HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION ONLY
May 25, 2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Welcome and public meeting rules
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: 13:19:25
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Chair’s determination.
As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City
Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety
of those who may be present at the anchor location. Due to the local state of emergency
from the earthquake in March 2020 and attendant damage to the building, I find that
conducting a meeting at the anchor location under the current local emergency constitutes
a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location.
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
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
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 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 ~ 2:30 p.m.
5 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.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Human Resources Department ~ 2:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Human Resources Department
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
4.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Proposed Compensation for City
Employees ~ 2:55 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Compensation budget, which
accounts for personnel and payroll costs, for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
5.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: 911 Department ~ 3:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed 911 Department budget for Fiscal
Year 2021-22. The Department provides both Police and Fire Dispatch services for the
City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
6.Informational: Council Audit of Police Department Follow-
up ~ 3:45 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the audit of the Police Department.
The audit is split in two parts: financial items and operational findings. The findings and
key recommendations may inform the Council's annual budget deliberations in May and
June.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 20, 2021 and Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
7.Tentative Break ~ 4:30 p.m.
15 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
8.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Sustainability Department and
Refuse Fund ~ 4:45 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Sustainability Department budget
and Refuse Fund for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
9.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Non-Departmental Fund ~ 5:15 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Non-Departmental Fund budget
for Fiscal Year 2021-22, which accounts for transfers to other funds, grants, and other
special revenue funds that do not belong to particular City departments.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
10.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Department of Public Services
including the Proposed Department of Public Lands ~ 5:45 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Department of Public Services
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22, including the proposed Department of Public Lands.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
11.Dinner Break ~ 6:30 p.m.
30 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
12.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Fleet Fund ~ 7:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Fleet Fund budget for Fiscal Year
2021-22, which provides vehicles, fuel, and vehicle maintenance and repair services for
all City departments.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
13.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Golf Fund ~ 7:30 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Golf Fund budget for Fiscal Year
2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
14.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Department of Economic
Development Written Briefing
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed budget for the
Department of Economic Development for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Standing Items
15.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
16.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
17.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.
Administrative Updates
May 25, 2021
COVID-19 update
•84101 is again above the 191/100,000 crude positivity rate,
after dropping for the last couple of weeks. Currently the crude
positivity rate in 84101 is at 357.07/100,000.
•Vaccinations in the Central City and West Side areas are
still behind the east side, which is 47-57% fully vaccinated.
Current metrics
COVID-19 update
West Side vaccination rates
May 4 May 11 May 18 May 25
84101 43.56% full
20.42%
partial
49.19% full
18.01%
partial
52.81% full
16.52%
partial
55.8%full
15.68% partial
84104 21.09% full
10.08%
partial
24.09% full
9.83% partial
25.99% full
9.32% partial
28.37%full
9.03% partial
84116 24.82% full
10.56%
partial
27.82% full
9.66% partial
29.72% full
9.08% partial
31.05%full
9.06% partial
COVID-19 update
May 4 May 11 May 18 May 25
Asian 35.48%37.04%40.19%42.58%
White 35.00%35.97%38.39%40.55%
Black or
African
American
19.56%20.54%22.79%24.99%
American
Indian
22.47%23.72%25.84%27.96%
Native
American or
Pacific Islander
18.36%18.95%20.51%22.08%
Hispanic
ethnicity
18.58%19.55%21.84%24.21%
Non-Hispanic
ethnicity
34.21%37.28%37.48%39.46%
Fully vaccinated demographic totals countywide
Emergency Responder
Pandemic Leave
•ERPL usage has increased by 22 this past pay period, totaling
1,348 utilizations.
Federal Families First
Coronavirus Act / Emergency
Pandemic Leave (FFCRA/EPL)
•This week ERPL usage has increased by 7, totaling 324
utilizations.
Reform Updates
•August 3, 2020 policy reforms introduced for the Salt Lake City
Police Department's policies in three areas:
•Use of Force
•more restrictive, with added language and specific
expectations that create a clearer and narrower
requirement for justification for use of force.
•De-escalation requirements
•Use of force reporting
•Body-Worn Camera
•Outlines discipline for intentional or negligent failure to
activate cameras
•Search and Seizure
•Requirements around informing on right to refuse, and
signature for consent
Reform Updates
Reform Updates
K-9 Apprehension Program
•Program suspended since August 24, 2020.
KultureCity
•All City First Responders will be trained on how to safely interact
with individuals who have sensory needs.
•The KultureCity training has taught First Responders how to
approach individuals with sensory needs in ways that adapt to
those needs, and to de-escalate situations safely.
FY2021-22 Budget Proposal highlights
•Hiring of six additional social workers to ensure Salt Lake City
has a mental-health professional on duty almost round-the-clock.
•Over $200,000 for additional equity, inclusion, and diversity
training for police officers.
•Creation of a new senior-level position in the Mayor’s Office to
liaise with education partners on equity and justice issues,
including how School Resource Officers work
•$20,000 for the Peer Court program, offering alternative ways
for youth to be held accountable outside of the criminal justice
system
•Hiring of a full-time on-site clinician for SLC police officers to
help ensure that they have the support they need to cope with
the difficult situations they face in the line of duty.
Homelessness update
Men's HRC King HRC Miller HRC Total
Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current Previous Current
Shelter capacity 300 200 200 700
Avg. number of beds occupied
each night 276 250 181 189 191 186 648 625
Avg number of beds
unoccupied each night 24 50 19 11 9 14 52 75
Avg % of beds occupied each
night 92%83.2%91%94.4%95%93.1%93%89.9%
Avg % of beds unoccupied each
night 8%16.8%9.3%5.6%4.7%6.9%7.4%10.8%
Previous week: 5/10-5/14
Current week: 5/17-5/21
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 18, 2021
RE: Proposed FY 2021-22 Human Resources Department Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes on B-23, Department Overview E-45 to E50,
Staffing Document F-22 to F24
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The proposed FY22 budget is a $1.9 million (4%) increase over last year for a total budget of $52,093,752. The budget
also includes an increase of six positions for a total of 31 FTEs which includes the Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB)
Administrator. The HR Department receives 94% of its funding from the Risk Fund and 6% from the General Fund. The
Department of Human Resources includes an administrative team, benefits, compensation and classification, employee
and labor relations, employees’ university, HR information systems, Police Civilian Review Board and recruiting and
onboarding. The budget recommendations include:
Restore HR Deputy Director
The FY22 budget restores full funding for the deputy director which was eliminated in the FY21 budget. The Council
approved partial year funding to restore the position as part of Budget Amendment #5 earlier this fiscal year. The fully
loaded annual cost for the position is $147,991.
Five New FTEs
A total of $429,995 is proposed to create five new FTEs. Four of the five positions would be funded for 10 months in
recognition of the time it takes to hire new employees. The funding for each position is:
- $111,075 for an Information Systems Analyst dedicated to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) implementation
of the HR features
- $101,020 for a Supervisor in the Recruitment Division funded for 10 months
- $108,950 for two HR technician positions funded for 10 months and one of these FTEs would provide staff
support to the Police Civilian Review Board
- $108,950 for a supervisor in the Benefits Division which is paid for by the Insurance and Risk Fund and funded
for 10 months
Restore Vacancy Savings
The proposed budget also includes restoring $97,183 of vacancy savings from a six-month hiring freeze in FY21 for two
positions: Benefits analyst and HR Business Partner II.
Personal Services Changes
A total of $72,442 for base to base salary increases, insurance rate increases, market adjustments determined by the
CCAC salary surveys and the Department’s portion of the 1% general pay increase proposed by the Mayor.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 18, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18 and June 1
Potential Action: June 8 or June 15
Page | 2
$1,438,026 Transfers Out
This is a $1.4 million (50%) decrease in transfers out mostly for the single medical insurance premium holiday in FY22.
There were two premium holidays in FY21 which accounts for the year-over-year decrease. The City and employees will
not pay premiums for one bi-weekly paycheck because of sufficient funding in the medical reserve account.
Benefits Division Budget Increase
An increase of $1,252,484 that reflects the 3.5% citywide medical insurance premium increase.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Policy Guidance for Hybrid Work Models (from Home and In-office) – The Council may wish to ask if
the Department plans to develop policy guidance for the City to offer hybrid work models to employees. The mass
teleworking experiment during the pandemic demonstrated some positions can successfully work from home or in
a hybrid model without decreasing the level of service provided.
2.Supporting Equity Initiatives – The Council may wish to ask how the Department’s increased staffing levels
could support the City’s equity initiatives such as salary reviews, standardizing job descriptions and reviewing for
implicit bias, trainings, updating recruitment and hiring practices and resolving complaints, tracking and
reporting workforce demographics, etc.
3.Salary Study for Non-represented Employees – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about
plans for a salary survey for non-represented employees which make-up one-third of the City’s workforce. In the
prior three years the City funded salary surveys for employees represented by AFSCME, Fire and Police which
make-up two-third of the City’s workforce.
4.Staffing Levels Below Best Practice – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how current staffing
levels below industry best practices impact the HR Department’s operations. For example, is the Department able
to pursue proactive and strategic City initiatives, participate in the apprenticeship pilot program, and meet basic
departmental needs like recruitment, hiring and resolving complaints. See Additional Info section for more.
5.Changing Employee Utilization of Benefits – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how
employee access and use of benefits have changed during the pandemic and if this creates additional workload and
staffing needs for the HR Department. PEHP commented there might be pent-up demand for elective procedures
that were prohibited during part of 2020. If true, then this could result in an increase in employees seeking leave
during FY22.
6.Compensation Communication with Employees – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to improve communication with employees about total compensation and benefits. In prior
discussions, some Council Members mentioned changes to pay stubs, interactive online compensation tools, and
how to display an employee’s total compensation (not just salary / take home pay).
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Staffing Levels Below Best Practice
As reported in Budget Amendment #5, the HR Department’s current staffing levels are significantly below industry best
practices which suggests a general ratio of 1.4 FTEs per 100 employees. Salt Lake City has approximately 3,280 FTEs
and 500 part time and seasonal employees. This indicates HR would have 47 employees. With the additional five FTEs
in the proposed FY22 budget the Department would still be 16 FTEs below the recommended level. It’s important to
note that departments do not have internal HR staff like some departments do for financial and information technology
needs.
Relocation of Department Offices to Plaza 349
The Department reports there is sufficient office space to accommodate the FTEs proposed in the FY22 budget, but
additional funding and office space might be needed in the future if more employees are added. Two years ago, HR
relocated from the City & County Building to offices at Plaza 349. HR reports some improvements as a result of the
relocation are more space for confidential conversations, larger rooms for trainings and employee orientations and the
ability to better lock down the office during emergencies. Some challenges related to the relocation are less parking
which is also shared and not a secured entrance at Plaza 349 compared to the Main Library parking structure. The
relocation means HR is closer to some departments and further away from others than before.
