on an ongoing,
annual basis. Dealing with people in crisis is an everyday occurrence for police officers, and
they must have the support to best handle the situation and prevent further harm to all
involved, including themselves.
Both of these initiatives will improve community safety and wellbeing. We support these requests
and respectfully urge you to support them as well.
Thank you for your service,
Rev. France Davis
Nicole Salazar-Hall
Moises Prospero
Verona Sagato-Mauga
Kamaal Ahmad
Darlene McDonald
Airport Inn Purchase Proposal
2333 W North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Summary: An unusual combination of real estate market dynamics and federal stimulus
money has provided a unique opportunity to create a safe and welcoming environment for
seniors and veterans in Salt Lake City. We propose to purchase and refurbish the Airport Inn as
a Vertical Tiny Home neighborhood, creating a community within the larger Salt Lake City
community. This project will still be operated as a hotel/motel for zoning requirements.
The community will provide 100 units of housing for seniors and veterans on extremely
low incomes. At least 25% of the units will be reserved for veterans. Monthly rent will be $415
per unit. In addition to housing, we will provide on site access to integrated treatment services
for physical and behavioral health. We will also provide veterans health services through a
collaborative relationship already in place with Brighton Health Care a subsidiary of Avalon
Health.
The total cost of purchasing and refurbishing the housing units and common areas will
be about $80,000 per unit, significantly below the new construction costs of about $200,000 per
unit. Ongoing operating costs of the project, including professional support for needed services
will be fully supported by the rent paid by our residents.
Request: To purchase and refurbish the Airport Inn as 100 units of housing for senior citizens
55 years old or older, and veterans, on extremely low fixed incomes.
Cost: $8,500,000 - $6,500,000 to purchase, plus $2,000,000 to renovate. To date- Dell Loy
Hansen Family Foundation has committed $1,500,000- Episcopal Church $250,000 and we are
waiting for confirmation on another $500,000 from a donor. Salt Lake County has also been
notified that this project needs funding and we are awaiting an answer from Mike Gallegos on
the amount.
Advance Planning: We have already met with leaders from the City of Salt Lake and received
approval to move forward. We have worked with attorneys regarding zoning and the airport
overlay. It was determined that if there is no change to the services provided, no changes in
zoning are needed at this time. The leases offered will be on a month-to-month basis as
extended stay hotel.
We have already collaborated with the Division of Mental Health and Veteran Health Services
to provide support services through the Airport facility.
Results: We will get the most vulnerable population (as observed in the temporary winter
shelters) into affordable housing with wrap around services to provide a healthy, safe,
community environment.
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 9, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #8
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2020 – 21 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 0.00 $ 2,000,000.00
TOTAL $ 0.00 $ 2,000,000.00
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 9, 2021 17:55 MDT)
4/9/2021
4/9/2021
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2020-21 Budget Adjustments
The Fiscal Year 2021 projections are coming in below budgeted revenues. The following chart
shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2021.
The City is currently projecting a $1.9 million decrease in budgeted revenue. The largest portion
of the decrease is attributed to a $1.7 million decrease in Fines and Forfeitures, a $1.7 million
decrease in Parking Meter Revenues and a $978 thousand decrease in Miscellaneous
Revenues. These decreases are offset by a projected net increase of $1.4 million in Licenses and
Permits as well as a $1.1 million increase in Sales Tax and a $750 thousand increase in sales tax
attributable to Funding Our Future revenues.
The increase in Licenses and Permits is in spite of airport parking/license tax showing a
decrease due to decreased travel as a result of COVID. The decrease in airport parking and
licenses is $2,045,000. Innkeepers tax has also been hit hard by COVID and is projecting a
decrease of $1,717,500. According to the local news, hotels are experiencing 30% occupancy
compared to this time of year in previous years. Business license are also expected to be below
budget due to trends for apartment units, new business license and renew business licenses.
FY20-21 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 111,418,455 111,418,455 -
Sales and Use Tax 67,999,593 69,146,260 1,146,667
Franchise Tax 26,812,125 26,702,018 (110,107)
PILOT Taxes 1,508,894 1,508,894 -
TOTAL TAXES 207,739,067 208,775,627 1,036,560
License and Permits 28,601,482 30,071,777 1,470,295
Intergovernmental 4,444,400 4,146,157 (298,243)
Interest Income 1,900,682 1,700,000 (200,682)
Fines & Forfeiture 3,938,848 2,210,747 (1,728,101)
Parking Meter Collection 3,432,962 1,705,187 (1,727,775)
Charges and Services 4,428,069 4,219,771 (208,298)
Miscellaneous Revenue 4,014,037 3,036,282 (977,755)
Interfund Reimbursement 20,281,706 20,268,706 (13,000)
Transfers 9,507,812 9,507,812 -
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 288,289,065 285,642,067 (2,646,998)
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 32,797,506 33,547,506 750,000
Sales and Use Tax - County Option - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 321,086,571 319,189,573 (1,896,998)
These losses are offset by gains in permits & zoning building permits (+$1.1M), plan check fees
(+$1.5M), and street excavation (+$1.96M due to a temporary boost from Google contract).
Fines and Forfeitures are projected below budget due to a decrease in p arking ticket revenue of
$750k. Justice Court fines are down $185k, while moving violations are projected wat a loss of
$699k. The Justice Court is following the order of the Administrative Office of the Courts which
is resulting in fewer court cases and no orders to pay fines, which are then subsequently not sent
to collections and no warrants are being issued. Traffic school revenu e is down $61k and vehicle
booting is projected to be down $19k.
Parking Meter Collection is slightly less than half of the previous fiscal year due to an overall
decrease in traffic downtown. This is driving the significant decrease of $1.7 million.
Additionally, Miscellaneous Revenue has also been affected by the pandemic with decreases in
accounts receivable collections, special event revenue, fuel reimbursement due to the Mayor’s
emergency declaration and utility reimbursement.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
City Fund Balance remains above fifteen percent, after projected use of fund balance in the current amendment and the reduction in
projected revenues.
2019 Actual FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 56,104,269 10,372,054 69,441,955 79,814,009 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (380,025) - (1,510,094) (1,510,094) 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620)
Prior Year Encumbrances (8,731,774) (3,105,004) (6,566,830) (9,671,834) (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 46,992,470 7,267,050 61,365,031 68,632,081 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.57%18.17%20.64%20.35%17.34%23.69%23.03%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,701,982) - (4,127,838) (4,127,838) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 43,290,488 7,267,050 57,237,193 64,504,243 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777
Final Fund Balance Percent 13.42%18.17%19.26%19.13%17.34%21.74%21.28%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,858,647) (2,300,000) (13,070,734) (15,370,734)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788)
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673)
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824)
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
Change in Revenue 3,149,980 758,000 6,069,370 6,827,370 750,000 (2,646,998) (1,896,998)
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase 2,500,000 900,000 - 900,000 - - -
- Adjusted Fund Balance 47,081,821 6,625,050 50,235,829 56,860,879 5,565,989 43,657,136 49,223,125
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 14.60%16.56%16.90%16.86%16.59%15.07%15.23%
Projected Revenue 322,562,293 40,000,000 297,251,407 337,251,407 33,547,506 289,692,711 323,240,217
2021 Projection2020 Projection
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment with no revenue impact and expense of
$2,000,000.00. The amendment proposes changes in the General Fund only with $2,000,000.00
from the General Fund balance, $1,000,000.00 is from Funding Our Future Housing. The
proposal includes three total initiatives for Council review.
The amendment includes two proposals from the Police Department to access funds set aside in
the Non Departmental budget during the budget process. The final proposal is a request to
provide a grant using General Fund and Funding Our Future fund balance to provide a grant to
assist in the purchase of the Airport Inn.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Eighth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-2021)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2020 and Ending
June 30, 2021.
In June of 2020, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
_________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Lateral Class GF - 314,899.00 Ongoing -
1 Lateral Class GF (314,899.00)Ongoing -
2 CIT Training GF 117,400.00 One-time -
2 CIT Training GF (117,400.00)One-time -
3 Switchpoint Donation GF 2,000,000.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
-
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
2
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Total of Budget Amendment Items - 2,000,000.00 - - -
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
3
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #8:
General Fund GF - 2,000,000.00 - - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items - 2,000,000.00 - - -
4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2020-21 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2020-21
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total Total To-Date
General Fund (FC 10)326,130,003 288,487.58 6,184,940.00 2,783,685.00 63,673.00 6,582,824.00 2,000,000.00 344,033,613
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,763,746 1,763,746
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,379,697 1,500.00 5,038.00 5,386,235
Water Fund (FC 51)126,333,193 296,750.00 1,543,238.00 128,173,181
Sewer Fund (FC 52)212,638,399 108,500.00 241,206.00 212,988,105
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)17,961,860 32,650.00 67,282.00 18,061,792
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,311,600 - 520,000.00 38,956,452.00 859,674.00 342,647,726
Refuse Fund (FC 57)16,515,438 53,200.00 2,742,500.00 128,084.00 19,439,222
Golf Fund (FC 59)8,484,897 23,667.00 8,508,564
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,789,270 3,789,270
Fleet Fund (FC 61)19,209,271 93,000.00 97,612.00 19,399,883
IMS Fund (FC 65)18,289,687 237,000.00 453,399.00 93,766.00 19,073,852
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
7,571,945 1,876.00 7,573,821
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)3,509,164 3,063,849.00 6,573,013
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,261,044 716,764.00 5,925,738.42 5,925,738.00 7,818,505.00 750,000.00 11,223,292.00 40,621,081
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)- 520,150.00 520,150
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,380,172 2,380,172
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)23,248,016 - 23,248,016
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)37,519,401 (3,858,955.00) 33,660,446
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)24,420,242 36,435,000.00 1,293,732.00 1,361,866.14 63,510,840
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,855,203 5,296.00 2,860,499
Risk Fund (FC 87)51,409,025 14,350.00 3,836.00 51,427,211
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,221,534,273 716,764.00 7,463,826.00 45,141,392.00 5,925,738.00 49,091,934.00 2,560,804.00 22,758,707.14 2,000,000.00 1,357,193,438
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
5
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Lateral Class GF $314,899.00
GF -$314,899.00
Department: Police Department / Non-
Departmental
Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department is requesting budget appropriation from the holding account to hire 12 lateral officers.
Lateral Class Hiring:
Lateral officers would go through a complete background and interview process.
Lateral officers have the necessary law enforcement certification from the Peace officer Standards and Training (POST).
SLCPD Training Academy for SLCPD and City specific training
Field Training program – One on one training in the field. Provide for second officer on scene to hand le calls for service
During field training, officers will be scheduled to attend a community council meeting in each district.
The Police Department has been working closely with Human Resources to analyze the departments diversity and
improvements that can be made. In 2020, most of the outreach and recruiting was suspended due to the pandemic and
budget limitations.
Traditionally, hiring a lateral class has not been as recruitment oriented as a new officer class. Currently, due to COVID
restrictions, the Police Department is relying on social media and referrals to attract a pool of candidates for the proposed
lateral hiring class. As the Police Department looks to utilize lateral hiring in the short term, we will refocus efforts on
lateral recruitment and diversity recruitment. This will include analyzing social media announcements of lateral hiring
classes and messages on diversity in the workforce. We will continue to work with Human Resources and the Racial Equity
in Policing (REP) Commission to identify and implement changes and improvements in recruiting which will provide for a
more diverse applicant pool of officers.
A-2: CIT Training GF $117,400.00
GF -$117,400.00
Department: Police Department / Non-
Departmental
Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department is requesting budget appropriation from the holding account to cover CIT training costs. The Police
Department has implemented additional CIT training for all sworn officers. This additional training is in alignment with
the recommendations of the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. The Police Department has been proactive and
scheduled Certification and Recertification Courses but will need overtime budget to facilitate the increase in training. Th e
overtime will be utilized to facilitate officers attending training on overtime or paying overtime to backfill those positions
for training as well as overtime for the social workers or other CIT instructors that teach the classes.
A-3: Switchpoint Donation GF 1,000,000.00
GF – FOF
Housing
1,000,000.00
Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: John Vuyk
The administration is proposing issuing a donation of $2,000,000 to a coalition headed by Switchpoint to assist in their
purchase of the winter overflow shelter. Switchpoint, is proposing to purchase the property for extremely low-income
seniors and veterans. The community will provide 100 housing units, with at least 25% reserved for veterans. The monthly
rent will be $415/unit. In addition to housing, Switchpoint will provide access to on site integrated treatment services for
physical and behavioral health. The total cost of purchasing and refurbishing the housing units and common areas will be
about $80,000 per unit, significantly below the new construction costs of about $2 00,000 per unit. Ongoing operating
costs of the project, including professional support for needed services will be fully supported by the rent paid by our
residents. Total cost is $8,500,000 including $6,500,000 to purchase, plus $2,000,000 to renovate. To date, Switchpoint
has secured about $2 million, and is working to secure additional funding from private donors and other entities.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #8
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
1
7
7
6
6
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
Deputy Director
DATE:May 4, 2021
Item J1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
RE: Motion: Meeting remotely without an anchor location
MOTION 1 –Approve – meet remotely
I move that the Council ratify the Council Chair’s decision to meet remotely without an anchor location due to
the City’s local emergency.
OR
MOTION 2 – DECLINE TO
I move that the Council not adopt the motion.
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
Sincerely,
May 4, 2021
As Salt Lake City Council Chair, we hereby determine that conducting the Salt
Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the
health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The World
Health Organization, the President of the United States, the Governor of Utah, the
Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake County Mayor, and the Mayor of
Salt Lake City have all recognized a global pandemic exists related to the new strain
of the coronavirus, SARS- CoV-2.
Due to the state of emergency caused by the global pandemic, I find that
conducting a meeting at an anchor location under the current state of public health
emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may
be present at the location.
Amy Fowler
Chair, Salt Lake City Council
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
PO BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5476 EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM
1
7
7
0
6
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno
Deputy Director
DATE:May 4, 2021
Item J2
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
RE: Resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency – COVID-19
MOTION 1 –EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION
I move that the Council adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to
the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic, until September 8, 2021.
OR
MOTION 2 – DECLINE TO EXTEND A LOCAL EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION
I move that the Council not adopt a resolution extending a proclamation declaring a local emergency relating
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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
RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2021
Extension of Proclamation Declaring a Local Emergency: COVID-19
WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(a), the chief executive of a municipality may
declare a local emergency by proclamation, which proclamation may be in effect for up to 30 days.
WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(1)(b), any extension of the local emergency
beyond the initial 30 days must be with the consent of the governing body of the municipality.
WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.010, the Mayor may declare a local
emergency by proclamation, and the proclamation must state: (i) the nature of the local emergency;
(ii) the areas of the City that are affected or threatened; and (iii) the conditions which caused the
local emergency.
WHEREAS, under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.020, any renewal of a proclamation of local
emergency for a period beyond 30 days must be approved by the City Council, with such approval
expressed by resolution.
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Mayor issued a “Proclamation Declaring a Local
Emergency” in response to the global outbreak of COVID-19 (“Proclamation No. 1 of 2020”),
which would expire under Utah Code and City Code on April 9, 2020.
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2020, pursuant to Resolution No. R-20-5, the City Council
extended the duration of the COVID-19 local emergency to May 7, 2020, and on May 5, 2020, the
City Council again extended the duration of the COVID-19 local emergency to June 6, 2020, again
to July 10, 2020, again to August 14, 2020, again to December 9, 2020, again to February 3, 2021,
and again to May 5, 2021.
WHEREAS, the COVID-19 outbreak continues nationwide and in Salt Lake City, and the
City Council has determined that extending the duration of the local emergency for an additional
30 days is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Salt Lake City’s residents.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, the
following:
1. The Council approves the extension of Proclamation No. 1 of 2020 declaring a local
emergency due to the outbreak of COVID-19, which extension shall be from the date of this
Resolution until September 8, 2021, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution
of the Council or unless terminated pursuant to State law.
2. The Council reiterates that prior to the issuance of any proclamation exercising
emergency powers under City Code 22.03.030, the Mayor shall provide written notification to the
Council of: (a) the specific powers the Mayor intends to exercise; (b) the justification for exercising
such powers in connection with the local emergency; and (c) the anticipated effect of the exercise
of such powers, including the anticipated cost or lost revenue to the City.
3. At any Council meeting while the local emergency is still in effect, the Council may
seek additional information from the Mayor, including the actual effect of the exercise of any
emergency powers and the actual costs or lost revenue to the City due to such exercise of powers.
4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 4th day of May, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
___________________________________
Amy Fowler, Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Approved as to form:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
__________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Item J3
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: Temporary Land Use Regulation: Permitting Certain Outdoor Business Activities
and Use of Certain Temporary Structures
MOTION 1 (Adopt)
I move the Council adopt a temporary land use ordinance that would allow restaurants and retail
establishments to conduct temporary outdoor restaurant dining and retail activities on private property
and utilize temporary structures to facilitate outdoor dining and retail activities.
MOTION 2 (Reject)
I move the Council reject the ordinance.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/28/2021
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Date Sent to Council: 4/28/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/28/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
SUBJECT: Temporary Land Use Regulation and Summary Chart
STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto
rachel.otto@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Approve proposed ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This proposed ordinance addresses the land use aspects of the
Mayor’s emergency proclamations related to outdoor dining/retail, and which will be expiring when
the thresholds are met under H.B. 294. Attached is a summary chart and the ordinance.
Notes:
• Attachment A – Summary Chart
• Attachment B – Ordinance
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 28, 2021 17:06 MDT)
rachel otto (Apr 28, 2021 17:14 MDT)
Regulation of Outdoor Restaurant and Retail Business Activities
Goal Emergency Proclamations Proposal Going Forward
Allow outdoor dining on
private property
Outdoor dining is permitted
on private property.
Waives changes to parking
requirements.
Temporary Land Use
Regulation allows temporary
use to accommodate CDC
guidelines for social
distancing during the
pandemic.
Allows use in existing private
parking lots and yard areas.
Allow outdoor retail business
activities on private property
Waives prohibition on
outdoor business activities.
Temporary Land Use
Regulation allows temporary
use to accommodate CDC
guidelines for social
distancing during the
pandemic.
Allow temporary structures to
protect patrons from weather
to be built on private
property, parking stalls, and
public right of ways
Allows temporary structures
up to 200 sq. ft. without
permits.
Temporary Land Use
Regulation allows temporary
freestanding structures
(canopies, patio coverings,
and similar structures) on
private property and waives
permit fees associated with
installing such structures.
Revise administrative policy
to allow temporary
freestanding structures in the
public right of way on a day
by day basis.
Ensure permit to use public
right of way is more
affordable
Allows annual fees in
consolidated fee schedule to
be charged on a pro rata
basis.
Revise administrative policy
to allow annual fee in
consolidated fee schedule to
be charged on pro rata basis.
Allow retail business use in
the public right of way
Creates temporary outdoor
business permit.
Revise administrative policy
to allow small-scale business
use on same terms as existing
policy on outdoor dining.
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No.____ of 2021
(An Ordinance Permitting Certain Outdoor Business Activities and Use of Certain Temporary
Structures)
WHEREAS, Utah Code § 10-9a-504 permits a municipality, without prior consideration
and recommendation from the municipality’s planning commission, to enact a temporary land use
regulation for any part or all of a municipality for a period of time not to exceed six months if the
governing body makes a finding of compelling countervailing public interest.
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2020, the Mayor of Salt Lake City (the “Mayor”) enacted
Proclamation No. 1 of 2020, pursuant to her authority under Utah Code §§ 53-2a-208(1)(a) and
53-2a-209(1) and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 22.03, declaring a local emergency due to the
global outbreak of COVID-19 and the associated risk of spread of COVID-19 in Salt Lake City
(“City”).
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2020, the Mayor enacted Emergency Proclamation No. 11 of
2020 (“Proclamation 11”), pursuant to her authority under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.030 to
exercise certain emergency powers by proclamation while a proclamation of local emergency is in
effect.
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2020, the Mayor enacted Emergency Proclamation No. 17
of 2020 (“Proclamation 17”), pursuant to her authority under Salt Lake City Code 22.03.030 to
exercise certain emergency powers by proclamation while a proclamation of local emergency is in
effect.
WHEREAS, Proclamation 11 and Proclamation 17 were enacted to protect the citizens of
Salt Lake City from the spread of COVID-19 while maintaining an environment conducive to safe
business and commercial activity by waiving prohibitions on the use of private property adjacent
to existing businesses and waiving prohibitions governing the use of temporary structures to
encourage certain outdoor business activities.
WHEREAS, during the 2021 General Session, the Utah State Legislature passed H.B. 294,
which provides for the termination of any proclamation of a local state of emergency related to the
2
COVID-19 emergency, and any related executive order issued pursuant thereto. Such termination,
as provided in 53-2a-218(2), is triggered when certain public health data thresholds are met.
WHEREAS, the public health data thresholds are expected to be met within the near future,
if current epidemiological trends continue.
WHEREAS, the looming termination of Proclamation 11 and Proclamation 17 presents a
threat of adverse economic impact if businesses are unable to continue promoting socially
distanced outdoor business activities.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds a compelling, countervailing public interest
in ensuring continued robust and safe economic activity by encouraging outdoor business activities
that allow for increased social distancing in light of the ongoing threat posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, and further in light of the termination of the local state of emergency and Proclamation
11 and Proclamation 17 under H.B. 294.
WHEREAS, the City desires to authorize “Temporary Responsible Outdoor Restaurant
Dining and Retail Activities” as further defined in Section 3 and authorized in Section 4 of this
Ordinance during the effective period of this temporary land use regulation as allowed by Utah
Code § 10-9a-504.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Finding of Compelling Countervailing Public Interest. Pursuant to Utah Code
§ 10-9a-504, the Salt Lake City Council finds a compelling, countervailing public interest in
ensuring continued robust and safe economic activity by encouraging outdoor business activities
that allow for increased social distancing in light of the ongoing threat posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, and further in light of the anticipated termination of the local state of emergency and
Proclamation 11 and Proclamation 17 under H.B. 294.
SECTION 2. Duration. This temporary zoning ordinance shall remain in effect for a period
of six months from the effective date of this ordinance unless earlier amended, modified, or
repealed.
SECTION 3. Definition. “Temporary Responsible Outdoor Restaurant Dining and Retail
Activities” means retail or restaurant activity subordinate to an existing adjacent anchor business,
3
conducted outdoors to accommodate safety measures recommended by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, during the National Emergency
as declared by Federal Proclamation 9994 on March 13, 2020.
SECTION 4. Allowing Temporary Outdoor Restaurant Dining and Retail Activities.
Notwithstanding any contrary provisions in Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code, a restaurant or
retail establishment which holds a current business license with the City may, for the period that
this temporary land use regulation is in effect, operate as follows:
1. Conduct Temporary Outdoor Restaurant Dining and Retail Activities on private property,
including in existing parking lots, yard areas, or any other outdoor area located on the
private property of the primary restaurant or retail use.
2. Utilize temporary freestanding canopies, patio coverings, and other similar structures
intended to be temporary in nature to help facilitate the Temporary Responsible Outdoor
Restaurant Dining and Retail Activities, and any permit fees associated with installing such
temporary freestanding canopies, patio coverings, and other similar structures shall be
waived.
SECTION 5. Full Force and Effect. The remaining terms and conditions of Title 21A of
the Salt Lake City Code shall continue to be in full force and effect, as modified by this ordinance.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon the Mayor’s
signature and publication, or after fifteen days of transmission to the office of the Mayor if neither
approved nor disapproved by the Mayor, and thereafter, publication.
Adopted by the City Council this ______day of _______, 2021.
___________________________________
Amy Fowler, Council Chair
Transmitted to Mayor on _________________
Mayor’s Action: ______ Approved. _______ Vetoed.
4
_________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
(SEAL)
Bill No._______ of 2021.
Published: ____________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: April 28, 2021
By: Sara Montoya
Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
Item K1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
RE:MOTION SHEET – Resolution adopting Salt Lake City and Library Fund tentative
budgets for FY 2021-21.
MOTION 1 –ADOPT
I move that the Council approve a resolution adopting the tentative budget for Salt Lake City, Utah, including
the tentative budget of the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council not adopt the proposed resolution and proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
RESOLUTION NO. ____ 2021
Adopting the tentative budgets of Salt Lake City, including the
tentative budget of the Library Fund, for fiscal year 2021-2022
WHEREAS, the Budget Officer of Salt Lake City Corporation (the “City”) has filed
tentative budgets, including the tentative budget for the Library Fund, accompanied by a budget
message pursuant to Section 10-6-111 of the Utah Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to review, consider and adopt the tentative
budgets in a regular or special meeting called for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, each tentative budget adopted by the City Council and all supporting
schedules and data shall be a public record in the office of the City Recorder, available for public
inspection for a period of at least ten days prior to the adoption of the final budgets; and
WHEREAS, at the meeting in which the tentative budgets are adopted, the City Council
shall establish the time and place of a public hearing to consider the adoption and shall order that
notice thereof be published at least seven days prior to the hearing in at least three public places
in the City, on the Utah Public Notice Website, and on the home page of the website of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. The tentative budgets for fiscal year 2021-2022, including the tentative budget for
the Library Fund, filed by the City’s Budget Officer with the City Council, are hereby adopted as
the City’s tentative budgets and are ordered to be filed and maintained as a public record,
available for public inspection in the office of the City Recorder, whose permanent office is
located at 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 but which office is
temporarily located at 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, until adoption of the final
budgets.
2. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________,
2021
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved as to Form
Date:____________________
By:_________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Jaysen Oldroyd
Item K2
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties Located at Approximately 706 to 740 West
900 South, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and Portions of Two Unnamed Alleys
From M-1 to R-MU
PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM 2020-00442
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
I move that the Council reconsider the vote made at the April 20, 2021 Council meeting.
MOTION 1 (adopt with conditions recommended by the Planning Commission)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance rezoning the properties from M-1 to R-MU subject to the developers
entering into a development agreement the City with the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1-) the applicant enters into a purchase agreement with the City to acquire the vacated portions of the alleys that
are the subjects of petition numbers PLNPCM2019-00813 and PLNPCM2020-00268; and
2-) Design standards currently applicable in the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the
properties subject to this zoning map amendment.
MOTION 2 (adopt without conditions recommended by the Planning Commission)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance without conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
(additional motions on back)
MOTION 3 (defer action)
I move that the Council defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 4 (reject)
I move that the Council reject the ordinances.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Properties Located at Approximately 706 to 740 West
900 South, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and Portions of Two Unnamed Alleys
From M-1 to R-MU
PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM 2020-00442
APRIL 20 MEETING SUMMARY
At its April 20, 2021 meeting the Council voted to adopt an ordinance on the subject zoning map
amendment. To correct a technical error, the Council may consider a motion at its May 4 meeting to
reconsider the previous motion. It may then consider a motion to adopt an ordinance with conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission; adopt an ordinance without conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission; defer action to a future Council meeting; or reject the ordinances.
The applicant is supportive of conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
MARCH 16 MEETING SUMMARY
At its March 16, 2021 meeting the Council voted to defer action to a future Council meeting. Since that
date the applicant requested a Council vote at its earliest convenience.
The following information was provided for the March 2 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 16, 2021
Set Date: February 16, 2021
Public Hearing: March 2, 2021
Potential Action: March 16, 2021, April
20, 2021, and May 4, 2021
Page | 2
Seventeen people spoke at the March 2 public hearing. The majority were in favor of rezoning the property
to R-MU. A few expressed concerns with building height allowed within the R-MU zone and stated they
believed R-MU-35 would be more appropriate due to building height being limited to 35 feet. Three
people from Summum, a religious organization adjacent to the property, spoke in opposition to the rezone
citing concerns about a large building blocking sunlight on its property, and potential parking issues. The
Summum representatives also prefer rezoning the property to R-MU-35.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting.
The City Council’s role is limited to determining if the proposed zoning change is appropriate for the
parcels and surrounding area based on other land uses and zones in the area. This is a narrowly different
decision than what will be built on a particular parcel, which the Council does not decide. A chart
summarizing the current and proposed zoning designations is found on page 4 of this report. If the zoning
change is approved by the Council, the property owners will work with City Building Services on details,
building plans, and permits.
The following information was provided for the March 2 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
WORK SESSION SUMMARY
A Council Member asked if the housing units are anticipated to be leased or owner occupied and if there
are plans to include affordable units. The applicant said he envisions a diverse mix of housing types
including townhomes, live/work units, and small units. He isn’t currently planning on owner occupied
units. Affordable housing units will be determined by financing. The hope is smaller units will be at more
affordable price points. The applicant further stated the community expressed a desire for businesses and
restaurants in the neighborhood. He believes there needs to be increased housing density to support those
businesses.
Council Member Johnston reiterated community support for redeveloping the property. He discussed a
meeting he had with Summum, a religious organization adjacent to the subject site. Summum’s concerns
with the project are centered on a large building blocking sunlight from its property, as well as noise and
additional vehicles taking the limited on-street parking.
Council Member Johnston asked Planning staff to talk through the potential for a building on the subject
site to not have a rear or side yard setback requirement. Planning staff stated yard requirements will be
determined when a site plan is submitted. Council Member Johnston expressed the need to balance
desirable redevelopment in the area with Summum’s existing needs for its religious practices. He asked the
applicant to share their reasons for requesting R-MU zoning as opposed to form based zoning. The
applicant stated a large portion of the site contains the existing buildings. To create critical mass
supporting future businesses in the buildings they would like additional height allowed under R-MU that is
not available in form-based zoning. R-MU zoning encourages activation of street uses. In addition, the
applicant stated including the D-2 design standards will further enhance street level engagement and give
the City more control over the development.
The following information was provided for the February 16 work session. It is
provided again for background purposes.
Page | 3
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for properties located at
approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed
alleys adjacent to the properties. (Note: The Council voted to vacate one of the alley segments in August
2020 and was briefed on vacating the other alley segment in January 2021. A public hearing on vacating
the second alley segment is scheduled for March 2 with a potential Council vote March 16, 2021.) An aerial
image of the subject parcels and alley segments is below.
The subject parcels are currently zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and the request is to change the zoning
designation to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). Two existing commercial buildings on the parcels are
planned to be rehabilitated for restaurant and retail type uses which are permitted under both the current
M-1 as well as the proposed R-MU zoning designations. This rezone is being requested to allow future
development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density multi-family housing. Residential
uses are not permitted in the current M-1 zoning designation. Though no development plan has been
submitted, conceptual renderings are included in on pages 125-133 of the Administration’s transmittal.
There are two separate petitions related to this zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission
reviewed them separately and voted to forward positive recommendations to the City Council on both
petitions. Conditions of the Planning Commission’s positive recommendations are included in the
Additional Information section below. The Administration included both rezone petitions in one
transmittal and they are combined in this report.
Council Member Johnston is scheduled to meet with the applicant and concerned neighbors to discuss
impact of the rezone. At the time the staff report was prepared that meeting had not happened, however
staff will update the Council on this meeting during the work session briefing. A summary of the concerns
is below.
Summum, a religious organization that owns abutting property north of the subject properties, objects to
the proposed rezone. According to a letter submitted to the Planning Commission by its attorneys,
Summum believes buildings constructed to the height allowed under the R-MU zoning designation would
reflect and intensify noise from the nearby I-15 freeway onto its temple and gardens, negatively impacting
the peace and serenity of the site. Summum recommended rezoning the subject parcels to R-MU 35 which
would limit building height to 35 feet. The organization believes lower building height will better protect
the atmosphere at its property.
It should be noted under the existing M-1 zoning designation the maximum building height is 65 feet,
though residential buildings are not permitted in M-1.
Page | 4
Aerial image of subject property outlined in yellow. Alley segment in green was vacated by the City Council in August
2020. Alley segment in red is scheduled for a public hearing March 2, with a potential Council vote March 16, 2021.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.The Council may wish to ask what changes, if any, were made as a result of the public process
since the Planning Commission meetings.
