The URL can be used to link to this page

05/04/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION May 4, 2021 Tuesday 3:30 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCCouncil.com 3:30 PM Work Session Or immediately following the 2:00 PM Redevelopment Agency Meeting 7:00 pm Formal Meeting (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated: 11:05:57 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined 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 attend in person. For these reasons, the Council Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and 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, you may do so through the Webex platform. To learn how to connect through Webex, or if you need call-in phone options, please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more. 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 and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council Members and added to the public meeting record. View comments by visiting the Council Virtual Meeting Comments page. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:30 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects, including but not limited to: •COVID-19, the March 2020 Earthquake, and the September 2020 Windstorm; •Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness; •Police Department work, projects, and staffing, etc.; and •Other projects or updates. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~ 4:00 p.m. 20 min. 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: •An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and •Other project updates or discussion. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3.Ordinance: Permitting Certain Outdoor Business Activities and Use of Certain Temporary Structures ~ 4:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about 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 4.Informational: Policing Discussion: Officer Training and Promotions ~ 4:40 p.m. 40 min. The Council is holding an ongoing series of discussions about policing and related topics in the City. This briefing focuses on police officer training and promotions including how the City’s trainings go beyond State requirements and recent changes to the promotion process. 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 - n/a 5.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 8 for Fiscal Year 2020- 21 ~ 5:20 p.m. 30 min. The Council will be briefed about Budget Amendment No. 8 for the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding 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 6.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 9 for Fiscal Year 2020- 21 ~ 5:50 p.m. 20 min. The Council will be briefed about Budget Amendment No. 9 for the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding 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 7.Informational: Ken Anderson - City Building Official and Director of the Building Services Division ~ 6:10 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive an introduction from Ken Anderson as the new City Building Official and Director of the Building Services Division. 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 - n/a 8.Board Appointment: Public Utilities Advisory Committee (PUAC) – Dani Cepernich ~ 6:20 p.m. 5 min. The Council will interview Dani Cepernich prior to considering appointment 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 9.Ordinance: 2058 North 2200 West Zoning Map Amendment Follow-up Written Briefing The Council will receive a written briefing about an ordinance that would rezone property at 2058 North 2200 West from Agricultural District (AG-2) to Light Manufacturing (M- 1). The amendment would accommodate future commercial land uses such as retail and service type businesses not permitted under the current zoning. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, March 26, 2019 and Tuesday, May 4, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 Standing Items 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 11.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; •Council District 2 Vacancy Update; •Agenda Packet Days; and •Scheduling Items. 12.Tentative Closed Session The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on _____________________, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Item 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 •SPECIAL FUNCTION OFFICER (SFO) TRAINING BLOCK •240 hours of training •Topics include ethics, leadership, Utah criminal code, laws of arrest, defensive tactics, conflict resolution •Completions allows for limited police powers when accompanied by a fully certified officer •LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (LEO) TRAINING BLOCK •348 hours of training •Topics include emergency vehicle operations (EVO), firearms, report writing, investigations, defensive tactics •Completions allows for an individual to be certified as a law enforcement officer •SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ADDITIONAL CURRICULUM •254 hours of training •Additional training for investigations, specific policies and procedures, fair and impartial policing, Arbinger, Blue Courage Training Hours Required By POST SLCPD In-House Academy PROS •Train officers to a higher standard •Focus on policing in Salt Lake City •Ability to train and certify larger number of recruits CONS •Limited training facilities •Time commitment •Limited resources Department Impacts Related to Increased Mandatory Training •Mandatory training has increased over several years •Critical training needs, while not labeled mandatory, have also increased •Amount of provided training time and staffing is limited Ongoing Training •TRIMESTER TRAINING (30 HOURS A YEAR) •Cover all mandatory training topics •Implement equipment changes (ex. Taser 7) •Provide additional critical training for officers •POLICY OR LAW UPDATES •Lexipol •Cornerstone •OUTSIDE AGENCY TRAINING •Current trends •New programs •Additional certifications Potential New Training •REALITY-BASED TRAINING (RBT) •Hands on practical scenario-based training •Primarily offered to line level officers and detectives •Topic changes each month due to department needs •40-HOUR SERGEANT ACADEMY •Training included supervisor expectations, leadership styles, scene management, and practical topics new sergeants need to be training on •CONTINUED SUPERVISOR TRAINING DURING TRIMESTER TRAINING •Focused on supervisor and management responsibilities •HOSTING OUTSIDE AGENCY TRAINING •FEMA provided active shooter and incident management courses •HIDTA funded police training Our ability to take on additional new training is limited by training facilities and staffing levels Specialized Training and Certifications •OFFERED BASED ON INTEREST AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT POSITIONS •OFFERED BY SALT LAKE CITY POLICE •Field training officer (FTO), bicycle officer certification, search warrant training, SWAT school, public order school, Motor school •OUTSIDE AGENCY TRAINING •Specialty impact munitions, OC instructor, Taser instructor, defensive tactics, hostage negotiator, firearms instructor, investigative specialties •CAREER PATH •Financial incentive •Points assigned to specific training or certifications Training Equipment •TI MACHINE (USE-OF FORCE SIMULATOR) •Technologically outdated •Lack of space for consistent use •VIRTUAL REALITY TRAINING PLATFORM •Frequent manipulation and changing scenarios •Cost less to upkeep and experience fewer hardware problems •Require less space •A price quote has been obtained and submitted for approval •NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES •Firearms facility •Emergency vehicle operation (EVO) facility •Training compound including building facade Required Training and Certifications •POST REQUIREMENTS •40 hours annual training •Taser, OC, baton, firearms, defensive tactics •LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS H.B. 162 AND H.B. 334 •No less than 16 hours •Training focused on mental health, crisis intervention responses, arrest control, de-escalation •Mental illness, autism spectrum disorder, and other neurological and developmental disorders •SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS •Specialty certifications and training for department positions and assignments •Crisis intervention, specialty impact munitions, bias-based policing Impacts on Training •TRAININGS CANCELLED OR ATTENDANCE LIMITED •Significant period without in-person training •Impact on officers being able to maintain sufficient training hours •MOVE TO ON-LINE TRAINING •Training efficacy is limited •Majority of police training not suited for on-line training •REDUCED STAFFING LEVELS AND POLICE REFORM •Limited staffing, retention, and morale has affected training value •Increase of mandatory training has reduced ability to provide other pertinent training •Limited staffing also inhibits the ability to present or attend training This document is a summary and does not constitute rule or an interpretation of rule. For complete information, please refer to the document: Police Department - Promotion Rules. CIVIL SERVICE VS. POLICE RULES – COMPARISON SHEET - PROMOTIONS Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Applicability To whom do the rules apply? All promotions for positions in the Police Department. Rules apply to non-appointed, full-time positions. The new rules incorporate competitive/merit principles, and provide preference for internal candidates, while expanding diversity and inclusion in the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD). Governing Principles Which requirements govern how promotions are conducted? Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rule, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) For sworn positions: Applicable law, MOU and these rules. For civilian positions: Applicable law, MOU and City policy. Commitments to the MOU are unchanged. Initiating a Promotion Process How are promotions initiated? Before a promotion could commence, the CSC had to approve all details of each and every promotion process in advance before it commenced - even if the same promotion process had been previously conducted (i.e. Captain.) A promotion can commence when the Chief, or designee, determines there is a need to hire employees to fill approved, vacant positions. Enhanced: Promotion processes can be completed in a timely manner - filling essential leadership positions faster. Eligible Candidates Who is eligible to apply for Sergeant? All promotions within the Civil Service shall be made on the basis of: 1. Ascertained merit 2. Seniority in service and 3. Standing obtained by competitive examination. A candidate seeking promotion to the rank of Sergeant must be a current employee of the Police Department and meet eligibility requirements. Promotions to the rank of Sergeant must come from within the SLCPD. 