Page | 3
The Council approved $250,000 in Budget Amendment #2 of FY19 for office improvements to the fifth floor at Plaza
349. New carpeting, painting walls and minor renovations were done. No additional funding needs are anticipated at
this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. Department Performance Measurements
ACRONYMS
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
CCAC – Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
EEO – Equal Employment Opportunity
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HR – Human Resources
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
TBD – To Be Determined
YTD – Year to Date
Page | 4
ATTACHMENT I
SUMMARY COMPARISON BUDGET CHART
BY FUNCTION
Dollars %
A d m inist r a t io n 7 .2 5 $ 85 1 ,1 2 1 $ 7 7 4 ,2 5 0 $ 9 6 9 ,3 85 $ 1 9 5 ,1 3 5 2 5 %
Re c r u it ing and Onb o a r d ing 8 $ 4 9 8,0 7 8 $ 4 1 4 ,7 5 7 $ 7 2 3 ,9 2 7 $ 3 0 9 ,1 7 0 7 5 %
Em plo y e e s ' Univ e r sity 2 $ 2 7 6 ,6 1 0 $ 3 0 9 ,3 5 0 $ 3 1 6 ,2 9 8 $ 6 ,9 4 8 2 %
Po lic e Civ ilian Re v ie w Bo ar d 1 $ 1 6 2 ,5 2 5 $ 1 6 4 ,4 6 0 $ 1 6 6 ,2 9 6 $ 1 ,83 6 1 %
HR I nfo r matio n Sy ste m s 1 $ 1 0 3 ,7 9 1 $ 9 9 ,7 2 4 $ 1 0 5 ,1 2 4 $ 5 ,4 0 0 5 %
Em plo y e e Re lat io ns 6 .8 $ 7 7 1 ,0 0 8 $ 86 6 ,4 6 7 $ 9 86 ,6 3 9 $ 1 2 0 ,1 7 2 1 4 %
Be ne fit s 4 .9 5 $ 4 3 ,9 1 7 ,7 5 8 $ 4 7 ,5 7 3 ,5 9 9 $ 4 8,82 6 ,0 83 $ 1 ,2 5 2 ,4 84 3 %
T OT A L 3 1.0 0 $ 4 6 ,5 80 ,89 1 $ 5 0 ,2 0 2 ,6 0 7 $ 5 2 ,0 93 ,7 5 2 $ 1,89 1,14 5 4 %
Fu n din g So u rc es
Ge ne r a l Fund 2 6 .0 5 $ 2 ,6 6 3 ,1 3 2 $ 2 ,6 2 9 ,0 0 8 $ 3 ,2 6 7 ,6 6 9 $ 63 8,6 6 1 2 4 %
Ris k Fu nd 4 .9 5 $ 4 3 ,9 1 7 ,7 5 8 $ 4 7 ,5 7 3 ,5 9 9 $ 4 8,82 6 ,0 83 $ 1 ,2 5 2 ,4 84 3 %
T o t al De part m en t o f HR 3 1.0 0 46 ,5 80 ,890$ 5 0 ,2 0 2 ,6 0 7$ 5 2 ,0 9 3 ,7 5 2$ $ 1,89 1,14 5 4 %
Department of Human Resources
Division Budgets FT Es Difference2019-20
Actuals
2020-21
Adopted
2021 -22
Proposed
Dollars %
Pe r s o nal Se r v ic e s $ 2 ,9 7 5 ,5 83 $ 2 ,87 2 ,5 5 8 $ 3 ,6 6 4 ,2 0 1 7 9 1 ,6 4 3$ 2 8%
Ope r a tio ns a nd Mainte nanc e $ 3 2 ,0 3 0 $ 6 5 ,7 1 4 $ 6 7 ,7 1 4 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 %
Char g e s and Se r v ic e s $ 4 2 ,4 2 6 ,0 6 1 $ 4 4 ,3 88,2 87 $ 4 6 ,9 2 3 ,81 1 2 ,5 3 5 ,5 2 4$ 6 %
Tr a nsfe r s Ou t $ 1 ,1 4 7 ,2 1 6 $ 2 ,87 6 ,0 4 8 $ 1 ,4 3 8,0 2 6 (1 ,4 3 8,0 2 2 )$ -5 0 %
T o t al Depart m e n t o f HR $ 4 6 ,5 80 ,89 0 $ 5 0 ,2 0 2 ,60 7 $ 5 2 ,0 93 ,7 5 2 1,89 1,14 5$ 4 %
Operating Budget for Department of Human Resources
201 9-20
Actuals
2020-21
Adopted
2021 -22
Proposed
Difference
Page | 5
ATTACHMENT II
DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
Pe rfo rm an c e M e asu re 2 0 18
A c t u al
2 0 19
A c t u al
2 0 2 0
A c t u al
2 0 2 1
T arg e t
2 0 2 2
T arge t
I m p r o v e e m p lo y e e kno wle dge and
u nd e r standing o f HR info r m at io n t h r o ugh a
minim um o f 4 0 w e e kly HR e m a ils
NA 4 0 4 0 ≥4 0 ≥4 0
Re spo nd to all EEO c o m p laints inc lu d ing
c o nduc t ing an inv e st igat io n w h e n
a p r o p r iat e in a n a v e r age o f 6 0 d ay s o r le ss
NA ≤6 0
d ay s 6 1 .7 ≤6 0 d ay s ≤6 0 d a y s
Hu man Re so u r c e c o nsu ltant s w ill at t e nd a
minim um o f 3 0 de p ar tm e nt a l m e e ting s e ac h
fisc al y e a r
NA 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0
Nu mb e r o f e mp lo y e e s t h a t h av e at te nde d
inst r uc t o r -le d t r a ining NA 9 9 4 1 ,0 1 6 1 ,2 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
A c h ie v e a 2 % inc r e ase in 4 5 7 e nr o llme nt s NA 2 %
I nc r e ase
No t
A v ailab le
2 %
I nc r e ase
2 %
I nc r e a se
HUMAN
RESOURCES
Budget Presentation FY 21-22
May 25, 2021
What is the scope of Human Resources?
We support administrators, supervisors and employees on a daily basis in the following ways:
◦Outreach, recruitment and hiring solutions designed to promote inclusion, fair play and
diversity
◦Technology systems development, implementation and employee onboarding ensuring
data compliance, maintenance, reporting and payroll functionality
◦Strategic compensation administration resulting in pay equity for City employees and
market-based, data driven decision-making
◦Employee care via administration of exceptional benefit programs, leave management and
wellness initiatives
◦Culture, accountability and workplace management by means of coaching, employee
relations, equity investigations and policy development
◦Leadership, personal and career development from extensive training programs
Scope Summary
At a fundamental level, Human Resources supports, interacts,
assists, encourages, investigates, negotiates, facilitates and
provides services touching every department, every
program, every supervisor and every employee.
◦Note: The service delivery provided by Human Resources is
provided only by those in our department. City
departments do not have internal employees who provide
these services.
Professional Staffing
Full-time Other Total
Employees Employees Employees
Number of City Employees 3100 500 3600
HR support HR support Total
Full-time Other HR
Bloomberg BNA HR Department Benchmarks & Analysis 2021 Employees Employees Staffing
Staffing ratio @ 1.4 HR employees to 100 City employees 43.4 7 50.4
Staffing ratio @ 1.4 HR employees to 100 City employees; adjusted
half for other employees 43.4 3.5 46.9
Note: HR is currently staffed with 25 FTES
Note: Adding the requested positions will bring HR staffing to 30
FTES
Budget Request
Position:Outcome:
Human Resources Supervisor -Benefits City family, workload/efficiency, diversity
Human Resources Supervisor -Recruitment Inclusion, outreach, competitiveness, equity
Human Resources Technician (2)CRB, onboarding, leave, appeals process
Human Resources Analyst -ERP Implementation, maintenance of the ERP
Thank you!
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE:May 18, 2021
RE: Fiscal Year 2021-22 Compensation Budget
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Historically, personnel and payroll costs make up approximately two-thirds or 67% of the City’s General Fund
budget. Included in this figure are salaries, supplemental pay, health insurance, pension costs, and other
benefits. The proposed FY2022 budget includes $215.9 million for compensation which is 62% of the General
Fund budget. This would be an increase of the compensation budget of $11.8 million (5.8%) over the FY21
adopted budget due to 42.85 new General Fund fulltime positions, planned merit increases for represented
employees and insurance increases. Other than merit step increases previously agreed upon for represented
employees, the Administration is proposing a 1% base salary increase for all City employees in FY22. The
Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) annual report is Attachment 1 and a summary of their
recommendations is in part A of the Additional Info section. The proposed compensation budget includes:
Medical Insurance ($763,660 increase from General Fund)
The Utah Retirement System (URS) requires cities to hold a medical plan reserve sufficient to cover at least 55
days of typical claims. The table below summarizes medical insurance premium increases and plan reserve
funding since FY16. The estimated reserve balance is significantly higher than recent years at $13.1 million
which is 137 days of typical claims. This is primarily caused by two factors. First, claims were down in FY20
because elective surgeries were halted by state order and people voluntarily delayed / avoided healthcare
services. Second, PEHP recommends maintaining a larger than typical medical reserve because claims are taking
longer to be submitted than usual so the resulting number of claims in FY22 may be larger than expected.
# o f Day s t o C o v e r T y p i c al C lai m s $ A m o u n t
2 0 1 6 5 .0 %86 5 ,9 9 5 ,3 83$
2 0 1 7 6 .6 %7 6 5 ,5 0 0 ,3 1 1$
2 0 1 8 3 .5 %7 6 5 ,9 0 0 ,9 6 2$
2 0 1 9 7 .0 %7 2 6 ,0 3 6 ,80 5$
2 0 2 0 7 .5 %1 0 9 1 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$
2 0 2 1 *4 .5 %1 3 7 1 3 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$
2 0 2 2 3 .5 %TDB TDB
Fi sc al
Y e ar
Pre m i u m
C h an ge
M ed ic al Re se rv e A c c o u n t
*FY 2 1 ar e e st im at e s and inc lu d e s o ne p r e m ium ho lid a y
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 18, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, and June 1
Potential Action: June 8 June 15
Page | 2
As shown in the table above, the FY22 budget includes a 3.5% increase to premiums for the Summit STAR high
deductible health plan (HDHP), the City’s only medical insurance plan. PEHP indicates national average
medical insurance increases are 5% to 7%. See Attachment 3 for a chart of the City’s medical claims from
FY2010-FY2019. It shows that the City’s HDHP resulted in lower overall costs compared to expected costs under
the prior traditional health plan if no action had been taken.
Premium Holidays – Premium holiday for medical insurance means the City and employees do not pay
premiums for a pay period. The FY22 proposed budget has a single medical insurance premium holiday
which adds a one-time $915,195 transfer to the General Fund from the Risk Fund. In recent years, the
City had two premium holidays in FY21, one in FY20, none in FY19 and two in FY18.
Medical Insurance Premium Cost Increases by Plan Type for City and Employees – The two tables below
summarize the premium increase cost impact to the City and to employees. The increase reflects
required annual actuarial contributions.
Health Savings Accounts (HSA) ($3.9 million)
The Administration is proposing to continue the one-time annual contribution to front-load employees’ HSAs in
the amounts of $750 for singles and $1,500 for doubles and families. The total cost is $3,976,499 and assumes
all vacant positions are filled. Of this amount, $2,357,075 is covered by the General Fund.
Represented Employee Merit Increases ($1.7 million)
The $1,663,625 covers step increases, previously agreed upon, based on years of service.
Salary Contingency ($TBD)
The proposed budget also includes $1,613,986 which is equivalent to a 1% increase in base salaries for
represented employees. This funding is a placeholder, which in large part is pending the outcome of negotiations
between the Administration and the three unions representing City employees.
General 1% Base Salary Increase ($1.7 million)
The $1,727,863 would provide a 1% base salary increase for all General Fund employees. The City has provided
general pay increases to all employees in recent years when incoming revenues were growing. Sometimes this is
called a cost of living adjustment or COLA increase. There was no base salary increase for all City employees in
the FY2021 annual budget because of the significant financial uncertainty facing the City during the early stages
of the pandemic. Employees did receive either a one-time $200 internet allowance or a $1,000 hazard payment.
There was also a one-time bonus of $500 to all employees except for employees in the Fire Union and AFSCME
union who received a one-time $2,000 bonus.
Market Adjustments ($154,700)
Salary adjustments for benchmarked employee groups who lag local market pay rates are reported annually by
the Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC). See summary chart of benchmarked positions in the
Additional Information section below. This year, the Administration proposes funding market adjustments for 9
benchmarked groups of positions identified as significantly lagging the market affecting a total of 85 existing
employees. The total estimated cost to the General Fund for these adjustments is $154,700.
Plan C i t y ’s Biw ee k l y
C o n t ribu t io n
Biw e e k ly I n c re ase
t o C i t y
A n n u al I n c re ase t o
C it y
Single $2 0 1 .2 4 $6 .82 $1 7 7 .3 2
Do ub le $4 5 2 .7 6 $1 5 .3 2 $3 9 8.3 2
Fam ily $6 0 3 .6 6 $2 0 .4 1 $5 3 0 .6 6
Plan E m pl o y e e ’s Biw e e k ly
C o n t rib u t io n
Biw e e k ly I n c re ase
t o E m p lo y e e s
A n n u al I n c re ase t o
E m pl o y e e s
Single $1 0 .5 9 $0 .3 6 $9 .3 6
Do ub le $2 3 .83 $0 .81 $2 1 .0 6
Fam ily $3 1 .7 7 $1 .0 7 $2 7 .82
Page | 3
Multiple Salary Increases for Some Employees
It’s important to note that some City employees could receive two, three or all four of the above salary increases
(merit, negotiated, general 1% and market adjustments) depending on what position they are in. The
Administration is currently in wage negotiations with the three unions representing City employees. Additional
compensation changes for represented employees may be recommended to the Council as part of the FY2022
annual budget based on those ongoing negotiations.