2.The Council may wish to ask if the applicant is considering partnering with the City on
potential incentives, such as the Revolving Loan Fund, for affordable housing.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Planning Commission included two conditions as part of its recommendation. First, is to include a
requirement for the applicant to purchase the above-mentioned alley segments, provided the Council
approves vacating the second alley segment. The other condition is to impose additional design standards.
These additional standards are discussed in the Key Considerations section below.
A chart briefly summarizing regulations for the current M-1 zoning designation and proposed R-MU
designation is below. A full chart comparing the two zoning designations is found in Attachment C on
pages 56-59 of the Administration’s transmittal.
Page | 5
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Two key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project, neighbor and
community input, and department reviews. A summary of each is below. See pages 32-34 of the
Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Westside Master Plan
For zoning map amendments, Planning staff considers associated City master plans and applicable adopted
policies. The subject parcels are within the Westside Master Plan boundaries. In addition, Planning staff
considered policies within Plan Salt Lake when reviewing this application. A summary of the Westside
Master Plan guidance is below. Please see Attachment D (pages 60-62 of the Administration’s transmittal)
for the full analysis of City plans Planning staff considered.
The proposed project’s location on 900 South and the 700 West industrial corridor is an area the Westside
Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside community. Five of six routes to
the Westside from the east pass through the 700 West Industrial Corridor making it a significant part of
the eastern gateways to the Westside.
Planning staff noted “A first-time visitor to the community, regardless of their mode of transportation, is
first greeted by a land use and development pattern that is not representative of the true character of the
community. During the public input gathering process for the Westside Master Plan, 900 S was generally
considered the gateway in need of the most attention.” Planning further noted “The proposed R-MU zoning
district provides for a vibrant mix of uses that are more consistent with the future development goals
envisioned for this area, than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation.”
It is Planning’s opinion the proposed rezone is consistent with master plan goals promoting reinvestment
and redevelopment. They found the subject parcels are underutilized and mostly vacant land in an area the
master plan identified as appropriate for high density housing.
Consideration 2: Design Standards
Under the proposed R-MU zoning district, only two design standards apply to new developments. They are
a requirement for 40% ground floor glass on street facing façades, and a 15-foot maximum length of any
blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art, or architectural detail on the ground floor level along a
façade facing the street.
Structured parking or some other use not consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented design envisioned
in the area’s master plan could be included without additional design standards. The Planning Commission
adopted Planning staff’s recommendation to impose design standards in section 21A.37 of the zoning
ordinance applicable to the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district to any new project on the subject
parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. These are included in the following table.
Page | 6
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment E of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 63-65 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal complies with applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission
staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• September 25, 2019 Prior to submitting application, applicants attend the Poplar Grove
Community Council meeting to discuss plans to submit a zoning map amendment.
• January 9, 2020 Notice sent to Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils informing them
of the petition. Early notice was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
project area.
A Planning Division Open House was also held this day at the Salt Lake City Library.
• March 26, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to nearby residents and
property owners. Email notice sent to interested parties and residents/property owners who
requested notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notices posted on the site.
• April 8, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and forwards a positive
recommendation with conditions to the City Council on the proposed rezone.
• April 16, 2020 Applicant requests delay in transmitting proposal because they want to add
property to the rezone request, which requires a new map amendment application.
• July 13, 2020 Notice sent to Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils. Early notification
sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project area. Notice of an online open
house posted on Planning’s website with information about where to learn more about the project
and who to contact with questions and comments.
Page | 7
• October 2, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to residents and property
owners within 300 feet of the project area. Email notice sent to interested parties and
residents/property owners who requested notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing
notice signs posted on the site.
• October 14, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and forwards a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment located at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South
Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys, Petition
PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLN2020-00442
STAFF CONTACT: Amy Thompson, Senior Planner, amy.thompson@slcgov.com, 385-226-
9001 and Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com
385-386-2760
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning map (with conditions) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use) from
the current designation of M-1 (Light Manufacturing) for the properties located at approximately
706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed,
city-owned alleys.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The property owner, Maximilian Coreth, is requesting to rezone twelve parcels and portions of
city owned public alley from the current M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning designation to R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use).
There are two existing commercial buildings on the site that are planned to be rehabilitated for
restaurant and retail type uses that are currently permitted under the current M-1 zoning
designation as well as the proposed R-MU zoning designation. The purpose of the rezone request
12/30/2020Lisa Shaffer
1/6/2020
is to accommodate future development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density
multi-family residential. Residential uses are not permitted in the existing M-1 zoning designation.
The developer has not proposed a specific development plan as part of the rezone application.
The proposal includes two petitions, both to amend the zoning map for the subject properties from
M-1 to R-MU. The first application includes ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley, and
the second petition is to rezone two additional properties and a portion of a city owned alley.
Subject properties are highlighted in yellow. The orange areas identify portions of the city owned alley
included in the rezone request.
The properties could currently be developed for light industrial uses under the M-1 zoning district
designation. A full chart comparing the current M-1 zoning regulations and the proposed R-MU
zoning regulations and allowed uses is located in Exhibit 3b. The following is a brief summary of
some of the development regulations that would change with the proposed rezone request:
Planning Commission Recommended Conditions
In their recommendation to approve the proposal, the Planning Commission adopted the Planning
Staff’s recommended conditions of approval which include a requirement for the petitioner to enter
into a purchase agreement to acquire the vacated portions of the alleys, provided those alley
vacations are approved by the city council, and to impose additional design standards.
The condition related to the alleys was recommended at the request of Salt Lake City Real Estate
Services.
In regard to the recommended condition for additional design standards, the proposed R-MU
zoning district only has two design standards that would apply to any new development under that
zoning designation. Those design standards are a 40% ground floor glass requirement for facades
facing a street, and the 15 FT maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors,
art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any street facing facade. Under the R-
MU design standards, something like structured parking could be located on the ground floor,
which would not be consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented design envisioned in the master
plan for this important westside gateway. Additionally, the community council in the area
expressed concerns early on in the engagement process with the lack of design standards in the
proposed zoning district, and the recommended condition was in part to address those concerns.
The design standards are intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to shape and
promote a walkable environment, foster place making as a community and economic development
tool, protect property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the City, and
implement the City's master plans.
Master Plan policies in the area as well as planning best practices suggest that a new development
in this area would benefit from additional design standards such as an active ground floor use and
durable building material requirements on ground and upper floors, to encourage pedestrian
activity and a vibrant active mixed-use gateway into the westside neighborhoods. The Commission
adopted Planning Staff’s recommendation to impose the design standards in section 21A.37 of the
zoning ordinance applicable to the D-2 (Downtown Support) zoning district to any new project on
the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district. One way this could be
accomplished is through a development agreement approved by City Council. The following are
the D-2 design standards the Planning Commission recommends are imposed on the rezone
request:
Design Standards
Ground Floor Use % 75
Ground Floor Use + Visual Interest % 60/25
Building Materials – Ground Floor 80
Building Materials – Upper Floors 50
Glass – Ground Floor % 40
Glass – Upper Floors % 25
Building Entrances (feet) 50
Blank Wall – Maximum Length (feet) 15
Street Facing Façade – Maximum Length (feet) 200
Upper Floor Step Back (feet)
Lighting – Exterior X
Lighting – Parking Lot X
Screening Mechanical Equipment X
Screening of Service Areas X
Parking Garages or Structures X
Ordinance Note
There are two ordinances included with this transmittal for consideration by the council – one with
the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and one without the recommended
conditions.
In regard to the conditions of approval, the Planning Commission adopted the recommended
conditions into their recommendation to City Council for petition PLNPCM2019-01137 (request
to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned alley), on April 8, 2020. For the motion related
to petition PLN2020-00442 (request to rezone two parcels and a portion of a city owned alley),
the conditions were inadvertently left out of the October 14, 2020 motion. The ordinance with
conditions included with the transmittal incorporates the conditions of approval for both petitions
because staff believes it was the intent of the Commission to include the conditions of approval in
their recommendation as it was included in the staff report recommendation and discussed during
the public hearing.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Prior to submitting the rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019
Poplar Grove Community Council meeting to discuss their plans for rezoning the
properties.
• The applicant submitted petition PLNPCM2019-01137 to rezone ten parcels and a portion
of a city owned alley from M-1 to R-MU in December 2019.
o A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale
Community Councils in January 2020. The Community Councils were given 45
days to respond with any concerns or comments.
o Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and
property owners located within 300 feet of the project site in January 2020 to
provide notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on
the project.
o The proposal was presented at a City Planning Division Open House in January
2020.
o A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on April 8, 2020. The Planning
Commission voted 4-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council
to adopt the proposal with conditions.
•The applicant submitted petition PLNPCM2020-00442 to rezone two parcels and a portion
of a city owned alley from M-1 to R-MU in June 2020.
o A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale
Community Councils in July 2020. The Community Councils were given 45 days
to respond with any concerns or comments.
o Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and
property owners located within 300 feet of the project site in July 2020 to provide
notice about the proposal and information on how to give public input on the
project.
o An Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more
information, and who to contact for questions and comments was published on
July 2020 on the Salt Lake City Planning’s website -
https://www.slc.gov/planning/open-houses/.
o A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on October 14, 2020. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation
to the City Council to adopt the proposal with conditions.
Public Comments
Both the Poplar Grove Community Council and the Glendale Community Council submitted
letters in support of the proposal (attached in Exhibit 3f and 4f).
Legal counsel representing the Summum religious organization, who owns property adjacent to
the proposal on the north east corner of the block, submitted a letter expressing concerns about the
proposal on October 13, 2020 (see letter in Exhibit 4f). The letter outlines concerns with the height
that would be permitted under the proposed R-MU zoning district as well as makes a claim the
proposed rezone would impose a substantial burden on its right and the rights of its members to
practice their religion, in violation of the First Amendment.
EXHIBITS:
1)CHRONOLOGY
2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3)PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
a)Mailed Notice
b)Staff Report
c)Agenda/Minutes
d)Staff Presentation Slides
e)Applicant Presentation Slides
f)Additional Public Comments
4)PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
a)Mailed Notice
b)Staff Report
c)Agenda/Minutes
d)Staff Presentation Slides
f) Additional Public Comment
4)ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
a)PLNPCM2019-01137
b)PLNPCM2020-00442
5)MAILING LIST
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 202_
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900
South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys
to rezone the parcel from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use
District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706
to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed,
city-owned alleys to rezone the parcels from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and
PLNPCM2020-00442.
WHEREAS, Maximilian Coreth submitted applications to rezone parcels of property
located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of
two unnamed, city-owned alleys from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and
PLNPCM2020-00442; and
WHEREAS, at its April 8, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a
public hearing on petition number PLNPCM2019-01137 to rezone parcels located at 717 to 739
West Genesee Avenue, 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, and a portion of city-owned alley
situated between 739 West Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street and voted in favor
of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application. At
its October 14, 2020 meeting, the planning commission held a public hearing on petition number
2
PLNPCM2020-00442 to rezone parcels located at 710 and 715 West Genesee Avenue and a
portion of city-owned alley abutting the west side of 740 West 900 South Street and voted in
favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council on said application; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the parcels located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to
739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys, as they are more
particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from M-1 Light
Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District.
SECTION 2. Condition. This zoning map amendment is conditioned upon the applicant
satisfying the following conditions:
1. The rezone of the portions of city-owned alley identified herein is subject to the
petitioner entering into a purchase agreement with the city to acquire the vacated
portions of alleys that are the subjects of Petition Nos. PLNPCM2019-00813 and
PLNPCM2020-00268 provided that those petitions are approved by the city council.
2. Design standards for the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the
properties subject to this zoning map amendment. To ensure that this requirement is
followed, this ordinance shall be recorded against the affected parcels and Salt Lake City
Corporation shall retain the right to pursue all legal remedies to ensure compliance with
this requirement.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The Salt Lake City
Recorder is instructed not to publish this ordinance or cause it to be recorded until condition 1
identified above has been met as certified by the Salt Lake City Real Estate Services Division.
3
SECTION 4. Time. If condition 1 identified above has not been met within one year
after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause
shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition(s) identified above.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 20__
Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
December 4, 2020
4
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the properties:
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-001-0000:
LOT 40 & THE W 7 FT OF LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-002-0000:
E 18 FT OF LOT 41 & ALL LOTS 42 & 43 CUMMING'S SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-003-0000:
LOT 44 & W 5 FT OF LOT 45 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-004-0000:
E 20 FT OF LOT 45 & ALL LOT 46 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-005-0000:
LOT 47 & W 10 FT OF LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-006-0000:
CUMMINGS SUB 0722 BEG 10 FT E OF NW COR LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB; E 30 FT; S
141 FT W 30 FT; N 141 FT TO BEG TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING
ON S.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-008-0000:
LOT 12 & 13, CUMMINGS SUB. LESS STREET & THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO
ANDRUS
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-012-0000:
LOTS 3 & 4 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-013-0000:
LOTS 1 & 2 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
5
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-014-0000:
LOTS 5 THRU 12, CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SURVEY. LESS
RAILROAD.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-016-0000:
BEG W 18 FT FR SE COR LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SUR; S 15 FT
M OR L; E 178 FT; N 15 FT M OR L; W 178 FT TO BEG.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-017-0000:
0712 BEG W 10 FT & S 7.5 FT FR SE COR LOT 49, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C,
SLC SUR; S 7.5 FT; W 30 FT; N 7.5 FT; E 30 FT TO BEG.
Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley abutting the west edge of property located at 740
West 900 South Street:
A PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN
BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY
RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, AND
RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°03’47” WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 13
A DISTANCE OF 101.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 312.77 FOOT NON
TANGENT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°51’16” A DISTANCE OF
102.92 FEET, CHORD BEARS SOUTH 9°30’03” EAST 102.46 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’03” WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH
LINE 16.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINS 560 SQ. FT.
Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley situated between property located at 739 West
Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street:
A PORTION OF THE 15.00 FOOT ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS
SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE
PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF SAID BLOCK 2, AND
RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°56’22” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT
13 AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 12 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF
32.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE NORTH
0°01’41” WEST 15.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT
6
41 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’22” WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 41 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 40 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF
32.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE SOUTH 0°03’47”
EAST 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINS 481 SQ. FT.
1
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 202_
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706 to 740 West 900
South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys
to rezone the parcel from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use
District)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to parcels of property located at 706
to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed,
city-owned alleys to rezone the parcels from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and
PLNPCM2020-00442.
WHEREAS, Maximilian Coreth submitted applications to rezone parcels of property
located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to 739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of
two unnamed, city-owned alleys from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU
Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to petition numbers PLNPCM2019-01137 and
PLNPCM2020-00442; and
WHEREAS, at its April 8, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a
public hearing on petition number PLNPCM2019-01137 to rezone parcels located at 717 to 739
West Genesee Avenue, 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, and a portion of city-owned alley
situated between 739 West Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street and voted in favor
of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application. At
its October 14, 2020 meeting, the planning commission held a public hearing on petition number
2
PLNPCM2020-00442 to rezone parcels located at 710 and 715 West Genesee Avenue and a
portion of city-owned alley abutting the west side of 740 West 900 South Street and voted in
favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council on said application; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the parcels located at 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to
739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys, as they are more
particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, are rezoned from M-1 Light
Manufacturing District to R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
3
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 20__
Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
November 20, 2020
4
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the properties:
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-001-0000:
LOT 40 & THE W 7 FT OF LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-002-0000:
E 18 FT OF LOT 41 & ALL LOTS 42 & 43 CUMMING'S SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-003-0000:
LOT 44 & W 5 FT OF LOT 45 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-004-0000:
E 20 FT OF LOT 45 & ALL LOT 46 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-005-0000:
LOT 47 & W 10 FT OF LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-006-0000:
CUMMINGS SUB 0722 BEG 10 FT E OF NW COR LOT 48 CUMMINGS SUB; E 30 FT; S
141 FT W 30 FT; N 141 FT TO BEG TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEY ABUTTING
ON S.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-008-0000:
LOT 12 & 13, CUMMINGS SUB. LESS STREET & THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO
ANDRUS
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-012-0000:
LOTS 3 & 4 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-013-0000:
LOTS 1 & 2 CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2 PLAT C
5
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-014-0000:
LOTS 5 THRU 12, CUMMINGS SUB OF BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SURVEY. LESS
RAILROAD.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-016-0000:
BEG W 18 FT FR SE COR LOT 41, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C, SLC SUR; S 15 FT
M OR L; E 178 FT; N 15 FT M OR L; W 178 FT TO BEG.
Tax ID No. 15-11-278-017-0000:
0712 BEG W 10 FT & S 7.5 FT FR SE COR LOT 49, CUMMINGS SUB, BLK 2, PLAT C,
SLC SUR; S 7.5 FT; W 30 FT; N 7.5 FT; E 30 FT TO BEG.
Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley abutting the west edge of property located at 740
West 900 South Street:
A PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN
BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY
RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE PARTICULARLY AS
FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13, AND
RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°03’47” WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 13
A DISTANCE OF 101.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A 312.77 FOOT NON
TANGENT RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°51’16” A DISTANCE OF
102.92 FEET, CHORD BEARS SOUTH 9°30’03” EAST 102.46 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’03” WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH
LINE 16.80 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINS 560 SQ. FT.
Portion of unnamed, city-owned alley situated between property located at 739 West
Genesee Avenue and 740 West 900 South Street:
A PORTION OF THE 15.00 FOOT ALLEY LOCATED IN BLOCK 2, CUMMINGS
SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN BOOK “B” OF PLATS AT PAGE 53 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED MORE
PARTICULARLY AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF SAID BLOCK 2, AND
RUNNING THENCE NORTH 89°56’22” EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT
13 AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 12 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF
32.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE NORTH
0°01’41” WEST 15.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT
6
41 OF SAID BLOCK 2; THENCE SOUTH 89°56’22” WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 41 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 40 OF SAID BLOCK 2 A DISTANCE OF
32.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE SOUTH 0°03’47”
EAST 15.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
CONTAINS 481 SQ. FT.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) CHRONOLOGY
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3) PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
a) Mailed Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda/Minutes
d) Staff Presentation Slides
e) Applicant Presentation Slides
f) Additional Public Comments
4) PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
a) Mailed Notice
b) Staff Report
c) Agenda/Minutes
d) Staff Presentation Slides
e) Additional Public Comments
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
a) PLNPCM2019-01137
b) PLNPCM2020-00442
6) MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2019-01137/PLNPCM2020-00442
September 25, 2019 Prior to submitting the rezone application, the applicants attended
the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove Community Council
meeting, to discuss their plans to submit a zoning map amendment.
December 3, 2019 Maximilian Coreth, property owner, submitted Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned
alley to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use.
December 19, 2019 Petition PLNPCM2019-00137 assigned to Amy Thompson, Senior
Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
January 9, 2020 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations (Poplar
Grove & Glendale Community Councils) informing them of the
petition. Early notification of the project was also sent to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
January 9, 2020 Planning Division holds Open House for the proposal at the Salt
Lake City Library. Residents and property owners near the rezone
site, and other interested parties, were sent mailed and e-mailed
notice.
March 26, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to nearby
residents and property owners. E-mail notice sent to interested
parties and residents/property owners who requested notice.
Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs posted on
the site.
April 8, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a positive
recommendation to approve the proposed rezone with conditions.
April 16, 2020 Applicant scheduled a call with staff to discuss proposal and next
steps. Applicant requested to hold off on transmitting the proposal
because they want to add additional property into the rezone
request, which would require a new map amendment application.
June 8, 2020 Maximilian Coreth, property owner, submitted a Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone two parcels and a portion of a city owned
alley to R-MU, Residential Mixed Use.
June 18, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2020-00442 assigned to Chris Earl, Associate
Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
July 13, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chairs
of the Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Councils. Early
notification was sent to property owners and residents within 300
feet of the project area. An Online Open House with information
about the proposal, where to get more information, and who to
contact for questions and comments was published on the Salt
Lake City Planning’s website.
October 2, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notices mailed to residents
and property owners within 300 feet. E-mail notice sent to
interested parties and residents/property owners who requested
notice. Newspaper notice published. Public hearing notice signs
posted on the site.
October 14, 2020 Planning Commission holds a public hearing and makes a positive
recommendation to approve the proposed rezone.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-01137 and PLNPCM2020-
00442 Zoning Map Amendment – A request by Maximilian Coreth, the owner of the
properties, to rezone the parcels located at approximately 706 to 740 West 900 South Street, 710 to
739 West Genesee Avenue, and portions of two unnamed, city-owned alleys from M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There are two vacant commercial buildings
on the site the applicant intends to renovate for commercial uses. The applicant intents to
develop the remaining portion of the site with multi-family residential and the proposed rezone
to R-MU would allow for residential uses that are not currently permitted under the existing M-1
zoning designation. The properties are located in Council District 2, represented by Andrew
Johnston.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at
(801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments
received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Amy Thompson at 385-226-9001 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at amy.thompson@slcgov.com
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. 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.
3) PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
a) Mailed Notice
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
.,:.~ TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
t:;§ 349 SOUTH 200 EAST. SUITE 150
P.O. BOX 145502, SALT LAKE CITY. UTAH 84114-5502
Salt Lake City Plan ning Division Amy Thompson
PO BOX 145480
Salt Lake City UT 84114
II u.s POSTAGE» PITNEY BOWES
~-,,~~ (l':' ~..-.-~--~~ ~ri116 $ 000.500
0001403432MAR 26 2020
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 8, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
This nweting will be an electronic 1neeting pursuant to
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclan1ation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
A P.ublic hearing will be held on the following matter.
Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 706-740 West 900 South -A
·request by West End LLC, the owner of the property, to rezone ten parcels and
a portion of a city owned public alley from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use). There are currently two commercial buildings on the
site the applicant intends to restore tor commercial uses. The applicant intents
to redevelop the remainder of the site, and the proposed rezone to R-MU would
allow for residential uses that are not currently permitted under the existing M-1
zoning designation. No specific site development proposal has been submitted
at this time. The properties are located in Council District 2, represented by
Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281
or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2019-01137
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and· County
Building. Commission Members will connect remotely.
The Planning Commission meeting will be available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
Providing Comments:
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the
meeting or provide general comments, email: planning.comments@slcgov.com
or connect with us on WebEx at:
• https://saltlakecity.webex.com/salllakecity/onstage/g.php?
MTID=e5b1ac4b74376cb992dc30b0a85230851
For instructions on how to use WebEx visit: www.slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings
For Planning Co111n1ission agendas, staff reports, and ntinutes, visit the Planning Division's
website at slc.gov/pfanningmublic-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to
the n1eeting and minutes will be posted two days after they a1·e ratified, which usually occurs
at the next regularly scheduled nweting of the Planning Conunission.
PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
b) Staff Report
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Amy Thompson, amy.thompson@slcgov.com, 801-535-7281
Date: March 31, 2020 (publication date)
Re: PLNPCM2019-01137 - Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendment
MASTER PLAN: Westside
ZONING DISTRICT: M-1 Light Manufacturing
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 706-740 West 900 South (approximate) – includes 10 parcels and a
portion of a city owned public alley
REQUEST:
Maximilian Coreth, the owner of the properties, is requesting to rezone ten parcels and a portion
of a city owned public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South. The properties are currently zoned
Light Manufacturing (M-1) and the request is to rezone them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU).
The purpose of the requested rezone is to accommodate a future multi-family residential
development on a portion of the subject site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning map
amendments in 21A.50.050 of the zoning ordinance, Planning Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this
proposal with the conditions noted below:
1. The rezone of the portion of the City owned alley included in the request is subject to the
petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to acquire the vacated alley
if the alley vacation is approved by City Council.
2. Design standards for the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the subject
site. This requirement could be executed through a development agreement with City
Council or some other mechanism decided on by City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Zoning and Vicinity Maps
B. Applicant’s Narrative
C. M-1 & R-MU Zoning Comparison
D. City Plan Considerations
E. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards
F. Property Photographs
G. Public Process & Comments
H. City Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Maximilian Coreth, is requesting to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city
owned public alley from the current M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning designation to R-MU
(Residential Mixed Use). The total area of the proposed rezone is approximately 1.8 acres or
78,742 square feet.
There are two existing commercial buildings on the site that are planned to be rehabilitated for
restaurant and retail type uses that are currently permitted under the current M-1 zoning
designation as well as the proposed R-MU zoning designation. The requested rezone would
accommodate future development of the vacant eastern portion of the site for high density multi-
family residential. The developer has not proposed a specific development plan as part of the
rezone and does not have any pending building permits or other development applications for the
property. The applicant has submitted an alley vacation application for the portion of the city
owned alley that is included in the rezone request and that application is currently being
processed. Please refer to Attachment B for a detailed narrative submitted by the applicant for the
proposed rezone.
The subject properties are located approximately 330 FT west of Interstate 15 along 900 S, one of
the gateways to the Westside neighborhoods. Several community uses surround the subject site
including the 9-line trail, 9-line dirt jumps and pump track, and community gardens. The
predominant street frontage of the vacant portion of the properties is along 900 S as well as 700
W. The surrounding properties on the block are zoned M-1, however, with the exception of just a
few properties, the primary use is predominantly single family residential. There is also a religious
use (Summum) adjacent to the site on the north east corner of the block.
The block to the north of the subject site is also zoned M-1 with uses that include commercial and
light manufacturing type uses as well as some residential uses. The block to the south of the
subject site is zoned M-1 with current uses that include Utah PaperBox, moving and storage
warehouses, and other light manufacturing uses.
Blocks south of the proposed rezone are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) and R-MU-
35 (Residential Mixed Use); blocks to the east on the other side of Interstate 15 are zoned CG
(General Commercial).
The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to develop the
properties for residential uses, which are not currently allowed under the existing M-1 zoning
designation. The M-1 zoning district allows for a variety of light manufacturing and industrial uses
that are not allowed in the proposed R-MU zone. Some examples of uses that are currently
permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zone that would no longer be allowed in the proposed R-
MU zone include: bus line station/terminal, community correctional facility, impound lot,
industrial assembly, light manufacturing, and outdoor public storage. For a complete list of uses
that are allowed under the existing M-1 zone and the proposed R-MU zone, please refer to
Attachment C.
The properties could currently be developed for light industrial uses under the M-1 zoning district
designation. A full chart comparing the current M-1 zoning regulations and the proposed R-MU
zoning regulations is located in Attachment C. The following is a brief summary of some of the
development regulations that would change with the proposed rezone request:
Existing M-1 Zone Proposed R-MU Zone
Setbacks Front and corner side yard setback – 15’ Interior and rear yard setback – None Front, corner, and interior yard setback – None Rear yard setback – 25% of lot depth up to 30’
Height 65’ 75’ for residential uses 45’ for non-residential uses
Open Space None required 20% of lot for residential uses
Zoning Map Amendment Considerations
Planning staff is required by ordinance to analyze proposed zoning map amendments against
existing adopted City policies and other related adopted City regulations. Planning staff is also
directed to consider whether zoning text amendments implement best planning practices.
However, ultimately, a decision to amend the zoning map is fully up to the discretion of the City
Council and is not subject to any particular standard of review or consideration.
The full list of factors to consider for a zoning map amendment are located in Attachment E.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the
project, neighbor and community input, and department reviews.
1. Existing Area Plan Guidance
2. Design Standards
Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Westside Master Plan
For zoning map amendments, Planning Staff is directed by ordinance to consider the associated
City master plans and adopted policies that apply to a proposal. Staff reviews general City policies,
including adopted policies in Citywide master plans such as Plan Salt Lake, and considers plans
that are specific to an area. In this case the property is within the boundaries of the Westside
Master Plan that was developed specifically for this area. The full plan can be accessed here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf.
See Attachment D for policy statements and goals from various city plans that staff considered as
part of the review of this rezone request.
This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside
Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community. Five of six
routes into the Westside from the east cut through the 700 West Industrial Corridor. As a result,
700 W is a significant part of the eastern gateways in the Westside. The impact is most evident
along 900 South, where one side of the street is residential and the other industrial. A first-time
visitor to the community, regardless of their mode of transportation, is first greeted by a land use
and development pattern that is not representative of the true character of the community. During
the public input gathering process for the Westside Master Plan, 900 S was generally considered
the gateway in need of the most attention. The proposed R-MU zoning district provides for a
vibrant mix of uses that are more consistent with the future development goals envisioned for this
area, than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation.
The proposed rezone is consistent with Master Plan goals to promote reinvestment and
redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use to spur development that
meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside’s existing stable
neighborhoods. The parcels included in the proposed rezone are currently underutilized mostly
vacant land that is identified in the Master Plan as an appropriate area for high density housing.
The development regulations in the proposed R-MU zone further these goals by providing for
attractive, compatible and high-density, mixed-use development with an emphasis on pedestrian
scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access.
Consideration 2: Design Standards
The proposed R-MU zoning district only has two design standards that would apply to any new
development under that zoning designation. Those design standards are a 40% ground floor glass
requirement for facades facing a street, and the 15 FT maximum length of any blank wall
uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any
street facing facade. Under the R-MU design standards, something like structured parking could
be located on the ground floor, which would not be consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented
design envisioned in the master plan for this important gateway. The design standards are
intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to shape and promote a walkable
environment, foster place making as a community and economic development tool, protect
property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the City, and implement the
City's master plans.
Master Plan policies in the area as well as planning best practices suggest that a new development
in this area would benefit from additional design standards such as an active ground floor use and
durable building material requirements on ground and upper floors, to encourage pedestrian
activity and a vibrant active mixed-use gateway into the westside neighborhoods. Planning Staff
is of the opinion the design standards in section 21A.37 applicable to the D-2 zoning district
should be applied to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU
zoning district. One way this could be accomplished is through a development agreement.
Development agreements can only be approved by the City Council. The following are the design
standards Planning Staff is recommending are imposed on the rezone request:
Design Standards
Ground Floor Use % 75
Ground Floor Use + Visual Interest % 60/25
Building Materials – Ground Floor 80
Building Materials – Upper Floors 50
Glass – Ground Floor % 40
Glass – Upper Floors % 25
Building Entrances (feet) 50
Blank Wall – Maximum Length (feet) 15
Street Facing Façade – Maximum Length (feet) 200
Upper Floor Step Back (feet)
Lighting – Exterior X
Lighting – Parking Lot X
Screening Mechanical Equipment X
Screening of Service Areas X
Parking Garages or Structures X
A definition of each of the design standards above can be found in section 21A.347.050 of the
zoning ordinance.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal
and as part of a recommendation, can add conditions or request that changes be made to the
proposal. The recommendation and any requested conditions/changes will be sent to the City
Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning changes.
The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the
proposed zoning map amendment.
If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the official
City Zoning map and any new development on the rezoned parcels would be required to follow
the regulations of the R-MU zoning district along with any development agreement requirements
adopted by the City Council.
If the proposed zoning amendment is not approved by the City Council, the property could still be
developed under its current M-1 zoning designation, however, the property would not be able to
be developed for multi-family residential uses as they are not permitted in the light manufacturing
zoning district.
Zoning and Vicinity Maps
ZONING MAP
Applicant’s Narrative
---~--
-----~
L
I
~1 _,
_, I
<1
i i
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
'""'"''"' .....
E XISTING
NORTH
BUILDING
PHASE1
E XISTING
SOUTH
BUILDING
GEN ESEE AVENUE
-:-----------,---
1 I
I I
: I
I
I
I
I
-------,
I
I
I L ~"' I -----------1
PHASE 2
I
I I : I
I I
I I
: I
I I
I I ~· ________________________ _J
900 SOUTH
\
II .
@
NORTH
--------------
------~---
:c ......
::::>
0
(/)
0
0 m
l:
0 a: u..
......
(/)
<(
LU
:c ...... a:
o~ z C>
w~ ~
f-0 0
(/) ...J ~
w~~ ~LU~ -, >::
~ u
0
...I
al
I
0
l:
l:
0 a::: u.