2 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Eligible Candidates Who is eligible to apply for other promotions within SLCPD? All promotions within the Civil Service shall be made on the basis of: 1. Ascertained merit 2. Seniority in service and 3. Standing obtained by competitive examination. To encourage inclusivity and diversity, and to meet the needs of the Police Department, a process for all other sworn positions may include internal and external candidates. To meet the same objectives, a promotion process for civilian positions may also include internal and external candidates, consistent with City policy. External candidates enhance the competitive nature of merit-based processes. Eligible What are the All promotions within the Civil To be eligible to participate in a promotion Enhanced: Clearer language about Candidates eligibility Service shall be made on the process, a candidate must meet the minimum eligibility requirements; no change to requirements basis of: 1. Ascertained merit 2.job qualifications (including years of service) for minimum job qualifications or for promotion?Seniority in service and 3.the vacant position and be in good standing certifications. Standing obtained by with the Police Department. For sworn competitive examination.positions, a candidate must also possess a current, valid Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification and law enforcement officer (LEO) certification, and be in good standing with the Peace Officer Standards and Training Division of the Utah Department of Public Safety. Acting Out of How are these Employees temporarily acting When a member of the Police Department acts No change. Class or situations out of class shall not be out of class or serves in an acting capacity or Temporary addressed?considered promotions;temporary appointment, the requirements and Appointments however, employees acting out time frames provided by applicable law, of class shall be compensated applicable memorandums(s) of understanding, as per applicable MOU or and applicable Salt Lake City Corporation Compensation Plan.policies shall apply. Notice of How much At least 20 business days.Notice of a promotion process will be posted No change; language is clearer about Promotion notice is given via Salt Lake City Corporation’s electronic job requirements. Process to potential application system no later than twenty (20) candidates for business days prior to the date on which the promotion?process will commence and a candidate applying for promotion must utilize the City’s electronic job application system. 3 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Notice of Promotion Process Are other members of PD notified when a promotion will be conducted? A Chief's memo was sent out however, the plan for PD is to have a detailed announcement. For sworn positions, the Police Chief or designee will also provide notice of each promotion process to sworn members of the Police Department via e-mail. Additionally, the Human Resources Department will coordinate with the Police Chief or designee in an effort to provide verbal notice of each promotion process to sworn members of the Police Department. Enhanced - Improved communication about promotion opportunities. Notice of What The notice of the promotional The promotion process notice will include Enhanced - More information Promotion information is examinations shall contain the information about the examination modules to provided about the promotion Process provided to date, time and place of the be utilized and the point ranges assigned to process. applicants about examination along with the each examination module. The notice will also the hiring closing date for applications.state if additional/ supplemental points will be process?The eligibility requirements awarded based on job-related criteria such as, shall be specified in the notice but not limited to, seniority, credentials, of examination. The notice training, educational attainment, and shall also indicate the experience. If additional/supplemental points examination methods to be will be awarded, the notice will include the used and where appropriate,criteria for receiving such points and the the weight to be given on each applicable point range(s) for such points. The examination component Police Chief or designee will consult with the toward the final score.Human Resources Department prior to determining whether to award additional/supplemental points in a promotion process. Notice of How will Not applicable.There are many reasons why the Police A method of awarding preference to Promotion preference be Department believes giving preference to an internal applicants will be part of the Process given to internal eligible candidate currently employed by the promotion process. candidates?Department is desirable. The manner in which the preference will be awarded will depend on the requirements of the specific position. The manner of awarding preference will be included in the promotion process notice. 4 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Examination Modules What types of exams will be given during the process? Exam may consist of the following: Written tests; oral interview; performance test; oral boards; assessment centers; other examinations; promotional ratings. For sworn positions, a promotion process will include examination modules. These modules may include: Interview, Presentation Exercise, Management Exercise, Tactical Exercise, Written Communication Exercise and a Discussion Exercise. No change to examination/module - types of exams are the same. The language is clearer, more specific about the modules which might be included. Scoring of Modules How is the candidate scored? A candidate's final score will be obtained by adding the weighted numerically scored portions of the examination. The final score will determine the rank order in which candidates appear on the eligibility register, with the candidate having the highest weighted scores listed on the top of the register and all others listed in descending order. A promotion process will include a scoring system with point ranges assigned to each examination module utilized in the process. A candidate’s final score will be obtained by adding the weighted, numerical score from each examination module and then adding any additional/supplemental points, if awarded, as outlined in the promotion notice. No change. Scoring Panel Who are the members who will evaluate and score the candidates? Not applicable.For sworn positions, the scoring panel for a promotion process will consist of up to eight individuals and may, but is not required to, include one or more of the following: The Police Chief, an Assistant Police Chief, a Deputy Police Chief, a Captain, a Lieutenant, a Sergeant, a sworn member of another law enforcement agency, or a civilian. The Police Chief or designee, after consultation with the Human Resources Department, will select each member of a scoring panel. Enhanced, defines participants. 5 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Scoring Panel How are Scoring Panel members trained? Not applicable.After selection of the scoring panel, a member of the Human Resources Department will provide training pertaining to the scoring system to the panel members. A member of the Human Resources Department will also advise the panel members of their obligation to recognize and avoid personal bias in the scoring process, as well as provide information to the panel members regarding how to reduce and eliminate such bias. Big enhancement: HR will train the panel about recognizing, avoiding, reducing and eliminating potential bias. Rank-Ordered List How are the candidates ranked? The final score will determine the rank order in which applicants appear on the eligibility register, with the applicant having the highest weighted score listed at the top of the register and all others listed in descending order. After review, the Commission shall certify the register as the current eligibility register from which future promotions will be made for the position tested. For sworn positions, the Human Resources Department will compile and prepare a rank- ordered list (based on final numerical score) of all candidates who fully completed the examination modules. No change to how ranking occurs, except clarity. Language clarifies an applicant must complete all modules. Notification of Promotion Process Outcome How are candidates notified? Upon certification by the Commission, all ranked applicants will be notified of their ranked position on the eligibility register and the expiration date of the register. The Human Resources Department will provide written notice to each candidate who appears on the rank-ordered list of her/his individual ranking on the list. In accordance with applicable law and applicable memorandum(s) of understanding, a candidate will be permitted to review records pertaining to her/his application for promotion. No change to notification. Provides in rule an applicant may see records. 6 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Duration,How long are The Commission shall approve For sworn positions, a rank-ordered promotion No change. Extension and the promotion the term for which the register list will be valid for one (1) year from the date Revocation of lists applicable?is adopted, and designate the the list is certified by the Human Resources Promotion List expiration date. No Department, unless the list is extended or promotional register shall be revoked by the Police Chief or designee during established for a period of the period of the list’s validity, and as outlined more than two (2) years. All in Rule. names on the eligibility register may be stricken, and another examination ordered, if the Commission determines it advisable to do so. Those on the list will be notified and given a chance to compete again. Selection for How are The department Chief shall For sworn positions, the Human Resources Enhanced: The Chief (or designee) Promotion applicants select for promotion one Department will provide written notice of the can interview and select from a wider selected for person from the top five (5)rank-ordered list to the Police Chief or range of rank-ordered candidates. promotion?names on the eligibility register designee. The Police Chief or designee may for each position to be filled,interview all or some of the highest-ranked and shall notify the twenty (20) applicants for each vacant position. Commission of the selection.The Police Chief or designee, in his/her sole discretion, will select one of the candidates interviewed to fill the vacant position. Promotion What is the Whenever any