Pension Contributions
The Utah State Retirement System (URS) did not require increases for employer pension contribution rates for
FY22. Large mandatory contributions occurred in the years after the Great Recession to make up for retirement
system funds lost during the financial crisis. Retirement funding and rates are based on a rolling five-year
average of investment returns. URS has an established process to change rates that requires audited financial
and investment return information as of December 31 annually.
Living Wage Phase One Increase ($31,255)
The proposed budget would provide the first of two increases to the City’s living wage for employees from $10.87
to $15.11. The first phase in the FY22 annual budget would be a $2.28 increase to $13.15 per hour. The second
$1.96 increase would be part of the FY23 annual budget. This increase affects only seasonal and part-time
employees in the General Fund and Golf Division.
More Flexible Parental Leave Benefit
The FY22 Compensation Plan for Non-represented employees proposes to make the existing parental leave
benefit more flexible. An employee would be allowed to defer the six weeks of paid parental leave for up to one-
year from the date of birth or placement in the home for adoption and foster children.
More Flexible Short-term Disability Insurance
The City contracted with a new short-term disability insurance provider that provides more flexible return to
work options. Previously an employee could be limited to working full-time or being on short-term disability. The
new provider allows a part-time return to work option so departments and employees can better tailor an
employee’s recovery with their ability and interest to perform duties.
New Benefits in Medical Coverage
The City’s Benefits Committee voted to approve three new medical insurance coverages for FY22. The cost for
these improvements is covered in the 3.5% medical insurance premium cost increase. The new benefits include:
Hearing Aid Benefit – adds a durable medical equipment benefit that pays up to $1,500 per year in a
five-year period. This provides a more affordable option than a cochlear implant.
Enhanced Autism Benefit – add individualized training and education (applied behavioral analysis) like
occupational services from a provider outside of the school system. Also removes the age and hour limits.
Enhanced Gender Dysphoria Benefit – The City’s plan already covers mental health therapy and
hormone treatments. The enhanced adds gender reassignment surgery. The City’s benefits consultant
reports large employers now commonly offer the additional benefit.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Midyear Review of Large Medical Reserve Account – The Council may wish to request a mid-
year review and update from the Administration about the larger than typical Medical Reserve Account.
The estimated balance at the end of FY21 is nearly double the ending year balance for FY19 and two-
and-a-half times the required minimum size. If the number and cost of claims received remains lower
than expected, then the City could evaluate a second premium holiday in FY22.
2.Balancing Multiple Salary Increases for Employees – The Council may wish to the ask the
Administration how the proposed FY22 annual budget balances some employees receiving multiple
salary increases with other employees that may receive a single increase. It’s important to note that
some City employees could receive two, three or all four of the above-mentioned salary increases (merit,
negotiated, general 1% and market adjustments) depending on what position they are in.
3.Salary Study for Non-represented Employees – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
about plans for a salary survey for non-represented employees which make-up one-third of the City’s
Page | 4
workforce. In the prior three years the City funded salary surveys for employees represented by
AFSCME, Fire and Police which make-up two-third of the City’s workforce.
4.Increasing Mental Health Resources for Employees– Some Council Members expressed interest
in providing additional flexibility to the Administration for employees suffering from mental health
issues such as PTSD. Ideas mentioned in prior discussions were purchasing retirement years to help
reach full retirement, increase clinical advisory resources at the Midtown Clinic, suicide prevention
training or increased flexibility necessary for alternate work arrangements. The Council may wish to ask
the Administration what resources would be helpful and if the CCAC could research options and provide
recommendations in their 2022 annual report. See Additional Info section for recent enhancements to
mental health benefits.
5.Engagement Surveys and Exit Interviews – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if
there are plans to conduct engagement surveys, cultural assessments and/or exit interviews, especially
in departments and programs with turnover higher than the City’s average. The CCAC “recommends the
city begin to ask questions and compile answers via engagement surveys, exit interviews, and other
methods to diagnose where and why turnover is specifically occurring. We recommend that the city
retain a third-party culture/retention expert to conduct a cultural study.” Specific suggestions for these
studies, surveys and interviews are available on page 27 of Attachment 1.
6.Expanding Employee Reimbursable Expense Options – City policy allows employees with gym
memberships to be reimbursed for those expenses using vacation hours. Personal leave hours more than
80 may be cashed out at a 50% discount. The Council may wish to discuss whether there is interest in
expanding the allowable expenses for reimbursement using vacation and/or personal leave hours. In
recent discussions, some Council Members expressed interest to explore ways the City could assist
employees with costs for childcare, transportation, and affordable housing.
7.Add Voting Leave Benefit – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if there’s value
in adding a voting leave benefit to the annual compensation plan. The benefit could be subject to
administrative / departmental policies to ensure city services are not unduly impacted or suspended.
State law (20A-3a-105) currently requires employers to allow two hours of absence for an employee on
Election Day if the employee submits the request in advance.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Citizen’s Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) Findings and Recommendations
(Attachment 1)
Each year the CCAC is responsible for preparing and submitting a written report, with any
recommendations, to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration. The full CCAC report had a
briefing for the Council at the March 23, 2021 work session and is included as Attachment 1. One role of this
Committee is to study and compare the City’s salary groups, or job benchmarks, against the salaries of
comparable employers, especially those that compete with the City for talent, to see if the City’s
compensation levels are competitive in the current job market. A summary of the Committee’s
recommendations is available on pages 17-18 of the attachment and is copied below for reference.
1. Salary Adjustments to Maintain Competitive Position in Market – As before, the committee
recommends the city also consider competitive market pay adjustments rather than general pay
increases. City leaders are advised to appropriate funding towards pay and salary range adjustments
necessary to ensure the city remains competitive with other employers based upon cost of
labor data (as described on page 5 of this report). Considering the significant impact of COVID-19 on
employer salary budgets in 2020 and 2021, if base salary increases are not possible, city leaders may
wish to consider offering lump-sum cash payments as an alternative to base pay salary increases.
2. Continue using Cost of Labor Approach – Considering the city’s present success in attracting larger
applicant pools and low turnover, there is good evidence to generally support and demonstrate the city’s
current human capital strategies are successfully achieving desirable results. In addition, the committee
recommends city leaders continue to rely on a market-based pricing approach, which is the cost of labor,
to determine appropriate compensation levels for jobs and employees.
3. Continue the City’s Living Wage at $10.87/hour – No immediate changes to the city’s living wage are
recommended at this time. However, based upon the city’s desire to maintain a living wage for
Page | 5
employees, the committee recommends city leaders continue to monitor, examine, and adjust the city’s
living wage in such a way that minimizes pay compression and allows employees to provide for living
expenses necessary for basic needs such as food, child care, health insurance, housing, transportation
and other basic necessities.
4. Bring Lagging Job Benchmarks Up to 100% of Market – As funds permit, the committee recommends
the mayor and city council appropriate financial resources necessary to grant market salary adjustments
for employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as lagging market.
First priority should be given to those lagging significantly; and,
Second priority should be given to those lagging slightly behind market.
Job Benchmarks Lagging Market
Furthermore, the committee recommends the city consider itself competitive when data indicates
actual median employee pay rates plus the overall additional economic value of (public sector)
benefits equals 100% compared to market. In the case of the city’s public safety officers and
firefighters, the committee supports the city’s need to distinguish itself as a local area pay leader due
to its distinction as Utah’s largest city and role as capital city. Therefore, it is recommended the city
maintain a relative pay position including actual median employee pay rates plus the overall
additional economic value of (public sector) benefits between 105-120% compared to the local area
market. It is hoped maintaining this “lead” position will also act as an effective tool for addressing any
potential concerns with turnover and/or difficulties attracting and retaining qualified sworn public
safety personnel, as highlighted in Section II of this report.
For those employees in benchmark-related jobs where market data indicate the city significantly leads
market (which is by 10% or more), the committee advises leaders to address compensation in ways that
do not continue to escalate the gap between the city’s pay rates compared to established market pay
rates—especially in cases where the city is known to compete directly for qualified talent with the private
sector.
5. Pay Equity Study Follow-ups – The committee recommends the city leaders work to resolve the
discrepancies in pay found in the Payfactors internal equity audit due to either gender, age, and/or
ethnicity. Corrections can be made through salary adjustments with the goal of correcting the
discrepancies found. The recommended priority is to focus on larger pay gaps initially, followed by
adjustments to employees that happen to also be below their respective range minimum, or adjustments
to employees that are top performers or long tenured. Additionally, while the committee is pleased with
SL C Salary Be n c h m ark SL C M e dian
Sal ary *
M ark e t
M e di an
Salary
SL C /M KT # o f
I n c u m b en t s
A ir p o r t Ope r atio ns Sp e c ialis t Unio n $6 3 ,6 2 7 $6 6 ,7 7 9 9 5 %2 1
A ir fie ld Mainte nanc e Ele c tr ic ian $6 6 ,83 0 $6 9 ,9 82 9 5 %1 4
Bus ine s s Lic e nsing Pr o c e sse r I I $4 3 ,1 81 $4 6 ,3 3 3 9 3 %3
HR I nfo r ma t io n Sy st e ms A na ly s t $7 9 ,3 3 1 $82 ,4 83 9 6 %1
LCSW / Me nt al He alt h Co u ns e lo r $5 6 ,0 1 4 $5 9 ,1 6 6 9 5 %1
Lic e nse d A r c hit e c t $83 ,5 1 2 $86 ,6 6 4 9 6 %0
Plans Ex amine r I $6 1 ,9 84 $6 5 ,1 3 6 9 5 %2
Po lic e I nt e llige nc e Sp e c ialist Unio n $4 7 ,0 0 8 $5 0 ,1 6 0 9 4 %3
Re d e v e lo pm e nt A ge nc y Pr o p e r t y Ma nag e r $6 7 ,2 6 7 $7 0 ,4 1 9 9 6 %1
Se nio r Se c r e t ar y $3 4 ,5 4 9 $3 7 ,7 0 1 9 2 %1
Wat e r Me te r Te c hnic ian I I $4 1 ,5 7 9 $4 4 ,7 3 1 9 3 %3
WRF Op e r at io ns I I $5 4 ,85 0 $5 8,0 0 2 9 5 %1 1
*No t e : Th e se figu re s inc lu de t h e a ddit io na l $3 ,1 5 2 e c o no m ic v alu e o f b e ne fits a b o v e m arke t a v e ra g e
c o m pa re d t o th e su rv e y sa m ple o f o th e r pu b lic se c t o r e m plo y e rs
Page | 6
the findings of the audit, it is recommended the city conduct a similar audit at least once every three
years.
B. Updating Compensation Philosophy (Attachment 2)
The FY21 Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees added the following language to reflect the
CCAC’s recommended compensation philosophy: “The city shall consider itself competitive when data
indicates actual median employee pay rates plus the overall additional economic value of benefits equals at
least 100% compared to market” (page 4). This philosophy mirrors the CCAC’s latest recommendation that
the City rely on a combination of actual median pay plus the additional economic value of benefits to gauge
the City’s overall market pay competitiveness. To date, the City’s longstanding salary practice identified no
less than 95% of market as the preferred range for setting employee compensation, which is then
supplemented by offering generous benefits to make up or exceed the other 5%.
C. 2019 Benefits Study (Attachment 4)
The executive summary is available on pages 6-11. The CCAC and contracted Benefits consultant agreed the
City should conduct a benefits study every three to five year which is an industry best practice. Most of the
City’s individual benefits were found to be generous and leading the market. The value of the City’s benefits
package was significantly leading the market in some benefits such as offering a nearby health clinic
(Midtown Employee’s Clinic), tuition reimbursement amounts, longevity pay and employee participation in
ancillary programs.
The study concluded that overall the City’s benefits exceed the average value of benefits from the
comparative survey sample of employers and thus add value to compensation (compared to market), as
shown below.