1-c.n
Cl~ z C)
w~
~
1-0 (/) g OI
W>O ~ Gj ~ -, >:::
_ ...
................ -I ---. C :-::!'·· ~---,::.o..-3 -..f_f-. ~-4£ f• =-----i::::::::----------·-.. --~-r"-· --\--.-. .. ---·
t" .....
, t----
--......
-----
~ ' _ . .,....~.... .:. " -~
1-4' • ---_.r.' .. ;: . : ,,
---·
__ rr r ,.... ... ·-~---'-........... ~~.:
~~~ .-....... -;....•'
!_ ----. I
I
I
I
I
View looking northeast from above 900 South
--::-~ ;_._~:---~-1-l.,..
-C..:: -l 4 --·
Q
.... .... ..
,\..
i Id
F
'!" <f -..
l
......
. ---
-··
J
•' ---.i
-..,.....t-----._,.
View look ing east from above 800 West
--=-,
---·--.... -------.,. __ ... ------------------~------
.#--.
View looking east from 900 South
Project Description:
M-1 to RMU Zone Map Amendment
December 3, 2019
Project Description :
Emerging from the adaptive re-use of two existing ba r rel-vaulted warehouse buildings, the West
End development is envisioned as a true mixed-use community. The retail opportunities will be an
asset to the existing residential fabric. The development will also include the addition of medium to
high density housing, which will promote the success of these retail and service possibilities. These
residences will provide a consistent level of patronage to support and sustain local commercial
activity. A strong midblock connection in the form of an alley breaks down the large -scale block
pattern and welcomes visitors into the neighborhood . It is this alley that invites people into the
block and creates a sense of place. The current M -1 zoning is not congruent with the desired land
use envisioned by the city. The zone amendment is supported by the following documents :
Westside Masterplan
9 Line Corridor Master Plan
Growing SLC : A Five Year Housing Plan
Plan Salt Lake
Background:
As cited in the Westside Master Plan, the development patterns of the Westside were influenced by
the development of the rail corridor in the late 1800s. The addition of the rail line created the initial
physical barrie r between the Westside and the development on the east side of the city.
Proximity to the Jordan River also influenced both development and associated uses due to
seasonal flooding. This unpredictability made agriculture difficult. Even less inviting, the Jordan
River was used for sewerage and as refuse dumps thus discouraging many uses, including
residential development.
With the advent of the Surplus Canal in 1885, the river was less variable and both agricultural
activities and bridge building could take place. With its proximity to the established rail tracks, the
Westside began to see more industria l uses in addition to requisite housing and subdivision
development.
Throughout the 20 th century, the level of connectivity from the Westside to other parts of the city
wa s variable. With the advent of the streetcar early in the century, the area enjoyed a level of
connection with other parts of the city. However, as the century marched on, the dependence on
the automobile created more vertical infrastructure that afforded great access to the freeway but
further isolation via at-grade street connection .
In terms of the current conditions, the Westside masterplan rightly points out :
"A 1968 bus route map shows evidence of the beginnings of 1-15 and the east-west
disconnect it would further exacerbate: only two bus routes provided access from the
Westside to the Downtown and central neighborhoods of Salt Lake City. One route was on
I I Page
400 South and the other, 200 South. No routes south of 400 South ventured east of 900
West."
By 1988, many of the freeways and interchanges were elevated with concrete construction,
solidifying the connectivity challenges for Westside.
Proposed Project and Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives:
The West End Development block is located at 900 South between 700 West and 800 West. The
proposed West End Development is an ideal project to realize the visions and goals of the adopted
Master Plans. The active mixed-use environment is primed to foster aspects of neighborhood and
community. The phased plan includes commercial opportunities (restaurant and retail) and medium
to high density residential. These components align with stated city goals. The City has recognized
the importance of the area and the associated challenges in both the Westside Master plan and the
9 Line Master Plan. In addition to the adopted master plans, the project is also in alignment with
the adopted city-wide vision document Plan Salt Lake and the Housing and Neighborhood
Development publication titled Growing SLC: A Five Year Vision.
The Westside Master Plan, adopted in 2014, states the following goals:
• Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes
in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur
development that meets the community's vision while maintaining the character of
Westside's existing stable neighborhoods:
The adaptive reuse of two underutilized commercial structures will vastly increase the site's
commercial activity while preserving and highlighting the character of these long-standing
buildings. Through a change in land use, the addition of residential units will support these
commercial uses in a symbiotic way.
• Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low-density residential
neighborhoods while providing attractive, compatible and high density residential
development where needed, appropriate or desired :
This adaptive reuse project is the catalyst in a development that will include the
construction of medium to high density residential. The two commercial structures will
provide an attractive transition between the existing, low-density residential neighborhood
to the west and medium to high density residential development on our site. The residential
development will act as a buffer between the freeway and the extant residential
neighborhood to the west of the site. The retail offerings will visually connect to the alley
and create an activated ground plane.
• Recognize, develop and foster opportunities for unique, mixed use neighborhood and
community nodes in the Westside that reflect the diverse nature of the community and
provide resources to allow for their growth :
2 1Page
The transformation of two commercial structures that were previously closed to the
neighborhood into publicly-accessible spaces will create a neighborhood node easily
accessible by foot or bike. Our tenants could also provide services that attract customers
from outside the neighborhood, thus fulfilling a key requirement of the creation of a
community node.
• Enhance and expand the internal network of assets, nodes and resources ensuring that
all residents and employees in the Westside have access to goods, services and activities
and the opportunity to walk or bicycle safely to them:
This project will attract new commercial tenants that provide Westside resident s with
access to goods and services that were heretofore scarce or unavailable in the area . It will
also reinvigorate a mid-block crossing that isn't currently conducive to safe pedestrian or
cyclist access. With the addition of residential stacked flats, the people and eyes on the alley
and streets will naturally create a safe space.
•Create a beautiful community with a system of guidelines to create and strengthen
public spaces that will foster community interaction and pride and catalyze ongoing
redevelopment and growth:
Adaptive reuse of these buildings will re-emphasize their architectural attractiveness while
opening them to the public for commercial activity. This project will increase community
interaction and pride and should attract further investment in the surrounding area .
The West End development is a prime example of a site that will support the goals of the Westside
Master Plan . Through a change in permitted land use, this project will foster reinvestment in the
community. This mixed-use neighborhood and community node will be a unique place and will
provide services to the neighborhood with the potential for coffee shops, restaurants or other reta ii
opportunities. These uses will be supported by the presence of medium and high density residential
units. The development will serve as a gateway to the Westside and will strengthen 900 South as a
multi modal transportation corridor and reinforce the Jordan River as a local amenity.
Similarly, the 9 Line Corridor Master Plan states the following goals:
• Connecting stable residential neighborhoods, growing commercial and neighborhood
centers, and promoting thriving recreation locations;
• Embracing a diverse assemblage of people and user groups, providing the opportunity for
enhancing their connections to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods that form a
unique and attractive community;
•Improving physical and cultural connections between the east and west sides of the City
that in turn offer regional connections;
•Featuring retail, service, recreational, and educational options at key nodes along the 9
Line, as well as encouraging and facilitating connections to neighborhood nodes in the
surrounding community;
•Facilitating the goal of We st Salt Lake becoming the primary destination in Salt Lake City
for river recreation and other types of parks and public spaces ;
3 I Page
•Serving as a mechanism for the neighborhoods of West Salt Lake to celebrate their history
and character by functioning as a co mmunity and cultural asset that conn ects people of al l
ages to services and educa tional opportunities; and
• Supporting connections to the West Salt Lake industrial business co mmunity, helping it
continue to be a healthy and diverse growing employment and economic ba se for Salt lake
City.
Via th e 9 line trail, The West End Project creates and connects residential neighborhoods with
rec reation opportunities. The West End de ve lopment is an opportunity to acco mplish the goals
li sted in the 9 line Master Plan. The co mmerc ial components will be a key node along the trail
system. The residential apartment units will provide opportunities for more diversity to supp lement
the ex i st ing co mmunity fabri c. The mix of uses will foster a unique and attractive atmosphere. The
reuse of the warehouse structures recognizes the industrial roots of the site and creates a gathering
point for the co mmunity.
The Sa lt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) division also provides insight in
the document labeled Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. This document recognize s that
e leme nts such as zoning changes are necessary to support the addition of re sidential units and the
establishment of communities and affordable places to live.
Th e first policy change listed by the plan is to focus on updates to the zoning co de :
Goal 1, Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the
affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city.
Th e Growing SLC plan encourages fl ex ible zon in g, in particular along transportation routes. The plan
also encourages infill projects with an em pha si s on providing hou sing diversity and stock with a
variety of product types and levels of affordability.
Develop infill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options,
create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures,
while minimiz ing neighborhood impacts .
Plan Salt Lake
In order to articulate a city wid e vision, Salt l ake City Planners c rafted the Plan Sal t Lak e vi sioning
document which was adopted December 201 5. The West End project is congruent with this vision
a nd it will provide benefits to the e ntire ci ty, beyond the borders of the West sid e. This project is
compatible with the framework that th e city has identified to anticipate growth and matches the
vision towards sust ainability and livability. As a part of the sustainable growth and development
st rateg i es identified, empha sis o n development that includes placemaking features, broad mix of
uses, co nn ec tivity and density are considered positive meas ures to accomplish responsible growth.
The W est End project aims to include these sa me co mpon ents in their ma ster plan of the block.
Pl ace m aki ng is ce lebrated in the adaptive r e -use of the barrel vau lt warehouse bu ildings. Access
from the mid -block alley provides opportunity for outdoor dining with e leme nts su ch as festoon
lighting a nd site furnishing. These commercial uses create vibrancy througho ut the day and night.
With adjacent access to the 9 line Trail and the mid-block connection which breaks down the large
block dime nsions, multi modal circulation is e nhan ced. The guiding princ iples identified include
41 P age
Neighborhoods, Housing, Transportation & Mobility, Air Quality, Natural Environment, Parks &
Recreation, Beautiful City, Preservation, Arts & Culture, Equity, Economy, Government. More
specifically, with the proper zoning, the West End Project can provide a safe environment,
opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the well-being of the community. It is the
draw along 900 South that welcomes people into the Westside and provides a business node.
Another congruent stated initiative to accommodate growth is to promote infill and redevelopment
of underutilized land. Access to a variety of housing types is important in particular adjacent to
trails and other outdoor recreation . The 9 Line Trail and the Jordan River Trail can provide these
connections and general mobility for higher density nodes for projects like the West End .
The West End project complies resoundingly with the vision of the city-wide plans by creating
additional housing stock along a transportation corridor. This additional housing stock and
bolstering of community occurs through a land use change: the zone map amendment. This
approach is recognized as one of the primary solutions to addressing the housing shortage by
choos ing to change current zoning.
The development team has been proactive with the existing community and neighbors. They have
sponsored an open house meeting on site and have an ongoing dialogue with the local community
council. Additionally, the team received a unanimous recommendation from the RDA Finance
Committee forthe approval of a loan to finance the adaptive re-use of the two commercial
structures on site. This development loan was recently presented to the RDA Board for their
consideration and won its approval as well.
Purpose:
The purpose of the Zone Map amendment is to facilitate the sta ted goals and vision of the city's
adopted masterplans and other planning and visioning documents. The project planned for this site
is in alignment with the city plans and policies. The zo ne ame ndment process is the mechanism
outlined many times in the city policy documentation. The existing zoning is outdated and is
preventing the ideal growth pattern for the area . This development can achieve the goals and
visions with the appropriate zoning designation . As discussed with members of the city planning
staff, the development team has identified RMU zone as the most relevant zo ning designation to
match the overall city vision as well as the local master plan documentation. As evidenced by the
community outreach already performed, the West End Developme nt team is invested in the
community beyond their own property boundary. The team held an open house with the Poplar
Grove community at which they received initial feedback from the community and the block to the
w est in particular. As further illustration of this applicant's dedication to the neighborhood, the
West End team has also hired Architectural Nexu s to explore the potential of a re-zone for the block
immediately to the west of their site at the request of the PGCC. Working with the community
co uncil, consensus is being established to determine the appropriate departure from the no longer
suitable M-1 designation .
SI Pa ge
Parcels for Zone Map Amendment
1511278001, 1511278002, 1511278003,1511278004, 1511278005,1511278008,1511278014,
1511278012, 1511278013,1511278016
RMU Zoning:
The purpose statement of the RMU is as follows :
The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District is to reinforce the mixed use
character of the area and encourage the development of areas as high density residential
urban neighborhoods conta ining retail, service commercial, and small scale office uses. This
district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support high
density, mixed use development. The stand a rds for the district are intended to facilitate the
creation of a walkable urban neighborhood with an emphasis on pedestrian scale activity
while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access.
The West End development squarely fits the purpose statement of the RMU zone. As a proper
mixed-use project, it will thrive on the connectivity of the 9 Line trail system. Medium to high
density residential units will benefit from and support the commercial aspects of the project. The
intent of the amendment would be to follow the established strategy of Salt Lake City's master plan
documents and to allow the neighborhood to flourish with the appropriate zone designation . This
amendment will allow projects on this block to serve as a gateway to this district. The height
allowed by RMU zoning for multifamily development will help shield the extant low density
neighborhood to the west from the 45 foot high freeway to the site's east. The RMU Zone
requirements are as follows:
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
6j Page
1. Single-Family Detached Dwellings:
a. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15').
b. Corner Side Yard : Ten feet (10').
c. Interior Side Yard:
(1) Corner lots : Four feet (4').
(2) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other.
d. Rear Yard : Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but need not be more than
twenty feet (20').
2. Single-Family Attached, Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings:
a. Front Yard : Fifteen feet (15').
b. Corner Side Yard : Ten feet (10').
c. Interior Side Yard:
(1) Single-family attached: No yard is required, however if one is provided it
shall not be less than four feet (4').
(2) Two-family:
(A) Interior lot: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on
the other.
(B) Corner lot: Four feet (4').
(3) Twin home: No yard is required along one side lot line. A ten foot (10')
yard is required on the other.
d. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth or twenty five feet (25'),
whichever is less.
3. Multi-Family Dwellings And Any Other Residential Uses:
a. Front Yard: No setback is required.
b. Corner Side Yard : No setback is requ ired.
c. Interior Side Yard : No setback is required.
d. Rear Yard : Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet
(30').
4 . Nonresidential Development:
a . Front Yard : No setback is required .
b. Corner Side Yard : No setback is required .
c. Interior Side Yard : No setback is required.
d . Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed thirty feet
(30').
1. Front Yard: No setback is required .
2. Corner Side Yard: No setback is required.
3. Interior Side Yard : No setback is required.
4. Rear Ya rd : Twenty five percent (25%) of lot depth, but need not exceed
thirty feet (30').
5. Existing Lots: Lots legally existing on the effective date hereof, April 12, 1995, shall be
considered legal conforming lots.
6. Minimum Lot Area Exemptions: For multiple-unit residential uses , nonresidential and
mixed uses, no minimum lot area is required . In addition, no front, corner side or interior
71 Page
side yards or landscaped setbacks are required; except where interior side yards are
provided, they shall not be less than four feet (4').
7. Existing Buildings: For buildings legally existing on the effective date hereof, required
yards shall be no greater than the established setback line.
8. Maximum Setback: For single -family, two-family, and twi n home dwellings, at least
twenty five percent (25%) of the building facade must be located within twenty five feet
(25') of the front lot line. For all other uses, at least twenty five percent (25%) of the
building facade must be located within fifteen feet (15') of the front lot line. Exceptions to
this requirement may be authorized as design review, subject to the requirements of
chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The
Planning Director, in consultation with the Transportation Director, may modify this
requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification
to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The Planning Director may
waive this requirement for any addition, expansion , or intensification, which increases
the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the Planning
Director finds the following:
a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original
structure or the surrounding architecture.
b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert
the intent of the ordinance.
Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission.
9. Parking Setback: Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a thirty
foot (30') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the
primary structure. Parking structures shall maintain a forty five foot (45') minimum
setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary
structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground
parking. The Planning Director may modify or waive this requirement if the Planning
Director finds the following:
a. The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or
the surrounding architecture.
b . The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert
the intent of the ordinance.
c. The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of
berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of
screening.
d. The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood
character.
e. The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.050 of this title.
Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission .
8 1Page
F. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height shall not exceed seventy five
feet (75'), except that nonresidential buildings and uses shall be limited by subsections
Fl and F2 of this section . Buildings taller than seventy five feet (75'), up to a maximum
of one hundred twenty five feet (125'), may be authorized through the design review
process (chapter 21A.59 of this title) and provided, that the proposed height is located
within the one hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone indicated in the map located
in subsection F3 of this section.
1. Maximum height for nonresidential buildings: Forty five feet (45').
2. Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential uses in m ix ed use buildings of
residential and nonresidential uses: Three (3) floors.
3. One hundred twenty five foot (125') height zone map for the R-MU District:
FIGURE 21A.24.170.F.3
G. Minimum Open Space Area: For residential uses and mixed use s containing res idential
use, not less than twenty percent (20%) of the lot area shall be maintained as an open
space area. This open space ·area may take the form of landscape yards or plazas and
courtyards, subject to site plan review approva l.
H. Land scape Yards: All front and co rner side yards provided shall be maintained as a
landscape yard in conformance with chapter 21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of this
title.
I. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot in the R-MU District abuts a lot in a Single -Fam ily or Two-
Family Residential District, landscape buffers shall be provided as required in chapter
21A.48, "Landscaping And Buffers", of this title. (Ord.14-19, 2019 : Ord .13-19, 2019:
Ord. 46-17, 2017: Ord . 12-17, 2017)
In addition to sup porting the type of development described in the purpose statement of the RMU
zone, the amendment will allow projects to meet the visions and goals of the Westside Master Plan,
9 Line Master Plan, Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan and Plan Salt Lak e. The zone map change
will promote reinvestment and redevelopment on a local neighborhood sca le which will then
become a part of the overall successful citywide vision. These new development opportunities will
encourage "unique, mixed use neighborhood and com munity nodes." From a citywide perspective,
the Growing SLC: A Five Year Hou sing Plan and the Plan Sa lt Lake vision can only be accomplished
by utilizing the appropriate zoning to foster the desired land use s.
9I P age
Surrounding Zoning:
M-1
Existing M-1 Zoning Text :
A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing District is to provide an
environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties,
that desire a clean attractive industrial setting, and that protects nearby se nsitive lands and
waterways. This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan
policies adopted by the City. Th is d istrict is intended to provide areas in the City that generate
employment opportunities and to promote economic development. The uses include other types of
land uses that support and provide service to manufacturing and i ndustrial use s. Safe, convenient
and inviting connections that provide acces s to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and
streets are necessary and to be provided in an equal way. Certain land uses are prohibited in order
to preserve land for manufacturing uses and to promote the importance of nearby environmentally
sensi tive lands.
B. Uses: Uses in the M-1 Light Manufacturing District as specified in section 21A.33.040, "Table Of
Permitted And Conditional Uses For Manufacturing Districts", of this title are permitted subject to
the general provisions set forth in section 21A.28.010 of this chapter.
C. Minimum Lot Size:
1. Minimum Lot Area : Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
2. Minimum Lot Width : Eighty feet (80').
3 . Existi ng Lots: Lots legally existing as of April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal
conforming lots.
D. Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15').
2. Corner Side Yard : Fifteen feet (15').
3. Interior Side Yard : None required .
4. Rear Yard: None required .
5 . Accessory Uses, Bu ildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory uses, buildings and
structures may be located in a required yard area subject to section 21A.36.020, table
21A.36.020B of this title.
6. Additional Setback When Adjacent To AG-2 And AG-5 Districts: When adjacent to a lot in
the AG -2 or AG-5 Zo ning District, buildings or portions of bu i ldings, shall be set back one
foot ( 1 ') beyond the required landscape buffer as required in section 21A.48.080 of this title
for every one foot (1') of building height above thirty feet (30').
E. Landscape Yard Requirements:
1. Front And Corner Side Yards: All required front and corner side yards shall be maintained
as landscape yards in conformance with the requi re ments of chapter 21A.48 of this title.
2. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard
requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title .
3. Northwest Quadrant Overlay District: Properties located within the Northwest Quadrant
Overlay District are subject to special landscape requirements as outlined in subsection
21A.34.140B2 of this title.
F. Maximum Height:
1. Di stillation Column Structures; Development In AFPP Overlay District: No building shall
exceed sixty five feet (65') except that emission free distillation column structures,
IO I Page
necessary for manufacture processing purposes, shall be permitted up to the most
restrictive Federal Aviation Administration imposed minimal approach surface elevations, or
one hundred twenty feet (120') maximum, whichever is less. Said approach surface
elevation will be determined by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports at the proposed
locations of the distillation column structure. Any proposed development in the Airport
Flight Path Protection (AFPP) Overlay District, as outlined in section 21A.34.040 of this title,
will require approval of the Department of Airports prior to issuance of a building permit. All
proposed development within the AFPP Overlay District which exceeds fifty feet (SO') may
also require site specific approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.
2. Location Exception: In the M-1 Zoning Districts located west of the Salt Lake City
International Airport and north of Interstate 80 (1 -80), buildings may exceed sixty five feet
(65') in height subject to the design review standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of
this title. In no case shall any building exceed eighty five feet (85').
3. Railroad Offloading Structures : Cranes, lifts, and other similar offloading structures
related to the operation of a railroad freight terminal are allowed up to eighty five feet (85')
in height and are also subject to the Airport Flight Path Protection (AFPP) Overlay District
and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. (Ord. 14-19, 2019: Ord. 3-18,
2018)
The M-1 zone is not a path to further develop city goals. Driven by historical constraints, the
Westside's previous lack of connectivity segregated its communities from the rest of the city. With
the advent of the 9 Line trail and other trail network connections, the Westside is poised to
blossom. The means to create the alignment with the city vision is through appropriate zoning.
Summary
The zone amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City. The
relevant standards for map amendments as taken from ordinance 21A.59.0SO are as follows:
• Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives,
and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.
• The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties;
• The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property,
including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire
protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and
refuse collection.
As referenced above in specific detail, there are innumerable references in adopted city plan
documents to support and encourage this zone amendment, including the following:
Westside Masterplan
9 Line Corridor Master Plan
Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan
Plan Salt Lake
New residents and employees to the neighborhood will enjoy access to parks and recreational
facilities including the 9 Line trail, Jordan River Parkway Trail, Jordan Park and the 9 th South River
lll P age
park. In addition, the proposed map amendment will have positive impacts for the adjacent
properties and existing residents. Currently, the West End property and adjacent alley have been
underutilized and have invited unwelcome activities. The activation and re -use of these spaces will
breathe life into this block. The existing residential fabric will benefit from the commercial uses and
increased positive activity in the area. This property owner has proactively engaged with the
community and the local community council and has taken a transparent approach to
communicating the goals for the project. This development aims to create a tangible benefit to the
neighborhood, community and city.
This proactive approach extends to coordination with the city. This development team has
participated in a pre-submittal conference with Salt Lake City planners. They have reviewed the
project with the Development Review Team (DRT). During these discussions, adequacy of public
facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to,
roadways, fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection were reviewed . At the conceptual level, these important factors can be
addressed and no items were introduced to preclude development. As the project gains
momentum and more robust design, engineering and calculations are developed, more in -depth
discussions with entities such as Public Utilities, Salt Lake City Fire Department, Engineering and
Zoning will occur.
The existing zoning designation of M-1 does not advance the goals of the city . The proposed zone
map amendment will foster alignment with the both the Westside Master Plan and the 9 Line
Master Plan. Congruence with the principles and initiatives outlined in Growing Salt Lake and Plan
Salt Lake documents can also be achieved with these type of infill projects. With the proper zo ning,
creating a node that connects to the 9 Line trail, the West End Development will break down the
large blocks with an activated and safe alley at the midblock. Welcoming retail can thrive with
patronage from existing and new residents. Previously segregated from the rest of the city, the
West End project will provide an exciting portal to the Westside community while celebrating the
past with adaptive re-use. The proje ct is looking to the future with the activation of the area
through mixed use commercial and residential functions. While Phase 1 of the project, including the
adaptive re-use commercial, can proceed under the M-1 Zoning, the critical addition of residential
cannot. These uses are dependent on each other in a symbiotic way. The importance of creating
more residential nodes to support and activate this potential gateway is critical to cultivating the
desired neighborhood fabric. It is this mixed -use environment that will drive economic vitality and
foster a sense of place. We are excited to provide an activated, true mixed-use environment
congruent with the city goals that will bolster a neighborhood and community.
12 1P age
M-1 & R-MU
Zoning Comparison
REGULATION EXISTING ZONING (M-1) PROPOSED ZONING (R-MU)
Lot Area/Width 10,000 SF/ 80 FT Multi-Family Dwellings – No minimum/50 FT
Single Family Attached – 3,000 SF/22 FT for
interior & 32 FT corner Single Family Detached – 5,000 SF/50 FT
Twin Home Dwelling – 4,000 SF/25 FT
Two Family Dwelling – 8,000 SF/50 FT
Non-Residential Uses – No minimum/No
Minimum
Other permitted or conditional uses in
21A.33.020 - 5,000 SF/50 FT
Setbacks Front Yard – 15 FT
Corner Side Yard – 15 FT
Interior Side Yard - No setback
required
Rear Yard – No setback
required
*All required front and corner
side yards shall be maintained
as landscape yards in conformance with the
requirements of chapter
21A.48 of this title
Front Yard – No setback required; Maximum
setback - at least 25% of the building facade must
be located within 15 FT of the front lot line
Corner Side Yard - No setback required
Interior Side Yard - No setback required
Rear Yard – 25% of the lot depth/need not exceed
30 FT
Parking Setback No specific parking setback
regulations
Surface Parking Lots Within an Interior Side Yard
– 30 FT landscape setback from the front property
line or be located behind the primary structure.
Parking Structures – 45 FT minimum setback from
a front or corner side yard property line or be
located behind the primary structure.
Building Height Building Height – 65 FT
Residential Building Height – 75 FT
Non-Residential Buildings/Uses – 45 FT
(Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential
uses in mixed use buildings is limited to 3 floors)
Open Space No specific open space
regulations
Residential uses and mixed uses containing
residential use - 20% of the lot area
The following uses are not currently allowed in the M-1 zoning district but are listed as permitted
or conditional uses under the proposed R-MU zoning district designation:
New Permitted New Conditional
Art Gallery Dwelling, group home (large)
Bed and breakfast, inn/manor Dwelling, residential support (large)
Clinic (medical, dental) Library
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare Theatre, movie
Dwelling, accessory unit
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity)
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)
Dwelling, group home (small)
Dwelling, manufactured home
Dwelling, multi-family
Dwelling, residential support (small)
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house
Dwelling, single-family (attached)
Dwelling, single-family (detached)
Dwelling, twin home and two family
Eleemosynary facility
Funeral home
Mixed use development
The uses in the table below are currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the land use
table for the M-1 zoning district. These uses below would no longer be allowed under the proposed
R-MU zoning district:
Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed
Alcohol, Distillery Animal, Raising of furbearing animals
Alcohol, Winery Animal, Stockyard
Animal, Cremation service Community correctional facility (large)
Animal, Kennel Community correctional facility (small)
Animal, Pet Cemetery Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing
Animal, Pound Grain Elevator
Bakery, commercial Railroad freight terminal facility
Blacksmith shop Railroad repair shop
Bottling plant Recycling, processing center (outdoor)
Brewery Rock, sand, and gravel storage and distribution
Building materials distribution Utility, electric generation facility
Bus line station/terminal Utility, sewage treatment plant
Bus line yard and repair facility Utility, solid waste transfer station
Check cashing/payday loan business Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor)
Contractor’s yard/office
Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed
Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service)
Equipment rental, (indoor and/or outdoor)
Food processing
Gas station
Golf course
Greenhouse
Hotel/motel
Impound lot
Industrial assembly
Large wind energy system
Laundry, commercial
Light manufacturing
Package delivery facility
Parking (commercial, off-site, park and ride lot,
park and ride lot shared with existing use)
Photo finishing lab
Printing plant
Radio, television station
Recycling, collection station
Recycling, processing center (indoor)
Restaurant with a drive through
Retail goods establishment with a drive through
Sexually oriented business
Sign painting/fabrication
Small brewery
Storage and display (outdoor)
Storage, public (outdoor)
Storage, self
Store, convenience
Studio, motion picture
Taxicab facility
Tire distribution retail/wholesale
Truck freight terminal
Vehicle, auction
Vehicle, automobile truck and repair
Vehicle, automobile truck and rental (including
large truck)
Vehicle, automobile, part sales
Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling
(indoor)
Vehicle, Recreational vehicle sales and service
Vehicle, truck repair (large)
Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed
Warehouse
Welding shop
Wholesale distribution
Woodworking mill
City Plan Considerations
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
Zoning map amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted
policies. The below plans were adopted for the area:
• Westside Master Plan (Current Community Plan)
o The subject properties are located along the north end of the 700 West industrial
corridor which is between I-15 and 800 West from 800 South to approximately 1700
South.
o The steps identified for gradual change along the 700 West corridor include —zoning
changes, design guidelines and capital improvements.
o The plan includes several goals for increasing the community’s residential density.
o Adding more commercial and multi-family residential infill should be pursued when
the opportunity for redevelopment arises along the corridor.
o Residents’ ideas for the future of the 700 West corridor had a focus on phasing out of
the intense industrial uses.
o Consider permitting residential and commercial infill on vacant parcels in the
industrial corridor. Height and bulk regulations for infill development should be as
flexible in order to achieve high density development (50 or more dwelling units per
acre).
o Identify underutilized or unmaintained areas within large residential blocks in the
Westside. These mid-block areas should be targeted for development through flexible
zoning and design standards.
o Some design elements that are used to increase density, such as height and bulk, can
be made compatible through appropriate architectural design and landscaping
techniques.
o Review the uses that are permitted in the current light manufacturing zoning district
and determine if a new zone may be more appropriate. A new district should more
specifically regulate building and site design and should completely prohibit any uses
that produce noxious odors, fumes or other discharge or other uses that rely heavily
on outdoor storage.
• 9 Line Corridor Master Plan
o Major & Minor Gateways - The 9 Line enjoys an excellent relative location in the Salt
Lake Valley, passing many important transportation corridors, neighborhood nodes,
parks and other points of interest. Nowhere is this more obvious than at several of
the major potential gateways to the corridor; places where the 9 Line intersects with
important modes of transportation such as UTA Trax, or the Jordan River Parkway.
In order to increase its visibility, and to welcome potential corridor users, these
important intersections – major and minor – should be considered gateways, and
provide the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to that end. Moreover, they
should consider the needs of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
o Where the 9-line passes under I-15 is a major gateway and 700 West acts is identified
as a minor gateway.
o On 900 S between the I-15 node and the 9th and 9th node is identified as a Corridor
Type C - The corridor is widest in this area connecting users to regional parks and
neighborhood commercial centers along the paved trailway. This area features a
mixture of residential, commercial and light industrial uses. The neighborhood node
at 900 South & 900 West presents a strong opportunity to catalyze future
development
o I-15 Node Analysis and Potential - The 9 Line corridor changes dramatically between
I-15 and 900 West. Adjacent land uses in this section of the corridor transition from
commercial and light industrial on the eastern end to neighborhood commercial,
single-family residential and open space on the west end. There is some vacant land
and a new bike park adjacent to the Interstate which present opportunities for
programmed activities and other trailway development.
• Plan Salt Lake
o Growth – Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
o Housing – Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services
that have the potential to be people oriented.
o Beautiful City - Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure
that is people-focused, responds to its surrounding context and enhances the public
realm, reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage and is sustainable,
using high quality materials and building standards.
o Create opportunities to connect with nature in urban areas.
o Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of
place.
o Preservation - Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
o Economy - Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and
neighborhood business nodes.
• Growing SLC
o Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes
o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life
Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy
The Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy was adopted on March 1, 2016.