member of the An individual promoted to a vacant position No change, language is clearer. Probationary probationary Civil Service is promoted to a shall serve a mandatory six (6)-month Period period after position, there shall be a probationary period in the new position. If, at promotion?probationary period to any time during the probationary period, the evaluate the employee’s ability Police Chief or designee determines the to perform the essential job individual’s performance in the new position is functions of the new position.not satisfactory, the individual may be returned The probationary period of six to their prior position. (6) months must be satisfactorily completed by the employee before the promotion becomes a 7 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration nonprobationary position. Any employee who fails to complete his or her probationary period in a promoted position shall be returned to his or her position prior to the promotion. Promotion How can a Persons who are denied If a candidate contends that a violation of the Outlines the basis for an appeal. Appeals Process member appeal promotions in violation of a “Notice of Promotion Process,” “Promotion a promotion provision of this Chapter IV Process,” and/or “Scoring” provisions of these decision?may petition the Commission.Rules resulted in s/he not being selected for promotion, the candidate may submit a written appeal to the Police Chief within ten (10) business days of the date the candidate is notified that s/he was not selected. Unless the candidate and the Police Chief or designee agree to a different time period, the Police Chief or designee shall transmit a written decision on the appeal to the candidate within ten (10) business days of the Police Chief’s or designee’s receipt of the appeal. Right to Return What right of When a Deputy Chief or With the exception of the Police Chief, an Enhanced, clearer language. Clarifies return exists Assistant Chief is removed for individual accepting an appointed position in no right of return for an individual from an non-disciplinary reasons, his or the Police Department, and who is who was not a member of the PD at appointed her term, if any, expires, or subsequently released from that position for the time of her/his appointment. position?because the Police Chief or Fire non-disciplinary reasons, has the right to return Chief appoints a successor, he to the last non-appointed rank in the Police or she shall return to the Civil Department s/he held prior to accepting the Service rank he/she held at the appointment. If no vacancy exists in the time of the appointment to applicable non-appointed rank at the time the Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief right of return is exercised, the least-senior status based on accrued employee in that non-appointed rank shall seniority.accordingly be reduced in rank. To the extent further rank reductions are required, they shall be conducted in the same manner. An individual who was not a member of the Police 8 Concept or Section: Question Civil Service Promotional Rules (old) Police Promotional Rules (new)Consideration Department at the time of her/his appointment to an appointed position has no right of return. Layoffs and How is a For the purposes of promotions The calculation of seniority for Police No change Seniority candidate's to sworn positions within the Department members, as well as the layoff seniority Police Department, seniority process pertaining to Police Department determined?shall be defined as the length members, will be conducted in accordance with of service as a sworn officer in applicable law, applicable memorandum(s) of the current rank in the understanding, and applicable Salt Lake City department. Employees who Corporation policies. are laid off or reduced in rank because of a reduction in force, reorganization, or for any other reason not the fault of the employee, may, if qualified, bump the least senior, full-time employee from a job position that the laid off employee previously and actually held within his/her department. •SPECIAL FUNCTION OFFICER (SFO) TRAINING BLOCK •240 hours of training •Topics include ethics, leadership, Utah criminal code, laws of arrest, defensive tactics, conflict resolution •Completions allows for limited police powers when accompanied by a fully certified officer •LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (LEO) TRAINING BLOCK •348 hours of training •Topics include emergency vehicle operations (EVO), firearms, report writing, investigations, defensive tactics •Completions allows for an individual to be certified as a law enforcement officer •SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ADDITIONAL CURRICULUM •254 hours of training •Additional training for investigations, specific policies and procedures, fair and impartial policing, Arbinger, Blue Courage Training Hours Required By POST SLCPD In-House Academy PROS •Train officers to a higher standard •Focus on policing in Salt Lake City •Ability to train and certify larger number of recruits CONS •Limited training facilities •Time commitment •Limited resources Department Impacts Related to Increased Mandatory Training •Mandatory training has increased over several years •Critical training needs, while not labeled mandatory, have also increased •Amount of provided training time and staffing is limited Ongoing Training •TRIMESTER TRAINING (30 HOURS A YEAR) •Cover all mandatory training topics •Implement equipment changes (ex. Taser 7) •Provide additional critical training for officers •POLICY OR LAW UPDATES •Lexipol •Cornerstone •OUTSIDE AGENCY TRAINING •Current trends •New programs •Additional certifications Potential New Training •REALITY-BASED TRAINING (RBT) •Hands on practical scenario-based training •Primarily offered to line level officers and detectives •Topic changes each month due to department needs •40-HOUR SERGEANT ACADEMY •Training included supervisor expectations, leadership styles, scene management, and practical topics new sergeants need to be training on •CONTINUED SUPERVISOR TRAINING DURING TRIMESTER TRAINING •Focused on supervisor and management responsibilities •HOSTING OUTSIDE AGENCY TRAINING •FEMA provided active shooter and incident management courses •HIDTA funded police training Our ability to take on additional new training is limited by training facilities and staffing levels Specialized Training and Certifications •OFFERED BASED ON INTEREST AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPARTMENT POSITIONS •OFFERED BY SALT LAKE CITY POLICE •Field training officer (FTO), bicycle officer certification, search warrant training, SWAT school, public order school, Motor school •OUTSIDE AGENCY TRAINING •Specialty impact munitions, OC instructor, Taser instructor, defensive tactics, hostage negotiator, firearms instructor, investigative specialties •CAREER PATH •Financial incentive •Points assigned to specific training or certifications Training Equipment •TI MACHINE (USE-OF FORCE SIMULATOR) •Technologically outdated •Lack of space for consistent use •VIRTUAL REALITY TRAINING PLATFORM •Frequent manipulation and changing scenarios •Cost less to upkeep and experience fewer hardware problems •Require less space •A price quote has been obtained and submitted for approval •NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES •Firearms facility •Emergency vehicle operation (EVO) facility •Training compound including building facade Required Training and Certifications •POST REQUIREMENTS •40 hours annual training •Taser, OC, baton, firearms, defensive tactics •LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS H.B. 162 AND H.B. 334 •No less than 16 hours •Training focused on mental health, crisis intervention responses, arrest control, de-escalation •Mental illness, autism spectrum disorder, and other neurological and developmental disorders •SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS •Specialty certifications and training for department positions and assignments •Crisis intervention, specialty impact munitions, bias-based policing Impacts on Training •TRAININGS CANCELLED OR ATTENDANCE LIMITED •Significant period without in-person training •Impact on officers being able to maintain sufficient training hours •MOVE TO ON-LINE TRAINING •Training efficacy is limited •Majority of police training not suited for on-line training •REDUCED STAFFING LEVELS AND POLICE REFORM •Limited staffing, retention, and morale has affected training value •Increase of mandatory training has reduced ability to provide other pertinent training •Limited staffing also inhibits the ability to present or attend training PROMOTIONAL DIFFERENCES Old vs New Process in the Police Department Background The promotion process in the Police Department has changed for the better. The changes better serve the applicant, the department, the City and citizens. ◦Old procedures -as required by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) – have been replaced. ◦New procedures –as required by Promotional Rules (Rule) –were in place in February 2021. Improvements and Advantages The updated and improved promotional procedures in the Police Department have a number of advantages. Major advantages include: ◦Efficiency –The time to conduct the process is greatly reduced. ◦Eligibility –While providing opportunity for our internal employees, the Rules allow the department to recruit for external applicants for promotions above Sergeant. ◦Expansion –The Rules allow the hiring official (not only the Chief) to choose from a larger, more diverse field. An Applicant for Promotion CSC An applicant (and the entire process) had to wait for multiple stage approvals from the CSC. CSC typically met monthly. Before a promotion could commence, the CSC had to approve all details of each and every promotion process in advance before it commenced -even if the same promotion process had been previously conducted (i.e. Captain.) Rules The process for the applicant is much more timely. A promotional process can commence when the Chief, or designated hiring official, determines there is a need to promote a person to fill approved, vacant positions. Human Resources conducts (as it always did) the process. Enhanced: Promotion processes can be completed in a timely manner -filling essential leadership positions faster. An Applicant for Promotion CSC An applicant for promotion –whether sworn or non-sworn -had to be an existing employee of the Salt Lake Police Department. This meant leadership at each level of the organization was drawn from the same, internal pool of applicants. As promotions were conducted for each subsequent, higher level of leadership, the applicants came from the same pool of candidates. Rules An applicant for any promotion above Sergeant can be external. To encourage inclusivity and diversity the promotional process can include internal and external candidates. To meet the same objectives, a promotion process for civilian positions can also include internal and external candidates, consistent with City policy. An Applicant for Promotion CSC An applicant for promotion could only be selected –by only the Chief –if s/he was one of the top five (5) candidates after the promotional testing was completed. Exam modules could include: written tests; oral interviews or oral boards; performance test or assessment centers. A candidate’s ranking could be separated by one one-hundredth of a point. Rules An applicant for promotion might be selected – by a hiring official -if s/he is one of the top twenty (20) candidates after the promotional testing is completed. Exam modules can include: an interview, presentation exercise, management exercise, tactical exercise or written communication exercise. Ranking will still be based on precise points but allows the hiring official to select a diverse applicant from a larger pool. Questions? 