Compared to other Public Sector organizations: $3,152.37
Compared to Private Sector organizations: $3,568.41
For Public Safety compared to Public Sector organizations: $4,694.33
For Public Safety compared to Private Sector organizations: $5,110.37
The one benefit that significant detracted in value was the dental plan which was found to be $593.37 less
economically valuable compared to market
D. Recent Enhancements for Mental Health Benefits
Note that utilization reports for City benefits are typically available each fall. If Council Members have
questions about specific benefits or overall benefit utilization, then Council staff can request these reports
from the Administration.
1.Proposed in FY22 Annual Budget: 911 Dispatcher 32-hour Work Week – A pilot program for six-
months is proposed for the 911 Department. It is based on the premise that allowing dispatchers to
retain existing salary levels while working eight hours less a week will improve employee retention and
morale, reduce the incidence of mental health challenges and decrease turnover. Dispatchers are
considered the “first first responders” and some studies have shown they experience mental health
challenges at similar rates to fire fighters and police officers. This pilot program will be addressed as
part of that department’s budget staff report.
2.Proposed in FY22 Annual Budget: In-house Clinician for Police Officers – A new FTE is proposed in the
Police Department to focus on mental health needs of employees. The position was described as a
“clinician” by the Administration. This position will be addressed as part of that department’s budget
staff report.
3. Residential Treatment Expansion in FY2020 Budget – Part of the medical insurance premium increase
was to expand the residential treatment program for PTSD and substance abuse to provide up to 30 days
of treatment per fiscal year at 13 available locations of which two specialize in PTSD and one specializes
in fire fighter behavioral health treatment programs.
4. Additional Counseling Sessions for Public Safety Employees – All City employees have access to 10
counseling sessions at no additional cost. In FY19 a Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to increase
available counseling sessions with providers specializing in PTSD up to 15 sessions for public safety
employees. The budget included $50,000 to cover the higher than expected cost.
5. Peer Support Groups – All three public safety departments (911 dispatch, fire and police) have
established peer support groups with employees who completed training in mental health and wellness.
Page | 7
E. Longevity Pay
As a long-standing policy, the City offers employees, except elected officials, a monthly longevity pay benefit
based on years of employment as detailed in the below table. In total, approximately 50% of the City’s total
workforce receive a longevity pay increase.
F. Bargaining Units
The City has three bargaining units with which the Administration negotiates compensation and comes to
agreements through three-year Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) – Police, Fire, and the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Agreements with City bargaining units
are developed prior to and after the Mayor presents the recommended annual budget. The recommended
budget includes total compensation adjustments for all City employees, both union represented and non-
represented alike. However, depending on the outcome of negotiations, recommendations for union
employees may be modified.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CCAC 2021 Annual Report
2. Redlined FY 2022 Annual Compensation Plan for Non-represented Employees
3. City’s Historical Medical Claims from FY2010-FY2019
4. 2019 Benefits Study
ACRONYMS
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
CCAC – Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
COLA – Cost-of-living-adjustment OR Cost-of-labor-adjustment
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HDHP – High Deductible Healthcare Plan
HR – Human Resources
HSA – Health Savings Account
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
RFP – Request for Proposals
TBD – To Be Determined
URS – Utah Retirement System
Y e ar s o f
Em p lo y m e nt
Mo nt hly
Be ne fit
A nnu a l
Be ne fit
Nu m b e r o f
Em p lo y e e s
To t al b y
Cat e go r y
Six $5 0 $6 0 0 4 1 2 $2 4 7 ,2 0 0
Te n $7 5 $9 0 0 5 1 0 $4 5 9 ,0 0 0
Six t e e n $1 0 0 $1 ,2 0 0 2 1 2 $2 5 4 ,4 0 0
Twe nt y $1 2 5 $1 ,5 0 0 5 4 2 $81 3 ,0 0 0
16 7 6 $1,7 7 3 ,6 0 0TOTALS
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
DEB ALEXANDER
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER
P.O. Box 145464
349 South 200 East, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5464
www.slcgov.com
TEL 801-535-7900
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
__________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Amy Fowler, Chair
DATE: March 3, 2021
FROM: Deb Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer
Human Resources Department
SUBJECT: 2021 Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC)
Annual Report
STAFF CONTACTS: Deb Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer
(801) 535-6610
David Salazar, Compensation Program Manager
(801) 535-7906
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: This report is for informational purposes. Consideration should be
given during the city’s annual budget review process, as it relates to employee compensation.
The city council is tentatively scheduled to receive a formal presentation of the annual report
during a work session on March 23, 2021 from Committee Chair Jeff Worthington and
committee member Marlene Sloan.
CITY COORDINATION: n/a
BUDGET IMPACT: n/a
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This report includes information and the following
recommendations relating to employee compensation, as required by city ordinance (City Code,
Title 2, Chapter 2.35 - Citizen’s Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC).
In an effort to advise city leaders, this year’s report highlights the following specific topics
reviewed by the committee during the past year, including:
-Impact of COVID-19 on salary budgets
-City recruitment, turnover, and labor statistics
-City living wage
Lisa Shaffer (Mar 8, 2021 16:27 MST)
03/08/2021
03/08/2021
- Local market pay comparison
- Internal pay equity
Specific recommendations in this report, include:
1. As before, the committee recommends the city also consider competitive market pay
adjustments rather than general pay increases. City leaders are advised to appropriate
funding towards pay and salary range adjustments necessary to ensure the city remains
competitive with other employers based upon cost of labor data. Considering the
significant impact of COVID-19 on employer salary budgets in 2020 and 2021, if base
salary increases are not possible, city leaders may wish to consider offering lump-sum
cash payments as an alternative to base pay salary increases.
2. Considering the city’s present success in attracting larger applicant pools and low
turnover, there is good evidence to generally support and demonstrate the city’s current
human capital strategies are successfully achieving desirable results. In addition, the
committee recommends city leaders continue to rely on a market-based pricing
approach, which is the cost of labor, to determine appropriate compensation levels for
jobs and employees.
3. No immediate changes to the city’s living wage are recommended at this time. However,
based upon the city’s desire to maintain a living wage for employees, the committee
recommends city leaders continue to monitor, examine, and adjust the city’s living wage
in such a way that minimizes pay compression and allows employees to provide for living
expenses necessary for basic needs such as food, child care, health insurance, housing,
transportation and other basic necessities.
4. As funds permit, the committee recommends the mayor and city council appropriate
financial resources necessary to grant market salary adjustments for employees in
benchmark jobs identified in this report as lagging market.
o First priority should be given to those lagging significantly; and,
o Second priority should be given to those lagging slightly behind market.
Furthermore, the committee recommends the City consider itself competitive when data
indicates actual median employee pay rates plus the overall additional economic value of
(public sector) benefits equals 100% compared to market.
In the case of the city’s public safety officers and firefighters, the Committee supports the
city’s need to distinguish itself as a local area pay leader due to its distinction as Utah’s
largest city and role as capital city. Therefore, it is recommended the City maintain a
relative pay position including actual median employee pay rates plus the overall
additional economic value of (public sector) benefits between 105-120% compared to the
local area market. It is hoped maintaining this “lead” position will also act as an effective
tool for addressing any potential concerns with turnover and/or difficulties attracting
and retaining qualified sworn public safety personnel, as highlighted in Section II of this
report.
For those employees in benchmark-related jobs where market data indicate the city
significantly leads market (which is by 10% or more), the committee advises leaders to
address compensation in ways that do not continue to escalate the gap between the city’s
pay rates compared to established market pay rates—especially in cases where the city is
known to compete directly for qualified talent with the private sector.
5. The committee recommends the city leaders work to resolve the discrepancies in pay
found in the Payfactors internal equity audit due to either gender, age, and/or ethnicity.
Corrections can be made through salary adjustments with the goal of correcting the
discrepancies found. The recommended priority is to focus on larger pay gaps initially,
followed by adjustments to employees that happen to also be below their respective
range minimum, or adjustments to employees that are top performers or long tenured.
Additionally, while the committee is pleased with the findings of the audit, it is
recommended the city conduct a similar audit at least once every three years.
PUBLIC PROCESS: n/a
EXHIBITS: 2021 Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee Annual Report
2021 Annual
Report
Salt Lake City Citizens’ Compensation
Advisory Committee (CCAC)
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Table of Contents
Purpose and Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
Section I: Impact of COVID-19 on Salary Budgets .......................................................... 2
Section II: Salt Lake City Recruitment, Turnover and Labor Statistics ............................ 3
Section III: City Living Wage ........................................................................................... 5
Section IV: Local Market Pay Comparison ...................................................................... 6
Section V: Pay Equity ..................................................................................................... 8
Section VI: Summary of Recommendations ................................................................... 9
Appendix A – 2019 & 2020 City turnover rates by department
Appendix B – 2020 Living Wage calculation for Salt Lake County, Utah
Appendix C – 2020-21 SLC/local market pay comparison
Appendix D – Committee’s 2020 response to city council letter dated 2/7/2019
Appendix E – City Council letter dated 2/7/19
Appendix F – SHRM articles on impact of COVID-19 on salary budgets
Appendix G – Public safety (sworn) employee turnover data (detail)
Page | 1
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Purpose & Introduction
The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) was formed with the purpose
of “…evaluating the total compensation levels of the city's elected officials, executives
and employees and making recommendations to the human resources department,
mayor and the city council…” (City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.35.060).
Each year the committee is responsible for preparing and submitting a written report to
the mayor and city council containing, among other things, recommendations on the
“appropriate competitive position for the city relative to the compensation practices of
comparable employers,” “wages and benefits of the city’s elected officials, executives
and employees” and “general recommendations regarding the mix of compensation for
the city’s employees, e.g., base salary, benefits, incentives” (City Code Title 2, Chapter
2.35.060.A.6)
This year’s report highlights contemporaneous topics and issues facing the city,
including the impact of COVID-19 on salary budgets, a significant update on the local
area living wage, pay equity, and ever important local area market pay comparisons.
Finally, a group of appendices including supporting documentation for information
referenced in this report is also provided for greater insight and understanding.
Respectfully,
Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee
Jeff Worthington, Chair
Ray Schelble, Vice-chair
Brandon Dew
Jana Bake
Jeff Herring
Marlene Sloan
Mike Terry
Page | 2
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Section I: Impact of COVID-19 on Salary Budgets
Historically, this committee has relied upon data obtained from employer salary budget
surveys conducted by WorldatWork when form ulating recommendations to help city
leaders determine the annual salary budget, including amounts for employee pay
increases. However, given the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the global
pandemic, various reports and articles including data and information were provided by
the city’s human resources management staff to inform the committee about the impact
of COVID-19 on salary budgets.
Early year results obtained from the 2020-21 survey conducted by WorldatWork show
the average total salary increase budget for all U.S. employers was projected to be 3.0
percent for the seventh consecutive year.
WorldatWork 2020-21 Salary Budget Survey, Median Total U.S. Salary Budget Increases by Employee
Category (zeros included)
Projected 2020 Actual 2020 Projected 2021
Nonexempt Hourly, Nonunion 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %
Exempt Salaried 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %
Officers/Executives 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %
All 3.0 % 3.0 % 3.0 %
However, as the gravity of the pandemic spread across the globe and the nation, other
surveys including the 2020-2021 Payfactors Salary Budget Survey asked participants
how they planned to modify their salary increase budgets in response to the COVID-19
pandemic. Although a majority (56%) indicated their 2020 salary increases had already
been, or would be, implemented as planned, results show a significant number who
either remain undecided (19%), chose to eliminate increases (16%), or reduce salary
budgets (8%).
(Source: Payfactors 2020-21 Salary Budget Survey report, “The Impact of COVID-19 on Salary Budgets Survey,”
May 2020)
Page | 3
2021 CCAC Annual Report
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) provided further evidence of
the negative economic effect COVID-19 has had on employers, noting the pandemic
has forced nearly half of organizations (45 percent) to re-evaluate their salary increase
plans for 2021. In an article published on November 17, 2020, SHRM cites yet another
study where researchers collected data from 1,283 U.S. organizations during July and
August 2020 for benefits advisory and brokerage firm Gallagher's 2020/2021 Salary
Planning Survey. Among the segment of employers that indicated COVID-19 had forced
them to re-evaluate 2021 salary increase plans, 51 percent expected to reduce salary
increases, and 45 percent plan to suspend salary increases altogether.