The Housing Policy represents the City Council’s efforts to establish a policy
direction to address current conditions in Salt Lake City. The intent is that this
direction will be followed whenever the City engages in housing funding assistance,
zoning and land use planning, master planning neighborhoods, and creating
economic incentives. Additionally, the Housing Policy is intended to achieve the
following that relate to the requested rezone:
Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition
Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City
Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of
housing types and choices exist for all income levels, age groups, and types of
households
• Transit Master Plan
o 900 S is identified as a high priority corridor as it provides opportunities for
additional east/west cross- town connections as well as connections. 900 W is also
discussed as improving connections to the neighboring Fairpark and Glendale
communities.
o Building off existing plans and policies, the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan
recognizes the importance of land use, street connectivity, and placemaking to
implement a well-used and attractive frequent transit network (FTN). The FTN must
be supported by a concentration of land uses, connections to key destinations, a rich
mix of uses, and interconnected streets. The Transit Master Plan embraces these
concepts to help achieve the City’s goals to increase transit ridership in Salt Lake
City.
o Provide a rich mix of uses that support street-level activity throughout the day and
night. A diversity of land uses (including residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional, and recreational uses) promotes walking and transit ridership, and
reduces driving.
o A mix of land uses allows more daily needs to be met within shorter distances,
encouraging people to walk and take transit for more trips. Land use diversity also
creates a more interesting and active urban environment that makes walking and
taking transit feel safer and more attractive at all times of the day and night
o Salt Lake City also plays an important role in working with developers to set
standards for new development. These standards can help ensure land uses support
the FTN, including: Pedestrian-oriented design: Identify design standards that
promote pedestrian-oriented urban design features, such as active frontages built
right to the street with parking located at the rear of the building and landscaping
that provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the street.
o Land use and placemaking recommendations –Continue to monitor zoning along the
FTN to ensure transit is supported by a mix of uses, adequate densities, parking
requirements, and other transit supportive elements.
o Provide a mix of housing options along the FTN to support housing affordability and
diversity
Staff Discussion
As discussed in the considerations section of the staff report, the proposal generally complies
with the master plan policies for the area by providing the opportunity to add more compatible
commercial and residential infill along the 700 W corridor and along 900 S which acts as an
important gateway into the broader Westside community. The proximity to Downtown, the
Jordan River and the 9 Line Trail all make the area attractive to many residents.
The proposed R-MU zone would allow for residential uses that are not permitted under the
existing M-1 zoning designation, which further promotes the goals and visions of city plans by
promoting redevelopment of underutilized land. The proposed R-MU zone also restricts some of
the industrial uses allowed in M-1 that currently have a negative visual impact on this Westside
gateway such as outdoor storage of materials and finished products.
Analysis of Zoning
Amendment Standards
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general
amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not
controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City
Council should consider the following:
FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through
its various adopted
planning documents;
Complies The property is located within the Westside
Master Plan area. See Attachment D for
discussion of relevant City policies and plans
and the proposal’s compliance.
2. Whether a proposed
map amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Complies The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed
Use District is to reinforce the mixed-use
character of the area and encourage the
development of areas as high density
residential urban neighborhoods containing
retail, service commercial, and small-scale
office uses. This district is appropriate in
areas of the City where the applicable
master plans support high density, mixed
use development. The standards for the
district are intended to facilitate the
creation of a walkable urban neighborhood
with an emphasis on pedestrian scale
activity while acknowledging the need for
transit and automobile access.
In compliance with this purpose statement,
the proposed location of the zoning district
fits the location criteria of the zone. The zone
would be located in an area supported by the
master plan for a mixed of uses including
high density residential. The standards of the
R-MU zone, such as distance from the
buildings to the sidewalk, also help promote
a walkable urban neighborhood with
pedestrian scale activity.
3. The extent to which a
proposed map
amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
Complies
The proposed R-MU zoning district would
allow a mix of land uses and residential uses
that are not currently allowed by the M-1
zoning. The development standards in the R-
MU zoning district are intended to
encourage the development of areas as a mix
of compatible residential and commercial
uses, which is consistent with the Master
Plan policies and goals in this area.
The proposal would add residential uses as
allowed uses to the properties; however,
even though the surrounding properties are
zoned M-1, many of the adjacent properties
contain residential uses so the proposed zone
would be more compatible with the existing
uses than the M-1 zoning district.
Many of the more visually and
environmentally impactful industrial uses
that are currently allowed in the M-1 zone
would no longer be allowed under the
requested zoning designation. See
Attachment C for a comparison of the
permitted and conditional uses in the M-1
and R-MU zone.
The proposed zoning district does allow for
heights up to 75’ for residential development,
which is an increase in 10’ from the 65’ that
is currently allowed in the M-1 zone,
however, staff does not believe that to be a
substantial change that would cause any
different or significantly increased impacts
than a 65' building. Additionally, the R-MU
zone requires a rear yard setback (25% of the
lot depth) whereas is in the M-1 zone, there
is no setback requirement and the allowed
uses may be more impactful to surrounding
residential uses.
The proposed R-MU zoning is not
anticipated to introduce substantive new or
additional negative impacts to adjacent
properties. The proposal will lessen the
potential for negative impacts in a number
of ways versus the current development
allowances under the M-1 zoning
designation. Given the likely future
transition of the area into one of mixed-use
zoning, specifically the 700 W industrial
corridor and the 900 S gateway into
Westside neighborhoods, having mixed-use
zoning along the frontage of 700 W as well
as 900 S is desirable in the context of future
development and plans for the area.
4. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
Complies
The proposed map amendment is not within
any overlay zoning district. This standard is
not applicable to the proposal.
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards
5. The adequacy of public
facilities and services
intended to serve the
subject property,
including, but not limited
to, roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire protection,
schools, stormwater
drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
Complies
The subject property is located within a built
environment where public facilities and
services already exist. The site is currently
served by 900 south, 700 west, Genesee Ave,
and a public right of way. Future
development on these properties, such as
commercial or multifamily development may
require upgrading utilities and drainage
systems that serve the properties. Any
required infrastructure upgrades will be
evaluated with a specific site development
plan.
Comments from public utilities indicate the
water system in the area is undersized and
any new development may require utility
upgrades at the owner’s expense.
Additionally, there is a sewer main running
through the property that will need to be
abandoned or relocated or may limit
available building areas.
Photographs
View of subject site from 900 S facing north
View of subject site from 900 S facing north east
View of subject site from corner of 900 S and 700 W facing north west
View of subject public right of way from 900 S facing north
View of subject site from Genesee Ave. facing south
View across the street to the south of the subject site – south side of 900 S
View of surrounding development on the block face to the west of the subject site
View of surrounding development – 800 W facing east
View of surrounding development to the north of the subject site – Genesee Ave. facing west
View of surrounding development on Genesee west of subject site
Public Process And
Comments
The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received
throughout this process are included within this attachment.
Poplar Grove Community Council Meeting
The property is within the boundaries of Poplar Grove Community Council. Prior to submitting
the rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove Community
Council meeting, which was hosted on the subject site in the vacant warehouse buildings. During
the meeting the applicant discussed their plans to request a rezone for the properties and their
ideas and intent for future development of the site with multi-family housing. Planning Staff also
attended the meeting to answer any city process and zoning related questions. Questions were
asked about height, design standards, and building materials that would be applicable under the
requested R-MU zoning district.
Early Notification
A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils.
The Community Councils were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments.
Notice of the application was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
project. The purpose of this notice is to inform surrounding property owners and residents that
an application has been submitted, provide details regarding the request, outline steps in the
planning review and decision making process, and to let them know how to obtain more
information and submit comments early on in the review process.
City Open House
Because the property is located within 600 feet of two community council districts, the City
Planning Division held an open house on January 16, 2020 for the proposal in order to obtain
feedback from residents and property owners and to provide information about the public process
and City regulations.
For the open house, the City provided mailed notice to residents and property owners within
approximately 300 feet of the proposal two weeks in advance of the open house. Notices were also
e-mailed to the City’s general Planning mailing list and to those individuals that requested notice
for meetings for the proposal.
Public Hearing Notice
The Planning Division provided the following notices for the Planning Commission meeting:
• Mailed notice sent March 26, 2020
• E-mailed notice to listserv sent March 26, 2020
• Public hearing notice signs posted on the property March 26, 2020
Public Input Received
Planning Staff received a letter of support from both the Poplar Grove Community Council and
the Glendale Community Council. No other formal public comments have been received as of the
publication of this staff report.
The adjacent property owner on the north east corner of the block occupied by the Summum
Pyrimid, came into the city planning office expressing concerns with setbacks of a new
development in relation to their property as well as potential residential uses on the site that could
be developed under the proposed R-MU zoning designation. Staff informed the adjacent property
owner to send an email to staff outlining these concerns and to submit any comments or questions
they had so they could be addressed. No comments or questions were ever submitted to planning
staff from this adjacent property owner.
The proposed R-MU zoning district has greater setback restrictions in relation to the adjacent
property than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation. Under the
proposed zoning R-MU zoning district, the interior side yard setback is the same as the interior
side yard setback of the existing M-1 zone (no setback required), and the proposed R-MU zone
does have a rear yard setback requirement of 25% of the lot depth up to 30 FT, compared to the
existing M-1 zone which does not have a rear yard setback requirement.
All written public comments received to date are attached on the following pages of this
attachment.
February 19, 2020
ATTN Amy Thompson
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State St Rm 406
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480
RE: 706-740 West 900 South Rezone Application
Dear Amy Thompson,
The Poplar Grove Community Council (PGCC) enthusiastically supports the request by West End
LLC, the owner of the property, to rezone ten parcels and a portion of a city owned public alley from
M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). We believe that this rezone will jump
start and facilitate deliberate and proper redevelopment and investment in our neighborhood. West
End LLC has been a great partner to work. They have done a fantastic job of informing and
presenting their plans to the community throughout the entire process of making this redevelopment a
reality. Consider this letter of support a ringing endorsement from the community about the proposed
rezone!
Respectfully,
Erik Lopez, Chair
Poplar Grove Community Council
385.743.9767 PoplarGroveCouncil@gmail.com PoplarGroveCouncil @PoplarGroveCC PoplarGroveCouncil
Glendale Community Council
1375 S. Concord Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Board of Directors
Turner C Bitton
Chair
Ashley King
First Vice Chair
Latu Patetefa
Second Vice Chair
Jeremy King
Treasurer
Dane Hess
Past Chair
Ryan Curtis
At-Large Member
February 16, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State St
Rm 406
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480
To Whom It May Concern:
It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of the Glendale Community
Council. After our extensive review, we would like to express our
enthusiastic support for the rezoning of the parcels located at 706-740 W.
900 S. from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use).
With the current shortage of housing in Salt Lake City, more is always
welcome. Above that, though, the prospect of commercial development is
very exciting to us. Here on the west side, residents often have to travel
outside the neighborhood for basic things like shopping and dining;
projects like this are sorely needed.
The proposed development is exactly the kind of thing that Glendale's
residents have repeatedly expressed interest in for the past several years. It
will act as an anchor to bring much-anticipated commercial development to
the east side of the neighborhood and tie the neighborhood together in a
more cohesive manner. Adding more amenities to our community is a step
in the right direction and we look forward to seeing this development move
forward in the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the development. We greatly
appreciate the opportunity to engage in discussions affecting our
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Turner C. Bitton
Chair, Glendale Community Council
City Department Review
Comments
Transportation
Transportation doesn't have any issues with the rezone. The parking provided with any
development must meet the requirements of 21A.44.
Engineering
No objections to the proposed rezone.
Public Utilities
No objections to the propose zone change. The water system in the area is undersized and any
new development of commercial buildings may require utility upgrades at the owner’s expense.
There is also a sewer main running through the property that will need to be abandoned,
relocated or may limit available building areas.
Fire
Building Services finds no Fire Code related issues associated with this rezone. A thorough fire
review will be done with any future proposed development plan on the site.
Building Services (Zoning)
Building Services finds no Building Code related issues associated with this rezone.
SLC Real Property Management
Salt Lake City property management authorizes the applicant to move forward with the small
portion of the city owned alley included in the rezone request. Please include a condition that
the rezone is subject to the petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to
acquire the vacated alley if the vacation is approved by the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
c) Agenda/Minutes
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
April 8, 2020 , at 5:30 p.m .
(The order of the items may change at the Commission 's discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members
will connect remotely . We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings
can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commiss ion meetings , they are available on the following platfo1ms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 L ive: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the P ublic Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@ slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• https://saltlakecity.webex.com/sa ltlakecity/onstage/g.php?MTID=e5blac4b74376cb992dc30b0a852
30851
o Instrnctions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 11 , 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Rose Park Buddhist Temple Conditional Use at approximately 1185 West 1000 North -K.C.
Liao , of KC L Des ign , representing the Rose Park Buddhist Temple, is requesting Conditiona l Use
approva l for a renovated 2-story church build ing to be located at 1185 W 1000 N in the R-1 /7 ,000
Single Family zoning district. T he site currently contains an existing church bu il ding which will be
renovated to include sanctuary space, offi ce, and support spaces. The property is located within
Council District 1, represented by James Roge rs . (Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or
kristina.g il more@s lcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00078
2. The Ellie Planned Development and Preliminary Plat at approximately 347 , 353 & 359 North
700 West -A request by CW Land Co., representing RECM Investments , LLC , for approval of a
planned deve lopment petition and re lated prelimina ry subdiv ision plat for a proposed 24 -unit
res idential project at approximately 34 7 , 353, and 359 N 700 W. The proposa l includes four separate
principal bu il dings with six un its in each building. T he bu ildings will be approximate ly 30 feet tall , and
each unit footprint w ill be its own lot that does not front a public street. The project as proposed is
subj ect to a pend ing zoning change from SR-1 (Specia l Deve lopment Pattern Residential) to RM F-
35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) t hat is be ing considered by the Sa lt Lake City Council.
The site is located in Council district #2 , represen ted by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact; Casey
Stewart at 801 -535-6260 or casey.stewart@s lcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2019-00963 &
PLNSU82020-00169
3. Salt Lake Crossing Design Re v iew at approx imately 470 West 200 North -Sa lt Lake C ity has
re ceived a request from Brian Hobbs , with Salt Development, for approval of modifications to the
des ign standards to construct a new mixed -use deve lopment. The standards proposed to be mod ified
include ground -f loor use other than parking a long at least 80% of the street-facing building facades ,
ground floor fa9ade consisting of at least 60% glass, providing operable bu ild ing entrances at least
every 40' on street-fac ing facades, and the max imum length of a street-fac ing fa9ade of 200 '. The
project site is located in the TSA-UC -C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district and
is located in Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801)
535 -7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01106
4. Zoning Map Amendment at approx imately 706-7 40 West 900 South -A request by West End
LLC , the owner of the property, to rezone ten parce ls and a portion of a city owned public alley from
M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residentia l Mixed Use). There are currently two commercial
build ings on the site the applicant intends to restore for commercial uses. The appl icant intents to
redevelop the remainder of the site, and the proposed rezone to R-MU wou ld all ow for res idential
uses that are not currently permitted under the existing M-1 zon ing designation. No specific site
development proposal has been submitted at th is time. The properties are located in Council D istrict
2 , represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281
or amy.thompson@s lcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2019-011 37
5. Zoning Map and Master Pl an Amendment at approx imately 261 N Redwood Rd. -The property
owner, lain Cameron, is requesting Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments for an approximately
0.94-acre property located at approximately 261 N. Redwood Road. The applicant is requesting a
Master Plan amendment to change the Northwest Community Future Land Use Plan des ignat ion
from Low Dens ity Res idential to Med ium Density Residentia l. The property is cu rrently split-zoned
with the approximately 172' feet closest to Redwood Road zoned RMF -35 and the rema in ing
approximately 366' zoned R-1/5 ,000. The app li cant is requesting a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning of the entire parcel to RM F-35. The subj ect property is located w ithin District 1,
represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (80 1) 535-7625 or
sara.j avoronok@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-01086 and PLNPCM2019-01087
For Pl anning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Pl anning Division 's website at s lc.govlplanninglpublic-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Pl anning Commission.
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street , Room 326 , Salt Lake City , Utah
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
A roll is be ing kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeti ng . T he meeting was called to
order at 5 :37:55 PM . Audio recordings of the Planning Co mmission meetings are reta ined for a period of
t ime.
Present for the Plann ing Commission meeting were: Chairperson Ad rienne Bel l; V ice Chairpe rson
Br enda S cheer ; Commissioners Maurine Bachman , A my Barry, Jon Lee, Matt L yon , Sara Urquhart, and
Crysta l Young -Otterstrom . Comm issione rs Carolynn Hosk ins , and Andres Paredes were excused.
Plann ing Staff membe rs present at the meeting were Nick Norris , Pl anning Di rector; Michaela Oktay,
Plann ing Deputy Director; Paul N ielson , Attorney; Wayne Mills , Pl anning Manager; John Ande rson ,
Plann ing Manager; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Nannette L arsen ,
Principal Planner; Amy T hompson, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; and Marlene
Rankins , Administrati ve S ecretary.
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 11, 2020 , MEETING MINUTES 5 :38:17 PM
MOTION 5:38:28 PM
Commissioner Scheer moved to approve the March 11 , 2020 , meeting minutes. Commissioner
Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman , Barry, Lee , Lyon , Scheer, and Urquhart
voted "Aye". Commissioner Young-Otterstrom abstained from voting. The motion passed 6-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:39 :18 PM
Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to repo rt.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report .
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5 :39:41 PM
Nick Norris , Planning D irector, provided virtua l meet ing tips and access information. He also we lcomed
new Commissioner Crysta l Young -Otterstrom to the Pl anning Comm iss ion.
5 :46 :35 PM
Rose Park Buddhist Temple Conditional Use at approximately 1185 West 1000 North -K.C. Li ao,
of KC L Des ign , representing the Rose Park Buddhist Temple , is requesting Conditiona l Use approval for
a renovated 2-story church bu il ding to be located at 1185 W 1000 N in the R-1 /7 ,000 Sing le Fam ily zoning
district. T he site currently contains an ex isting church building which w ill be renovated to i nclude
sanctuary space, office, and support spaces. The property is located w ithin Council District 1, rep resented
by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535 -7780 or kris ti na.gilmore@slcgov.co m)
Case Number PLNPCM2020-00078
Krissy Gilmore, Pr inc ipal Planner, reviewed the petit ion as out li ned in the Staff Report (located in the
case fil e ). She stated Staff reco mmended that the Pl anning Commission approve the Conditional Use.
KC Liao , architect, p rov ided f urthe r design details .
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING 5:54:00 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing ; seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed
the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6 :00:5 1 PM
Commissio ner Barry stated, b ased on the informatio n in the staff re port, the informatio n
presented, and the input re ceiv ed du r ing the public hearing , I m ove that the Planning Commission
approv e petition PLNPCM2020-00078 with the following conditions:
1. Any modifications to the approv ed plans after the issuance of a building permit must be
specific ally requested by the applica nt an d approv ed by the Pl anning Division pr i o r t o
execution.
2. The applicant shall c omply w ith all other department/div isio n requirements.
Commissio ner Schee r sec onded the motion. Commissioners Ba c hman , Barry, Lee , Lyon, S c heer,
Urquhart, an d Yo ung-Otterstrom v oted "Ay e". The motion pas sed unanimously .
6:02 :22 PM
The Ellie Pl anned Development and Preliminary Pl at at approx imately 347, 353 & 359 No rth 700
West -A request by CW Land Co., represent ing RECM Investments , LLC, for approva l of a planned
development petition and related pre li minary subdiv ision plat for a proposed 24 -unit res idential project at
approximately 347 , 353 , and 359 N 700 W. The proposal includes four separate principal build ings with
six units in each bu il ding. The bu il dings will be approximately 30 feet tall , and each unit footprint w ill be
its own lot that does not front a pub li c street. T he project as proposed is subject to a pending zon ing
change from SR -1 (Special Development Pattern Residential) to RMF -35 (Moderate Dens ity Mu lti-Family
Residential) that is being considered by the Sa lt Lake City Council. The site is located in Council district
#2 , represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at 801 -535-6260 or
casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNSUB2019-00963 & PLNSUB2020-00169
Casey Stewart, Principa l Planner, rev iewed the petit ion as out li ned in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the
conditions in the staff report.
The Comm iss ion and Staff discussed the follow ing:
• Clarification on when the zone change went before the Planning Commission
• Whether staff worked with the applicant with the des ign details
• Clarification on compatibility with the character of the surrounding ne ighborhood
• Clarification on standards that are being considered
• The process of approval for street facing fa9ade
Jon Galbraith , CW Urban , prov ided a presentation along with further design deta il s.
The Comm iss ion and Applicant discussed the fo ll owing:
• Landscape surrounding the property
• Proposed materials
PUBLIC HEARING 6 :42:4 7 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing ; seeing no one wished to speak ; Chairperson Bell closed
the Public Hearing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 2
T he Co mmiss ion , Applicant and Staff further discussed the fo ll owing:
• Current changes to the fa9ade f rom the original proposal
• Clari fi cation on lack of w indows on the facades in be tween the two buildings
• Fencing materia ls
• Clari fi cation on use of vacant space
6 :55 :15 PM Nick No rris , P lanning Director, read two pub li c co mment ema il s that were provided regard ing
the proposal.
MOTION 7:01:38 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve
The Ellie Planned Development PLNSUB2019-00963 and Preliminary Subdivision Plat
PLNSUB2020-00169 with the following conditions:
1. Approval is subject to the related zoning map amendment PLNPCM2019-00638 being
adopted by the City Council, thereby changing the zoning of the subject parcels to RMF-
35
2. This approval is limited to the identified modifications in the report and all other zoning
regulations continue to apply
3. The applicant shall submit and record a final subdivision plat for the creation of the lots
as proposed
4. The applicant shall work with staff to simplify the materials and refine the fac;ade design
per the Planning Commission discussion.
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom, Urquhart,
Scheer, Lee, Barry, and Bachman voted "Aye". Commissioner Lyon voted "Nay". The motion
passed 6-1.
7:05 :22 PM
Salt Lake Crossing Design Review at approximately 470 West 200 North -Salt Lake City has
received a request from B rian Hobbs, with Salt Development, fo r approval of modifications to the des ign
standards to construct a new mixed -use development. T he standards proposed to be modified i nclude
ground -fl oor use other than parking along at least 80 % of the st reet-fac ing building facades , ground floor
fa9ade cons isting of at least 60% g lass , providing operable bu il ding entrances at least every 40' on street-
facing facades . and the maximum length of a street-facing fa9ade of 200 '. T he project site is located in
the T SA -UC -C (Trans it Station Area Urban Center Core) zon ing district and is located in Council District
3 , represented by Chris Wharton (Staff Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535 -7 645 or
nannette.la rsen@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01106
7 :05 :37 PM Chairperson Bell and Commissioner Lee recused themselves due to potentia l conflict of
interest.
Nannette Larsen , Principal Planner, rev iewed the pet ition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She sta ted Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review with
the conditions listed in the staff report .
Ethan Bed ingfield , applicant, provided a presentation with furthe r design details.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 3
The Co mmiss ion and Applicant discussed the fo ll owing:
• Proposed mate rials to be used
• Clari fi cation on percentage of brick
PUBLIC HEARING 7 :24:30 PM
Vice Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Brian Hobbs -Provided i nfo rmat ion regarding Community Council meetings and engagement.
Seeing no one else wished to speak ; Vice Chairperson Scheer closed the Pub li c Hea ring .
MOTION 7:29:14 PM
Commis sioner Bachman stated , based on the information in the staff report I move that the
Planning Commission approve petition PLNPCM2019-01106 , regarding the Salt Lake Crossing
Design Review. In order to comply with the applicable standards, the following conditions of
approval apply:
1. The design of the project shall be consistent with this staff report and submitted Design
Review applicat ~on.
2 . TSA Development Score approval is required prior to building permit approval.
3. The ground floor shall be built in such a way as to allow for future active commercial uses
along the street-facing facades.
4 . Any changes to the site shall comply with all standards required by City Departments.
Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry , Ba chman , Lyon , Urquhart, and
Young-Otterstrom v oted "Ay e". The motion passed unanimously.
7:3 1 :51 PM
Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 706-740 West 900 South -A request by West End LLC,
the owner of the property, to rezone ten parcels and a port ion of a city owned public alley from M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use). There are currently two commercial buildings on the
site the applicant intends to restore for commercial uses . The applicant intents to redevelop the remainder
of the site , and the proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for residential uses that are not currently
perm itted under the existing M-1 zon ing des ignation. No spec ific site deve lopment proposa l has been
submitted at this time. The propert ies are located in Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston.
(Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (80 1) 535 -728 1 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case Number
PLNPCM2019-01137
Amy Thompson , Senior Planner , rev iewed the pet ition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
f il e). She stated Staff recommended that the Plann ing Commission forward a pos itive recommendat ion
with the conditions listed in the staff report.
The Comm iss ion and Staff discussed the follow ing:
• Whether staff reviewed the alley vacat ion that is included in the area proposed for the rezone
• Clari fi cation on why an R-MU is being proposed versus R-MU35
• Clari fi cation on whether modifying des ign review standards on a zoning change is a standard
procedure
• Staff recommendation to impose additiona l Design standards and compatibi li ty with surrounding
ne ighborhood
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 4
Max Coreth , applicant , prov ided a presentation.
The Com mi ss ion and Applicant discussed the fo ll owing:
• Height of a building all owed under proposed R-MU zone
• Whether there are protections in place for the exist ing warehouse bu il dings on the site
• Clari fi cation on whether a building built under the proposed R-MU zone cou ld be taller than the
highway
PUBLIC HEARING 8 :04:10 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing ;
Dennis Faris , Vice Chairperson Poplar Grove Community Counc il -Stated support in the project and
commended the applicant 's engagement with the community.
Mike Reed -Ra ised concerns with lack of affordable housing.
Bern ie Aua -Provided comments v ia email stat ing opposit ion of the request.
Seeing no one else wished to speak ; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hear ing.
The Comm iss ion and Staff further discussed the fol lowing:
• Locat ion of the ne ighbo ring church
The applicant addressed concerns of the public.
The Co mmi ss ion made t he fo ll owing comments :
• With affordable housing; one of the misconceptions is that creat ing more hous ing auto matically
makes everything else more expensive
• We shou ld be focusing on areas that are more pr ime for high density to try to meet our housing
needs as we cont inue to look at how the City cont inues to change
• Having high dens ity near highways is noisy and creates air po ll ution and I have some issues with
chang ing the zon i ng to allow for residentia l property to be built , where children will be allowed to
live there
• There have been other Planning Commission approvals of res idential buildings adjacent to
f reeways. Why aren 't we concerned that high densi ty res idential buildings are currently be ing built
ad j acent to freeways eve rywhere?
MOTION 8:26:06 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated, based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report ,
information presented , and the input received during the public hearing , I move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Map Amendment
from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-MU (Residential Mixed Use), file PLNPCM2019-01137, for ten
parcels and a portion of a city owned alley located at approximately 706-740 W 900 South with the
conditions listed in the staff report. Also , with a third condition:
• That any new development must go through the design review process.
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion . Commissioners Bachman , Barry , Lee , Lyon , Urquhart,
and Young-Otterstrom voted "Aye". Commissioner Scheer voted "Nay". The motion passed 7-1.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 5
8 :28:38 PM
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment at appro ximately 261 N Redwood Rd. -T he property
owner, lain Cameron, is requesting Master Plan and Z on ing Map amendments for an approximately 0.94-
acre property located at approximately 261 N. Redwood Road . The appl icant is requesting a Master Pl an
amendment to change the Northwest Commun ity F uture Land Use Plan designation from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential. T he property is current ly sp li t-zoned with the approx i mate ly
172' feet c losest to Redwood Road zoned RMF-35 and the remaining approximately 366' zoned R-
1 /5 ,000. The applicant is requesting a Z on ing Map amendment to change the zoning of the entire parcel
to RM F-35. T he subj ect p roperty is located w ithin District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact:
Sara Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@s lcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-
01086 and PLNPCM2019-01087
Sara Javoronok, Senio r Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
fil e). She stated Staff recommended that the Pl anning Com mi ss ion forward a pos itive recommendation
to the C ity Council.
lain Cameron , applicant, was present but was experienc in g technical d ifficulties .
PUBLIC HEARING 8 :36:07 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Mike Reed -Ra ised concerns with affordable housing .
See ing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
The Comm iss ion and Staff discussed the following:
• C larifi cation on whether Gem in i Drive is closed
• Width of the property
• Whether it would be viable to p rov ide drive -thru access from Redwood with a private drive
Di scussion was made o n how to proceed with the item as no communication w ith the app li cant was
availab le.
MOTION 8:50:29 PM
Commissioner Scheer stated , based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony ,
and discussion at the public hearing , I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed Zoning Map Amendment, file PLNPCM2019-
01086 , proposed zone· change from R-1 /5,000 (Single-family Residential District) to RMF-35
(Moderate Density Multi-family Residential) and file PLNPCM2019-01087 proposed master plan
amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Commissioner Barry seconded the motion. Commissioners Young-Otterstrom , Urquhart, Scheer,
Lyon , Lee , Barry , and Bachman voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 8 :53:38 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 8, 2020 Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
d) Staff Presentation Slides
Salt Lake City
Planning Commission
April 8, 2020
Planning Commission
706-740 W 900 S Zoning Map Amendment
•Approval with conditions
DEVELOPMENT SITE
RECOMMENDATION –
Planning Commission
SITE PHOTOS
VIEW OF SUBJECT SITE FROM 900 SOUTH AND 700 WEST
Planning Commission
706-740 W 900 S Zoning Map Amendment
SUBJECT SITE
Planning Commission
VIEW FROM 600 W LOOKING SOUTH EAST
VIEW FROM STATE STREET LOOKING SOUTH EAST
VIEW FROM GENESEE LOOKING SOUTH
VIEW OF PUBLIC ALLEY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY BETWEEN GENESEE AND 900 SOUTH
Planning Commission
VIEW FROM 600 W LOOKING SOUTH EAST
VIEW FROM EDISON STREET FACING SOUTH WEST
VIEW OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLOCK FACE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE
VIEW OF SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT –800 WEST FACING EAST
Planning Commission
KEY CONSIDERATION –CITY PLAN GUIDANCE
SUBJECT SITE
Planning Commission
This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community.