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 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 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 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: Appointment Recommendations: Ken Anderson as Salt Lake City’s Building Official and the Director of the Building Services Division. STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas Blake.Thomas@slcgov.com Kat Vuong Katherine.Vuong@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Appointment RECOMMENDATION: Following advice and consent, appoint: Ken Anderson, City Building Official and Director – Building Services Division BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Brief Biography: Ken Anderson LEED AP, BD&C Salt Lake City Building Services Manager BBA degree in Business Administration Westminster College March 23, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 23, 2021 12:43 MDT) 03/23/2021 03/23/2021 Ken has worked for the past 14+ years in the Building Services Division of CAN. He was hired as a Plans Examiner and worked diligently to earn 16 ICC certifications, his LEED accreditation and complete his bachelor’s degree in his first seven years of employment. He has been trusted by management to increase his supervisory role steadily and was promoted to Senior Plans Examiner, Development Review Supervisor and then Building Services Manager. Ken has served for six years in the management position under the leadership of Orion Goff. Prior to starting his career in the Salt Lake City Building Services Department, Ken worked 15 years for Interwest Consulting Engineers, where he grew from a part-time drafter to a full-time designer. He then worked 3.5 years in Construction services for Sorenson Development where he supervised the construction of large commercial projects. The past 14 plus years of his professional career has been with Salt Lake City. Ken has a strong commitment to supporting his co-workers and those who he serves in the community. He is determined to do what is right and safe for the built environment. Ken has grown into his leadership role and has gained the confidence of his internal and ext ernal colleagues. Ken and his wife Holly were married when they were teenagers and are about to celebrate their 41st anniversary. They have two children and three grandchildren. They enjoy creating new memories with family and friends while revisiting the memories of fun times from the past. PUBLIC PROCESS: None EXHIBITS: None 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 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: 2058 North 2200 West from AG-2 to M-1 PLNPCM2018-00657 MAY 4, 2021 UPDATE Prior to the July 16, 2019 meeting at which the Council was scheduled to vote on this item, the applicant requested the Council postpone voting until he and the adjacent property owner, Nathan Sainsbury, came to an agreement both parties were comfortable with. Since then the applicant purchased Mr. Sainsbury’s property at 2060 North 2200 West. The applicant intends to submit a separate rezone application for that property in the coming weeks. The applicant asked the Council to consider acting on the subject zoning map amendment now that he owns the adjacent parcel previously owned by Mr. Sainsbury. This is tentatively scheduled for May 18, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY Nathan Sainsbury, owner of 2060 North 2200 West, spoke at the July 9, 2019 public hearing. His property is surrounded on three sides by the property proposed to be rezoned. Mr. Sainsbury noted concerns of increased traffic and noise as well as negative impact to his property value should the surrounding property be rezoned. He was the only person to comment at the hearing. The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. The Council is scheduled to consider taking action July 16. BRIEFING UPDATE At the March 26, 2019 briefing, Council discussion focused primarily on impacts to the property owner at 2060 North 2200 West whose property is surrounded on three sides by the subject property. Council Item Schedule: Briefing: March 26, 2019 Written Briefing: May 4, 2021 Set Date: June 11, 2019 Public Hearing: July 9, 2019 Potential Action: July 16, 2019 Potential Action: May 18, 2021 Page | 2 Member Rogers said he would like to talk with this property owner. The Council pulled the item from the consent agenda and did not schedule a public hearing to allow time for that meeting to happen. Council Member Rogers met with the 2060 North 2200 West property owner during which the owner expressed opposition to the rezone. Following the briefing Planning staff sent an email clarifying a statement about a large rezoning that happened in 2017. During the briefing it was stated the Council amended AG-2 (Agricultural) zoning to M-1 (Manufacturing) along 2200 West. The email clarified zoning was changed from BP (Business Park), not AG-2 to M-1. Parcels in the area zoned AG-2 would retain that zoning designation until property owners applied to rezone them to M-1. Since the briefing, other property owners to the east of the subject parcel submitted applications to rezone their parcels to M-1. A public hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2019. The following information was provided for the March 26, 2019 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for an approximately 2.68 acre parcel located at 2058 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). This is one of five properties currently zoned AG-2 fronting on 2200 West between North Temple and 2100 North. The other parcels zoned AG-2 are 1980, 1998, 2004 and 2060 North 2200 West. With the exception of these parcels and some others adjacent to North Temple, which are zoned Mixed Use Transit Station, all other parcels along 2200 West between 2100 North and North Temple are zoned M-1. The property owner would like to change the zoning of this parcel in order to more closely align with the master plan future land use designation and to accommodate potential future commercial uses. Although no development request has been submitted, the applicant suggested to Planning staff future development could include a gas station and/or storage units, both of which are permitted uses in the M-1 zone, but not the AG-2 zone. The owner of the subject parcel at 2058 North 2200 West is in negotiations to purchase the adjacent 0.64 acre parcel at 2060 North 2200 West which is surrounded on three sides by the 2058 North parcel (shown in the image below). The owner of 2060 has not expressed concern or objection to rezoning the subject parcel. It should be noted the adjacent parcel is not part of this petition and may be the subject of a future zoning map amendment. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for this rezone. Page | 3 Aerial view of subject parcel outlined in pink and adjacent parcel in yellow Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal and direct staff to prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the proposed changes? ADDITONAL INFORMATION The Planning Commission staff report (pages 18-19 of the Administration’s transmittal) identifies two key issues. A short description of each issue and the finding is provided below for reference. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis. 1. Master Plan Recommendations The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in 2000 and includes the subject property. The plan shows future land use of this area as Business Park (BP) which was consistent with zoning put in place during the citywide zoning amendment project in 1995. While the Northpoint Small Area Plan identifies this area as a Business Park, it states the BP zone should be amended to allow retail and service type businesses to support the area’s employee base. BP zoning allows retail and restaurant uses only if they are approved as part of an overall business park planned development. They are not allowed as single uses on a property, which limits feasibility of these uses in the area. Although the proposed M-1 zoning is not strictly consistent with the future land use designation in the Northpoint Small Area Plan, Planning staff believes the zoning amendment is consistent with the plan’s intent for the following reasons: Page | 4 a) The plan highlights a need for retail and services for the area’s future employees. The M-1 district allows single-tenant retail and service uses which could serve area employees. b) Uses in the M-1 district are required to be environmentally clean, light industrial. Heavy manufacturing is not allowed. c) Mitigation measures included in M-1 zoning will protect existing AG properties as noted in issue 2 below. 2. Adopted Mitigation Measures •Chapter 21A.28.020 Salt Lake City Code was previously amended to add buffer yards for properties adjacent to AG-2 and AG-5 properties. These measures were adopted to ensure adequate buffering between future commercial development on 2200 West and remaining agricultural zoning and uses. •The initial application proposed changing the current AG-2 zoning to CG (General Commercial). Planning staff encouraged the applicant to amend the initially proposed CG zoning to M-1 in order to apply mitigation measures for adjacent properties zoned AG-2. Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 37-38 of the Administration’s transmittal) outlines standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found this proposal complies with all applicable standards. (Note-Planning staff found Standard 5 is not applicable as noted below.) An outline of the analysis is summarized below, please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. 