As an alternative to salary increases, SHRM highlights the fact Gallagher's report
suggests variable pay, such as annual bonuses, "can save money and serve as an
investment in future success."
RECOMMENDATION:
As before, the committee recommends the city also consider competitive market pay
adjustments rather than general pay increases. City leaders are advised to appropriate
funding towards pay and salary range adjustments necessary to ensure the city remains
competitive with other employers based upon cost of labor data (as described on page
5 of this report). Considering the significant impact of COVID-19 on employer salary
budgets in 2020 and 2021, if base salary increases are not possible, city leaders may
wish to consider offering lump-sum cash payments as an alternative to base pay salary
increases.
Section II: Salt Lake City Recruitment, Turnover and Labor Statistics
Additional information considered by the committee included recruitment, turnover, and
recent economic-related statistics for 2020.
The latest recruitment statistics for regular, full-time positions show a significant
decrease during the past year, due exclusively to city leaders’ decision to halt or freeze
hiring in direct response to the global pandemic.
- Posted 348 jobs (which decreased approximately 20% compared to 434 in 2019)
- Received a total of 13,818 applications (which decreased approximately 18% compared to
16,854 in 2019)
- Hired 379 employees* (which decreased approximately 34% compared to 573 in 2019)
*The total number of hires is higher because certain job postings, such as for Firefighters and Police Officers, resulted in multiple
hires during 2019.
A more detailed review of the total number of external applicants and hires made by the
city for union covered positions in the past year continues to demonstrate the vast
majority of its job applicants and new hires come from the local job market.
Page | 4
2021 CCAC Annual Report
On the whole, turnover rates among the city’s workforce decreased compared to last
year and remain substantially below the past 5-year average overall and voluntary
turnover rates, which are 9.1% and 7.7%, respectively.
5.8%
7.4%7.9%
10.3%
8.8%
10.4%
8.4%7.8%
4.8%6.3%6.8%7.6%7.1%8.9%7.4%7.3%
15.1%15.7%16.4%
18.1%18.5%19.3%20.1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Salt Lake City Employee Turnover Rates, 2013 -2020
SLC Overall SLC Voluntary US Overall
Page | 5
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Overall turnover dipped from 8.4% in 2019 to 7.8% in 2020. Of the 213 employees that
voluntarily left the city throughout the past year, the number of retirements remained
steady at 73 (compared to 75 in 2019) reducing the voluntary turnover rate from 7.3% to
4.8%.
With regard to sworn public safety employees, the committee noted the total number of
firefighters and police officers who left city employment in 2020 include—
- 14 firefighters (which is approximately 4.3% of all firefighters), including one
dismissal, six resignations, and seven retirements; and,
- 52 police officers (which is approximately 12.8% of all patrol officers) including 38
resignations and 14 retirements.
A comparative analysis of turnover among all employees in each city department is
included for reference in Appendix A of this report.
Finally, the committee also reviewed changes in the national consumer price index,
which as a measure focuses exclusively on the estimated cost for a standard selection
of goods and services utilized by a typical consumer. Based on information obtained
through the Utah Department of Workforce Services, costs appear to have risen at a
significantly lesser rate compared to last year. Although there is no CPI data specific to
Utah, the latest cost of living indicator for Salt Lake City, UT obtained from Mercer in
2019 is 96% compared to the U.S. average.
NOTE: These statistics are CORRECTED and matched for past years as reported by the Utah Department of
Workforce Services as of 2/1/2021.
Although “cost of living” is often referred to in more common vernacular as a means to
help gauge the potential need for pay adjustments, the committee asserts best practice
Page | 6
2021 CCAC Annual Report
is to compensate employees based on “cost of labor” rather than cost of living. This
approach is most widely known as “market-based pricing.”
Human resource practitioners and major industry consultants, such as Mercer, mutually
agree pay practices based on cost of labor is the preferred method because it reflects
what it costs to actually employ someone in a certain city or geographic area for a
specific type of work. Cost of labor is, of course, influenced by cost of living, but it also
includes:
- Supply of talent in a particular city or area;
- Demand for talent;
- What competing companies in the same city (or general market area) pay; and,
- Desirability to live in the city.
As stated in the report on a special survey conducted by Mercer for Salt Lake City in
2019, “some cities have a significantly higher cost of living than cost of labor, which is
often driven by the desirability for living in the area (i.e. New York City, Los Angeles,
Miami, etc.). Many people live there and there is high demand for housing, food,
transportation, etc., which results in high prices for consumers.” However, this high
demand also results in “a robust labor supply pool which offsets the premiums that
companies would otherwise need to pay workers.” On the other hand, the cost of labor
may require cities with many employers competing for scarce skills and human
resources to pay premium prices to get talent even when cost of living is low (Source:
“2020 Salt Lake City AFSCME Salary Survey” report by Mercer, p.13).
RECOMMENDATION:
Considering the city’s present success in attracting larger applicant pools and low
turnover, there is good evidence to generally support and demonstrate the city’s current
human capital strategies are successfully achieving desirable results. In addition, the
committee recommends city leaders continue to rely on a market-based pricing
approach, which is the cost of labor, to determine appropriate compensation levels for
jobs and employees.
Section III: City Living Wage
In addition to considering comparative market pay data for benchmark jobs, the
committee routinely reviews new living wage estimates released through the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s living wage calculator. Based upon this
calculator, the 2020 living wage for a single adult with zero children residing in Salt Lake
County is now estimated to be $15.11 per hour, which is $3 per hour greater than the
estimate reported the previous year.
As explained in previous reports, this rate is originated from a modern living wage
model which relies on geographically specific expense data related to a n individual or
family’s likely minimum food, childcare, health insurance, housing, transportation and
other costs for basic necessities.
Page | 7
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Previously, the committee recommended city officials consider making future living
wage adjustments only when the estimated rate for a single adult’s living wage
increased by 5% or more above the city’s current living wage rate, which is now $10.87
per hour. However, it is understood by the committee that actual pay rates among the
city’s regular, full-time workforce are well above the latest estimated living wage for a
single adult. Currently, the lowest rate paid by the city to regular full-time employees for
work performed is Custodian. With only three years required to reach the maximum pay
rate for this job, however, incumbents are actually paid $16.87 per hour, which is
estimated to be at least 11% higher than the local market rate paid by other employers
for the same job. Furthermore, the committee has received information indicating the
only employees for whom pay rates fall below $15.11 per hour are employees who are
hired by the city to perform temporary work such as seasonal Golf division employees
and Parks Groundskeepers. Based on this understanding, the committee advises no
immediate changes to the city’s living wage are necessary at this time.
Updated living wage rates, including for different family sizes and composition, are
highlighted in Appendix B of this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
No immediate changes to the city’s living wage are recommended at this time.
However, based upon the city’s desire to maintain a living wage for employees, the
committee recommends city leaders continue to monitor, examine, and adjust the city’s
living wage in such a way that minimizes pay compression and allows employees to
provide for living expenses necessary for basic needs such as food, child care, health
insurance, housing, transportation and other basic necessities.
Section IV: Local Market Pay Comparison
As with past years, the committee reviewed market data including base wages and
salaries obtained from sources including approximately 100 locally based private or
public employers with operations along the Wasatch Front. Results of the market pay
analysis conducted this year were presented by the city’s human resources staff using
the compensation management tool offered by Payfactors to aggregate the latest
sources of market pay information available.
To facilitate this review, the city has organized its more than 940 job titles into 89
distinct benchmark groups. The committee reviewed job pricing information including
median pay data obtained for each of the 89 benchmark job titles shown in Appendix C1
and C2 of this report. In total, these benchmarks cover more than 1,371 employees who
represent approximately 47% of the city’s regular, full-time workforce. Because market
data is not available to price all jobs or levels of a particular job, it is important to note if
a job title is not shown as a benchmark title it is instead tied to a benchmark for pricing
purposes. For example, Accountant III is designated as the benchmark job for related
titles in the same job family, including:
Page | 8
2021 CCAC Annual Report
- Accountant I
- Accountant II
- Accountant III (benchmark)
- Accountant IV
In both theory and practice, if market data indicates a particular benchmark job is
significantly below market, then all levels of the job should be reviewed for potential
market pay adjustments—not just the benchmark job. This way, the pay differences
between levels of the same or similar jobs are appropriately maintained.
To account for differences in the pay structures and practices that exist among the city’s
various bargaining units, results of this year’s local market pay analysis are displayed in
two separate lists, including one for union-covered jobs and another for non-union jobs.
Similar to last year the committee considered the additional economic value of benefits
provided by NFP to assess and evaluate the overall competitiveness of the city’s pay
and benefits offerings compared to market. More specifically, the committee wished to
reevaluate the city’s compensation philosophy, which has been to pay employees
slightly less than market because it’s believed the benefits offered are intentionally top-
of-the-line compared to most employers with whom the city most directly competes for
talent.
In its study and report to the committee, NFP specifically noted the overall additional
economic value of benefits offered by Salt Lake City to its employees was either $3,152
(compared to other public sector organizations) or $3,568 (compared to private sector
organizations). These values were drawn from the results of a more comprehensive
employee benefits study NFP conducted on the city’s behalf at the end of 2019 and
reevaluated again in 2021. Added to the base pay rates indicated for employees in each
of the city’s benchmark jobs, the committee determined jobs for which the combination
of base pay plus the additional economic value of benefits was less than 100% are
those that should be targeted for market pay adjustments. In such cases, targeted jobs
are categorized more specifically as either slightly or significantly below market.
It is believed this new approach to assessing and evaluating the city’s overall
competitiveness gives employees and city leaders, alike, a more holistic perspective on
the combined value of the pay and “above-market” benefit offerings Salt Lake City
provides compared to other local area employers. Ultimately, the market pay
information shown in Appendix C1 and C2 for each benchmark job, along with the
additional economic value of benefits, reveals how the groups of union and non-union
jobs compare to market.
The committee finds best practice in compensation when comparing to market is to
primarily consider median pay rates, which unlike the mean (or average), is not
sensitive to or skewed by abnormally low or high values. Additionally, based on the total
number of external applicants and hires made by the city locally (as presented in
Section II), the committee affirms relying primarily on a local area market pay sample is
the best practice for the majority of city jobs, including for all three of collective
bargaining units.
Page | 9
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Based on the committee’s new recommended pay guidelines for the city, benchmarks
are now considered to be:
- Competitive when data indicates actual median employee pay rates plus the
overall additional economic value of (public sector) benefits equals 100%
compared to market;
- Slightly leading (or lagging) when data indicates actual median employee pay
rates plus the overall additional economic value of (public sector) benefits are
5.9% below market up to 9.9% above market.
- Significantly leading (or lagging) data indicates actual median employee pay
rates plus the overall additional economic value of (public sector) benefits are at
or more than 6% below market or at or greater than 10% above market.
RECOMMENDATION:
As funds permit, the committee recommends the mayor and city council appropriate
financial resources necessary to grant market salary adjustments for employees in
benchmark jobs identified in this report as lagging market.
o First priority should be given to those lagging significantly; and,
o Second priority should be given to those lagging slightly behind
market.
Furthermore, the committee recommends the city consider itself competitive when data
indicates actual median employee pay rates plus the overall additional economic value
of (public sector) benefits equals 100% compared to market.
In the case of the city’s public safety officers and firefighters, the committee supports
the city’s need to distinguish itself as a local area pay leader due to its distinction as
Utah’s largest city and role as capital city. Therefore, it is recommended the city
maintain a relative pay position including actual median employee pay rates plus the
overall additional economic value of (public sector) benefits between 105-120%
compared to the local area market. It is hoped maintaining this “lead” position will also
act as an effective tool for addressing any potential concerns with turnover and/or
difficulties attracting and retaining qualified sworn public safety personnel, as
highlighted in Section II of this report.
For those employees in benchmark-related jobs where market data indicate the city
significantly leads market (which is by 10% or more), the committee advises leaders to
address compensation in ways that do not continue to escalate the gap between the
city’s pay rates compared to established market pay rates—especially in cases where
the city is known to compete directly for qualified talent with the private sector.