SUBJECT SITE
Planning Commission
KEY CONSIDERATION –DESIGN GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDED CONDITION –IMPOSE D-2 DESIGN GUIDELINES
•Supported by Master Plan policies
Planning Commission
706-740 W 900 SZoning Map Amendment
RECOMMENDATION –
STANDARDS OF REVIEW –
•Forward a positive recommendation
to City Council with conditions
•Zoning Map Amendment
PUBLIC PROCESS –
•Recognized Organization notice
•Early notification to property owners
•Open House
•Public Hearing notice
•Public Comments
PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
e) Applicant Presentation Slides
2015 Business Strategy
Transaction Overview
West End Zone Amendment
M-1 to R-MU
2
Summary PRELIMINARY
•Proposed zone amendment is consistent with the Westside Master Plan (WSMP) and 9 Line Corridor Master Plan
(9LMP)
•Zone amendment will positively impact the surrounding neighborhood by reinvigorating formerly blighted site with new
commercial and residential activity
•Site will become an attractive gateway to the Westside due to new commercial activity and multifamily infill. Zone
amendment will prevent incompatible industrial uses in this residential neighborhood and buffer residents from those
uses and I-15
3
West End Site PRELIMINARY
•Located at 706-740 West 900 South and 717-739 W
Genesee Street
•1.80 acres
•Acquired on February 8 and March 13, 2019 by High
Boy Ventures
•Consists of two vacant commercial buildings and open
land
•Financing for the adaptive re-use of the two buildings
(Phase I of redevelopment) obtained from the SLC
RDA. GSBS of Salt Lake City hired as project architect
•Requesting zone amendment from Light Manufacturing
(M-1) to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU)
4
Gateway to the Westside - WSMP
PRELIMINARY
•“One of the most common issues brought up in community meetings was the lack of connectivity between the Westside
and the rest of the city” (pg 13)
•WSMP main goal: “Strengthen the connections both within and between the Westside and other parts of Salt Lake
City by improving the community’s gateways and corridors and strengthening the transportation network for all modes
of travel” (pg 4)
5
Gateway to the Westside – 9LMP
PRELIMINARY
•The area around the I-15 underpass is a “major gateway” (pg
24) and a “key node” (pg 53)
•“As the 9 Line passes underneath the bridge at I-15, it becomes
an uncomfortable and unsafe experience. For many users of
the trail, this is a major gateway or connection point for east
to west travel or vice versa. However, in its current condition, it
feels more like a barrier” (pg 59)
•The improvement of the area is a “foundational project” (pg
59)
6
Gateway to the Westside PRELIMINARY
Site (green icon) can act as a gateway to the Westside, creating a more cohesive development pattern with the vibrant Granary
District (orange area) west of I-15 and the railroad tracks
7
Incompatible Industrial Use - WSMP
PRELIMINARY
•“[The 700 West Industrial Corridor] abuts single-family neighborhoods and schools, creating an uneven and undesirable
transition and an unattractive gateway” (pg 69)
Source: WSMP
Source: WSMP
8
Multifamily Infill – WSMP & 9LMP
PRELIMINARY
WSMP Goals:
•“Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public
infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the
character of Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods” (pg 4)
•“Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low-density residential neighborhoods while providing attractive,
compatible and high density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired” (pg 4)
Source: WSMP
Source: 9LMP
9
West End Adaptive Re-use Development PRELIMINARY
•Site currently consists of vacant commercial structures and blighted land. Want to reenergize this area while
highlighting the site’s history and unique characteristics
•Opportunity to make a public gathering place accessible by the community, including those who come on foot
or bicycle
•Will also reinvigorate the currently neglected mid-block crossing to the west of our buildings
10
West End Adaptive Re-use Development PRELIMINARY
•Obtained a financing commitment from the RDA of SLC for building renovation. Commitment is contingent on
fulfilling several public benefit criteria
•Will create a nexus of activity at the connection point between the two buildings. Will result in services for not only
the local community and future multifamily residents but will also draw activity from the Granary District and greater
Downtown
•Will extend the vibrancy of the Granary District to the west of I-15 and increase usership of the Jordan River Trail
PLANNING COMMISSION - April 8, 2020
f) Additional Public Comments
PARR BROWN
GEE &._ LOVELESS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
October 13, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
451 South State Street, Room 406
Post Office Box 145480
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480
Re: PLNPCM2019-0113 7 -Zoning Map Amendment
PLNPCM2020-00442 -Zoning Map Amendment
Dear Planning Commissioners :
RONALD G. RUSSELL
Direct Dial : 801.257 .7942
e-mail: rrussell @parrbrown.com
This firm represents Summum with respect to the following matters . Summum is a religious
organization and owns the property located at 707 Genesee A venue in Salt Lake City. The
purpose for this letter is to submit and express Summum's comments and concerns with respect
to the above-referenced zoning applications . The zoning applications seek to re-zone the
properties located immediately adjacent to and surrounding the Summum property from the
current zoning of light manufacturing (M-1) to residential mixed use (R-MU). According to the
information we have been provided, the purpose for the requested re-zone is for the future
construction of a multi-family residential development.
Summum was established in 197 5 to reintroduce an ancient philosophy based on natural
principles of creation. Beginning in 1977, Summum constructed its iconic pyramid on its
Genesee property, which is surrounded by peaceful gardens. Summum's adherents view the
pyramid as a sanctuary and temple . The Summum temple was completed in 1979 and not only
provides a place of respite and sanctuary for its adherents, but has been an important part of Salt
Lake City's cultural and religious fabric for more than 40 years .
The Summum sanctuary is located in close proximity to Interstate 15. Because I-15 is elevated
at this location, the Summum property is currently nestled in a quiet and peaceful setting . The
proposed R-MU re-zone of the adjacent parcels, however, would permit the construction of
multi-family residential buildings that would completely surround the sanctuary to a height of 75
feet. The tall buildings would undoubtedly reflect and intensify the noise from Interstate 15
directly onto the Summum temple and would destroy the atmosphere of peace and serenity that
has been cultivated for the past four decades .
Summum recognizes the value of quality development in the area, but objects to the proposed
re-zone due to the excessive height of the buildings that would be permitted. Summum submits
that the R-MU 35 zone would better serve the interests of the community and better protect the
serenity of the Summum temple and gardens by restricting the height of buildings adjacent to the
property to no more than 3 5 feet.
Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, A Professional Corporation
101 South 200 East, Suite 700, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
T 801.532. 7840 F 801.532. 7750 www.parrbrown.com
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
Page2
October 13, 2020
In addition, Summum believes that a decision to approve an R-MU zone for the immediately
adjacent property would impose a direct and substantial burden on its right and the rights of its
members to practice their religion, in violation of federal law and the free exercise clause of the
First Amendment. Under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIP A), 11
[ n Jo government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that
imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly
or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person,
assembly, or institution (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is
the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 11 42 U.S .C . §
2000cc. This test both codifies and expands the free exercise protections of the First
Amendment, which likewise prohibits substantial burdens on religious exercise.
In applying these provisions, Congress has directed that RLUIPA is to be "construed in favor of
a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this
chapter and the Constitution. 11 42 U.S.C . § 2000cc-3(g). The test the statute imposes, like the
First Amendment, is strict scrutiny, with the government bearing the significant burden of
showing that the interest served is truly compelling, and that there are no less restrictive
alternatives that could serve that interest. 42 U .S .C . § 2000cc-2(b ); see also Grace Church of N
Cnty . v. City of San Diego , 555 F . Supp. 2d 1126 , 1135 (S .D . Cal. 2008); Fortress Bible Church
v. Feiner, 734 F. Supp . 2d 409 (S.D .N.Y. 2010). Speculation, conclusory assertions, and
generalized land use analysis is not sufficient to carry that burden.
As described above, there is little question that a decision to approve an R-MU zone for the
adjacent property would impose a substantial burden on Summum's right to religious exercise.
Surrounding the Summum temple sanctuary with buildings 75 feet in height would destroy the
privacy and peacefulness of this religious sanctuary and would reflect and magnify noise from
the nearby elevated freeway . Moreover, there is no evidence that Salt Lake City has undertaken
the heavy burden of justifying such a decision under strict scrutiny. Mere land use decisions
such as changes to zoning classifications do not constitute the type of compelling government
interest required by law . See Grace Church, 555 F . Supp . 2d at 1140. Even if they did, there are
less restrictive means, such as the less intrusive R-MU35 zone, to accomplish the government's
interests in this particular area of the city that do not require encircling an active house of
worship with intrusive buildings . For all of those reasons , too, the re-zone should be rejected .
Thank you for your consideration of Summum's comments and objections to the re-zone
pet· · ons referenced above.
c: Christopher Earl
Amy Thompson
Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, A Professional Corporation
www.parrbrown.com
4) PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
a) Mailed Notice
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION
451 S State Street -Room 406
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 -5480
PO BOX 145480
en
I/)
:3
0
I-
I/)
Qf
u.
Salt Lake City Planning Division Chris Earl
PO BOX 145480
Salt Lake City UT 84114
U.S. POSTAGE))PITNEV BOWES
~-, ----..---ZIP 84116 $ 000 500
02 m •
000 • 403432 OCT 02 2020
PLAN NIN G CO MMISSION MEETING
October 14 , 2020 , at 5 :30 p .m .
Thi s m ee ting w ill be an elec tronic m eeting purs uant to Sa lt Lake Ci ty
E m ergency Proclama tion No. 2 of 202 0 (2)(b)
A public hearing will be held on the following matter.
West End Rezone at approximately 715 W Genesee Ave -A request
by Maximilian Coreth , property owner, to rezone the parcel located at
approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue and a portion of a city owned
public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South . The properties are
currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M-1) and the request is to rezone
them to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested
rezone is to accommodate a future multi-family residential development
on a portion of the subject site . The property is zoned M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2, represented by
Andrew Johnston (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535 -7932 or
christopher .earl@slcgov .com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building .
Commission Members will connect remotely .
The Planning Commission meeting will be ava ilable on the following platforms :
• YouTube: www .youtube .com /slcl ivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live : www .slctv .com /livestream /SLCtv-L ive /2
Providing Comments:
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting
or provide general comments , email : planning .comments@s lcgov .com or connect
with us on WebEx at:
• http ://t iny.cc/slc-p c-l 014202 0
For instructions on how to use WebE x visit: www .slc .gov/plann inq /public-meetinqs
Fo r Planning Co mmission agendas, s taff reports, a nd minutes , v isit th e Plann ing Div i sion 's
webs ite at s lc.govlplannin glvublic-mee tin gs. S taff R ep orts will be p os ted the Frid ay prior to
the m eeting and minutes will be posted two day s after th ey are ra tified, w hic h usually occurs
at the next reg ula rly scheduled m eeti ng of the Planning Co mmission .
PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
b) Staff Report
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Chris Earl, Associate Planner, christopher.earl@slcgov.com, 801-535-7932
Date: October 7, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00442 - Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning Map Amendment
MASTER PLAN: Westside
ZONING DISTRICT: M-1 Light Manufacturing
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Approximately 715 W Genesee Avenue – includes 2 parcels and a
portion of a city owned public alley
REQUEST:
Maximilian Coreth, property owner, is requesting to rezone the parcel located at approximately
715 W Genesee Avenue (which will include the landlocked parcel located at approximately 710 W
900 S) and a portion of a city owned public alley at approximately 740 W 900 South. The
properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing (M-1) and the request is to rezone them to
Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). The purpose of the requested rezone is to accommodate a future
multi-family residential development on a portion of the subject site. This rezone is in
conjunction with a previous rezone request in which the applicant requested to rezone 10 parcels
and a portion of city-owned alley adjacent to the subject parcel from M-1 to R-MU. This request
has already been presented to the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning map
amendments in 21A.50.050 of the zoning ordinance, Planning Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this
proposal with the conditions noted below:
1. The rezone of the portion of the City owned alley included in the request is subject to the
petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to acquire the vacated alley
if the alley vacation is approved by City Council.
2. Design standards for the D-2 zone shall be applied to any new development on the subject
site. This requirement could be executed through a development agreement with City
Council or some other mechanism decided on by City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Zoning and Vicinity Maps
B. Applicant’s Narrative
C. M-1 & R-MU Zoning Comparison
D. City Plan Considerations
E. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards
F. Property Photographs
G. Public Process & Comments
H. City Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Maximilian Coreth, is requesting to rezone the subject parcel and a portion
of a city owned public alley from the current M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning designation to R-
MU (Residential Mixed Use). The total area of the proposed rezone is approximately .116 acres or
5,060 square feet. The subject parcel currently contains a single-family residential dwelling that
will be demolished as part of the overall development plan.
This rezone request is related to a rezone request and two alley vacation requests that have
previously been heard by the Planning Commission:
• December 11, 2019, the Planning Commission heard a request to vacate a small portion of
alley abutting the north property line of 740 W 900 S. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• April 8, 2020, the Planning Commission heard a request for a zoning map amendment for
10 parcels and a portion of city-owned alley in the project area. The Commission voted 7-
1 in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council.
• August 18, 2020, City Council approved this alley vacation.
• August 26, 2020, the Planning Commission heard a request to vacate a portion of alley
abutting the west property line of 740 W 900 S. The Commission voted unanimously to
forward a positive recommendation to City Council.
The requested rezone would accommodate future development of the vacant eastern portion of
the site for high density multi-family residential. The developer has not submitted a specific
development plan for the multi-family portion of the proposed development but has provided
detailed renderings depicting what is intended for the development. Please refer to Attachment
B for a detailed narrative submitted by the applicant for the proposed rezone.
The subject properties are located approximately 330 FT west of Interstate 15 along 900 S, one of
the gateways to the Westside neighborhoods. Several community uses surround the subject site
including the 9-line trail, 9-line dirt jumps and pump track, and community gardens. The
predominant street frontage of the vacant portion of the properties is along 900 S as well as 700
W. The surrounding properties on the block are zoned M-1, however, with the exception of just a
few properties, the primary use is predominantly single family residential. There is also a religious
use (Summum) adjacent to the site on the north east corner of the block.
The block to the north of the subject site is also zoned M-1 with uses that include commercial and
light manufacturing type uses as well as some residential uses. The block to the south of the
subject site is zoned M-1 with current uses that include Utah PaperBox, moving and storage
warehouses, and other light manufacturing uses.
Blocks south of the proposed rezone are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential) and R-MU-
35 (Residential Mixed Use); blocks to the east on the other side of Interstate 15 are zoned CG
(General Commercial).
The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to develop the
properties for residential uses, which are not currently allowed under the existing M-1 zoning
designation. The M-1 zoning district allows for a variety of light manufacturing and industrial uses
that are not allowed in the proposed R-MU zone. Some examples of uses that are currently
permitted or conditional uses in the M-1 zone that would no longer be allowed in the proposed R-
MU zone include: bus line station/terminal, community correctional facility, impound lot,
industrial assembly, light manufacturing, and outdoor public storage. For a complete list of uses
that are allowed under the existing M-1 zone and the proposed R-MU zone, please refer to
Attachment C.
The properties could currently be developed for light industrial uses under the M-1 zoning district
designation. A full chart comparing the current M-1 zoning regulations and the proposed R-MU
zoning regulations is located in Attachment C. The following is a brief summary of some of the
development regulations that would change with the proposed rezone request:
Existing M-1 Zone Proposed R-MU Zone
Setbacks Front and corner side yard setback – 15’ Interior and rear yard setback – None Front, corner, and interior yard setback – None Rear yard setback – 25% of lot depth up to 30’
Height 65’ 75’ for residential uses 45’ for non-residential uses
Open Space None required 20% of lot for residential uses
Zoning Map Amendment Considerations
Planning staff is required by ordinance to analyze proposed zoning map amendments against
existing adopted City policies and other related adopted City regulations. Planning staff is also
directed to consider whether zoning text amendments implement best planning practices.
However, ultimately, a decision to amend the zoning map is fully up to the discretion of the City
Council and is not subject to any particular standard of review or consideration.
The full list of factors to consider for a zoning map amendment are located in Attachment E.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the
project, neighbor and community input, and department reviews.
1. Existing Area Plan Guidance
2. Design Standards
Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Westside Master Plan
For zoning map amendments, Planning Staff is directed by ordinance to consider the associated
City master plans and adopted policies that apply to a proposal. Staff reviews general City policies,
including adopted policies in Citywide master plans such as Plan Salt Lake, and considers plans
that are specific to an area. In this case the property is within the boundaries of the Westside
Master Plan that was developed specifically for this area. The full plan can be accessed here:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/WSLMPA.pdf.
See Attachment D for policy statements and goals from various city plans that staff considered as
part of the review of this rezone request.
This project is situated along 900 S and the 700 W industrial corridor, an area that the Westside
Master Plan identifies as an important gateway into the larger Westside Community. Five of six
routes into the Westside from the east cut through the 700 West Industrial Corridor. As a result,
700 W is a significant part of the eastern gateways in the Westside. The impact is most evident
along 900 South, where one side of the street is residential and the other industrial. A first-time
visitor to the community, regardless of their mode of transportation, is first greeted by a land use
and development pattern that is not representative of the true character of the community. During
the public input gathering process for the Westside Master Plan, 900 S was generally considered
the gateway in need of the most attention. The proposed R-MU zoning district provides for a
vibrant mix of uses that are more consistent with the future development goals envisioned for this
area, than what could be developed under the existing M-1 zoning designation.
The proposed rezone is consistent with Master Plan goals to promote reinvestment and
redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use to spur development that
meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside’s existing stable
neighborhoods. The parcels included in the proposed rezone are currently underutilized mostly
vacant land that is identified in the Master Plan as an appropriate area for high density housing.
The development regulations in the proposed R-MU zone further these goals by providing for
attractive, compatible and high-density, mixed-use development with an emphasis on pedestrian
scale activity while acknowledging the need for transit and automobile access.
Consideration 2: Design Standards
The proposed R-MU zoning district only has two design standards that would apply to any new
development under that zoning designation. Those design standards are a 40% ground floor glass
requirement for facades facing a street, and the 15 FT maximum length of any blank wall
uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the ground floor level along any
street facing facade. Under the R-MU design standards, something like structured parking could
be located on the ground floor, which would not be consistent with the active pedestrian-oriented
design envisioned in the master plan for this important gateway. The design standards are
intended to utilize planning and architecture principles to shape and promote a walkable
environment, foster place making as a community and economic development tool, protect
property values, assist in maintaining the established character of the City, and implement the
City's master plans.
Master Plan policies in the area as well as planning best practices suggest that a new development
in this area would benefit from additional design standards such as an active ground floor use and
durable building material requirements on ground and upper floors, to encourage pedestrian
activity and a vibrant active mixed-use gateway into the westside neighborhoods. Planning Staff
is of the opinion the design standards in section 21A.37 applicable to the D-2 zoning district
should be applied to any new project on the subject parcels developed under the proposed R-MU
zoning district. One way this could be accomplished is through a development agreement.
Development agreements can only be approved by the City Council. The following are the design
standards Planning Staff is recommending are imposed on the rezone request:
Design Standards
Ground Floor Use % 75
Ground Floor Use + Visual Interest % 60/25
Building Materials – Ground Floor 80
Building Materials – Upper Floors 50
Glass – Ground Floor % 40
Glass – Upper Floors % 25
Building Entrances (feet) 50
Blank Wall – Maximum Length (feet) 15
Street Facing Façade – Maximum Length (feet) 200
Upper Floor Step Back (feet)
Lighting – Exterior X
Lighting – Parking Lot X
Screening Mechanical Equipment X
Screening of Service Areas X
Parking Garages or Structures X
A definition of each of the design standards above can be found in section 21A.347.050 of the
zoning ordinance.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal
and as part of a recommendation, can add conditions or request that changes be made to the
proposal. The recommendation and any requested conditions/changes will be sent to the City
Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning changes.
The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the
proposed zoning map amendment.
If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the official
City Zoning map and any new development on the rezoned parcels would be required to follow
the regulations of the R-MU zoning district along with any development agreement requirements
adopted by the City Council.
If the proposed zoning amendment is not approved by the City Council, the property could still be
developed under its current M-1 zoning designation, however, the property would not be able to
be developed for multi-family residential uses as they are not permitted in the light manufacturing
zoning district.
Zoning and Vicinity Maps
Applicant’s Narrative
Project Description
M-1 to RMU Zone Map Amendment
June 3, 2020
West End LLC is submitting this zone map amendment to rezone the following two parcels from
M-1 (light manufacturing) to RMU (residential mixed use). West End LLC is in negotiations to
purchase both parcels and has provided signed affidavits from each owner authorizing West
End LLC to act as their agent for this zone map amendment.
Parcel ID Address Owner
1511278006 715 W. Genesee, SLC, UT 84104 Teodoro Nava; Socorro Alatorre (JT)
1511278017 717 W. Genesee, SLC, UT 84104 Salt Lake County
West End LLC has an active zone map amendment petition PLNPCM2019-01137 for adjacent
parcels (owned by West End LLC) that received a positive recommendation from the planning
commission on April 8th, 2020. All application materials submitted with petition
PLNPCM2019-01137, processed by Amy Thompson, are applicable to this project with the
exception of the site map which is revised to reflect the additional parcels that are being added.
_Alley Vacation Petition PLNPCM2019-00813
inc luded in zone map amendment: request.
received positive recommendation f rom
Planning Commission on 12/11 /2020
Scheduled with City Council:
Briefing -7!7/2020
1st Publi c Hearing -7/14/2020
2nd Public Hearing -8/1112020
~---
PLNPCM2019-01137: Site Map Upd ate 6/4/2020
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
2001 <;>. £.TATE. Sr. s 5 -~. St.c..... VT 8 <..\\qo (print names),
being duly sworn, depose and say that I (we)'am (are) the owner(s) of the property located at
(parcel ID: 15-11-278-017-0000) will allow the zoning for our property to be amended from the
current M-1 light manufacturing to RMU Residential Mixed Use. I (we) am authorizing West End
LLC to submit an application for a zone map amendment on my (our) behalf.
Signatur~ ~ Signature ___________ _
Print 0=<2'2. \('..,~ Ga..tk>Se .J
Sl.(..C> 0ES\-LtsT~ N\f\i.J~~llC:f:_.
Signature ------------
Print --------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF f,/[
couNTY oSa ff UJt :ss.
)
Signature ___________ _
Print --------------
@) LISA O'BRYAN
Notiry Publlc State ~ Utlh
MJ Commlalon ElQllf9S or.
februlry 24, 2024
Comm . Number : 710750
LI --1' • 0 J ~·<A , f) IDRib. IA , On this _::r__day of ~ll.1\.A_. , in the year 20M, before me,_=:f__,__~ __ __,.12"--'~---+-="'-"'-=--""
a Notary Public, personally appeared fuvrz"Lk:. St> Vf/1.Sft/l
proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) (is/are)
subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (he/she/they) executed the same.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
1 (we> •• Saco@ Ala.focre,. J(l2c/or~ Na.Vq
---,-----,-----,----,--,-,...-----,-.,-------.,.-,---,-,----(print names),
be ing du ly sworn, depose and say that I (we) am (are) th e owner(s) of the property located at
71 5 W. Genesee, SLC, UT 84104 (pa rcel ID : 15·11 ·2 78 -006-0000) wi ll allow the zon ing fo r our
p ropert y to be amende d fro m the c urre nt M-1 lig ht ma nu factu ri ng to RM U Res idential M ixed
Use . I (we) am authorizing West End LLC to subm it an appl icatio n for a zone map amendme nt
on my (our) be half.
Signature------------
Print ____________ _
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATEOF VT )
:ss.
couNTY OF ~ttt IA~-v >
Print t:;,oco<O A \q_ w-rrc:
Signatu re------------
Pri nt -------------
On this I BhAday of M a j . in the year 20 1.-11 . before me, I r.e.-n.e., l?io r h O 2£1
a Notary Publ ic, personall y appeared _So=...;c;_;o;..:.r...:.r...::o'--..... Pi.........,I Q""h........,r_.r._~"'--0\'--l'\.-d;..:_ __ _
1.e od orv NctvCA
proved o n the basis o f satisfactory evidence to be t he perso n (s ) whose name(s) (is/are)
subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged (helshefthey) executed the same.
NOTARY PUBLIC
•
IRENE BARBOZA
COMM. I 709802
MY COM MISSION EXPIRES
JANUARY 3, 2024
STATE OF UTAH
EST END
OPMENT I OCTOBER, 2019
GSBS •11111!.:
ARCHITECTS •ii
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT I OCTOBER, 2019
Remodel of 2 existing warehouse buildings into commercial space. North building is
approximately 6,000 SF and the south building is 5,000 SF. Activation of a mid-block roadway
with mid-block plaza space. Commercial spaces include associated outdoor dining areas.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION GSBS •llll'!.: Ai;>CHITFC:T~ iai
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019
SCALE: 1” = 40’-0”
(WHEN PRINTED 11”X17”)
SITE PL AN
NORTH
BUILDING
SOUTH
BUILDING
M
I
D
-
B
L
O
C
K
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
GENESEE AVE
FUTURE
DEVELOPEMENT
SITE
PROPERTY LINE
30 PARKING
STALLS
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019
SITE PL AN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
(WHEN PRINTED 11”X17”)
NORTH
BUILDING
30 PARKING
STALLS
SOUTH
BUILDING
MID- BLOCK ROADWAY
RAISED OUTDOOR PATIO WITH
FURNITURE AND TRELLIS
TERRACED STAIRS WITH SEATING
AND ACCESS TO RAISED PATIO
ENTRY GATEWAY
RAISED OUTDOOR PATIO
WITH FURNITURE AND
TRELLIS
RAMP ACCESS TO RAISED
PATIO
RAMP ACCESS TO RAISED
PATIO
SHARED PATIO SPACE WITH
MOVEABLE FURNITURE
ENTRY
GATEWAY
SIDEWALK
LANDSCAPE STRIP
STAIRSTERRACED STAIRS WITH
SEATING AND ACCESS TO
RAISED PATIO TERRACED STAIRS WITH
SEATING AND ACCESS TO
RAISED PATIO
STAIRS
G
E
N
E
S
E
E
A
V
E
9
0
0
S
O
U
T
H
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019
// EAST ELEVATION
// WEST ELEVATION
1. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM IN EXISTING OPENING
2. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE)
3. METAL PANEL (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE)
4. METAL SHADE CANOPY
5. EXISTING BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING
6. ROOFING MEMBRANE WITH ADDITIONAL ROOF INSULATION BELOW
7. METAL TRELLIS
1
1 5
6
6
5
5
6
5
4
1
11
7
1
4
4
4
11 1 1
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS scale : 1” = 20’-0”
1
1
1
1
11
44
5 4
4
6
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019
NORTH BUILDING // NORTH ELEVATIONNORTH BUILDING // SOUTH ELEVATION
SOUTH BUILDING // SOUTH ELEVATIONSOUTH BUILDING // NORTH ELEVATION
1. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM IN EXISTING OPENING
2. STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE)
3. METAL PANEL (ON NEW RETAIL SPACE)
4. METAL SHADE CANOPY
5. EXISTING BRICK, PATCH AND REPAIR TO MATCH EXISTING
6. ROOFING MEMBRANE WITH ADDITIONAL ROOF INSULATION BELOW
7. METAL TRELLIS
1 11
1 1 1
5
4 5
5
4
4
1 1 1
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS scale : 1” = 20’-0”
1 4
5 4 7
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT |OCTOBER, 2019
// WEST ELEVATION
SIGNAGE PL AN scale : 1” = 20’-0”
100’110’
North Building,
Business 1 Flat Sign
48 sf =12’ x 4’
Code Max: 220 sf * 1/2 = 110 sf
North Building,
Business 2 Flat Sign
48 sf =12’ x 4’
Code Max: 220 sf * 1/2 = 110 sf
Plaza,
Pole Sign
48 sf =12’ x 4’
Code Max: 75 sf
South Building,
Business 1 Flat Sign
30 sf =10’ x 3’
Code Max: 200 sf * 1/3 = 66 sf
South Building,
Business 2 Flat Sign
30 sf =10’ x 3’
Code Max: 200 sf * 1/3 = 66 sf
South Building,
Business 3 Flat Sign
30 sf =10’ x 3’
Code Max: 200 sf * 1/3 = 66 sf
North Building,
North Elevation Flat Sign
75 sf =15’ x 5’
Code Max: 100 sf
Plaza
Monument Sign
30 sf =10’ x 3’
Code Max: 150 sf, Min 5’ setback
50’50’
South Building,
South Elevation Flat Sign
48 sf =12’ x 4’
Code Max: 100 sf
North Building, South Elevation Flat Sign
75 sf =15’ x 5’
Code Max: 100 sf
900 South
Monument Sign
30 sf =10’ x 3’
Code Max: 150 sf, Min 5’ setback
// NORTH ELEVATION// SOUTH ELEVATION
END
GSBS •11111! ARCHITFCT~ mill
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT I JULY 10, 2019
• 7
>;'---=--:·
--1 --\ t
·\-I -, -,
--L -1-I--i-
I r --, r--1 --,. -
T----pr
-+ -(" -,
f-
[--. -~,_
-+ r
-+
/' J _" ______..___ ______ __
VIEW FROM ABOVE GSBS •911!
ARCHITECTS 11.I
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
VIEW FROM 900 SOUTH LOOKING NORTHEAST
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
VIEW FROM I-15 LOOKING NORTHWEST
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
SHADOW STUDY _ PLAN VIEWWEST END DEVELOPMENT | Shadow Study 05/27/2019Scale: NTS
January 10 am January 2 pm January 4 pm January 6 pm
April 10 am April 2 pm April 4 pm April 6 pm
July 10 am July 2 pm July 4 pm July 6 pm
October 10 am October 2 pm October 4 pm October 6 pm
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
FLOOR PLAN _ GROUND LEVEL
GROUND LEVEL:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Amenities 1,800 sf
Studio 8 Units
Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Studio 11 Units
Parking 69 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
Gross Area 34,320 sf
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 35 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 194 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 234 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls
Provided Parking: 147 Stalls
GROUND LEVEL:
Amenities 1,800 sf
Studio 8 Units
Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1:
Studio 11 Units
Parking 81 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 37 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 204 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 244 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls
Provided Parking: 159 Stalls
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
FLOOR PLAN _ FIRST LEVEL
GROUND LEVEL:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Amenities 1,800 sf
Studio 8 Units
Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Studio 11 Units
Parking 69 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
Gross Area 34,320 sf
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 35 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 194 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 234 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls
Provided Parking: 147 Stalls
GROUND LEVEL:
Amenities 1,800 sf
Studio 8 Units
Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1:
Studio 11 Units
Parking 81 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 37 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 204 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 244 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls
Provided Parking: 159 Stalls
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
FLOOR PLAN _ LEVEL 2-6
GROUND LEVEL:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Amenities 1,800 sf
Studio 8 Units
Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Studio 11 Units
Parking 69 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
Gross Area 34,320 sf
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 35 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 194 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 234 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls
Provided Parking: 147 Stalls
GROUND LEVEL:
Amenities 1,800 sf
Studio 8 Units
Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1:
Studio 11 Units
Parking 81 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 37 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 204 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 244 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls
Provided Parking: 159 Stalls
M-1 & R-MU
Zoning Comparison
REGULATION EXISTING ZONING (M-1) PROPOSED ZONING (R-MU)
Lot Area/Width 10,000 SF/ 80 FT Multi-Family Dwellings – No minimum/50 FT
Single Family Attached – 3,000 SF/22 FT for
interior & 32 FT corner Single Family Detached – 5,000 SF/50 FT
Twin Home Dwelling – 4,000 SF/25 FT
Two Family Dwelling – 8,000 SF/50 FT
Non-Residential Uses – No minimum/No
Minimum
Other permitted or conditional uses in
21A.33.020 - 5,000 SF/50 FT
Setbacks Front Yard – 15 FT
Corner Side Yard – 15 FT
Interior Side Yard - No setback
required
Rear Yard – No setback
required
*All required front and corner
side yards shall be maintained
as landscape yards in conformance with the
requirements of chapter
21A.48 of this title
Front Yard – No setback required; Maximum
setback - at least 25% of the building facade must
be located within 15 FT of the front lot line
Corner Side Yard - No setback required
Interior Side Yard - No setback required
Rear Yard – 25% of the lot depth/need not exceed
30 FT
Parking Setback No specific parking setback
regulations
Surface Parking Lots Within an Interior Side Yard
– 30 FT landscape setback from the front property
line or be located behind the primary structure.
Parking Structures – 45 FT minimum setback from
a front or corner side yard property line or be
located behind the primary structure.