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. •Planning staff is of the opinion the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. •Proposed zone changes would support the following zoning ordinance purposes: o Protect the tax base o Foster the City’s industrial, business and residential development 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties. •Previous text amendments provide for larger buffer yards in the M-1 zoning district to protect existing agricultural uses. Planning staff found the current M-1 development standards appropriately buffers existing AG-2 properties. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. •The project area is partially located in Airport Flight Path Protection Zones A and B. In the event of a conflict on uses of the property, overlay district regulations would prevail. 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, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. (Not applicable at this time.) •The proposal is only for a zoning map amendment and not tied to a development request. •Future requests would be reviewed to ensure compliance with City codes and policies. Page | 5 PUBLIC PROCESS A letter providing early notification of the proposed zoning map amendment was mailed September 19, 2018 to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel. The Westpointe Community Council was notified via email September 19, 2018. The community council did not request a presentation or additional information from Planning staff or the applicant. A second notice was sent to residents and property owners November 19, 2018. One phone call was received by Planning staff from an abutting property owner expressing concern about encroaching M-1 zoning, but understands this is the intended zoning for 2200 West. No objections to the proposed zoning map amendment were raised by any City department. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its November 28, 2018 meeting. No comments were received. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. JACQUELINE M. BISKUPSKI Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MIKEREBERG DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY a11d NEIGHBORHOODS Date Received: FebVk\r:tV/;j 2.1. ZOl?f Date sent to Conncil: YVlaJC h i, rl.(J I~ TO: Salt Lake City Council Charlie Luke, Chair FROM: Mikr f~berg, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods ttr-> STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Principal Planner, 801.535.7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the requested zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by a private land owner to amend the zoning map for the subject property from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The property owner is seeking to amend the subject property to implement the future land use designations noted in the applicable Master Plan and to increase the economic viability of the subject property. M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district aligns with the future anticipated use of the subject property. Additionally, the properties located to the south along 2200 West were rezoned from BP (Business Park) zoning district to M-1 (Light manufacturing) zoning district in 2017. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. Box 145486. SALT LAKE CITY, UTNI 84114-5486 WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-6230 FAX 801-535-6005 Aerial Image of Current Zoning The following are the purpose statements of the AG-2 (existing zoning) and M-1 (proposed zoning) districts: The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City on lots not less than two (2) acres. These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this type of land use. 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 sensitive lands and waterways. This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan policies adopted by the City. This district 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 industrial sues. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access 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 sensitive lands. The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in 2000 and includes the subject property. The plan shows the future land use of this area as Business Park which was consistent with the zoning put in place during the citywide zoning amendment project in 1995. While the Northpoint Small Area Plan identifies the area as a Business Park, it also states that the Business Park zone should be amended to allow retail and service type of business that would support the employee base in the area. In addition to the Business Park land use designation, the Northpoint Small Area Plan also states that future business park development should be buffered from the existing agricultural properties. The buffer includes a 100 foot building setback, a 50 foot parking lot setback, and landscaping with a five foot tall berm. The buffer to protect the remaining AG properties was included in the M-1 zoning district in 2017, petition number PLNPCM2016- 00788. Since the subject property is one of five properties that front 2200 West that are currently zoned AG-2. The mitigation measures adopted in 2017 will apply to the subject parcel proposed for a zoning map amendment. The proposed zoning map amendment complies with the listed standards found in 21A.50.050. PUBLIC PROCESS: The following is a list public process for the proposed amendment: • September 18, 2018: Provided a notice of application to the Westpoint Community Council. • November 20, 2018: One phone call was received from an abutting property within the AG-2 zoning district. The property owner had concerns over the encroaching M-1 zoning, but understands that the intended zoning for 2200 west is M-1 (Light Manufacturing). • November 28, 2018: Planning Commission meeting was held. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Planning Commission Record a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Planning Commission Staff Report of November 28, 2018 c. PC Agenda and Minutes of November 28, 2018 4. Original Petition 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2019 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 2058 North 2200 West Street to rezone that property from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 2058 North 2200 West Street to rezone that property from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00657. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 28, 2018 on an application submitted by Nick Smith (“Applicant”) on behalf of the owner of property located at 2058 North 2200 West Street (the “Property”) to rezone the Property from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00657; and WHEREAS, at its November 28, 2018 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake 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 parcel located at 2058 North 2200 West Street (Parcel ID Number 08-21-226-024), and as more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from AG-2 Agricultural District to M-1 Light Manufacturing District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall b ecome effective on the date of it s first publication. Pass ed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, thi s ___ day of _____ _ 20 19. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERS IGN: CITY RECORDER Trans m itted to Mayor on __________ _ Mayor's Act ion: ___ Approved. Vetoed. --- CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2019. ---- Publ ished: ------- HB_A TTY-1175223-v l -Ordi nance_Rezoni ng_2058_N_2200_ W MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt La ke City Attorney 's Office Exhibit “A” Legal Descriptions of Parcels to be rezoned to M-1 Light Manufacturing District Parcel No. 08-21-226-024 BEG S 89°20'15" W 1309.00 FT & S 00°39'45" E 24.433 FT FR NE COR OF SEC 21, T1N, R1W, SLM; S 87°46'27" E 412.883 FT; S 00°43'56" E 337.968 FT; S 89°18'09" W 412.769 FT; N 00°39'45" W 90.457 FT; N 89°20'15" E 200.00 FT; N 00°39'45" W 140.00 FT; S 89°20'15" W 200.00 FT; N 00°39'45" W 128.567 FT TO BEG. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION a) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK b) STAFF REPORT c) AGENDA & MINUTES 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY August 22, 2018 Petition delivered to Planning Division. August 30, 2018 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist September 18, 2018 Notification sent to Chair of Westpointe Community Council, asking if they would like to have the item discussed at a meeting. September 18, 2018 Routed the proposal to other City Departments/Divisions for review and comment. November 16, 2018 Planning Commission agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public meeting Notice websites. Notices mailed to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. November 20, 2018 Public hearing notice posted on the property. 2. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering petition PLNPCM2018-00657 – Nick Smith, owner representative, is requesting a zoning map amendment application to amend the existing zoning of 2058 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The amendment is to implement the master plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial land uses. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The subject property is located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Room 315 City & County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two 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 A) ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK ORIGINAL NOTICE & POSTMARK B) STAFF REPORT PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Kelsey Lindquist, (801) 535-7930 Date: November 28, 2018 Re: PLNPCM2018-00657 2200 West Zoning Map Amendment Zoning Map Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2058 North 2200 West PARCEL ID: 08-21-226-024-0000 MASTER PLAN: North Point Small Area Plan ZONING DISTRICT: AG-2 (Agricultural District) REQUEST: Nick Smith, owner representative, has submitted a zoning map amendment to amend the existing AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The amendment is to implement the master plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial land uses. The subject property is located at 2058 North 2200 West. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the zoning of the subject property located at 2058 N. 2200 W. be amended from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district. Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning map amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map a. Northpoint Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map B. Site Plan C. Additional Applicant Information D. AG-2 and M-1 Allowed Uses Comparison E. Existing Conditions F. Photos of Subject Property G. Analysis of Standards H. Public Process and Comments I. City Department Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request by a private land owner to amend the existing AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district. The property owner is seeking to amend the subject property to implement the future land use designations noted in the applicable master plan and to increase the economic viability of the subject property. M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district aligns with the future anticipated use of the subject property. Additionally, the properties located to the south along 2200 West were rezoned from BP (Business Park) zoning district to M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district in 2017. Agricultural District (AG-2) VS. Light Industrial (M-1) Zoning The following are the purpose statements of the AG-2 (existing zoning) and M-1 (proposed zoning) districts: The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City on lots not less than two (2) acres. These regulations are also designed to minimized conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this type of land use. 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 sensitive lands and waterways. This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan policies adopted by the City. This district 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 industrial uses. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access 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 sensitive lands. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate future commercial land uses along the 2200 West corridor and to provide a contiguous district along 2200 West. The remaining AG-2 (Agricultural District) will be appropriately buffered with the adopted amendments that were incorporated into the M-1 Zoning District regulations. KEY ISSUES: The key issues listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input and department review comments. 1. Mater Plan Recommendations 2. Adopted Mitigation Measures Issue 1: Master Plan Recommendations The Northpoint Small Area Plan was adopted in 2000 and includes the subject property. The plan shows the future land use of this area as Business Park which was consistent with the zoning put in place during the Citywide zoning amendment project in 1995. While the Northpoint Small Area Plan identifies the area as a Business Park, it also states that the Business Park zone should be amended to allow retail and service type businesses that would support the employee base in the area. The Business Park zoning district allows retail and restaurant uses only if they are approved as part of an overall business park planned development. They are not allowed as single uses on a property, which limits the feasibility of these uses occurring in the area. In addition to the Business Park land use designation, the Northpoint Small Area Plan also states that future business park development should be buffered from the existing agricultural properties. The buffer includes a 100 foot building setback, a 50 foot parking lot setback, and landscaping with a five foot tall berm. Although the proposed Light Manufacturing zoning district is not strictly consistent with the future land use designation as stated in the Northpoint Small Area Plan, it is Staff’s opinion that the zoning amendment is consistent with the intent of the plan for the following reasons: 1. The plan highlights the need for retail and service uses to serve the future employees of the area. The Light Manufacturing district allows single-tenant retail and service uses, which would serve the employees of the area. 2. The uses allowed in the Light Manufacturing District are required to be environmentally clean, light industrial. Heavy manufacturing is not allowed in the Light Manufacturing zoning district. 3. The adopted mitigation measures to protect the existing AG properties, which is discussed in Issue 2, below. Issue 2: Adopted Mitigation Measures The petition number PLNPCM2016-00788 was an amendment to Chapter 21A.28.020: M-1 Light Manufacturing District. The amendment incorporated the addition of buffer yards for properties adjacent to AG-2 and AG-5. These mitigation measures were adopted to ensure adequate buffering between future commercial developments along 2200 West and the remaining agricultural zoning and uses. The current application initially proposed amending the AG-2 to CG (General Commercial) zoning district. Staff encouraged the applicant to amend the proposed CG (General Commercial) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing), to accommodate the mitigation measures in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district that were adopted in 2017. The subject property is one of five properties that front 2200 West that are currently zoned AG-2. Additional, properties zoned AG-2 are located adjacent to the subject property to the east. The existing mitigation measures will be applied to the subject property, due to the proximity to AG-2 zoning. DISCUSSION: The proposal complies with the standards for zoning map amendments, see Attachment D. After analyzing the proposal and the applicable standards, Planning Staff is of the opinion that a positive recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council for this request. NEXT STEPS: The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the zoning map. The recommendation of the Planning commission for this request will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and decision. ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP Northpoint Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map ATTACHMENT B: SITE PLAN ATTACHMENT C: ADDITIONAL APPLICANT INFORMATION ATTACHMENT D: AG-2 AND M-1 ALLOWED USES COMPARISON PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES – AG-2 & M-1 DISTRICTS COMBINED LIST Uses AG-2 M-1 Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated elsewhere in this title P P Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C Agricultural use P P Alcohol: Bar establishment C6,10 Brewpub P6,10 Distillery P Tavern C6,10 Winery P Ambulance services (indoor and/or outdoor) P Animal: Cremation service P Kennel P8 P13 Pet cemetery P4 P2 Pound P12,13 Raising of furbearing animals C Stockyard C12 Stable (private) P Stable (Public) P Veterinary office P Antenna, communication tower P P Antenna, communication tower, exceeding the maximum building height P C Artisan food production P Bakery, commercial P Blacksmith shop P Bottling plant P Brewery P Building materials distribution P Bus line station/terminal P Bus line yard and repair facility P12 Check cashing/payday loan business P9 Chemical manufacturing and/or storage Commercial food preparation P Community correctional facility, large C8,16 Community correctional facility, small C8,16 Community garden P P Concrete and/or asphalt manufacturing C12,13 Contractor’s yard/office P Crematorium P Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P Daycare center, adult P Daycare center, child P Drop forge industry Dwelling, living quarters for caretaker or security guard, limited to uses on lots 1 acre in size or larger and is accessory to principal use allowed by the zoning district P Dwelling: Assisted living facility (large) Assisted living facility (limited capacity) Assisted living facility (small) Group home (large) Group home (small) P Living quarters for caretaker or security guard Manufactured home P Mobile home Multi-family Residential support (large) Residential support (small) Rooming (boarding) house Single-family (attached) Single-family (detached) P Twin home and two-family Eleemosynary facilities Exhibition hall Equipment, heavy (rental, sales, service) P Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P Explosive manufacturing and storage Farm stand, seasonal P Financial institution with or without drive-through facility P11 Flammable liquids or gases, heating fuel distribution and storage Food processing P Gas station P Government facility P Government facility requiring special design features for security purposes P Grain elevator P12 Greenhouse P Heavy manufacturing P15 Home occupation P Hotel/motel P Impound lot P12 Incinerator, medical waste/hazardous waste Industrial assembly P Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P Laboratory, testing P Large wind energy system C P13,14 Laundry, commercial P Light manufacturing P Limousine service P Mobile food business (operation in the public right- of-way) P Mobile food business (operation on private property) P Mobile food court P Office P Office, publishing company P Open space P P Package delivery facility P Paint manufacturing Parking: Commercial P Off site P Park and ride lot P Park and ride lot shared with existing use P Photo finishing lab P Poultry farm or processing plant Printing plant P Radio television station P Railroad, freight terminal facility C4 Railroad, repair shop P Recreation (indoor) P Recreation (outdoor) P Recycling: Collection station P Processing center (indoor) P Processing center (outdoor) C12,13,14 Refinery, petroleum products Restaurant with or without drive-through facilities P Retail goods establishment with or without drive- through facility P Retail service establishment: Electronic repair shop P Furniture repair shop P Upholstery shop P Rock, sand and gravel storage and distribution C School: Profession and vocational (with outdoor activities) P Professional and vocational (without outdoor activities) P Seminary and religious institute P Seasonal farm stand P Sexually oriented business P5 Sign painting/fabrication P Slaughterhouse Small brewery P Solar array P Storage and display (outdoor) P Storage, public (outdoor) P Store, convenience P Studio, motion picture P Taxicab facility P Tire distribution retail/wholesale P Truck freight terminal P12 Urban farm P P Utility: Building or structure P1 P Electric generation facility C3,12 Sewage treatment plant C Solid waste transfer station C12 Transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P1 P1 Vehicle: Auction P Automobile and truck repair P Automobile and truck sales and rental (including large truck) P Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P Automobile salvage recycling (outdoor) C12,13,14 Recreational vehicle (RV) sales and service P Truck repair (large) P Vending cart, private property P Warehouse P Welding shop P P Wholesale distribution P P Wireless telecommunications facility Woodworking mill P QUALIFYING PROVISIONS (COMBINED FROM AG-2 AND M-1) 1. See subjection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations. 2. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 3. Electric generating facilities shall be located within 2,640 feet of an existing 138kV or larger electric power transmission line. 4. No railroad freight terminal facility shall be located within 1 mile of a residential zoning district. 