Page | 10
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Section V: Pay Equity
Two federal laws, the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title
VII), protect employees against discrimination based on gender and race/ethnicity and
their pay.
The EPA is a labor law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing
wage disparity based on sex. Virtually all employers are covered by the Equal Pay
Act (EPA), which makes it illegal to pay different wages to men and women if they
perform substantially equal work in the same workplace. For example, a female
electrician must be paid the same as a male electrician in the same organization if
they have the same skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
Title VII identifies certain specified characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex,
and religion. Under Title VII, an employer with 15 or more employees may not
discriminate with regard to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. Areas
that may give rise to violations include recruiting, hiring, promoting, transferring,
training, compensating, disciplining, etc.
Pay equity seeks to compensate workers on the basis of the skill, required effort,
responsibility, and working conditions of their jobs, rather than the gender, race or
ethnicity of the worker, or the gender and racial/ethnic composition of all workers in a
particular job.
Concern for ensuring the city is not only compliant with these laws, but also aligned and
on target to achieve the desired goal of being a “pay equity leader” is a shared value
and objective of the committee. In the past, the committee has commended city leaders
for their continued focus on gender pay, including efforts to close any known pay gaps.
The committee has been impressed when hearing about policies and best practices put
in place to ensure pay equity among all employees.
Last year, the city took a step to pursue its goal of pay equity by partnering with
Payfactors, a national compensation management consulting firm, to review current
salaries among the city’s group of non-represented employees. The purpose of this
review was to ensure that pay practices are equitable and not adversely impacting
employees based on either gender, age, and ethnicity. Payfactors compared average
pay for each employee demographic group, conducted a multiple regression analysis of
employee salaries against employee characteristics such as gender, age, or ethnicity,
and performed an in-depth review of any potential salary inequities between employees
in the same or comparable jobs. Linear regression was used as the method for
assessing the strength and significance of the relationships based on all three factors
(i.e. gender, age, ethnicity) and salary.
Regression analysis models the relationship between one or more predictor variables
(for example, gender or ethnicity) and an outcome variable (pay). Once modeled, it
measures the size, strength, and significance of the relationship. In other words, it
determines how much the outcome changes for a given predictor, how accurately the
Page | 11
2021 CCAC Annual Report
outcome can be modeled for a given predictor, and how closely the outcome is
dependent on the predictor.
It is important to note the following groups of employees were excluded from the
analysis altogether:
▪ Employees belonging to a collective bargaining unit
▪ Temporary or seasonal workers
▪ Political appointees
▪ Employees assigned to jobs where there is no variability in pay (for example,
Justice Court Judge, ranked Fire or Police jobs)
Department of Airport employee’s working in Airport-specific jobs were broken out in
this analysis with separate regression analyses and employee cohort analyses
performed. This was done due to the nature of the roles in this department, being
competitively compensated and salary increases in previous years being performance
rather than tenure based. Non-Airport specific jobs were included in the general
employee population analysis.
After completing the regression and employee cohort analyses, Payfactors noted all but
three of 522 employees flagged for potential pay discrepancies were ultimately found to
be justified. In addition, the only pay differences between male and female employees
were determined to be statistically significant and closely linked to one or more of the
following reasons, including:
▪ Prior work experience
▪ Specialized technical skills
▪ Knowledge or relevant certification/license
▪ Relative size of department or team managed
A copy of Payfactors full report is being transmitted to elected officials separate and
apart from this annual report, therefore, it is not included herein.
RECOMMENDATION:
The committee recommends the city leaders work to resolve the discrepancies found in
pay due to either gender, age, and/or ethnicity. Corrections can be made through salary
adjustments with the goal of correcting the discrepancies found. The recommended
priority is to focus on larger pay gaps initially, followed by adjustments to employees
that happen to also be below their respective range minimum, or adjustments to
employees that are top performers or long tenured. Additionally, while the committee is
pleased with the findings of the audit, it is recommended the city conduct a similar audit
at least once every three years.
Page | 12
2021 CCAC Annual Report
Section VI: Summary of Recommendations
Based upon a review of the topics and issues addressed in this report, the committee
now recommends the mayor and city council consider the following summary of
recommendations:
1. As before, the committee recommends the city also consider competitive market
pay adjustments rather than general pay increases. City leaders are advised to
appropriate funding towards pay and salary range adjustments necessary to
ensure the city remains competitive with other employers based upon cost of
labor data (as described on page 5 of this report). Considering the significant
impact of COVID-19 on employer salary budgets in 2020 and 2021, if base salary
increases are not possible, city leaders may wish to consider offering lump-sum
cash payments as an alternative to base pay salary increases.
2. Considering the city’s present success in attracting larger applicant pools and low
turnover, there is good evidence to generally support and demonstrate the c ity’s
current human capital strategies are successfully achieving desirable results. In
addition, the committee recommends city leaders continue to rely on a market-
based pricing approach, which is the cost of labor, to determine appropriate
compensation levels for jobs and employees.
3. No immediate changes to the city’s living wage are recommended at this time.
However, based upon the city’s desire to maintain a living wage for employees,
the committee recommends city leaders continue to monitor, examine, and adjust
the city’s living wage in such a way that minimizes pay compression and allows
employees to provide for living expenses necessary for basic needs such as
food, child care, health insurance, housing, transportation and other basic
necessities.
4. As funds permit, the committee recommends the mayor and city council
appropriate financial resources necessary to grant market salary adjustments for
employees in benchmark jobs identified in this report as lagging market.
o First priority should be given to those lagging significantly; and,
o Second priority should be given to those lagging slightly behind
market.
Furthermore, the committee recommends the city consider itself competitive
when data indicates actual median employee pay rates plus the overall additional
economic value of (public sector) benefits equals 100% compared to market.
In the case of the city’s public safety officers and firefighters, the committee
supports the city’s need to distinguish itself as a local area pay leader due to its
distinction as Utah’s largest city and role as capital city. Therefore, it is
recommended the city maintain a relative pay position including actual median
employee pay rates plus the overall additional economic value of (public sector)
benefits between 105-120% compared to the local area market. It is hoped
maintaining this “lead” position will also act as an effective tool for addressing
Page | 13
2021 CCAC Annual Report
any potential concerns with turnover and/or difficulties attracting and retaining
qualified sworn public safety personnel, as highlighted in Section II of this report.
For those employees in benchmark-related jobs where market data indicate the
city significantly leads market (which is by 10% or more), the committee advises
leaders to address compensation in ways that do not continue to escalate the
gap between the city’s pay rates compared to established market pay rates—
especially in cases where the city is known to compete directly for qualified talent
with the private sector.
5. The committee recommends the city leaders work to resolve the discrepancies in
pay found in the Payfactors internal equity audit due to either gender, age, and/or
ethnicity. Corrections can be made through salary adjustments with the goal of
correcting the discrepancies found. The recommended priority is to focus on
larger pay gaps initially, followed by adjustments to employees that happen to
also be below their respective range minimum, or adjustments to employees that
are top performers or long tenured. Additionally, while the committee is pleased
with the findings of the audit, it is recommended the city conduct a similar audit at
least once every three years.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – City Overall & Voluntary Turnover Rates by Department
Voluntary turnover includes resignations, retirements, and job abandonments. Involuntary
turnover includes probationary releases, dismissals, separations and deaths.
2020 Rates
2019 Rates
Department # of
Employees
# total
Terminations
Overall
Turnover Rate Retention Voluntary
Turnover
Involuntary
Turnover
911 BUREAU 85 25 31%67%29%2%
AIRPORT 491 32 7%93%6%1%
ATTORNEY 56 12 23%76%19%4%
CITY COUNCIL 23 0 0%100%0%0%
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 192 13 7%93%7%1%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 14 2 15%83%8%8%
FINANCE 68 3 4%95%4%0%
FIRE 344 21 6%94%5%1%
HUMAN RESOURCES 25 6 28%67%28%0%
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES 62 7 11%89%11%0%
JUSTICE COURTS 38 2 5%95%3%3%
MAYOR 22 8 43%47%43%0%
POLICE 632 78 13%87%12%1%
PUBLIC SERVICES 384 24 6%93%5%1%
PUBLIC UTILITIES 404 36 9%90%7%2%
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 23 1 4%96%4%0%
SUSTAINABILITY 61 5 9%91%9%0%
APPENDIX B – 2020 Living Wage Calculation for Salt Lake County, Utah
The living wage shown is the hourly rate that an individual in a household must earn to support his or herself and their family. The assumption is the sole provider is working full-time (2080
hours per year). The tool provides information for individuals, and households with one or two working adults and zero to three children. In the case of households with two working adults, all
values are per working adult, single or in a family unless otherwise noted.
The state minimum wage is the same for all individuals, regardless of how many dependents they may have. Data are updated annually, in the first quarter of the new year. State minimum
wages are determined based on the posted value of the minimum wage as of January one of the coming year (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2019). The poverty rate reflects a
person's gross annual income. We have converted it to an hourly wage for the sake of comparison.
1 ADULT 2 ADULTS
(1 WORKING)
2 ADULTS
(BOTH WORKING)
0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children
Living Wage $15.11 $30.69 $37.82 $49.43 $24.88 $29.38 $33.15 $36.95 $12.44 $16.85 $20.88 $24.94
Poverty Wage $6.13 $8.29 $10.44 $12.60 $8.29 $10.44 $12.60 $14.75 $4.14 $5.22 $6.30 $7.38
Minimum Wage $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25 $7.25
Typical Expenses
These figures show the individual expenses that went into the living wage estimate. Their values vary by family size, composition, and the current location.
1 ADULT 2 ADULTS
(1 WORKING)
2 ADULTS
(BOTH WORKING)
0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 0 Children 1 Child 2 Children 3 Children
Food $3,792 $5,574 $8,343 $11,093 $6,952 $8,639 $11,106 $13,540 $6,952 $8,639 $11,106 $13,540
Child Care $0 $7,263 $14,526 $21,788 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,263 $14,526 $21,788
Medical $2,694 $7,359 $7,047 $7,187 $5,997 $7,047 $7,187 $6,840 $5,997 $7,047 $7,187 $6,840
Housing $9,480 $14,112 $14,112 $19,788 $11,568 $14,112 $14,112 $19,788 $11,568 $14,112 $14,112 $19,788
Transportation $4,900 $8,987 $11,186 $13,317 $8,987 $11,186 $13,317 $12,085 $8,987 $11,186 $13,317 $12,085
Civic $1,811 $3,889 $3,554 $4,127 $3,889 $3,554 $4,127 $3,982 $3,889 $3,554 $4,127 $3,982
Other $2,794 $4,553 $4,996 $6,037 $4,553 $4,996 $6,037 $6,055 $4,553 $4,996 $6,037 $6,055
Required
annual income
after taxes
$25,471 $51,737 $63,765 $83,337 $41,946 $49,534 $55,886 $62,290 $41,946 $56,797 $70,412 $84,078
Annual taxes $5,955 $12,096 $14,909 $19,485 $9,807 $11,581 $13,066 $14,564 $9,807 $13,280 $16,463 $19,658
Required
annual income
before taxes
$31,426 $63,833 $78,673 $102,821 $51,754 $61,116 $68,952 $76,854 $51,754 $70,077 $86,875 $103,736
APPENDIX C-1: 2020-21 SLC/Local Market Pay Comparison for union benchmark jobs
Included in this section and appendix C-2 are a total of 45 union benchmark jobs, covering 1,371 union and general employees combined. The committee’s recommendations for this group of jobs is based on the median base rate of
pay plus the additional economic value of public employer-provided benefits compared to market. Results of the analysis for this group of jobs shows 12 benchmark jobs in the significantly lagging category (> -6%); 12 benchmark job
in the slightly lagging category (> -1 to – 5.9%); and 36 benchmark jobs leading significantly (>10%).