Building Height Building Height – 65 FT
Residential Building Height – 75 FT
Non-Residential Buildings/Uses – 45 FT
(Maximum floor area coverage of nonresidential
uses in mixed use buildings is limited to 3 floors)
Open Space No specific open space
regulations
Residential uses and mixed uses containing
residential use - 20% of the lot area
The following uses are not currently allowed in the M-1 zoning district but are listed as permitted
or conditional uses under the proposed R-MU zoning district designation:
New Permitted New Conditional
Art Gallery Dwelling, group home (large)
Bed and breakfast, inn/manor Dwelling, residential support (large)
Clinic (medical, dental) Library
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare Theatre, movie
Dwelling, accessory unit
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity)
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)
Dwelling, group home (small)
Dwelling, manufactured home
Dwelling, multi-family
Dwelling, residential support (small)
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house
Dwelling, single-family (attached)
Dwelling, single-family (detached)
Dwelling, twin home and two family
Eleemosynary facility
Funeral home
Mixed use development
The uses in the table below are currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the land use
table for the M-1 zoning district. These uses below would no longer be allowed under the proposed
R-MU zoning district:
Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed
Alcohol, Distillery Animal, Raising of furbearing animals
Alcohol, Winery Animal, Stockyard
Animal, Cremation service Community correctional facility (large)
Animal, Kennel Community correctional facility (small)
Animal, Pet Cemetery Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing
Animal, Pound Grain Elevator
Bakery, commercial Railroad freight terminal facility
Blacksmith shop Railroad repair shop
Bottling plant Recycling, processing center (outdoor)
Brewery Rock, sand, and gravel storage and distribution
Building materials distribution Utility, electric generation facility
Bus line station/terminal Utility, sewage treatment plant
Bus line yard and repair facility Utility, solid waste transfer station
Check cashing/payday loan business Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling (outdoor)
Contractor’s yard/office
Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed
Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service)
Equipment rental, (indoor and/or outdoor)
Food processing
Gas station
Golf course
Greenhouse
Hotel/motel
Impound lot
Industrial assembly
Large wind energy system
Laundry, commercial
Light manufacturing
Package delivery facility
Parking (commercial, off-site, park and ride lot,
park and ride lot shared with existing use)
Photo finishing lab
Printing plant
Radio, television station
Recycling, collection station
Recycling, processing center (indoor)
Restaurant with a drive through
Retail goods establishment with a drive through
Sexually oriented business
Sign painting/fabrication
Small brewery
Storage and display (outdoor)
Storage, public (outdoor)
Storage, self
Store, convenience
Studio, motion picture
Taxicab facility
Tire distribution retail/wholesale
Truck freight terminal
Vehicle, auction
Vehicle, automobile truck and repair
Vehicle, automobile truck and rental (including
large truck)
Vehicle, automobile, part sales
Vehicle, automobile salvage and recycling
(indoor)
Vehicle, Recreational vehicle sales and service
Vehicle, truck repair (large)
Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed
Warehouse
Welding shop
Wholesale distribution
Woodworking mill
City Plan Considerations
Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance
Zoning map amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted
policies. The below plans were adopted for the area:
• Westside Master Plan (Current Community Plan)
o The subject properties are located along the north end of the 700 West industrial
corridor which is between I-15 and 800 West from 800 South to approximately 1700
South.
o The steps identified for gradual change along the 700 West corridor include —zoning
changes, design guidelines and capital improvements.
o The plan includes several goals for increasing the community’s residential density.
o Adding more commercial and multi-family residential infill should be pursued when
the opportunity for redevelopment arises along the corridor.
o Residents’ ideas for the future of the 700 West corridor had a focus on phasing out of
the intense industrial uses.
o Consider permitting residential and commercial infill on vacant parcels in the
industrial corridor. Height and bulk regulations for infill development should be as
flexible in order to achieve high density development (50 or more dwelling units per
acre).
o Identify underutilized or unmaintained areas within large residential blocks in the
Westside. These mid-block areas should be targeted for development through flexible
zoning and design standards.
o Some design elements that are used to increase density, such as height and bulk, can
be made compatible through appropriate architectural design and landscaping
techniques.
o Review the uses that are permitted in the current light manufacturing zoning district
and determine if a new zone may be more appropriate. A new district should more
specifically regulate building and site design and should completely prohibit any uses
that produce noxious odors, fumes or other discharge or other uses that rely heavily
on outdoor storage.
• 9 Line Corridor Master Plan
o Major & Minor Gateways - The 9 Line enjoys an excellent relative location in the Salt
Lake Valley, passing many important transportation corridors, neighborhood nodes,
parks and other points of interest. Nowhere is this more obvious than at several of
the major potential gateways to the corridor; places where the 9 Line intersects with
important modes of transportation such as UTA Trax, or the Jordan River Parkway.
In order to increase its visibility, and to welcome potential corridor users, these
important intersections – major and minor – should be considered gateways, and
provide the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to that end. Moreover, they
should consider the needs of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
o Where the 9-line passes under I-15 is a major gateway and 700 West acts is identified
as a minor gateway.
o On 900 S between the I-15 node and the 9th and 9th node is identified as a Corridor
Type C - The corridor is widest in this area connecting users to regional parks and
neighborhood commercial centers along the paved trailway. This area features a
mixture of residential, commercial and light industrial uses. The neighborhood node
at 900 South & 900 West presents a strong opportunity to catalyze future
development
o I-15 Node Analysis and Potential - The 9 Line corridor changes dramatically between
I-15 and 900 West. Adjacent land uses in this section of the corridor transition from
commercial and light industrial on the eastern end to neighborhood commercial,
single-family residential and open space on the west end. There is some vacant land
and a new bike park adjacent to the Interstate which present opportunities for
programmed activities and other trailway development.
• Plan Salt Lake
o Growth – Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
o Housing – Direct new growth toward areas with existing infrastructure and services
that have the potential to be people oriented.
o Beautiful City - Support and encourage architecture, development, and infrastructure
that is people-focused, responds to its surrounding context and enhances the public
realm, reflects our diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious heritage and is sustainable,
using high quality materials and building standards.
o Create opportunities to connect with nature in urban areas.
o Reinforce and preserve neighborhood and district character and a strong sense of
place.
o Preservation - Preserve and enhance neighborhood and district character.
o Encourage the incorporation of historic elements into buildings, landscapes, public
spaces, streetscapes, neighborhoods, and districts where appropriate.
o Economy - Support the growth of small businesses, entrepreneurship and
neighborhood business nodes.
• Growing SLC
o Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant
transportation routes
o Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that
promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages
of life
Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy
The Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy was adopted on March 1, 2016.
The Housing Policy represents the City Council’s efforts to establish a policy
direction to address current conditions in Salt Lake City. The intent is that this
direction will be followed whenever the City engages in housing funding assistance,
zoning and land use planning, master planning neighborhoods, and creating
economic incentives. Additionally, the Housing Policy is intended to achieve the
following that relate to the requested rezone:
Foster and celebrate the urban residential tradition
Develop new housing opportunities throughout the City
Promote a diverse and balanced community by ensuring that a wide range of
housing types and choices exist for all income levels, age groups, and types of
households
• Transit Master Plan
o 900 S is identified as a high priority corridor as it provides opportunities for
additional east/west cross- town connections as well as connections. 900 W is also
discussed as improving connections to the neighboring Fairpark and Glendale
communities.
o Building off existing plans and policies, the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan
recognizes the importance of land use, street connectivity, and placemaking to
implement a well-used and attractive frequent transit network (FTN). The FTN must
be supported by a concentration of land uses, connections to key destinations, a rich
mix of uses, and interconnected streets. The Transit Master Plan embraces these
concepts to help achieve the City’s goals to increase transit ridership in Salt Lake
City.
o Provide a rich mix of uses that support street-level activity throughout the day and
night. A diversity of land uses (including residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional, and recreational uses) promotes walking and transit ridership, and
reduces driving.
o A mix of land uses allows more daily needs to be met within shorter distances,
encouraging people to walk and take transit for more trips. Land use diversity also
creates a more interesting and active urban environment that makes walking and
taking transit feel safer and more attractive at all times of the day and night
o Salt Lake City also plays an important role in working with developers to set
standards for new development. These standards can help ensure land uses support
the FTN, including: Pedestrian-oriented design: Identify design standards that
promote pedestrian-oriented urban design features, such as active frontages built
right to the street with parking located at the rear of the building and landscaping
that provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the street.
o Land use and placemaking recommendations –Continue to monitor zoning along the
FTN to ensure transit is supported by a mix of uses, adequate densities, parking
requirements, and other transit supportive elements.
o Provide a mix of housing options along the FTN to support housing affordability and
diversity
Staff Discussion
As discussed in the considerations section of the staff report, the proposal generally complies
with the master plan policies for the area by providing the opportunity to add more compatible
commercial and residential infill along the 700 W corridor and along 900 S which acts as an
important gateway into the broader Westside community. The proximity to Downtown, the
Jordan River and the 9 Line Trail all make the area attractive to many residents.
The proposed R-MU zone would allow for residential uses that are not permitted under the
existing M-1 zoning designation, which further promotes the goals and visions of city plans by
promoting redevelopment of underutilized land. The proposed R-MU zone also restricts some of
the industrial uses allowed in M-1 that currently have a negative visual impact on this Westside
gateway such as outdoor storage of materials and finished products.
Analysis of Zoning
Amendment Standards
ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general
amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not
controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City
Council should consider the following:
FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE
1. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of
the city as stated through
its various adopted
planning documents;
Complies The property is located within the Westside
Master Plan area. See Attachment D for
discussion of relevant City policies and plans
and the proposal’s compliance.
2. Whether a proposed
map amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Complies The purpose of the R-MU Residential/Mixed
Use District is to reinforce the mixed-use
character of the area and encourage the
development of areas as high density
residential urban neighborhoods containing
retail, service commercial, and small-scale
office uses. This district is appropriate in
areas of the City where the applicable
master plans support high density, mixed
use development. The standards for the
district are intended to facilitate the
creation of a walkable urban neighborhood
with an emphasis on pedestrian scale
activity while acknowledging the need for
transit and automobile access.
In compliance with this purpose statement,
the proposed location of the zoning district
fits the location criteria of the zone. The zone
would be located in an area supported by the
master plan for a mixed of uses including
high density residential. The standards of the
R-MU zone, such as distance from the
buildings to the sidewalk, also help promote
a walkable urban neighborhood with
pedestrian scale activity.
3. The extent to which a
proposed map
amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
Complies
The proposed R-MU zoning district would
allow a mix of land uses and residential uses
that are not currently allowed by the M-1
zoning. The development standards in the R-
MU zoning district are intended to
encourage the development of areas as a mix
of compatible residential and commercial
uses, which is consistent with the Master
Plan policies and goals in this area.
The proposal would add residential uses as
allowed uses to the properties; however,
even though the surrounding properties are
zoned M-1, many of the adjacent properties
contain residential uses so the proposed zone
would be more compatible with the existing
uses than the M-1 zoning district.
Many of the more visually and
environmentally impactful industrial uses
that are currently allowed in the M-1 zone
would no longer be allowed under the
requested zoning designation. See
Attachment C for a comparison of the
permitted and conditional uses in the M-1
and R-MU zone.
The proposed zoning district does allow for
heights up to 75’ for residential development,
which is an increase in 10’ from the 65’ that
is currently allowed in the M-1 zone,
however, staff does not believe that to be a
substantial change that would cause any
different or significantly increased impacts
than a 65' building. Additionally, the R-MU
zone requires a rear yard setback (25% of the
lot depth) whereas is in the M-1 zone, there
is no setback requirement and the allowed
uses may be more impactful to surrounding
residential uses.
The proposed R-MU zoning is not
anticipated to introduce substantive new or
additional negative impacts to adjacent
properties. The proposal will lessen the
potential for negative impacts in a number
of ways versus the current development
allowances under the M-1 zoning
designation. Given the likely future
transition of the area into one of mixed-use
zoning, specifically the 700 W industrial
corridor and the 900 S gateway into
Westside neighborhoods, having mixed-use
zoning along the frontage of 700 W as well
as 900 S is desirable in the context of future
development and plans for the area.
4. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
Complies
The proposed map amendment is not within
any overlay zoning district. This standard is
not applicable to the proposal.
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards
5. The adequacy of public
facilities and services
intended to serve the
subject property,
including, but not limited
to, roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire protection,
schools, stormwater
drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
Complies
No comment was provided by the Public
Utilities Department; however, the subject
property is located within a built
environment where public facilities and
services already exist. The site is currently
served by 900 south, 700 west, Genesee Ave,
and a public right of way. Future
development on these properties, such as
commercial or multifamily development may
require upgrading utilities and drainage
systems that serve the properties. Any
required infrastructure upgrades will be
evaluated with a specific site development
plan.
Photographs
View of subject site from 900 S facing north
View of subject site from 900 S facing north east
View of subject site from corner of 900 S and 700 W facing north west
View of subject public right of way from 900 S facing north
View of subject site from Genesee Ave. facing south
View across the street to the south of the subject site – south side of 900 S
View of surrounding development on the block face to the west of the subject site
View of surrounding development – 800 W facing east
View of surrounding development to the north of the subject site – Genesee Ave. facing west
View of surrounding development on Genesee west of subject site
Public Process And
Comments
The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received
throughout this process are included within this attachment.
Poplar Grove and Glendale Community Council Meetings
The property is within the boundaries of Poplar Grove Community Council. Planning staff nor
the applicant were invited to speak at a Poplar Grove or Glendale Community Council meeting
regarding this proposed zoning map amendment request; however, prior to submitting the
previous rezone application, the applicants attended the September 25, 2019 Poplar Grove
Community Council meeting, which was hosted on the subject site in the vacant warehouse
buildings. During the meeting the applicant discussed their plans to request a rezone for the
properties and their ideas and intent for future development of the site with multi-family housing.
Planning Staff also attended the meeting to answer any city process and zoning related questions.
Questions were asked about height, design standards, and building materials that would be
applicable under the requested R-MU zoning district.
Early Notification
A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Poplar Grove & Glendale Community Councils.
The Community Councils were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments.
Notice of the application was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
project. The purpose of this notice is to inform surrounding property owners and residents that
an application has been submitted, provide details regarding the request, outline steps in the
planning review and decision making process, and to let them know how to obtain more
information and submit comments early on in the review process.
City Open House
Because the property is located within 600 feet of two community council districts, the City
Planning Division held an online open house on the Salt Lake City website for the proposal in
order to obtain feedback from residents and property owners and to provide information about
the public process and City regulations.
For the open house, the City provided mailed notice to residents and property owners within
approximately 300 feet of the proposal two weeks in advance of the open house. Notices were also
e-mailed to the City’s general Planning mailing list and to those individuals that requested notice
for meetings for the proposal.
Public Hearing Notice
The Planning Division provided the following notices for the Planning Commission meeting:
• Mailed notice sent October 2, 2020
• E-mailed notice to listserv sent October 2, 2020
• Public hearing notice signs posted on the property October 2, 2020
Public Input Received
Planning Staff received a letter of support from the Glendale Community Council. No other
formal public comments have been received as of the publication of this staff report.
Glendale Community Council
1375 S. Concord Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84104
Board of Directors
Turner C Bitton
Chair
Ashley King
First Vice Chair
Latu Patetefa
Second Vice Chair
Jeremy King
Treasurer
Dane Hess
Past Chair
Ryan Curtis
At-Large Member
July 27, 2020
Chris Earl
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State St
Rm 406
PO Box 145480
Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480
RE: PLNPCM2020-00442
Dear Chris,
It is my pleasure to submit this letter on behalf of the Glendale Community
Council. After our review, we would like to express our enthusiastic support
for the zoning map amendment proposed in this development. With the
current shortage of housing in Salt Lake City, more is always welcome.
Above that, though, the prospect of commercial development is very
exciting to us. Here on the west side, residents often have to travel outside
the neighborhood for basic things like shopping and dining; projects like
this are sorely needed.
The proposed development is exactly the kind of thing that Glendale's
residents have repeatedly expressed interest in for the past several years. It
will act as an anchor to bring much-anticipated commercial development to
the east side of the neighborhood and tie the neighborhood together in a
more cohesive manner. Adding more amenities to our community is a step
in the right direction and we look forward to seeing this development move
forward in the process.
Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the development. We greatly
appreciate the opportunity to engage in discussions affecting our
neighborhood.
Thank you,
Turner C. Bitton
Chair, Glendale Community Council
City Department Review
Comments
Transportation
Transportation doesn't have any issues with the rezone.
Engineering
No objections to the proposed rezone.
Public Utilities
No comment provided.
Fire
Building Services finds no Fire Code related issues associated with this rezone.
Building Services
Building Services finds no building code or zoning related issues associated with this rezone.
SLC Real Property Management
Salt Lake City property management authorizes the applicant to move forward with the small
portion of the city owned alley included in the rezone request. Please include a condition that
the rezone is subject to the petitioner entering into a Purchase Agreement with the City to
acquire the vacated alley if the vacation is approved by the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
c) Agenda/Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
d) Staff Presentation Slides
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Current Zoning:
•M-1 Light Manufacturing
Requested Zone:
•R-MU Residential/Mixed Use District
Recommendation:
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed zoning map amendment.
Subject Properties
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Subject
Property
Subject
Properties
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Key Considerations:
Existing City Plan Guidance
o The rezone request aligns with many policies found within the Westside
Master Plan.
o The rezone request helps to promote the visions found in the 9 Line Master
Plan.
o Supports the goals found in Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC.
o Promotes goals found within the Transit Master Plan.
Design Standards
o The proposed R-MU zoning only has two design standards.
o New development in this area would benefit from additional design
standards.
o Planning Staff is of the opinion the design standards applicable to the D-2
zoning district should be applied to any new project on the subject parcels
developed under the proposed R-MU zoning district.
Planning Commission
Zoning Map Amendment715 W Genesee Avenue
PLNPCM2020-00442
Public Process:
•Notice was sent to the Poplar Grove and Glendale Community
Councils
•Early notification was sent to property owners and residents
within 300 feet of the subject area
•Public comments
Recommendation:
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward
a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed
zoning map amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION - October 14, 2020
e) Additional Public Comments
5) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION
a) PLNPCM2019-01137
ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION
b) PLNPCM2020-00442
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
VIEW FROM 900 SOUTH LOOKING NORTHEAST
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
VIEW FROM I -15 LOOKING NORTHWEST
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
SHADOW STUDY _ PL AN VIEW
January 10 am January 2 pm January 4 pm January 6 pm
April 10 am April 2 pm April 4 pm April 6 pm
July 10 am July 2 pm July 4 pm July 6 pm
October 10 am October 2 pm October 4 pm October 6 pm
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
FLOOR PL AN _ G ROUND LEVE L
GROUND LEVEL:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf
Studio 11 Units
Parking 69 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
Gross Area 34,320 sf
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 35 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 194 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 234 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls
GROUND LEVEL:
Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units
Parking 81 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 37 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 204 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 244 Units
PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
FLOOR PL AN _ FIRST LEVE L
GROUND LEVEL:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf
Studio 11 Units
Parking 69 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
Gross Area 34,320 sf
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 35 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 194 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 234 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls
GROUND LEVEL:
Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units
Parking 81 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 37 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 204 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 244 Units
PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls
WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT | JULY 10, 2019
FLOOR PL AN _ LEVEL 2- 6
GROUND LEVEL:
Gross Area 9,675 sf
Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1: Gross Area 9,675 sf
Studio 11 Units
Parking 69 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
Gross Area 34,320 sf
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 35 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 194 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 234 Units
PARKING:
%65 Required Parking: 152 Stalls Provided Parking: 147 Stalls
GROUND LEVEL:
Amenities 1,800 sf Studio 8 Units Parking 78 Stalls
LEVEL 1: Studio 11 Units
Parking 81 Stalls
LEVEL 2-6:
1-bed 8 Units
Studio 37 Units
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL:
Studio (600 sf) 204 Units
1-bed (900 sf) 40 Units
Total 244 Units
PARKING: %65 Required Parking: 159 Stalls Provided Parking: 159 Stalls
6) MAILING LIST
OWN_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATOWN_ZIP
ROCKWOOD INVESTMENT GROUP 162 DUNLOP CT PARK CITY UT 84060
MARIA NOVOA 1160 N COLONEL RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
JLC AUTO SALES, LLC 16 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115
SCOTT W SIMONS 711 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
NICHOLAS R STODDARD 819 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
JACOB W SEITZ-SAMPSON; LEI 825 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
JOSE G D ALEMAN 835 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
EFRAIN CABRERA 837 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
4B PROPERTIES, LLC 748 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
ASHMENT & PASILLAS LLC 830 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
SQUARE KITCHEN, LLC 434 N HODGES LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
4B PROPERTIES, LLC 748 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
QUALITY CARPENTRY, LLC 10284 N CARRIAGE LN CEDAR HILLS UT 84062
MICHAEL J HOPPER; HERMELIN 865 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
JIMMY FERNANDEZ 869 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
BRITT K VELTRI 871 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
ROBERT G MAY; DRM TR 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
ROBERT G MAY; DRM TRST 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
ARLINE STONE; TRACY BUTTER 763 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 2251 E ALVA CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
GENESEE, LLC 755 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
LINNUS WEGE 751 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
ROSA M VEGA 756 W 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
JESUS CHACON; RAQUEL CHAVE 750 W 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
PETER R VIOLETTE; ALANA C 1576 ELVADO DRWAY #6 SIMI VALLEY CA 93065
PETER R VIOLETTE; ALANA C 1576 ELVADO DRWAY #6 SIMI VALLEY CA 93065
J & B PROPERTIES UTAH 2 LL 729 S KILBY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
LINDA M BEDDICK 851 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
LAWRENCE H IV FRAMME 847 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
UNREAL ESTATE LLC 767 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
ARLINE STONE; TRACY BUTTER 763 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
RFG 1 LLC PO BOX 17232 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
RFG 3 LLC PO BOX 17232 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
WEST END LLC 345 E BROADWAY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
TEODORO NAVA; SOCORRO ALAT 715 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
SALT LAKE CO PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SUMMUM OF SALT LAKE CITY 707 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
WEST END LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
WEST END, LLC 205 HUDSON ST NEW YORK NY 10013
ROSE PRINTING CO.680 W 900 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
LLP GEOSTAR ENTERPRISES 930 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
UTAH PAPER BOX COMPANY 920 S 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
LRM PARTNERS, LLC 15302 PIPELINE LN HUNTINGTON BEACA 92649
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
POPLAR GROVE COMMUNITY COUNCIL CHAIR -
ERIK LOPEZ 848 W. ARAPAHOE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION-
AMY THOMPSON PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
Occupant PARCEL_ADDR CITY ZIPCODE STATE
Current Occupant 765 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 755 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 747 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 823 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 756 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 853 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 875 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 792 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 757 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 748 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 746 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 766 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 765 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 855 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 857 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 739 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 733 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 723 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 721 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 717 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 740 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 706 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 710 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 755 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 959 S 800 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 939 S 700 W Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Current Occupant 675 W 900 S Salt Lake City 84104 UT
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:May 4, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Nine FY2021
________________________________________________________________________________
Budget Amendment Number Nine includes requested changes to seven funds. Total expenditures are $10,039,223
including $390,659 from Fund Balance. If this budget amendment is approved as requested by the Administration, then
the amount available in Fund Balance above the 13% minimum target would be $6,754,062. There are a total of 17 items
in this amendment, including five in Section A (note that this doesn’t count four items removed prior to transmittal).
Revenues Update
The Administration has provided the following information regarding City revenues: “The City is currently projecting a
$1.9 million decrease in budgeted revenue. The largest portion of the decrease is attributed to a $1.7 million decrease in
Fines and Forfeitures, a $1.7 million decrease in Parking Meter Revenues and a $978 thousand decrease in
Miscellaneous Revenues. These decreases are offset by a projected net increase of $1.4 million in Licenses and
Permits as well as a $1.1 million over adopted budget increase in Sales Tax and a $750 thousand increase in sales tax
attributable to Funding Our Future revenues.
The increase in Licenses and Permits is in spite of airport parking/license tax showing a decrease due to decreased
travel as a result of COVID. The decrease in airport parking and licenses is $2,045,000. Innkeepers’ tax has also been
hit hard by COVID and is projecting a decrease of $1,717,500. According to the local news, hotels are experiencing 30%
occupancy compared to this time of year in previous years. Business license are also expected to be below budget due to
trends for apartment units, new business license and renew business licenses. These losses are offset by gains in permits
& zoning building permits (+$1.1M), plan check fees (+$1.5M), and street excavation (+$1.96M due to a temporary
boost from Google contract).
Fines and Forfeitures are projected below budget due to a decrease in parking ticket revenue of $750k. Justice Court
fines are down $185k, while moving violations are projected at a loss of $699k. The Justice Court is following the order
of the Administrative Office of the Courts which is resulting in fewer court cases and no orders to pay fines, which are
then subsequently not sent to collections and no warrants are being issued. Traffic school revenue is down $61k and
vehicle booting is projected to be down $19k.
Parking Meter Collection is slightly less than half of the previous fiscal year due to an overall decrease in traffic
downtown. This is driving the significant decrease of $1.7 million. Additionally, Miscellaneous Revenue has also
been affected by the pandemic with decreases in accounts receivable collections, special event revenue, fuel
reimbursement due to the Mayor’s emergency declaration and utility reimbursement.
Project Timeline:
Set Date: May 4, 2021
1st Briefing: May 4, 2021
2nd Briefing (if needed): May 11, 2021
Public Hearing: May 18, 2021
Potential Action: June 1, 2021
Page | 2
Page | 3
Fund Balance Update
Fund Balance remains above fifteen percent, after projected use of fund balance in the current amendment and
the reduction in projected revenues.
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
Salt Laker Card Raise Up SLC Program Update
See Attachment 2 for a budget update through March 2021
In budget amendments #2 and #4 the Council approved a total of $1,426,264 for this program. The program has
received $178,184 in donations from other organizations and individuals for a total budget of $1,604,448.
The Community Foundation of Utah provides $500 pre-paid debit cards to other community-based organizations
working with undocumented populations. The recipients are at or below the federal poverty line and mostly
undocumented or mixed-status households where one family member is undocumented. Funding is targeted to City
residents on a first come first served basis.
When the Council approved funding last year the program expected to provide $500 cards to approximately 2,700
households that were ineligible for federal stimulus payments. Since then the Federal Government under a new
administration changed the eligibility criteria for stimulus payments. The criteria were expanded to include mixed-
status households. As a result, the number of Salt Lake City households eligible for the Salt Laker Card was
significantly reduced; a household may only receive the federal stimulus or a Salt Laker Card. Approximately 1,000
households have received a pre-paid debit card under the program.
As of March 31, 2021, the program spent nearly $500,000 on the pre-paid debit cards, another $349,000 is
currently available but not distributed pre-paid debit cards and $75,164 was spent on administration and
promotion expenses. This leaves a remaining unused budget of $680,284.
Policy Questions:
➢Deadline to Use CARES Funds – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if unused funds will need
to be returned to the Federal Government at a certain date.
➢Alternative Uses for $680,284 Remaining Budget – The Council may wish to ask if the Administration has
a recommendation for how to use the remaining budget or may wish to discuss other CARES-eligible
Council priorities. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration if the City has expenses eligible
under the CARES Act which did not receive funding in earlier budget amendments and could use the
funding this fiscal year.
Amending Appointed Pay Plan
On April 20 the Council amended the Appointed Pay Plan. The Administration is requesting another amendment to
recognize an existing Deputy Chief of Staff in the Mayor’s Office. The position is already listed on the staffing
document and was funded in the Council-adopted FY21 annual budget. The position has been vacant this fiscal
year. Amending the Appointed Pay Plan to recognize the existing position is a housekeeping correction. If the
Council supports this amendment, then it could be scheduled for a vote as soon as May 18.
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of
unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of April 1, 2021. $1,718 of police impact
fees are scheduled to expire in April. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and
parks sections of the impact fee plan. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $930,142 More than a year away -
Parks $7,097,114 More than a year away -
Police $395,285 April 2021 $1,718
Transportation $5,013,594 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items)
Page | 5
A-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-2: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-5: Budgeting for Inland Port Tax Revenue ($ - 0 - Budget Neutral)
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax
revenue within the boundaries of the Inland Port. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the inland port,
the City does not receive the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a
corresponding expenditure account recognizing the pass-through, so City revenue is not overstated. A $500,000
portion of the Inland Port revenue was accounted for in Budget Amendment #7 of this fiscal year. This amendment
will account for the remaining $483,242 in anticipated revenue. At the time of writing Budget Amendment #7, the
City did not know when actual tax revenue would be determined. The final revenue allocation was received on
March 30.
A-6: Budgeting for Convention Hotel Tax Revenue ($ - 0 - Budget Neutral)
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax
revenue at the Convention Center Hotel. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the convention hotel, the
City does not receive the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a
corresponding expenditure account, so City revenue is not overstated. This amendment is for the $10,116 in
anticipated revenue.
The hotel is being built on County-owned property. This means the property was tax-exempt and became taxable
with the hotel construction. The GOED Development Board adopted a motion on November 6, 2018 which
approved the following incentive package under authority of Utah Code 63N-2-503.5. Approve Salt Lake City CH,
LLC for a post-performance, New Convention Facility Development, Incentive consisting of:
Up to 100% of the new incremental State Sales Tax not to exceed $75,000,000 over 20 years
Up to 100% of local (city and county) sales tax and property tax over 25 years
Including conveyance of land from Salt Lake County to Salt Lake City CH, LLC
State law includes language to hold the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) harmless for existing debt obligations
(bonds). Some hotel increment could be used to meet RDA bond payments if needed in the future. The County is
required to provide an annual report identifying tax increment generated by the hotel property. See Attachment 1
for a letter from the Salt Lake County Auditor that provides a breakdown of tax increment revenues being diverted
by taxing entity.
A-7: Presumption for CARES Act Funding – ($-293,067 – General Fund)
The Council approved the use of unspent CARES funds for Fire personnel expenses. This amendment removes
personnel expenses in Fire that were used for this method and passes the eligible budget from previously budgeted
line items to Fire. Note that this item is related to items A-8 and E-2 below. The Administration provided the
following accounting summary:
1. Salt Lake City received a 3rd bucket of federal money in December. This needed to be spent by the 21st of
December and reported to Salt Lake County. This amount was $150,000.
2. Once all the actuals had been expensed for both the internet allowance and the hazard pay there was
remaining budget. This amount needs to also be accounted for by December 21st, 2020 to Salt Lake County,
and those remaining dollars were accounted for through Fire personnel expenses.
3. The Fire personnel services were used for both totals above.
4. Since these the expenses were reduced in the Fire Department the General Fund budget needs to be
reduced as well
Page | 6
5. This funding then becomes available to use for a General Fund use. The administration is requesting to use
this funding to accommodate the Emergency Management Division relocating to the Fire Department.
A-8: Fire Emergency Management Office Build Out – ($293,067 – General Fund)
The Administration is proposing to use the third round of CARES Act funding ($150,000) and the remaining
unspent amounts from the first two round ($143,067.36) to build office space for Emergency Management within
the Fire Department. Emergency Management is growing and is currently limited in office space. The current staff
reside on the 3rd floor of the PSB, many in spaces designed as common space or break-out rooms. Adjacent to this
area, is open floor space that can be converted to office space. This would include 2 new Division Chief offices, 2
new Captain offices, plus cubicle space and open space. Construction budget is estimated at $275,000 plus
furniture requirements of $42,000. Fire Department funds will be used to complete any additional costs not
covered in this amendment.
A-9: 911-ETM Security Platform – ($41,138 – E911 Fund)
SLC911 has seen an unprecedented surge of digital attacks on their 911 and administrative lines. The result has been
a telephone denial of service attack (TDoS) which means that a series of calls spoof incoming lines by merging other
public safety answering points together, or robo calling which overwhelms lines for service. While we have been
fortunate to date, we are seeing this behavior more frequently. Without this protection, our communities are at risk
and it would have a devastating impact on the ability of the center to answer emergency calls. SLC911 is requesting
emergency funding to purchase an enterprise voice network security platform. This platform includes hardware,
software, and monitoring services. The managed services will monitor 911's administrative systems for threats and
respond with specific recommendations to mitigate any attacks. This funding is requested to come from Fund 60,
the E911 Tax Fund, not the General Fund.
Hardware $9,685
Licensing $2,878
Installation/Training $3,375
Monitoring Services $25,200
Total Requested $41,138
Additional information such as whether or not there is an annual cost was forthcoming at the time of publishing
this staff report.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Police Impact Fee Refund – ($510,828 – Police Impact Fees)
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property for an East Side Precinct using Police Impact Fees.