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 21A.36.140 of this title. 6. If a place of worship is proposed to be located within 600 feet of a tavern, bar establishment, or brewpub, the place worship must submit a written waiver of spacing requirement as a condition of approval. 7. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the building’s footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building’s footprint or new office building construction are subject to a conditional building and site design review. 8. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an airport noise overlay zone is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable airport overlay zone within chapter 21A.34 of this title. 9. No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than ½ mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses. 10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300 “Alcohol Related Establishments”, of this title. 11. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations. 12. Prohibited within 1,000feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 13. Prohibited within the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District. 14. Prohibited within the Development Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay District. 15. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 16. Prohibited within ½ mile of any residential zoning district boundary and subject to section 21A.36.110 of this title. 17. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City Register of cultural Resources. 18. When located on an arterial street. 19. Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval. 20. In conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, a cemetery for human remains. 21. Radio station equipment and antennas shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure that the color, design and location of all proposed equipment and antennas are screened or integrated into the architecture of the project and are compatible with surrounding uses. 22. When approved as part of a business park planned development pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. 23. Kennels, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall not be permitted within 200 feet of an existing single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot. 24. Trails and trailheads without parking lots and without directional and informational signage specific to trail usage shall be permitted. 25. Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use. 26. Maximum of 1 monopole per property and only when it is government owned and operated for public safety purposes. 27. If located on a collector or arterial street according to the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan – major street plan: roadway functional classification map. 28. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a single- or two-family zoning district. 29. Occupancy shall be limited to 25 persons. 30. No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 31. No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home. 32. No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 33. No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support. 34. No eleemosynary facility shall be located within 800 feet of another eleemosynary, group home or residential support. 35. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title. 36. Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title. 37. Must contain retail component for on-site foot sales. 38. Prior to issuance of a building permit in the Development Area and the Eco-Industrial Buffer Area of the Northwest Quadrant Overlay, consultation with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources is required to obtain recommendations on siting and equipment types for all solar arrays on a particular property to mitigate impacts to wildlife. ATTACHMENT E: EXISTING CONDITIONS Uses in the Immediate Vicinity of the Property To the south of the subject property, except for 1998, 2004 and 1980 North 2200 West, all of the properties are zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The properties noted above are zoned AG-2 (Agricultural District). AG-2 Agricultural District: The purpose of the AG-2 Agricultural District is to preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City on lots not less than two (2) acres. These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable Master Plans support this type of land use. AG-2 Agricultural District Development Standards (21A.32.052) Maximum Building Height Front Yard Corner Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Lot Coverage Landscape Yards Buildable Area for Principal Dwelling Restrictions on Agricultural Uses Single- Family Dwellings: Thirty feet (30’) Thirty feet (30’) Thirty feet (30’) None Thirty five feet (35’) The surface coverage of the principal dwelling shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the buildable area for residential uses of the lot. All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. A residential structure shall not be located farther than two hundred feet (200’) from the front property line. In addition to the applicable foregoing regulations, agricultural uses shall comply with the following requirements: No feeding, grazing, or sheltering of livestock and poultry, whether within penned enclosures or within enclosed buildings, shall be permitted within fifty feet (50’) of an existing single-family dwelling on an adjacent lot. Small Group Homes: Thirty feet (30’) Thirty feet (30’) Thirty feet (30’) None Thirty five feet (35’) The surface coverage of the principal dwelling shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the buildable area for residential uses of the lot. All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. A residential structure shall not be located farther than two hundred feet (200’) from the front property line. Agricultural Uses: Forty five feet (45’) Thirty feet (30’) Thirty feet (30’) None Thirty five feet (35’) The surface coverage of the principal dwelling shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the buildable area for residential uses of the lot. All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. A residential structure shall not be located farther than two hundred feet (200’) from the front property line. Conditional Uses: Forty five feet (45’) Thirty feet (30’) Thirty feet (30’) None Thirty five feet (35’) The surface coverage of the principal dwelling shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the buildable All front and corner side yards shall be maintained as landscape yards in conformance with the requirements of chapter A residential structure shall not be located farther than two hundred feet (200’) from the front area for residential uses of the lot. 21A.48 of this title. property line. M-1 Light Manufacturing District: 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 sensitive lands and waterways. This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan policies adopted by the City. This district 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 industrial uses. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access 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 sensitive lands. M-1 Light Manufacturing District Development Standards (21A.28.020) Minimum Lot Size Front Yard Corner Side Yard Interior Side Yard Rear Yard Additional Setback Landscape Yards Maximum Height Minimum Lot Area: ten thousand (10,000) square feet. Minimum Lot Width: Eighty feet (80’). Existing Lots: Lots legally existing as of April 12, 1995, shall be considered legal conforming lots. Fifteen feet (15’) Fifteen feet (15’) None Required. None Required. When adjacent to a lot in the AG-2 or AG-5 Zoning District, buildings or portions of buildings, 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 Front and Corner Side Yards: 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. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements Distillation Column Structures; Development in AFPP Overlay District: No building shall exceed sixty five feet (65’) except that emission free distillation column structures, 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’) thirty feet (30’) of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 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. 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 (50’) may also require site specific approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. Location Exception: In the M-1 Zoning Districts located west of the Sale City International Airport and north of Interstate 80 (I-80), buildings may exceed sixty five feet (65’) in height subject to the conditional building and site design review standards and procedures of chapter 21A.59 of this title. In no case shall any building exceed eighty five feet (85’). Railroad Offloading Structures: Cranes, lifts, and other similar offloading structures related to the operation of a railroad 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. ATTACHMENT F: PHOTOS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Photo of Subject Property Looking North East Photo of Subject Property Looking South East Photo of 2200 West Looking South Photo of Adjacent Property Looking West Photo of 2200 West Looking North ATTACHMENT G: ANALYSIS OF 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 As stated in the Key Issues section of this report, changing the zoning of the subject property to M-1 is consistent with the Northpoint Small Area Master Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the intent of this master plan. The regulations of the M-1 zoning district were amended in 2017. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Section 21A.02.030 of the Salt Lake city Code provides the Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance and states: “The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of a present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes.” The purpose and intent statement then provides eight additional points describing the intent of the zoning code, two of which are applicable to the rezone proposal:  Protect the tax base  Foster the city’s industrial, business and residential development. The purpose of amending the zoning of the subject property is to maximize the development potential by allowing more land uses than allowed in the current zone and expanding the development area of the lots. This is consistent with the overall purpose of the Zoning Ordinance in that it promotes the “prosperity” of the “future inhabitants of Salt Lake City.” It is also consistent with the purpose and intent points stated above. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies As discussed in the Key Issues section of this report, the previous zoning amendment, PLNPCM2016-00799 and PLNPCM2016-00870, accommodated a text amendment to provide for larger buffer yards in the M-1 zoning district to protect the existing agricultural uses. Staff finds the existing M-1 development standards appropriately buffers the existing AG-2 properties. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Complies The project area is partially located in the Airport Flight Path Protection Zone A and B. These overlay districts provides special regulations that pertain to building height and land use. In the event that there is a conflict on a particular property, the regulations in the overlay district would prevail. 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, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Not applicable. At this current time, this standard does not apply. The proposal is not tied directly to a development request. The applicant has suggested that future development would incorporate a gas station and/or self- storage units. However, at this time this is reviewed as a zoning map amendment. All requests for a new use would be reviewed to ensure compliance with City codes and policies. ATTACHMENT H: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS A letter was mailed to residents and property owners within 300 of the subject property on September 19, 2018. The letter provided early notification of the proposed zoning map amendment. Additionally, early notification was emailed the Westpointe Community Council on September 19, 2018. The Westpointe Community Council did not request a presentation or additional information from staff or the applicant. Additionally, no public comments have been received. ATTACHMENT I: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS The proposed zoning amendment was sent to the following City Departments/Divisions for review:  Building Services;  Engineering;  Public Utilities;  Transportation;  Sustainability;  Police;  And Real Estate Services. There were no objections raised by any of the City Departments. Additionally, notice was mailed to UDOT. UDOT’s response is attached. C) AGENDA & MINUTES SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City & County Building November 28, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners a nd Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126 of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 14, 2018 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Recognize Commissioner Emily Drown for her tenure on the Planning Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Mead Avenue Alley Vacation - James Keifert, a property owner residing at 1006 South 800 West has initiated a petition to vacate a 350 -foot alley known as Mead Avenue that is located to the north of his property between 800 West and Jeremy Street. The alley is referenced as Mead Avenue, but the City recognizes it as an alley rather than a street. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801-535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2018-00666 2. Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 2200 West - Nick Smith, owner representative, is requesting a zoning map amendment application to amend the existing zoning of 2058 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural District) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). The amendment is to implement the master plan zoning and to accommodate future commercial land uses. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The property is located within Council District1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 801 -535-7930 or Kelsey.Lindquist@slcgov.com)Case number PLNPCM2018-00657 3. Special Exception for Additional Height at 780 E 900 South - Brett Ross, the property owner, is requesting special exception approval for additional building/wall height for a new single-family home to be constructed at 780 E. 900 South. Buildings with flat roofs in the R-2: Single and Two-Family Residential zoning districts are allowed up to 20 feet tall. Three additional feet of height is being requested to accommodate a 3-foot guardrail on top of the roof required by building code for the proposed roof deck space. The property is located in Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: Lauren Parisi at 801-535-7226 or Lauren.Parisi@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2018-00524 4. RR Development Planned Development - Blake Henderson, property owner, is requesting Planned Development approval to construct a 299 -unit multi-family residential development in 2 separate buildings on a property located at approximately 185 N. Redwood Rd. The applicant is requesting relief f rom the City’s Zoning Ordinance through the Planned Development process for modified corner side yard setbacks and waiver of design standards along Harold St. and the allowance of surface parking in a corner side yard. The property is located in the TSA -MUEC-T (Transit Station Area Mixed-Use Employment Center Transitional) zoning district and Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: John Anderson at (801) 535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNSUB2018-00641 5. The Exchange Phase 2: Planned Development and CBSDR at Approximately 320 E 400 South - A request by Downtown SLC Partners, the developer representing the property owner, Salt Lake City Corporation, for The Exchange – a project consisting of two new buildings that will be completed in phases. The second phase of the development request is for a 5-story building with approximately 126 mixed–income units and over 2,700 square feet of retail and 30,000 square feet of incubator co - working space. The applicant is requesting modifications of some of the design standards in section 21A.37 of the zoning ordinance through the Conditional Building and Site Design Review (CBSDR) process and a Planned Development for modifications to landscaping requirements in 21A.48. The p roject is located in the TSA-UC-C (Transit Station Area Urban Center Core) zoning district in Council District 4, represented by Derek Kitchen. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at 801 -535-7281 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2018-00470 & PLNSUB2018-00434. The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. 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 Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, pleas e contact the Planning Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711. 4. ORIGINAL PETITION Zoning Amendment D Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance ~ Amend the Zon ing Map OFFICE USE ONLY ~~v~B~ ~~12.1 Dat e Receiv ed: 2>/ 2 z./z._01~ Proj ect#: Name o r Section/s of Zoning Amendment: z 2-~o t--1 A ~s; c-ln ,..___~ .-1,- PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Addre ss of Applicant : / w 0 5 Wt2GD) LM:s-S- E-mail of Applicant: C A @ SAL-Mo.-11 ElE'CTQlL.-, COM 06 Appli ca nt's Interest in Subject Property: Qf o w ner D Contractor D Architect D Other: Name of Property Owner {if different from applicant): A M0'1. Phone: 5 Ar11c \h<2" \:Wo\ecJ ltvlt'IV10\~W ~ ~ .... ~· s. r is;,d ' ... ~le~ Smith ~quired by the project planner to ensure adequate ormation requ i red for staff anal ysis will be copied and I or engineering drawings, for the purpose s of public -\ SD\ '5 I 42:>A t:t'4 ~~ . \ 1 hiC-~S@S01lmDV\~le-<-hr 1 c.. \ F COWl µ~ WO\ V\ k fo b~ 0\ CO Vl rot c. f- \ 1· Ci'.\l\d \Vldvole-d on Moi i \~vi~ Si ~W~ ( I CONSULTATION 1nts of this applicat ion, please contact Salt Lake City nitting the application . ~IRED FEE l one acre , !per notice. ~ATURE ~orizing applicant to act as an agent will be required . Updated 7 /1/17 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; According to the Master plan and it’s map, this amendment is what the city would like to see developed in the area for the property. Also to our understanding, 3 years ago an amendment from the south end of this property all the way down to north temple was approved for M -1. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; The intention of the city in this area is to have M-1 Zoning according to the Master Plan, and we are seeking the same M-1 zoning. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; The property interacts with AG-2 and M-1 zones. The agreement with the AG-2 zones made 3 years ago was an amendment to the verbiage in the zoning allowing a 10 ft buffer with AG-2 zone. The affects of the zone interaction was addressed and resolved then. We will design our project accordingly. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Everything as far as our knowledge is in accordance with all overlays and near future overlays. 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, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Per our DRT meeting and additional meetings with Dominion and RMP all facilities and services will be available and adequate to fit our needs. 5. MAILING LIST 1 7 1 0 3 City Council Announcements May 5, 2021 Information Needed By Staff A. Council District 2 Vacancy Update & Questions for Applicants Prior to the initial interview date of Thursday, May 13, 2021, questions from the Council are emailed to the applicants through the Recorder’s Office. Applications are due by Monday, May 10th by noon. Staff suggested that the questions be emailed to applicants by 5 p.m. that day and request that they be returned by Wednesday, May 12 at 3:00 p.m. ➢Does the Council approve of the proposed schedule? ➢These are the questions that were used to fill the District 5 Vacancy in 2020. What new questions would Council Members like to use? 1. What do you think are the top issues facing District 5 and how would you approach each of them? 2. With limited budget resources and unlimited wants, prioritize what you see as the top three infrastructure needs for Salt Lake City over the next five years and explain your choices. 3. What do you believe your role is as a City Council Member? 4. What is an example of a City project or program that you think was a success, and why do you think it was successful? 5. What are the most important values you will bring to your time on the City Council? 6. What else would you like the Council to know that you have not had a chance to share? For You Information B. Agenda Packet Days Shift to Fridays during Budget Season Friendly reminder, to help accommodate turnaround of information between the Administration and the Council during budget, agenda packets are published on Fridays instead of Thursdays after the Mayor presents the recommended budget. This shift would begin on May 7th for the May 11th Council meeting and end after the budget is adopted.