Job Title (Job Code)SLC Median
Employee Salary
# SLC
Incumbents
SLC Top Rate
(union only)
SLC Top
Rate/Market
(%)
Yearly
Increase/Decrease
> 5%
ACCESS CONTROL SPECIALIST (002340)*$40,602 5 $44,023 92%$50,253 114%$43,754 99%$44,170 100%
ACCOUNTANT III (001666)$70,294 14 $71,200 99%n/a n/a $73,446 103%$73,862 104%
AIR OPER SPECIALIST AIR UNION (002440)*$63,627 21 $71,859 89%$63,627 89%$66,779 93%-12%$67,195 94%
AIRFIELD MAINT ELECTRICIAN (002311)*$66,830 14 $84,301 79%$66,830 79%$69,982 83%-22%$70,398 84%
ARBORIST II (001375)$51,646 4 $47,900 108%$51,646 108%$54,798 114%-6%$55,214 115%
ASPHALT EQUIP OPERATOR II (000909)$50,190 33 $48,600 103%$50,190 103%$53,342 110%$53,758 111%
AUDITOR III (001684)$75,754 0 $75,300 101%n/a n/a $78,906 105%$79,322 105%
BATTALION CHIEF (008030)$106,538 12 $99,300 107%n/a n/a $109,690 110%$110,106 111%
BUILDING EQUIP. OP. II (006071)$50,190 0 $49,700 101%$50,190 101%$53,342 107%$53,758 108%
BUILDING INSPECTOR III (001967)$73,674 13 $65,700 112%$73,674 112%$76,826 117%$77,242 118%
BUSINESS LICENSING PROCESS II (001964)$43,181 3 $51,600 84%$53,456 104%$46,333 90%$46,749 91%
CARPENTER II (001349)$53,186 8 $48,800 109%$53,186 109%$56,338 115%$56,754 116%
CITY PAYMENTS PROCESSOR (000263)$39,395 4 $30,300 130%$50,253 166%$42,547 140%$42,963 142%
CITY PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR (001945)$60,757 2 $56,200 108%n/a n/a $63,909 114%$64,325 114%
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM SPEC. (001821)$56,035 3 $59,300 94%n/a n/a $59,187 100%-6%$59,603 101%
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I (001893)$51,293 2 $44,500 115%$55,286 124%$54,445 122%7%$54,861 123%
CLAIMS ADJUSTER (001995)$60,798 1 $63,500 96%n/a n/a $63,950 101%-6%$64,366 101%
COLLECTIONS OFFICER (001376)$49,182 4 $42,300 116%n/a n/a $52,334 124%$52,750 125%
CONCRETE FINISHER (001852)$54,850 10 $42,500 129%$54,850 129%$58,002 136%$58,418 137%
CRIME SCENE TECH II UNION (001779)$45,219 7 $50,700 89%$50,107 99%$48,371 95%$48,787 96%
CUSTODIAN II (006090)$35,090 2 $31,600 111%$35,090 111%$38,242 121%$38,658 122%
EEO/ADA SPECIALIST (002299)$79,539 0 $79,300 100%n/a n/a $82,691 104%$83,107 105%
EMPLOYEE MARKETING & COMM (002225)$65,354 0 $66,500 98%n/a n/a $68,506 103%$68,922 104%
EMPLOYEE TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN (000491)$62,254 1 $61,100 102%n/a n/a $65,406 107%$65,822 108%
ENGINEER IV (002198)$83,325 11 $82,800 101%n/a n/a $86,477 104%6%$86,893 105%
ENGINEERING TECH IV UNION (000829)$60,590 12 $58,200 104%$60,590 104%$63,742 110%$64,158 110%
EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN II (002277)$48,069 5 $48,300 100%$48,069 100%$51,221 106%$51,637 107%
FINANCIAL ANALYST III (001670)$71,573 5 $78,800 91%n/a n/a $74,725 95%$75,141 95%
FIRE CAPTAIN (008040)$91,125 77 $83,300 109%$91,125 109%$94,277 113%$94,693 114%
FIREFIGHTER/EMT - all levels $51,708 41 $48,600 106%$42,016 86%$54,860 113%$55,276 114%
FIREFIGHTER/ENGINEER - all levels $74,464 58 $68,300 109%$44,970 66%$77,616 114%$78,032 114%
FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC - all levels $80,392 88 $60,100 134%$48,526 81%$83,544 139%$83,960 140%
FLEET MECHANIC (001952)$54,850 42 $59,500 92%$54,850 92%$58,002 97%$58,418 98%
FORENSIC SCIENTIST I (001973)$60,590 1 $54,100 112%$60,590 112%$63,742 118%8%$64,158 119%
GENERAL MAINT. WORKER III (006140)$55,994 5 $46,000 122%$44,533 97%$59,146 129%19%$59,562 129%
GIS SPECIALIST (000781)$62,795 2 $64,000 98%n/a n/a $65,947 103%$66,363 104%
GOLF CLUB PROFESSIONAL - All levels $79,331 4 $82,500 96%n/a n/a $82,483 100%$82,899 100%
GOLF SUPERINTENDENT 18 HOLES (000936)$68,494 3 $70,200 98%n/a n/a $71,646 102%10%$72,062 103%
GRAPH DESIGN SPECIALIST (002103)$56,129 2 $55,500 101%n/a n/a $59,281 107%$59,697 108%
HR BUSINESS PARTNER II (002436)$76,752 6 $81,800 94%n/a n/a $79,904 98%$80,320 98%
HR RECRUITER (002297)$65,354 1 $65,600 100%n/a n/a $68,506 104%$68,922 105%
HRIS ANALYST (002155)$79,331 1 $90,300 88%n/a n/a $82,483 91%$82,899 92%
HVAC TEC. II (006050)$58,178 8 $57,000 102%$58,178 102%$61,330 108%$61,746 108%
JUDICIAL ASSISTANT II (002084)$53,456 9 $43,800 122%$53,456 122%$56,608 129%$57,024 130%
JUSTICE COURT JUDGE (001601)$153,405 5 $137,400 112%n/a n/a $156,557 114%$156,973 114%
Market Salary (50th percentile)
w/ Additional Economic Value of
benefits (Private Sector) = $3,568 per
year
w/ Additional Economic
Value of benefits (Public
Sector) = $3,152 per
year
APPENDIX C-1: 2020-21 SLC/Local Market Pay Comparison for union benchmark jobs (continued)
Job Title (Job Code)SLC Median
Employee Salary
# SLC
Incumbents
SLC Top Rate
(union only)
SLC Top
Rate/Market
(%)
Yearly
Increase/Decrease
> 5%
LABORATORY CHEMIST UNION (001806)$63,627 0 $69,200 92%n/a n/a $66,779 97%$67,195 97%
LCSW/MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR (002426)$56,014 1 $68,300 82%n/a n/a $59,166 87%-12%$59,582 87%
LEGAL SECRETARY III (003136)$54,818 2 $51,600 106%n/a n/a $57,970 112%$58,386 113%
LICENSED ARCHITECT (000752)$83,512 0 $95,700 87%n/a n/a $86,664 91%$87,080 91%
MAINT. ELECTRICIAN IV (000168)$60,050 9 $62,800 96%$60,050 96%$63,202 101%$63,618 101%
METAL FABRICATION TECHNICIAN (001925)$60,050 4 $57,700 104%$60,050 104%$63,202 110%$63,618 110%
NETWORK SYSTEMS ENGINEER II (001394)$83,637 7 $85,000 98%n/a n/a $86,789 102%$87,205 103%
OFFICE FACILITATOR II NON UNIO (001232)$49,130 28 $54,300 90%n/a n/a $52,282 96%$52,698 97%
OFFICE TECHNICIAN II (001191)$41,454 22 $36,900 112%$48,506 131%$44,606 121%$45,022 122%
PAINTER II (001347)$53,186 6 $49,300 108%$53,186 108%$56,338 114%$56,754 115%
PARALEGAL (002201)$58,136 6 $60,600 96%n/a n/a $61,288 101%$61,704 102%
PARKS GROUNDSKEEPER (001813)$31,907 10 $32,500 98%$37,357 115%$35,059 108%$35,475 109%
PLANS EXAMINER I (002127)$61,984 2 $71,300 87%$66,830 94%$65,136 91%$65,552 92%
PLUMBER II (000854)$56,514 3 $56,500 100%$56,514 100%$59,666 106%$60,082 106%
POLICE CAPTAIN (000851)$113,922 8 $108,600 105%n/a n/a $117,074 108%-6%$117,490 108%
POLICE INFORMATION SPECIALIST (002463)$55,328 15 $44,700 124%$48,506 109%$58,480 131%30%$58,896 132%
POLICE INTELLIGENCE SPEC.UNION (001539)$47,008 3 $57,500 82%$54,974 96%$50,160 87%6%$50,576 88%
POLICE LIEUTENANT (000849)$100,589 24 $93,600 107%n/a n/a $103,741 111%$104,157 111%
POLICE OFFICER - All levels $70,574 406 $63,600 111%$73,008 115%$73,726 116%-12%$74,142 117%
POLICE SERGEANT (007008)$85,426 68 $84,800 101%n/a n/a $88,578 104%-10%$88,994 105%
PRINCIPAL PLANNER (001733)*$66,238 10 $68,627 97%n/a n/a $69,390 101%$69,806 102%
PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST I (000533)$59,758 2 $65,200 92%n/a n/a $62,910 96%-6%$63,326 97%
PROG COOR ARTS COUNCIL (001799)$57,678 1 $55,300 104%n/a n/a $60,830 110%$61,246 111%
PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER (002387)$45,698 65 $43,300 106%$53,456 123%$48,850 113%$49,266 114%
REAL PROPERTY AGENT (000370)$68,370 1 $69,400 99%n/a n/a $71,522 103%$71,938 104%
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROP MGR (001391)$67,267 1 $76,700 88%n/a n/a $70,419 92%$70,835 92%
SAFETY PROGRAM MGR (002286)$87,714 2 $91,600 96%n/a n/a $90,866 99%$91,282 100%
SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY (002319)$138,882 13 $144,800 96%n/a n/a $142,034 98%$142,450 98%
SENIOR SECRETARY (003030)$34,549 1 $42,000 82%$48,506 115%$37,701 90%-8%$38,117 91%
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER (002499)$55,182 4 $54,000 102%n/a n/a $58,334 108%$58,750 109%
SOFTWARE ENGINEER III (002145)$93,246 2 $89,600 104%n/a n/a $96,398 108%$96,814 108%
SOFTWARE SUPPORT ADMIN II (001729)$80,694 2 $74,100 109%n/a n/a $83,846 113%$84,262 114%
SR BENEFITS ANALYST (002122)$68,078 2 $71,000 96%n/a n/a $71,230 100%$71,646 101%
SR UTILITIES REP CUST SVC (000199)$48,506 4 $44,500 109%$48,506 109%$51,658 116%$52,074 117%
TECH SYSTEM ANALYST III (002203)$72,093 1 $70,000 103%n/a n/a $75,245 107%$75,661 108%
VICTIM ADVOCATE (001765)$49,130 3 $42,800 115%n/a n/a $52,282 122%14%$52,698 123%
VIDEO PRODUCTION MGR (002217)$85,966 1 $76,200 113%n/a n/a $89,118 117%$89,534 117%
WAREHSE SUP WORKER-AIRPORT (002022)$33,363 1 $37,700 88%$46,862 124%$36,515 97%-48%$36,931 98%
WASTE & RECYCLING EQUIP OP II (002347)$50,190 26 $47,200 106%$50,190 106%$53,342 113%$53,758 114%
WATER METER READER II (006326)$34,840 2 $39,400 88%$40,747 103%$37,992 96%-16%$38,408 97%
WATER METER TECHNICIAN II (000997)$41,579 3 $54,000 77%$48,651 90%$44,731 83%-11%$45,147 84%
WATER PLANT OPERATOR II (000966)$58,178 25 $54,600 107%$58,178 107%$61,330 112%$61,746 113%
WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OP II (000975)$51,646 15 $44,300 117%$51,646 117%$54,798 124%$55,214 125%
WRF OP II (002134)$54,850 11 $62,200 88%$54,850 88%$58,002 93%-21%$58,418 94%
Market Salary (50th percentile)
w/ Additional Economic Value of
benefits (Private Sector) = $3,568 per
year
w/ Additional Economic
Value of benefits (Public
Sector) = $3,152 per
year
APPENDIX C-2: 2020-21 SLC/Local Market Pay Comparison for non-represented benchmark jobs
Included in this section and appendix C-2 are a total of 44 non-union benchmark jobs, covering 1,371 union and general employees combined. The committee’s recommendations for this group of jobs is based on the median base
rate of pay plus the additional economic value of public employer-provided benefits compared to market. Results of the analysis for this group of jobs shows 12 benchmark jobs in the significantly lagging category (> -6%); 12
benchmark job in the slightly lagging category (> -1 to – 5.9%); and 36 benchmark jobs leading significantly (>10%)
Job Title (Job Code)SLC Median
Employee Salary
# SLC
Incumbents
SLC Top Rate
(union only)
SLC Top
Rate/Market
(%)
Yearly
Increase/Decrease
> 5%
ACCOUNTANT III (001666)$70,294 14 $71,200 99%n/a n/a $73,446 103%$73,862 104%
AUDITOR III (001684)$75,754 0 $75,300 101%n/a n/a $78,906 105%$79,322 105%
BATTALION CHIEF (008030)$106,538 12 $99,300 107%n/a n/a $109,690 110%$110,106 111%
CITY PAYROLL ADMINISTRATOR (001945)$60,757 2 $56,200 108%n/a n/a $63,909 114%$64,325 114%
CIVIC ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM SPEC. (001821)$56,035 3 $59,300 94%n/a n/a $59,187 100%-6%$59,603 101%
CLAIMS ADJUSTER (001995)$60,798 1 $63,500 96%n/a n/a $63,950 101%-6%$64,366 101%