The intended property did not work for an eastside police precinct and refunds of the impact fees are now required.
These refunds will be funded primarily with previous unclaimed refunds. The Council may wish to inquire if the
Administration is continuing to pursue an East Side Precinct given evolving conversations about the overall Public
Safety service delivery model.
D-2: Moving Transportation CIP Projects to CIP Fund – ($8,695,770 – CIP Fund)
Currently the Transportation CIP projects reside in the Transportation fund. Because the fund is a
governmental fund, assets will need to be carefully evaluated, capitalized, depreciated, and reported like the regular
CIP funds. This is a time intensive project and one of the biggest bottle necks for the financial audit. To relieve some
of this pressure, we request that the Transportation capital projects be moved to the CIP fund so they can be
processed like the other CIP funds. The funds will be easily identifiable as being funded by the Transportation sales
tax. No additional funding is required as this just moves the funds from the Transportation Fund to the CIP Fund.
Note that all these funds are from the County quarter cent sales tax for transportation.
Page | 7
D-3: Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund – ($46,982 – CIP Fund)
The Department of Sustainability is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $46,982 from CIP to the
Environment and Energy Fund, reflecting the closing out of a previously funded project. During FY19 the
Department of Sustainability transferred $240,000 to CIP to be used in conjunction with a Rocky Mountain Power
Bluesky grant toward installing rooftop solar on the Sorenson Unity Center building. The Sorenson Rooftop Solar
Project is now finished, and the department is requesting that the remaining unused funds of $46,982 be
transferred back into the Environment and Energy Fund (E&E).
Due to the shrinking E&E fund balance these funds are greatly needed and will be used to fund future sustainability
projects and operations.
D-4: Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost Center to Bond Contingency – ($917,854 – CIP
Fund)
The budgetary estimate of construction costs for the 700 West Road Re-Construction Bond project was
$2,000,000. 10% of these funds were assigned to an overall fund for bond contingencies. The 700 West Cost Center
was, therefore, $1,800,000. 700 West was also eligible for $155,000 of Impact Fees. The bids for 700 West came in
well below the budgeted amount. With the completion of construction and the application of Impact Fees, the 700
West project is $917,853.80 below the budgeted amount. This includes the hard and soft costs.
These funds are being requested to be moved to one of the 2020 or 2021 contingency funds so the bond funds can
be expended on upcoming bond road projects.
D-5: Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in Original Adopted Budget – ($78,291 – Fund Balance
for Debt Service)
During the chaos of the COVID pandemic, the estimated savings from existing cash in the debt service fund of
$22,892 (see CIP book page A6) were subtracted twice. It is necessary to add additional budget to cover sales tax
bonds. Additionally, the City also expected to realize savings from refunding the ESCO debt of $55,399 (see Budget
Book page B21). As the bonds were evaluated in preparation for the refunding, there was not the estimated savings
that were expected. The total amount needed is $78,291.
D-6: Donation Fund Increase – ($200,000 – Donation Fund)
There is a strong possibility that before the year-end the City will receive several large donations that will exceed the
amount approved in the annual budget. It is necessary to have enough budget to accommodate all the donations
and be underbudget by the end of the fiscal year and be in compliance for the audit. As of December 30th, 2020,
there were approximately $80,000 in donations. If the expected donations are received, the City will need
approximately $200,000 in budget. All donations are processed as required through the donation ordinance and
will be reported in detail to Council after the end of the year.
D-7: Fire Department – Reimbursement for Wildland/Search & Rescue Deployments – ($230,683 –
General Fund)
Personnel were deployed several times during Fall 2020. A team was mobilized to Hurricane Laura in August, a
Search & Rescue team assisted in Oregon in September while simultaneously another team volunteered to fight
their Wildfires. The department helped fight the California Wildfires in October. Finally, crews assisted in Utah
County on the Ridge Fire. All costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City. We are
asking the City Council to approve this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill.
This proposal will make the fire department whole as well as the General Fund with offsetting revenues. The request
is only for the amount of revenues we have received.
Expenses
Hurricane Laura - August 2020 $87,572.01
Oregon Wildfire Search & Rescue - September 2020 $234,201.93
Oregon Wildfire - September 2020 $243,468.67
California Wildfire - October 2020 $176,218.51
Utah County Ridge Fire - October 2020 $3,666.00
Total Expense Incurred $745,127.12
Revenues/Reimbursements Received
Page | 8
Hurricane Laura 2/24/2021 $59,328.56
Oregon Search & Rescue 2/24/2021 $167,688.39
Utah County Ridge Fire 3/2/2021 $3,666.00
Reimbursement Rec'd $230,682.95
Remainder of Reimbursement will likely be received in FY22 and will be included in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget as a one-time revenue and expense line item.
D-8: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements – ($59,126 – General Fund)
The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: Fire
Inspector overtime on behalf of the SLC Airport Redevelopment contractor, backfill costs caused by Utah Search
and Rescue training at their request, Fire Watch services for the Vice Presidential Debate at the University of Utah,
and finally cost recovery efforts from negligent accidents/incidents.
Airport Redevelopment Inspector OT $7,671.50
Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $19,006.05
Cost Recovery $28,811.15
Vice Presidential Debate Fire Watch/Standby $3,637.45
Budget Amendment Total $59,126.15
D-9: Fire Department COVID Costs – ($605,435 – General Fund)
COVID19 ERPL and Worker's Compensation claims caused by COVID19 have had a detrimental effect to the Fire
Department's budget. While ERPL was very much appreciated by Fire personnel, it caused a dramatic rise in the
cost of backfilling open shifts. The Fire Department has a 4-handed staffing mandate, meaning each apparatus will
have 4 personnel and the department will "buy back" off duty personnel to fill any gaps. Many times, this cost is
paid out at overtime. When Emergency Responders tested positive for COVID19, it was a presumptive positive,
meaning it was assumed the infection was obtained while working on the job in their role for Salt Lake City. It is
anticipated that some of these costs will eventually be reimbursed by FEMA.
This request is for Worker's Compensation claims directly caused by COVID19, and ERPL associated backfill costs
(Buybacks, Fullstaffs, OT, MRT OT).
WC Claims $155,295
ERPL Backfill $450,140
Total $605,435
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure Gilmer Drive – ($55,365 – CIP Fund)
The Transportation Division received a follow up grant award from Salt Lake County for $55,365 to finish up
the original 9 Line / 900 South Trail. The Gilmer Drive Intersection was not completed during the original
contract period so the funds were unspent.
The County issued a new Interlocal Agreement with the City to finish the project funding from the original
Agreement. This funding is to reconfigure the Gilmer Drive Intersection; move and curb, add a landscaped
separation between bikeway and roadway and install wayfinding signage.
In FY18 The Transportation Division applied for and received a grant from Salt Lake County for $500,000
under the Countywide Active Transportation Network Improvement Program 2017. This grant is to be used for
design and construction of the segment of the 9 Line / 900 South Trail between 900 East and 1300 East.
Construction of the trail segment would occur in conjunction with road reconstruction from Lincoln (950 East)
to 1300 East and the installation of wayfinding signs on 900 South and Gilmer Drive.
This grant has a no match requirement.
A public hearing was held on 12/12/17 on the original grant application for this award.
Page | 9
E-2: CARES ACT Third Tranche – ($150,000 – Grant Fund)
Salt Lake City received $150,000 from the third tranche of CARES Act funding. In BA#4 the Council authorized
the Administration to use the presumption that any amount received in this tranche would cover costs associated
with expenses within the Fire Department. This amendment formalizes that assumption, with the City recognizing
the revenue and an expense associated with the award.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3 – Grant Awards
G-1: Utah State Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY20 Paul Coverdell
Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program ($19,500 – Grant Fund)
The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic
Services (UBFS) application for the FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s
Application includes $19,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain initial accreditation in 2021
through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO 17020 for Inspection Agencies.
The Police Department received a subaward from UBFS’s FY19 Coverdell application to fund the application fee.
The anticipated remaining accreditation costs, which will be funded through this FY20 award, include the
assessment fee and the annual accreditation fee based on the laboratory’s scope of operations.
A match is not required for this award.
Section I: Council Added Items
(None)
ATTACHMENTS
1. County Auditor Letter on Convention Hotel 2020 Tax Increment Diversion
2. Salt Laker Card Budget Update through March 2021
ACRONYMS
CARES Act – Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CATNIP Fund – (formerly) County Active Transportation Fund
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CIT – Crisis Intervention Team
ERPL – Emergency Response Pandemic Leave
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
FOF – Funding Our Future
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
MRT – Medical Response Team
OT – Overtime
PSB – Public Safety Building
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
UBFS – Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
USAR – Utah Search and Rescue
SCOTT TINGLEY
CIA, CGAP
Salt Lake County Auditor
STingley@slco.org
CHERYLANN JOHNSON
MBA, CIA, CFE
Chief Deputy Auditor
CAJohnson@slco.org
ROSWELL ROGERS
Senior Advisor
RRogers@slco.org
STUART TSAI
JD, MPA
Property Tax
Division Administrator
STsai@slco.org
SHAWNA AHLBORN
Audit Services
Division Administrator
SAhlborn@slco.org
OFFICE OF THE
SALT LAKE COUNTY
AUDITOR
2001 S State Street, N3-300
PO Box 144575
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575
(385) 468-7200; TTY 711
1-866-498-4955 / fax
March 29, 2021
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
Danny Walz
Chief Operating Officer
451 South State St, Room 418
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Danny Walz,
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63N-2-508 of the “New Convention Facility Development
Incentives,” Salt Lake County shall retain incremental property tax revenue (IPTR) for tax
year 2020. This reduces any tax increment financing that otherwise would have been
paid to the host agency. Incremental value and revenue from an increase in the taxable
value of hotel property are used as adjustments in the certified tax rate calculation
pursuant to UCA § 59-2-924.
For transparency of the use of taxpayer monies and to assist you with your budget
preparation, our office is providing you with IPTR information.
If you have questions on IPTR, please contact Greg Folta in the Salt Lake County Mayor’s
Office of Financial Administration at (385) 468-7076, or gfolta@slco.org.
Sincerely,
Scott Tingley, CIA, CGAP
Salt Lake County Auditor
Enclosures
INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE - CONVENTION HOTEL TAX YEAR 2020
ENTITY
Incremental
Property Tax
Revenue
Central Utah Water Conservancy 1,143
County Assessing & Collecting Levy 600
Metropolitan Water District Of Salt Lake & Sandy (Slc) 757
Multi County Assessing & Collecting Levy 34
Salt Lake City 10,116
Salt Lake City Library 1,952
Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 349
Salt Lake City School 9,538
Salt Lake County Bond Interest & Sinking Fund 660
Salt Lake County Capital Improvement 206
Salt Lake County Clark Planetarium 74
Salt Lake County Flood Control 166
Salt Lake County General Fund 4,021
Salt Lake County Government Immunity 43
Salt Lake County Health Department 397
State Basic School Levy - Salt Lake City 4,652
Utah Charter School - Salt Lake City 231
Grand Total 34,939
Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor 3/25/2021
Income Statement 8/1/2020-3/31/2021
Fund: Salt Lake City Equity Fund
Type Account Total Notes
Revenue
Support
Donation from Salt Lake City Corporation (CARES) 1,401,264.00
Donation from Salt Lake City Corporation 25,000.00
Donation from Salt Lake City Corporation (Muslim League) 50,000.00
Donation from Salt Lake County 25,000.00
Individual/Foundation contributions (checks, Stripe) 103,184.68
Total Revenue $1,604,448.68
Expenses
Expense
Raise UP SLC Distribution 849,000.00
Utah Community Action 283,000.00 Card funds
Comunidades Unidas 283,000.00 Card funds
University Neighborhood Partners 283,000.00 Card funds
Raise Up SLC Admin Grant 14,865.00
Utah Community Action 5,000.00
Comunidades Unidas 9,865.00
Accounts Payable 17,064.31
Love Communication 15,006.00 Initiative promotion
Goodworld 1,148.31 Donation portal management
Inlingua Utah 910.00 Translation services
Bank/CC Fees 272.03
Community Foundation of Utah Admin Fee Expense 42,962.85
Total Expenses $924,164.19
Change in Net Assets $680,284.49
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 20, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment # 9
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2020 – 21 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 439,809.00 $ 830,467.64
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8,751,135.00 8,798,117.37
DEBT SERVICE FUND 78,291.00 0.00
DONATION FUND 200,000.00 200,000.00
REFUSE FUND 46,982.37 0.00
E911 FUND 0.00 41,138.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 169,500.00 169,500.00
TOTAL $ 9,685,717.37 $ 10,039,223.01
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 20, 2021 17:34 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2019-20 Budget Adjustments
The Fiscal Year 2021 projections are coming in below budgeted revenues. The following chart
shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2021.
FY20-21 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 111,418,455 111,418,455 -
Sales and Use Tax 67,999,593 69,146,260 1,146,667
Franchise Tax 26,812,125 26,702,018 (110,107)
PILOT Taxes 1,508,894 1,508,894 -
TOTAL TAXES 207,739,067 208,775,627 1,036,560
License and Permits 28,601,482 30,071,777 1,470,295
Intergovernmental 4,444,400 4,146,157 (298,243)
Interest Income 1,900,682 1,700,000 (200,682)
Fines & Forfeiture 3,938,848 2,210,747 (1,728,101)
Parking Meter Collection 3,432,962 1,705,187 (1,727,775)
Charges and Services 4,428,069 4,219,771 (208,298)
Miscellaneous Revenue 4,014,037 3,036,282 (977,755)
Interfund Reimbursement 20,281,706 20,268,706 (13,000)
Transfers 9,507,812 9,507,812 -
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 288,289,065 285,642,067 (2,646,998)
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 32,797,506 33,547,506 750,000
Sales and Use Tax - County
Option - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 321,086,571 319,189,573 (1,896,998)
The City is currently projecting a $1.9 million decrease in budgeted revenue. The largest portion
of the decrease is attributed to a $1.7 million decrease in Fines and Forfeitures, a $1.7 million
decrease in Parking Meter Revenues and a $978 thousand decrease in Miscellaneous
Revenues. These decreases are offset by a projected net increase of $1.4 million in Licenses and
Permits as well as a $1.1 million increase in Sales Tax and a $750 thousand increase in sales tax
attributable to Funding Our Future revenues.
The increase in Licenses and Permits is in spite of airport parking/license tax showing a
decrease due to decreased travel as a result of COVID. The decrease in airport parking and
licenses is $2,045,000. Innkeepers tax has also been hit hard by COVID and is projecting a
decrease of $1,717,500. According to the local news, hotels are experiencing 30% occupancy
compared to this time of year in previous years. Business license are also expected to be below
budget due to trends for apartment units, new business license and renew business licenses.
These losses are offset by gains in permits & zoning building permits (+$1.1M), plan check fees
(+$1.5M), and street excavation (+$1.96M due to a temporary boost from Google contract).
Fines and Forfeitures are projected below budget due to a decrease in parking ticket revenue of
$750k. Justice Court fines are down $185k, while moving violations are projected wat a loss of
$699k. The Justice Court is following the order of the Administrative Office of the Courts which
is resulting in fewer court cases and no orders to pay fines, which are then subsequently not sent
to collections and no warrants are being issued. Traffic school revenue is down $61k and vehicle
booting is projected to be down $19k.
Parking Meter Collection is slightly less than half of the previous fiscal year due to an overall
decrease in traffic downtown. This is driving the significant decrease of $1.7 million.
Additionally, Miscellaneous Revenue has also been affected by the pandemic with decreases in
accounts receivable collections, special event revenue, fuel reimbursement due to the Mayor’s
emergency declaration and utility reimbursement.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With the current use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance drops to 15.09%.
2019 Actual FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 56,104,269 10,372,054 69,441,955 79,814,009 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (380,025) - (1,510,094) (1,510,094) 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620)
Prior Year Encumbrances (8,731,774) (3,105,004) (6,566,830) (9,671,834) (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 46,992,470 7,267,050 61,365,031 68,632,081 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.57%18.17%20.64%20.35%17.34%23.66%23.00%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,701,982) - (4,127,838) (4,127,838) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 43,290,488 7,267,050 57,237,193 64,504,243 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777
Final Fund Balance Percent 13.42%18.17%19.26%19.13%17.34%21.70%21.25%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,858,647) (2,300,000) (13,070,734) (15,370,734)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788)
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673)
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824)
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - (830,468) (830,468)
Change in Revenue 3,149,980 758,000 6,069,370 6,827,370 750,000 (2,646,998) (1,896,998)
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase 2,500,000 900,000 - 900,000 - - -
- Adjusted Fund Balance 47,081,821 6,625,050 50,235,829 56,860,879 5,565,989 43,266,477 48,832,466
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 14.60%16.56%16.90%16.86%16.59%14.91%15.09%
Projected Revenue 322,562,293 40,000,000 297,251,407 337,251,407 33,547,506 290,132,520 323,680,026
2021 Projection2020 Projection
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $9,685,717.37 of revenue and
expense of $10,039,223.01. The amendment proposes changes in the seven funds, with
$390,658.64 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-one initiatives
for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Ninth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-2021)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2020 and Ending
June 30, 2021.
In June of 2020, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
_________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
1 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
2 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
4 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
5 Inland Port Property Tax Revenue GF 483,242.00 - One-time -
5 Inland Port Property Tax Revenue GF (483,242.00) - One-time -
6 Convention Hotel Property Tax Revenue GF 10,116.00 - One-time -
6 Convention Hotel Property Tax Revenue GF (10,116.00) - One-time -
7 Presumption for CARES GF - (293,067.36)One-time -
7 Presumption for CARES Non-Departmental GF (143,067.36)One-time
7 Presumption fo CARES Fire Change from
Non-Departmental
GF 143,067.36
8 Fire Emergency Management Office
Buildout
GF 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
9 911-ETM Security Platform E911 - 41,138.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
1 Police Impact Fee Refund CIP - (510,828.00)One-time -
1 Police Impact Fee Refund CIP - 438,897.00 One-time -
1 Police Impact Fee Refund CIP - 71,931.00 One-time -
2 Move Transportation CIP Projects to CIP
Fund
Transportation - (8,695,770.00)One-time -
2 Move Transportation CIP Projects to CIP
Fund
Transportation - 8,695,770.00 One-time -
2 Move Transportation CIP Projects to CIP
Fund
CIP 8,695,770.00 8,695,770.00 One-time -
3 Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund CIP - 46,982.37 One-time -
3 Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund Refuse 46,982.37 - One-time -
4 Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost
Center to Bond Contingency
CIP - (917,854.00)One-time -
4 Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost
Center to Bond Contingency
CIP - 917,854.00 One-time -
5 Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in
Original Adopted Budget
GF - 78,291.00 One-time -
5 Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in
Original Adopted Budget
Debt Service 78,291.00 - One-time -
6 Donation Fund Increase Donation 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time -
7 Fire Department - Wildland/Search &
Rescue Deployments
GF 230,683.00 230,683.00 One-time -
8 Fire Department - Other Reimbursements GF 59,126.00 59,126.00 One-time -
9 Fire Department - COVID Costs GF - 605,435.00 One-time -
1 Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure
Gilmer Drive
CIP 55,365.00 55,365.00 One-time -
2 CARES Act, third tranche Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time
-
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Administration Proposed
2
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
Consent Agenda #5
1 Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services, FY 20 Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Program
Misc Grants 19,500.00 19,500.00 One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 9,685,717.37 10,039,223.01 - - -
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #9:
General Fund GF 439,809.00 830,467.64 - - -
Capital Improvement Program Fund CIP 8,751,135.00 8,798,117.37 - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 78,291.00 - - - -
Donation Fund Donation 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - -
Refuse Fund Refuse 46,982.37 - - - -
E 911 Fund E911 - 41,138.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 169,500.00 169,500.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 9,685,717.37 10,039,223.01 - - -
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
3
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2020-21 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2020-21
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)326,130,003 288,487.58 6,184,940.00 2,783,685.00 335,387,115.58
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,763,746 1,763,746.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,379,697 1,500.00 5,381,197.00
Water Fund (FC 51)126,333,193 296,750.00 126,629,943.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)212,638,399 108,500.00 212,746,899.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)17,961,860 32,650.00 17,994,510.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,311,600 - 520,000.00 38,956,452.00 341,788,052.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)16,515,438 53,200.00 2,742,500.00 19,311,138.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)8,484,897 8,484,897.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,789,270 3,789,270.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)19,209,271 93,000.00 19,302,271.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)18,289,687 237,000.00 18,526,687.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
7,571,945 7,571,945.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)3,509,164 3,063,849.00 6,573,013.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,261,044 716,764.00 5,925,738.42 5,925,738.00 7,818,505.00 28,647,789.42
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)- -
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,380,172 2,380,172.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)23,248,016 23,248,016.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)37,519,401 (3,858,955.00) 33,660,446.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)24,420,242 36,435,000.00 60,855,242.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,855,203 2,855,203.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)51,409,025 14,350.00 51,423,375.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,221,534,273 716,764.00 7,463,826.00 45,141,392.00 5,925,738.00 49,091,934.00 1,329,873,927.00
4
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2020-21 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
^^ FY 2020-21
Adopted Budget
through BA#5
^^ BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total Total To-Date
General Fund (FC 10)335,387,116 63,673.00 6,582,824.00 2,000,000.00 830,467.64 344,864,080
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,763,746 1,763,746
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,381,197 5,038.00 5,386,235
Water Fund (FC 51)126,629,943 1,543,238.00 128,173,181
Sewer Fund (FC 52)212,746,899 241,206.00 212,988,105
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)17,994,510 67,282.00 18,061,792
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)341,788,052 859,674.00 342,647,726
Refuse Fund (FC 57)19,311,138 128,084.00 19,439,222
Golf Fund (FC 59)8,484,897 23,667.00 8,508,564
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,789,270 41,138.00 3,830,408
Fleet Fund (FC 61)19,302,271 97,612.00 19,399,883
IMS Fund (FC 65)18,526,687 453,399.00 93,766.00 19,073,852
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
7,571,945 1,876.00 7,573,821
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)6,573,013 6,573,013
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)28,647,789 750,000.00 11,223,292.00 169,500.00 40,790,581
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)- 520,150.00 520,150
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,380,172 200,000.00 2,580,172
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)23,248,016 - 23,248,016
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,660,446 33,660,446
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)60,855,242 1,293,732.00 1,361,866.14 8,798,117.37 72,308,958
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,855,203 5,296.00 2,860,499
Risk Fund (FC 87)51,423,375 3,836.00 51,427,211
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,329,873,927 2,560,804.00 22,758,707.14 2,000,000.00 10,039,223.01 - 1,367,232,661
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
5
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Contingent Appropriation
6
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-2: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-5: Inland Port Tax Revenue GF $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax revenue withi n
the boundaries of the Inland Port. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the inland port, the City does not receive
the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a corresponding contra account so City
revenue is not overstated. A $500,000 portion of the Inland Port revenue was accounted for in budget amendment #7 of
this fiscal year. This amendment will account for the remaining $483,242 in anticipated revenue.
A-6: Convention Hotel Tax Revenue GF $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax revenue at the
Convention Center Hotel. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the convention hotel, the City does not receive
the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a corresponding contra account so City
revenue is not overstated. This amendment is for the $10,116 in anticipated revenue.
A-7: Presumption for CARES GF -$293,067.36
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
The Council approved the use of the assumption for any unspent funds from CARES. This amendment recognizes the
removes personnel expenses in Fire that were used for the assumption and passes the eligible budget from previously
budgeted line items to Fire.
A-8: Fire Emergency Management Office Buildout
GF $293,067.36
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson/
Clint Rasmussen
The Administration is proposing to use the third traunche of CARES Act funding ($150,000) and the remaining unspent
amounts from the first two traunches ($143,067.36) to build office space for Emergency Management within the Fire
Department. Emergency Management is growing and is currently limited in office space. The current staff reside on the
3rd floor of the PSB, many in spaces designed as common space or break-out rooms. Adjacent to this area, is open floor
space that can be converted to office space. This would include 2 new Division Chief offices, 2 new Captain offices, plus
cubicle space and open space. Construction budget is estimated at $275,000 plus furniture requirements of $42,000. Fire
Department funds will be used to complete any additional costs not covered in this amendment.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
A-9: 911-ETM Security Platform E911 $41,138.00
Department: E911 Communications Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
SLC911 has seen an unprecedented surge of digital attacks on their 911 and administrative lines. The result has been a
telephone denial of service attack (TDoS) which means that a series of calls spoof incoming lines by merging other public
safety answering points together, or robo calling which overwhelms lines for service. While we have been fortunate to date,
we are seeing this behavior more frequently. Without this protection, our communities are at risk and it would have a
devastating impact on the ability of the center to answer emergency calls. SLC911 is requesting emergency funding to
purchase an enterprise voice network security platform. This platform includes hardware, software, and monitoring
services. The managed services will monitor 911's administrative systems for threats and respond with specific
recommendations to mitigate any attacks. This funding is requested to come from Fund 60, the E911 Tax Fund, not the
General Fund.
Hardware $9,685
Licensing $2,878
Installation/Training $3,375
Monitoring Services $25,200
Total Requested $41,138
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Police Impact Fee Refund Impact Fees -$510,828.00
Impact Fees $510,828.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk / Mike Atkinson
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not
work for the police precinct and refunds of the impact fees are now required. These refunds will be funded with proceeds
from unclaimed refunds from Cost Center 8417006. The remaining funds in 8417006 will be returned to 8484001.
D-2: Moving Transportation CIP Projects to CIP Fund Trans -$8,695,770.00
Trans $8,695,770.00
CIP $8,695,770.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
Currently the Transportation CIP projects reside in the Transportation fund. Because the fund is a governmental fund,
assets will need to be carefully evaluated, capitalized, depreciated and reported like the regular CIP funds. This is a time
intensive project and one of the biggest bottle necks for the financial audit. To relieve some of this pressure, we request
that the Transportation capital projects be moved to the CIP fund so they can be processed like the other CIP funds. The
funds will be easily identifiable as being funded by the Transportation sales tax. No additional funding is required as this
just moves the funds from the Transportation Fund to the CIP Fund.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
D-3: Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund CIP $46,982.37
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Gregg Evans
The Department of Sustainability is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $46,982 from CIP to the Envi ronment and
Energy Fund 00577 within the Refuse Fund Class 57. During FY19 the Department of Sustainability transferred $240,000
to CIP (CC 8320715) to be used in conjunction with an RMP Bluesky grant toward installing rooftop solar on the Sorenson
Unity Center building. The Sorenson Rooftop Solar Project is now finished, and the department is requesting that the
remaining unused funds of $46,982 be transferred back into the Environment and Energy Fund (E&E) within the Refuse
Fund Class 57.
Due to the shrinking E&E fund balance these funds are greatly needed and will be used to fund future sustainability
projects and operations.
D-4: Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost Center to Bond
Contingency
CIP -$917,854.00
CIP $917,854.00
Department: Community & Neighborhoods Prepared By: John Vuyk
The budgetary estimate of construction costs for the 700 West Road Re-Construction Bond project was $2,000,000. 10%
of these funds were assigned to the 2020 Bond Contingency Fund. The 700 West Cost Center was, therefore, $1,800,000.
700 West was also eligible for $155,000 of Impact Fees. The bids for 700 West came in well below the budgeted amount.
With the completion of construction and the application of Impact Fees, the 700 West project is $917,853.80 below the
budgeted amount. This includes the hard and soft costs.
These funds are being requested to be moved to one of the 2020 or 2021 contingency fu nds so the bond funds can be
expended on upcoming bond road projects.
D-5: Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in Original Adopted
Budget
GF $78,291.00
Debt Service $78,291.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Russ Sundquist
During the chaos of the COVID pandemic, the estimated savings from existing cash in the debt service fund of $22,892
(see CIP book page A6) were subtracted twice. It is necessary to add additional budget to cover sales tax bonds.
Additionally, the City also expected to realize savings from refunding the ESCO debt of $55,399 (see Budget Book page
B21). As the bonds were evaluated in preparation for the refunding, there was not the estimated savings that were
expected. The total amount needed is $78,291.
D-6: Donation Fund Increase Donation $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Teresa Beckstrand
There is a strong possibility that before the year-end we will receive several large donations that will exceed the amount
approved in the annual budget. It is necessary to have enough budget to accommodate all the donations and be under
budget by the end of the fiscal year and be in compliance for the audit. As of December 30th, 2020 there were
approximately $80,000 in donations. If the expected donations are received, we will need approximately $200,000 in
budget. All donations are processed as required through the donation ordinance and will be reported in detail to Council
after the end of the year.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
D-7: Fire Department – Wildland/Search & Rescue Deployments GF $230,683.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
Personnel were deployed several times during Fall 2020. A team was mobilized to Hurricane Laura in August, a Search &
Rescue team assisted in Oregon in September while simultaneously another team volunteered to fight their Wildfires. The
department helped fight the California Wildfires in October. Finally, crews assisted in Utah County on the Ridge Fire. All
costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City. We are asking the City Council to approve
this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill. This proposal will make the fire
department whole as well as the General Fund with offsetting revenues. The request is only for the amount of revenues we
have received.
Expense
Hurricane Laura - August 2020 $ 87,572.01
Oregon Wildfire Search & Rescue - September 2020 $234,201.93
Oregon Wildfire - September 2020 $243,468.67
California Wildfire - October 2020 $ 176,218.51
Utah County Ridge Fire - October 2020 $ 3,666.00
Total Expense Incurred $745,127.12
Revenue/Reimbursement Received
Hurricane Laura $ 59,328.56 2/24/2021
Oregon Search & Rescue $167,688.39 2/24/2021
Utah County Ridge Fire $ 3,666.00 3/2/2021
Reimbursement Rec'd $230,682.95
Remainder of Reimbursement will likely be received in FY22 and will be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget as
a one-time revenue and expense line item.
D-8: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements GF $59,126.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: Fire Inspector
overtime on behalf of the SLC Airport Redevelopment contractor, backfill costs caused by Utah Search and Rescue training
at their request, Fire Watch services for the Vice Presidential Debate at the University of Utah, and finally cost recovery
efforts from negligent accidents/incidents.
Airport Redevelopment Inspector OT $ 7,671.50
Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $19,006.05
Cost Recovery $28,811.15
Vice Presidential Debate Fire Watch/Standby $ 3,637.45
Budget Amendment Total $59,126.15
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
D-9: Fire Department COVID Costs GF $605,435.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
COVID19 ERPL and Worker's Compensation claims caused by COVID19 have had a detrimental effect to the Fire
Department's budget. While ERPL was very much appreciated by Fire personnel, it caused a dramatic rise in the cost of
backfilling open shifts. The Fire Department has a 4-handed staffing mandate, meaning each apparatus will have 4
personnel and the department will "buy back" off duty personnel to fill any gaps. Many times, this cost is paid out at
overtime. When Emergency Responders tested positive for COVID19, it was a presumptive positive, meaning it was
assumed the infection was obtained while working on the job in their role for Salt Lake City. It is anticipated that some of
these costs will eventually be reimbursed by FEMA.
This request is for Worker's Compensation claims directly caused by COVID19, and ERPL associated backfill costs
(Buybacks, Fullstaffs, OT, MRT OT).
WC Claims $155,295
ERPL Backfill $450,140
Total $605,435
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure Gilmer Drive CIP $55,365.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
The Transportation Division received a follow up grant award from Salt Lake County for $55,365 to finish up
the original 9 Line / 900 South Trail. The Gilmer Drive Intersection was not completed during the original
contract period so the funds were unspent.
The County issued a new Interlocal Agreement with the City to finish the project funding from the original
Agreement. This funding is to reconfigure the Gilmer Drive Intersection; move and curb, add a landscaped
separation between bikeway and roadway and install wayfinding signage.
In FY18 The Transportation Division applied for and received a grant from Salt Lake County for $500,000
under the Countywide Active Transportation Network Improvement Program 2017. This grant is to be used for
design and construction of the segment of the 9 Line / 900 South Trail between 900 East and 1300 East.
Construction of the trail segment would occur in conjunction with road reconstruction from Lincoln (950 East)
to 1300 East and the installation of wayfinding signs on 900 South and Gilmer Drive.
This grant has a no match requirement.
A public hearing was held on 12/12/17 on the original grant application for this award.
E-2: CARES Act, third tranche Grant $150,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
Salt Lake City received $150,000 from the third tranche of CARES Act funding. In BA#4 the Council authorized
the Administration to use the presumption that any amount received in this tranche would cover costs
associated with expenses within the Fire Department. This amendment formalizes that assumption, with the
City recognizing the revenue and an expense associated with the award.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
The County issued a new Interlocal Agreement with the City to finish the project funding from the original
Agreement. This funding is to reconfigure the Gilmer Drive Intersection; move and curb, add a landscaped
separation between bikeway and roadway and install wayfinding signage.
In FY18 The Transportation Division applied for and received a grant from Salt Lake County for $500,000
under the Countywide Active Transportation Network Improvement Program 2017. This grant is to be used for
design and construction of the segment of the 9 Line / 900 South Trail between 900 East and 1300 East.
Construction of the trail segment would occur in conjunction with road reconstruction from Lincoln (950 East)
to 1300 East and the installation of wayfinding signs on 900 South and Gilmer Drive.
This grant has a no match requirement.
A public hearing was held on 12/12/17 on the original grant application for this award.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #5
G-1: Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services,
FY 20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant
Program
Misc Grants $19,500.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
(UBFS) application for the FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application
includes $19,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain initial accreditation in 2021 through ANAB (ANSI
National Accreditation Board) under ISO 17020 for Inspection Agencies.
The Police Department received a subaward from UBFS’s FY19 Coverdell application to fund the application fee. The
anticipated remaining accreditation costs, which will be funded through this FY20 award, include the assessment fee and
the annual accreditation fee based on the laboratory’s scope of operations.
A match is not required for this award.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 4/01/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 395,285$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 930,142$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 7,097,114$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,013,594$ D
13,436,135$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$
Notes
^1
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expenditures
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 4/01/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Crime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 20,952$ 63,114$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 49,104$ 59,956$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ -$ 102,256$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 571,809$ 4,080$ 151,111$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 12,980$ 54,332$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ -$ -$ 400,000$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,504,094$ 786,943$ 9,124,831$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ D
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ -$ 13,000$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 21,799$ 3,319$ 15,909$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ -$ 607,870$ 2,250,220$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 443,752$ 3,377,127$ 5,471,368$
Total 24,384,609$ 2,250,490$ 5,185,080$ 16,949,039$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
7,097,114$
5,013,594$
13,436,135$
8484002
8484003
8484005
395,285$
$930,142
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
____________________________ Date Received: __________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _____________
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Amy Fowler, Chair
DATE: April 16, 2021
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________
SUBJECT: CORRECTED Council Consent Agenda #5 Items Fiscal Year 2020-21
Associated with Budget Amendment #9
STAFF CONTACTS: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Consent Agenda/Establish Grant Projects from Grant Holding Account
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council consent to the transfer
of these grants and donations from the holding account and establish a
project budget for them.
BUDGET IMPACT: Grant Holding Account ($ 19,500)
New Grant Project 19,500
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The grant holding account was established to fund grants between
budget amendments with the understanding that the grants would be submitted as part of the next
budget opening. Items transmitted are placed on a Council Consent agenda and then formally
approved during the following budget amendment. On occasion, a similar process is employed for
donations to the City.
Where necessary, resolutions were previously passed authorizing the Mayor to sign and accept these
grants and donations.
EXHIBITS: Consent Agenda Detail
Consent Agenda Summary
4.16.2021
4.16.2021Lisa Shaffer (Apr 16, 2021 15:32 MDT)
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Consent Agenda #5 for Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
19
Section G: Council Consent Agenda – Grant Awards
G-1: Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services,
FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program
Misc. Grants
$19,500
Department: Police Department
Prepared By: Jordan Smith/Melyn Osmond
The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
(UBFS) application for the FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s ap plication
includes $19,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain initial accreditation in 2021 through ANAB (ANSI
National Accreditation Board) under ISO 17020 for Inspection Agencies.
The Police Department received a subaward from UBFS’s FY19 Coverdell application to fund the application fee. The
anticipated remaining accreditation costs, which will be funded through this FY20 award, include the assessment fee and
the annual accreditation fee based on the laboratory’s scope of operations.
A match is not required for this award.
A Public Hearing was held 1/19/21 on this grant application.
Fund Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs
1 Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY20 Paul
Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program Misc. Grants 19,500.00 19,500.00 One-time 0
Total of Budget Amendment Items 19,500.00 19,500.00 0
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Consent Agenda #5 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name
Section G: Council Consent Agenda - Grant Awards
Section I: Council Added Items
Signature:
Email:
Garrett A. Danielson (Apr 16, 2021 15:20 MDT)
Garrett A. Danielson
garett.danielson@slcgov.com
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/2/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Public Utilities
Advisory Committee.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Dani Cepernich as a member
of the Public Utilities Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Public Utilities Advisory
Committee:
Dani Cepernich – to be appointed for a four year term starting the date of City Council advice and
consent ending on January 20, 2025.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Hello,I am writing in support of the Capitol Park re-zone.My main reason for supporting this
project is the fact that single family zoning is an outdated,exclusionary and racist practice that I
do not believe we should allow to continue in our city.But since an end to single family zoning
seems to be outside of the realm of political possibility,I chose to support individual petitions to
chip away at this practice.Recently,the city that began the practice of single family zoning,
Berkeley voted to transition away the practice after acknowledging that it had effectively been
used to exclude minorities from predominantly white areas by banning the types of housing that
minorities in the past had been able to afford(multiplexes,attached housing,and multifamily
condos).https://www.berkeleyside.com/2021/02/24/berkeley-denounces-racist-history-of-single-
family-zoning-begins-2-year-process-to-change-general-plan I also believe it is important to take a
holistic approach when it comes to considering land use applications.Yes,it does have an
immediate impact on those neighbors in the vicinity of the project,but every reduction in
potential new housing units in more affluent areas of the city has downstream effects in lower
income areas.In effect,the harder it is for upper income residents to find a place to live in the
Ayes,the more likely they will be to move to areas like Rose Park and accelerate gentrification and Ivory Homes Rezone
4/28/2021 14:34 Zachary Dussault displacement.*Continued 1/2* Request
*Continued 2/2*The residents that would get displaced in this simplified example do not have
the same political leverage in LUZ discussions as an organized group of neighbors with lawn signs
and facebook groups,but they are residents of the same city nonetheless and deserve a voice.I
also think it is important to look at LUZ decisions from the point of view"why should this type of
development not be allowed"rather than the standard"why should we give this'gift'of a rezone
to the developer".In effect,a zoning ordinance is a restriction on a property owner's rights to use
their land as they wish.Such restrictions are appropriate when they benefit the broader
community,but I do not believe this is such a case.If any members of the council or commission
would like to discuss this project with me further,I would welcome such a discussion.I know I will
probably be one of the few members of the public in support of this project,but I believe I
represent a broader public that would like to see a more inclusive,vibrant city that they can
afford to keep living in.Abolish racist single family zoning,legalize housing.-Zachary Dussault
Zachary Dussault District 4 Resident
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 1
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
i am probably the only homeless person that sent you this but here goes nothing.i recently was
stay in the 900 south tents and they got vacated because of the crime.if you become the head
man what are some things you'll do differently that wont make us feel like we are waste?because
honestly ill do anything for my people to have there own place.everyone knows the main
responsibilities of seeing the problems and expecting a good out come as in we know where to go
next.we try to help eachother out we really do not saying the crimes(shooting with my friend
ect;)is easy for you guys we understand.i talked to eachother but me i dont have alot of things i
can do personally.sorry for the long paragraph but yeah just kinda stuck on hope and false hope.
4/29/2021 10:16 Tia Smith Tia Homelessness
City Council,I am writing you because of a huge problem in our city that is not being addressed.
The homeless and drug problems are out of control and the police aren't willing to do anything
about it.We have the commercial property at the above address.I was mugged at the property
last month.I called the police when I was witnessing drug transactions,but the dispatch said a
police officer would have to get back to me.I never heard back from the police.We installed a
camera system two days ago and I have witnessed at least 30 drug transactions and people using
drugs on our property.I have hired a security service at great expense.Dealers and users return
after the patrol service leaves.Below is one of many photos from this morning.Drug use is out
and in the open.Would it help to give these photos to the news media?What else can we do?Are
the police too overwhelmed?We can't keep our property clean,and we will be losing tenants if
something isn't done.Our property is also used as a public restroom.I have numerous photos of
4/29/2021 11:47 Jared Smart individuals defecating and urinating in the back.*See Corresponding Attachment* Homelessness
I oppose the proposed change in zoning by Ivory Homes.Its proposal for a zoning change is
frought with concerns.It is too dense in a compact space,will greatly increase the number of cars
in a relatively small area with very little green space and will affect wildlife habitat..Further,
changing the zoning would not constrain the company to the proposed plan.Ivory's petition does Ivory Homes Rezone
5/3/2021 9:55 Gifford Price not rise to the level of meeting the burden to justify a zoning change.Respectfully,Gifford Price Request
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 2
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
We bought our home 20 years ago with the understanding that all future development would be
in the character of the neighborhood.I understand that Ivory Homes has modified their proposal,
but their new plan continues to have too many homes on this small parcel.The argument that this
will provide more affordable housing is ludicrous.The increased traffic and noise not only will
disrupt the tranquility of our neighborhood,but presents a safety concern,and the accompanying
small yards with minimal setbacks is not consistent with the other houses around us.We are also
concerned that if the site is rezoned,the developer is not held to the current plan and could build
an even higher density complex.We hope that the city decides not to allow rezoning,and the
developers can build 11 homes on the site consistent with the current zoning.Thanks for your Ivory Homes Rezone
5/3/2021 9:55 Gifford Price consideration,Doug Grossman Request
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 3
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Dear Mr.Wharton,I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Ivory Homes'proposal for
rezoning of the property at 675 F Street.The residents of the avenues have repeatedly expressed
to yourthe many reasons that this would be a wrong decision.As your constituent I feel frustrated
with your wait and see attitude as I count on you to represent the views of the community that
elected you.As you know,the property has been zoned FR-3,which allows for 11 single family
homes.With ADUs,it would allow for 22 residences.Ivory is asking for the zoning to be changed
to FB-UN1,which allows for single family detached,single family attached(row houses)and two
family/duplex dwellings.It would allow Ivory to create 25 lots with 45 dwellings if you include the
ADUs.Ivory now says that the are planning to create 20 lots,with 35 dwellings when one includes
ADUs,but a rezone would allow them to create up to 45 dwellings.The proposed zoning change
does not seem to meet any needs which the city now faces.It does not solve a housing shortage
as these are certainly not affordable houses.Any claim that this will create housing for
firefighters,nurses or police are not realistic given the$800,000-1.2 million price tags.The
increased traffic on to F street will create a burden on current residents and could be a problem if
there were an emergency in the neighborhood.Ivory does not have a sufficient answer and it
appears that the numbers that they provide are not accurate.High density housing should be in a
walkable neighborhood.It is absurd to think that anyone is going to walk up and down F Street
from town or even from the grocery store on 10th Avenue.Ivory also presented incorrect density
numbers when describing the surrounding neighborhood.They were incorrect in describing the
density for Northpoint Estates and wrong in reporting the number of units in the Meridian.Ivory
also ignores that the development of the Meridian was a unique situation that was negotiated in Ivory Homes Rezone
5/3/2021 9:56 Carol Ballou order to save an existing,historic building.*Continued 1/2* Request
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 4
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
*Continued 2/2*I hope that,as my city counsel representative,you will give voice to the
constituents who elected you.We will be forced to live with the consequences of this decision
long after you and Ivory move on.In May of 2019 the Salt Lake Tribune ran an interview with the
CEO of Ivory homes in which he expressed his extreme anger that communities in Cottonwood
and Holiday has fought Ivory's requests for rezoning.In this article he indicates that he has
worked on his"tactics"(his word)and does not intent to be turned down again.I guess his tactics
of misleading and pushing against the desires of the community are currently in play.Please work
Carol Ballou vigorously to have Ivory's request for rezoning turned down.Thank you for your attention,
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 5
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Topic
Dear Mr.Escheverria,I write to you as a professional planning consultant and resident within the
vicinity of 675 North F Street.I understand your inbox has been flooded with emails from
concerned residents about the new proposed Ivory development/rezone.I hate to add to what
might be considered"noise from the neighborhood"and Nimbyism,but I do feel it necessary to
share a few thoughts,given my deep knowledge of planning and the affordable/housing crisis the
City is desperately trying to remedy.*Affordability-Ivory states that by adding housing with
ADUs,it will contribute to solving the City's affordability housing crisis.Anyone who sees the price
tag on these new homes knows this is a bold falsehood.Even with 15 new ADUs that can be
rented(not owned),the costs of those would be steep and largely unaffordable to those earning
the area AMI.Would renting them out help offset some of the costs of owning the main home?
Sure,but not enough so to make that mortgage all that more affordable/attainable.If the
developer wants to argue it is creating affordable housing,they should propose a truly affordable
housing project that is meant to be attainable to those earning the median household income or
at least closer to the median household price.<https://www.zillow.com/salt-lake-city-ut/home-
values/>The City should use it's authority to grant a rezone as power to ensure more affordable
housing is actually created than what they currently propose.*Upzoning-I have heard the
arguments on both sides and feel there is merit in each.Arguments against upzoning the site say
it is too dense for the area and doesn't align with nearby zoning.While this may be true,we know
that the zoning regulating the area was created in a time when the housing crisis in SLC was not so
acute.In fact,I'm sure you know that other cities across the country facing their own housing
shortages have started eliminating single-family zoning altogether.It is so great that the City has
now established an ADU policy to begin to allow for more infill housing units throughout various
neighborhoods.However,if the City is going to allow neighborhoods to become more significantly
dense,it should do this as a City-wide policy,versus a spot treatment in an area that is not within
walking distance of many amenities and frequent transit networks that other denser housing
developments are.I thank you for your service and hard work in elevating the quality of life for Ivory Homes Rezone
5/3/2021 9:56 Amanda Dillon everyone in our community!--Amanda Dillon Request
5/3/2021 13:20 John Doe Wilma called in to ask the Council to vote for Ranked Choice Voting. Ranked Choice Voting
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 6
Public Comments 04.27.2021-05.04.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name
Salt Lake County Animal Services should be dropped for a Salt Lake City one.I've repeatedly seen
that County managed services are far more hostile and dishonest than City managed ones.If Utah
is going to keep legal immunity for government entities and employees,the dishonest and abusive
5/4/2021 1:04 Mark Barrett behavior against citizens needs to be managed. FY21 Budget
I strongly support funding the Parley's Trail Gap in Sugar House—Transportation Investment Fund-
Active Transportation Grant We have worked many years to get the Parley's Trail built.This east-
west trail connects the Bonneville Shoreline Trail on the east to the Jordan Parkway Trail on the
west.Now the 8.5 mile Parley's Trail is nearly complete,but the section of this bike/pedestrian
trail in the Sugar House business district is undefined and frankly,is quite dangerous.The trail
badly needs to be built and striped through this area to provide a safe connection between
Hidden Hollow and the S-Line terminus on Sugarmont.Please support active transportation in
Sugar House by voting to fund this grant.Respectfully,Sally Barraclough Sugar House Community
5/4/2021 11:03 John Doe Council Trustee PRATT Board Member FY21 Budget
5/4/2021 11:04 Chad Mcardle Good morning.We DO NOT want the police budget cut.Leave it alone please.Thank you. Police Funding
5/4/2021 12:05 John Doe Amanda Martin called to ask that the Council not hike utilitiy rates. FY21 Budget
12:18 PM 5/4/2021 Page 7
4
4 i irr . ..., e ,4
, fi,
s i) i "6 .
< i . . . 4'i
.. ..\
4
fk. .... I. , 421.rib. t
. /igii , .. . I, t e
i ill
. .
. .....
_ ..... _.r., ,,.x. ._44...ci ..
., �,I _ .: • 11 .F ,i, _
M ,, . • 411 ` fi,
t.
,„, ,N
„,„ .„
,-.., 0
, L.
.._, /
..
, .
,,,,,
•.. :, ,,(
, .
..
,..
.. , /
i il;.,. .
(k-1.H Ali.' ., -.1 r- :..
►' fir; jr . „�
I I lipk... ....;.15111111144
• / i Vi
•��`AA . � �� I om
‘. (
11
7 ,...
...
..• J • 1 --.... 710 ND 4.cir.1 . ..
.09
410 •r 'lc'
Z
itr"1 ...,,,,!:5,. ,:.. .7:. 4 ..._;.::.0. _ , A .,. ....... ...,. ,,, I i". / II , kr°, ...‘,r, ,4014,:ii
010 .(' 4• A
,i
4_ �-
, �1
'f--
r . 4 ! s. :7‘;41
4
w( 0
.4..iI
tap
i . .friiii
..1,1,4 li. 4,
,- t' - •••••
't i.;2 a,.... -. -.7
. 1 ill t , _'. .Wilio , 7
J
titel
4.4
fi
.„
—' •.,. '.. illir • 1 1 '''" ., e -1.-%'. .1 -.
r Pt �""64-
,T..,
. , (AI %
' I1 •
14. , _ - ..
4 / 16 .. 4, - ' 1 .J I .' �
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
Hi Dan,This is Eric Jerome calling to ask you to defund the police by 50%and reallocate
the funds to"community endeavors." He cites that they are"full of white supremist"
and "no one feels safe".Thanks,VILI LOLOHEA Salt Lake City Council Staff OFFICE of the
5/12/2021 7:29 Eric Jerome CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Police Funding
Council Meeting Police Budget Importance: High Dear James, I am emailing you
regarding the City Council Meeting of May 4,2021. It is my understanding that the
police budget will be brought forward and many folks from Decarcerate Utah and BLM
Utah are requesting that the City Police budget are making demands to cut the budget
in half for direct policing,and cut the number of police officers in half as well.This is in
an attempt to eventually abolish the Salt Lake City Police Department altogether.
Presently the SLCPD is understaffed.Wait times for responses to calls are growing ever
longer and often we are asked to file an online report rather than get a personal
response from the police. It is because of underfunding and understaffing that this is
happening. I strongly urge you,as the District 1 Council Member to keep in mind this
constituent's concerns and email when it comes to approving the budget for the
SLCPD, and making sure that funds are directed directly to hiring,training and keeping
Salt Lake City Police. Respectfully,Angela Morgan
5/12/2021 19:05 Angela morgan Police Funding
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 1
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
As far as I could discern,there were no increases in salary or pay for personnel other
than those who helped with the pandemic and relief. Keep it that way, please. Chris, I
still send to you as you do seem to care--though our city continues to succumb to
developer's wishes with no real neighborhood integrity maintained.The mayor seems
to frequently want to give herself, her staff,the council and city employees a raise--
which makes you/them feel beholden to her. NOW is NOT the time for those groups to
get a raise--when so many city residents have given so much.You do not need to reply
as I have sent this lower part to council comments and to Ana as well.YES PAY
INCREASE for police and firefighters who have given so much to the frontline during
the pandemic and beyond. NO PAY INCREASE for salaried staff, council members or
council staff, mayor or mayor's staff. It would be a great disservice to the people of the
city of Salt Lake who have given so much during the pandemic. It would let the people
of SLC know you appreciate them.There is no clear plan for"growing"SLC. It seems
the council lets the developers build however and wherever they want--all planning
and maintaining neighborhood integrity is lost. Most council members have been on
the council during this lack of planning time. Please STOP and help preserve our city
with thoughtful planning not what you are allowing to go on now. It seems we have
lost the charm of our city already--please let's keep what little we have left.Thank You.
5/13/2021 16:23 Diane Florez Diane Florez FY21 Budget
I want to advise for the budget meeting in May and June,about reassigning the
"Animal Services"supplier. My experience for years is that,Salt Lake COUNTY Animal
Services, is hostile toward citizens,and harmful for pets. I can provide several
examples, but I think other people will tell you the same.Salt Lake CITY could do
"Animal Services" better and more honestly. Hate and dishonesty have been typical of
5/13/2021 17:02 Mark Barrett their actions(I'd be confident in giving details). FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 2
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
Thank you for hiring the lateral police officers. it has been quite disheartening to see
the level of crime skyrocketing in our city over the past year when so many police have
left the department due to their shameful treatment by our mayor and city council
members. I encourage a more robust police department to deal with all the crime in
our city. I want to say that I am also completely opposed to hiring based on racial
profiling.We want qualified candidates not candidates based on someones desire to
5/14/2021 13:22 Anonymous Constituent see more people if color on the force. Police Funding
It is time to develop the fleet block and tear down that shameful mural of criminals
that is so offensive to the the law abiding citizens of this city. None if the victims of
their horrible crimes want to be reminded on a daily basis of their terrifying experinces
5/14/2021 13:35 Anonymous Constituent with these criminals. Criminals should not be crlebrated as heros''''' Fleet Block
Hello,we are requesting to be able to vote on keeping our beautiful historic theaters.
The way this gem was Stolen from the city and given away to developers was
completely shameful;and to learn that the developers were contributing to our
Mayor's campaign at the same time was shocking!!! I believe an inquiry should be
initiated into this matter.We the citizens want an opportunity to rehabilitate this
5/14/2021 13:44 Anonymous Constituent beautiful theater without the process being illegally subverted by our politicians'I''' Utah Theater
Hiring a "Chief Equity Officer"and increasing the bureaucratic bloat in the Mayor's
office is a terrible idea and needs to be rejected.Another"senior advisor"at that level
and at that salary is just another political patronage position and will help make our
city worse. It is a waste of taxpayer money.She already has David Litvak on staff
wasting money,energy and oxygen.We definitely dont need another malignant cancer
5/14/2021 14:38 Anonymous Constituent and with a fake job pushing harmful ideas and policies in that office. FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 3
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
I am in favor of turning the old Raging Waters land in to a new long lasting benefit for
SLC and the Salt Lake County residents as a regional park proposed by Mayor
Mendenhall.The money will be well spent on Open Space with a needed gathering
place for peace,celebrations under pavilions&trees,volleyball &tennis courts,
running track, Farmer's Market space,and who knows maybe a small Tracy Aviary II.
The long term benefit for a new city park on a huge parcel of land is an opportunity
that isn't going to come along anytime soon, let alone ever again.Allocate the money
5/15/2021 11:31 Dean Mellott &resources for the new park! FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 4
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
I would like to share the following thoughts on the Mayor's proposed budget currently
being considered by the City Council. I have observed the weekly meetings of the
Racial Equity in Policing Commission for the League of Women Voters since last August.
I believe the work of the REPC is an example of a community at its best. Concerns have
been identified and taken seriously by our political leaders.This diverse group of
community members have committed their time and expertise to consider means of
answering those concerns,and I am heartened by the work of this Commission and the
exceptional people serving on it. I fully support the recommendations they have made
to the City Council and I hope you will do everything possible to put those
recommendations into place. I do share concerns mentioned in the Council Staff
Budget Report about one-time money being used for ongoing projects. I worry that
some of this might be applied to recommendations from the REPC. I know the
Council's job regarding budgeting is a very difficult balancing act. I hope you'll give
serious consideration to recommendations from the Racial Equity in Policing
Commission.They are important and have the potential to have significant and
overdue impacts on both civilians and law enforcement in Salt Lake City.As an
afterthought, I will also share an experience from my past. I moved from Milwaukee to
Seattle in 1980.At that time,the Milwaukee police were not at all popular with the
citizens,even white middle class folks who had little or no encounters with them.
Shortly after we moved to Seattle,we attended the annual Bumbershoot parade. I was
brought to tears as the police motorcycle drill team came by,doing their maneuvers,
and the crowd cheered wildly for them.Things may have changed in each of those
cities since then. But I want to live again in a city where everyone trusts and supports—
5/15/2021 14:58 Beverly Hawkins and yes,cheers—law enforcement.Thanks for reading these comments. FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 5
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
I am largely in favor of the Mayor's proposed budget. I particularly supppor the
enhancements to the west side(train horns/crossings,trees, park improvements).
Those are all reasons I do not live in that part of the city,even though my work is in
West Valley City and I would like to live closer to my work. I strongly support the
emphasis on open spaces,trails and trees.The money put toward more mental health
workers and training of police is a move in the right direction. I don't think it goes quite
far enough. I see no mention in the budget summaries of water.>90%of Utah is in
extreme or exceptional drought. In addition to investing in renewable energy and
green spaces, I think the city should investing in and integrating water conservation
5/15/2021 19:32 Anonymous Constituent measures into development and maintenance. FY21 Budget
As a lifelong SLC resident I'm writing to please urge the city council members to fund
the tennis court reconstruction/lighting projects at Liberty Park and Liberty Hills
(formerly Coach Mike's)Tennis Centers. Both of these centers are highly utilized hubs
of activity for SLC residents from all walks of life. Elementary chool children (Tennis and
Tutoring which provides free tennis lessons for children from Title 1 schools), High
school teams,adult,senior and wheelchair tennis programs all congregate at these
facilities and provide much needed recreation for SLC residents.Tennis is a low-cost to
participate sport and is accessible to nearly resident with the desire to participate.
These projects go a long way to enhace quality of life for the residents who utilize
these spaces. I'm really not familiar with budget details but wanted to give my 2 cents.
5/16/2021 19:06 Jennifer Moreton This will be money well-spent that benefits thousands of tax-payers and patrons. FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 6
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
Hello, I would like to see Family Permanent Supportive Housing prioritized in the Salt
Lake City budget because there is a huge need for this service.Affordable housing is in
short supply and is dwindling rapidly as the city gentrifies,and Permanent Supportive
Housing directly helps people who are vulnerable,disabled,and housing
insecure/homeless to stabilize their lives.Currently there are no family only PSH
properties in the city,yet families with children face unique problems and need
supportive services along with affordable housing. Homelessness has a significant
impact on children, hurting their development, performance in schools,and life
outcomes. PSH for families would dramatically reduce child homelessness as well as
give low-income families the safe housing they deserve. Please prioritize money for
5/17/2021 11:29 Audrey Mancini family PSH this year,our residents desperately need it!Thank you Affordable Housing
I am shocked that after a huge pandemic,which has put so many in economic chaos,
the city would have the audacity of suggesting waste and water rate increases of 18
and 8%respectively...so a 26%increase!! NO private company could do this but,alas,
the city can impose such steep increases because you can. Please, know this is NOT ok;
city council members and the mayor work think it is ok to do this are completely
5/17/2021 11:35 Christophe Diezma detached from reality. FY21 Budget
Dear Council members, My name is John Clapp,and I live in the Euclid neighborhood
near NorthTemple and between 800 west and 900 west. I am a home owner in this
area You could say I own a home near ground Zero for crime in the Salt Lake area. I
have been advocating and fighting for our neigbor hood for years, I started the only
neighborhood watch group in the immediate area 7 years ago. I am a member of the
face book group called North Temple Community Involvement. I have attending weekly
meetings along side past council member Andrew Johnston,and will be in attendance
with Councilman Dennis Faris. Iv'e stood along side neighbors, business owners and
residents of the area for the past 9 months.Today what I am respectfully asking for is
for the council to consider appropriating more monies to assist paying police for
overtime in the North Temple area.We are hearing of an escalating even more
5/17/2021 14:59 John Clapp dangerous criminal element in this area.Thankyou,John Clapp Police Funding
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 7
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
Tennis is growing,diverse,fun,and inexpensive. It is a lifetime sport that caters to our
diverse population and brings the community together in a healthy,welcoming way.
Citizens from all over flock to the city's two managed tennis centers—Wasatch
Hills/Coach Mike's and Liberty Park. It is critical that three funding requests for
maintenance of the city's public tennis facilities be added to the budget: 1) $500,000 to
replace four old,worn-out asphalt tennis courts with concrete at 1216 Wasatch Drive
(Wasatch Hills/Coach Mike's.)The city is contractually obligated to maintain its tennis
facilities and replacement of these courts is long overdue.These asphalt courts are a
maintenance nightmare--prone to damage,cracks,and buckling. Public safety and
accessibility are also at issue. Concrete is much more durable and provides a more
even playing surface.These four courts are under the bubble and are used year-round
by the public. It is critical that these courts be replaced before the new bubble goes up
over the courts in early 2022. 2)$300,000 to resurface 22 tennis courts at Liberty Park
and Wasatch Hills/Coach Mike's.The city is growing exponentially,and these are the
only managed courts for citizens to use without having to pay private club membership
fees.The longer maintenance of these courts is neglected,the more expensive it
5/17/2021 15:46 Michele Mattsson becomes and the more the public is subjected to safety concerns. *Continued 1/2* FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 8
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
*Continued 2/2*These tennis courts are well used,well loved,and urgently in need
of resurfacing. 3) $202,100 for LED outdoor lighting at Liberty Park. Lots of people play
under the lights after work, but the lights are dated, inadequate, and not energy
efficient.There are many of areas of the courts where it is almost impossible to see the
ball.There are also safety hazards and logistical obstacles when trying to replace
burned-out light fixtures. Funding is badly needed to replace these old fixtures with
LED lighting which would be brighter, last longer,and more energy efficient.As was
shown during the pandemic,tennis is a haven for citizens and welcoming to all.The
city is obligated to maintain its tennis facilities and must act now.The benefits are
extensive. People of all ages,abilities, and background find solace in tennis,gain
confidence,and stay active, but without proper infrastructure(updated tennis courts
and lights), none of this is possible.Salt Lake County funded a new tennis clubhouse
(currently under construction).Citizens are generously donating money for a new
bubble.These external funding options are now exhausted.The city must now do its
part to fund desperately needed maintenance projects.The public wants and needs
Michele Mattsson you to add these projects to this budget cycle!
Hello, Please continue to financially support the Salt Lake Police department.
Underfunding the department will have long term effects on safety in the city and the
west side where I live.We need more well trained officers There already is an officer
shortage and response times are far below acceptable levels. I live near North Temple
and it's obvious that fewer officers is not the solution to the crime and fear that
5/17/2021 17:11 David 0 residents have to endure.Thank you, David Osokow Police Funding
Please consider three critical public recreation projects pertaining to Wasatch hills and
Liberty park tennis centers.These projects include replacing the 4 asphalt courts at
Wasatch hills tennis center, resurfacing the courts at Liberty park and Wasatch hills,
and installing new LED lighting to the outdoor courts at Liberty park.Wasatch
hills/Liberty park tennis centers provide year round exercise to the public.Tennis is a
5/17/2021 21:25 Kristina Esham life long sport that all ages can enjoy. FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 9
Public Comments 05.12.2021-05.18.2021
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Comment Topic
I am writing in support of the Wasatch Hills budget request to replace 4 worn out
tennis courts at Wasatch Hills Tennis Center.This facility it unique in several ways: it
offers year round tennis to the public with no membership or country club fee; it is a
community gathering place where loyal patrons and their families have gathered for
generations;and it is extremely well managed by Spencer Marchant and his staff.
Through Spencer's tireless fundraising,funds have been raised for the new clubhouse
and permanent bubble. Before the bubble is installed, however,the outdated courts
which will be in the bubble must be replaced.This request is the smallest part of the
Wasatch Hills project,and needs the city's support in order to make it a reality.Why
should the city step up and fund this project?Because Wasatch Hills/Liberty Park are
the only public year round facitlities available.They charge a minimal fee for court
rental.They are not exclusive.They do not require yearly dues, monthly dues,etc. It is
truly tennis for all,and the success of these facitlities greatly enhances the offerings of
our city, making Salt Lake a more accessible and desirable place to live. Please support
5/18/20218:02 Allison Kendell this project-it is a solid investment in our city. FY21 Budget
11:45 AM 5/18/2021 Page 10