COLLECTIONS OFFICER (001376)$49,182 4 $42,300 116%n/a n/a $52,334 124%$52,750 125%
EEO/ADA SPECIALIST (002299)$79,539 0 $79,300 100%n/a n/a $82,691 104%$83,107 105%
EMPLOYEE MARKETING & COMM (002225)$65,354 0 $66,500 98%n/a n/a $68,506 103%$68,922 104%
EMPLOYEE TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN (000491)$62,254 1 $61,100 102%n/a n/a $65,406 107%$65,822 108%
ENGINEER IV (002198)$83,325 11 $82,800 101%n/a n/a $86,477 104%6%$86,893 105%
FINANCIAL ANALYST III (001670)$71,573 5 $78,800 91%n/a n/a $74,725 95%$75,141 95%
GIS SPECIALIST (000781)$62,795 2 $64,000 98%n/a n/a $65,947 103%$66,363 104%
GOLF CLUB PROFESSIONAL - All levels $79,331 4 $82,500 96%n/a n/a $82,483 100%$82,899 100%
GOLF SUPERINTENDENT 18 HOLES (000936)$68,494 3 $70,200 98%n/a n/a $71,646 102%10%$72,062 103%
GRAPH DESIGN SPECIALIST (002103)$56,129 2 $55,500 101%n/a n/a $59,281 107%$59,697 108%
HR BUSINESS PARTNER II (002436)$76,752 6 $81,800 94%n/a n/a $79,904 98%$80,320 98%
HR RECRUITER (002297)$65,354 1 $65,600 100%n/a n/a $68,506 104%$68,922 105%
HRIS ANALYST (002155)$79,331 1 $90,300 88%n/a n/a $82,483 91%$82,899 92%
JUSTICE COURT JUDGE (001601)$153,405 5 $137,400 112%n/a n/a $156,557 114%$156,973 114%
LABORATORY CHEMIST UNION (001806)$63,627 0 $69,200 92%n/a n/a $66,779 97%$67,195 97%
LCSW/MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR (002426)$56,014 1 $68,300 82%n/a n/a $59,166 87%-12%$59,582 87%
LEGAL SECRETARY III (003136)$54,818 2 $51,600 106%n/a n/a $57,970 112%$58,386 113%
LICENSED ARCHITECT (000752)$83,512 0 $95,700 87%n/a n/a $86,664 91%$87,080 91%
NETWORK SYSTEMS ENGINEER II (001394)$83,637 7 $85,000 98%n/a n/a $86,789 102%$87,205 103%
OFFICE FACILITATOR II NON UNIO (001232)$49,130 28 $54,300 90%n/a n/a $52,282 96%$52,698 97%
PARALEGAL (002201)$58,136 6 $60,600 96%n/a n/a $61,288 101%$61,704 102%
POLICE CAPTAIN (000851)$113,922 8 $108,600 105%n/a n/a $117,074 108%-6%$117,490 108%
POLICE LIEUTENANT (000849)$100,589 24 $93,600 107%n/a n/a $103,741 111%$104,157 111%
POLICE SERGEANT (007008)$85,426 68 $84,800 101%n/a n/a $88,578 104%-10%$88,994 105%
PRINCIPAL PLANNER (001733)*$66,238 10 $68,627 97%n/a n/a $69,390 101%$69,806 102%
PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST I (000533)$59,758 2 $65,200 92%n/a n/a $62,910 96%-6%$63,326 97%
PROG COOR ARTS COUNCIL (001799)$57,678 1 $55,300 104%n/a n/a $60,830 110%$61,246 111%
REAL PROPERTY AGENT (000370)$68,370 1 $69,400 99%n/a n/a $71,522 103%$71,938 104%
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROP MGR (001391)$67,267 1 $76,700 88%n/a n/a $70,419 92%$70,835 92%
SAFETY PROGRAM MGR (002286)$87,714 2 $91,600 96%n/a n/a $90,866 99%$91,282 100%
SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY (002319)$138,882 13 $144,800 96%n/a n/a $142,034 98%$142,450 98%
SOCIAL SERVICE WORKER (002499)$55,182 4 $54,000 102%n/a n/a $58,334 108%$58,750 109%
SOFTWARE ENGINEER III (002145)$93,246 2 $89,600 104%n/a n/a $96,398 108%$96,814 108%
SOFTWARE SUPPORT ADMIN II (001729)$80,694 2 $74,100 109%n/a n/a $83,846 113%$84,262 114%
SR BENEFITS ANALYST (002122)$68,078 2 $71,000 96%n/a n/a $71,230 100%$71,646 101%
TECH SYSTEM ANALYST III (002203)$72,093 1 $70,000 103%n/a n/a $75,245 107%$75,661 108%
VICTIM ADVOCATE (001765)$49,130 3 $42,800 115%n/a n/a $52,282 122%14%$52,698 123%
VIDEO PRODUCTION MGR (002217)$85,966 1 $76,200 113%n/a n/a $89,118 117%$89,534 117%
Market Salary (50th percentile)
w/ Additional Economic Value of
benefits (Private Sector) = $3,568 per
year
w/ Additional Economic
Value of benefits (Public
Sector) = $3,152 per
year
APPENDIX C-3: 2020-21 Local Market Survey Participants – WMG
APPENDIX C-4: 2020-21 Local Market Survey Participants – WCG
1 800 Contacts Aerojet Rocketdyne Agreserves
All Native Group American Systems ASRC Federal
Associated Food Stores Big West Oil Booz Allen Hamilton
Brigham Young University Cherokee Nation Businesses Cognosante
Comcast Constellation Software Engineering doTERRA International
eBay Edwards Lifesciences Flir Systems
Fluor General Dynamics/Information Technology Halfaker & Associates
Hexcel Hospital Corporation of America Huntsman Cancer Institute
Innophos Nutrition Intecon JT4
KBRWyle Lockheed Martin ManTech International
Maverik Maxar Technologies Merit Medical Systems
MITRE Moog New Age Beverage
Northrop Grumman O.C. Tanner Overstock.com
Parker-Hannifin Utah Parsons Raytheon Technologies
Rio Tinto Shared Services SAIC Salt Lake County
Savers Sawdey Solution Services Sinclair Services
Southwest Research Institute Space Dynamics Laboratory State of Utah, DHRM
Textron Systems U.S. Foods USANA Health Sciences
Utah County Utah State Courts Utah System of Higher Education
Utah Transit Authority Utah Valley University Wasatch Front Waste & Recycling District
Waste Management Weber State University
WESTERN MANAGEMENT GROUP SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
62 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
1 800 Contacts Aerojet Rocketdyne Agreserves
All Native Group American Systems ASRC Federal
Associated Food Stores Big West Oil Booz Allen Hamilton
Brigham Young University Cherokee Nation Businesses Cognosante
Comcast Constellation Software Engineering doTERRA International
eBay Edwards Lifesciences Flir Systems
Fluor General Dynamics/Information Technology Halfaker & Associates
Hexcel Hospital Corporation of America Huntsman Cancer Institute
Innophos Nutrition Intecon JT4
KBRWyle Lockheed Martin ManTech International
Maverik Maxar Technologies Merit Medical Systems
MITRE Moog New Age Beverage
Northrop Grumman O.C. Tanner Overstock.com
Parker-Hannifin Utah Parsons Raytheon Technologies
Rio Tinto Shared Services SAIC Salt Lake County
Savers Sawdey Solution Services Sinclair Services
Southwest Research Institute Space Dynamics Laboratory State of Utah, DHRM
Textron Systems U.S. Foods USANA Health Sciences
Utah County Utah State Courts Utah System of Higher Education
Utah Transit Authority Utah Valley University Wasatch Front Waste & Recycling District
Waste Management Weber State University
WESTERN MANAGEMENT GROUP SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
62 TOTAL PARTICIPANTS
APPENDIX D: Committee’s 2020 response to city council letter dated 2/7/2019
For continued reference and information, the committee wishes to once again include
the letter dated February 7, 2019 from former city council chair, Charlie Luke. In this
letter, the committee was asked to consider requests and/or questions posed around
three topics. Questions are summarized, along with the committee’s response noted for
each, below.
1) Inclusion of multiple scenarios for compensation and potential adjustments based
on the public safety compensation survey conducted by Mercer in FY2019, and
more specifically:
a. What scenarios does the committee recommend for compensation of public
safety professionals compared to market?
Due to Salt Lake City’s distinction as Utah’s largest city and role as capital city,
the committee supports the city’s need to distinguish itself as a local area pay
leader. Therefore, it is recommended the city maintain a relative pay position
including actual median employee pay rates plus the overall additional economic
value of (public sector) benefits between 105-120% compared to the local area
market.
b. What scenarios might raise compensation just above market rate to reflect hiring
competition and retention challenges?
Continuing to conduct a national survey of wages once every three years
enables the city to keep abreast of how pay for Salt Lake City’s for public safety
personnel, including Firefighters and Police Officers, compares to their
counterparts in similar U.S. municipalities. Similarly, monitoring potential shifts in
trends and tracking the source of applicants and candidates hired should also
allow Salt Lake City to note if and when more weight should be given to national
rather than local area market pay comparisons.
As noted earlier in this report, of 1,078 external applicants for police officers in
2019, 869 (or, 81%) were from Utah; among the 36 hires made, 34 (or, 94%)
were from Utah. The latest recruitment process conducted for firefighters yielded
777 external applicants, of which 486 were from Utah (63%); all 12 job offers
made were to candidates from Utah.
c. What pros and cons does the committee see to adjusting the city’s compensation
policy so that sworn public safety employees lead the market?
The committee believes advantages to adhering to the compensation philosophy
described in 1(a), above, will continue to allow the city to preserve its ability to
successfully attract and retain qualified candidates and employees in positions
critical for the city to ensure public safety. Disadvantages might include the need
to hold wages and salaries for employees if and when pay rates exceed market
comparison by 120%.
2) Insight on balancing the value of and cost of retaining current employees (not just
public safety) versus hiring and training new employees;
In order to identify specifically why employees are leaving, the city needs to understand
that many factors besides pay contribute to an employee choosing to leave. As noted in
the articles provided under Appendix G, employers can avoid the high costs of turnover
through better retention.
Organizations cannot avoid the attrition of mature workers leaving the workplace, but
through retention strategies employers can reduce turnover. Compensation and benefits
play a role in recruiting and retaining employees, but other factors have significant
impacts as well. In many cases it is the working environment or culture that prompts an
employee to leave.
According to the Retention Report, the three top specific reasons for employees to leave
jobs in 2018 were career development (21%), work-life balance (13%) and manager
behaviors (11%). Experts say these reasons all fall under one broad umbrella of why
employees leave companies: Their employer is not meeting their needs and
expectations.
Retention strategies should be built on the knowledge and understanding of multi-
generational needs and expectations. “All managers and companies should know why
their employees join, why their employees stay and why their employees leave,” says
Gabriel Stavsky with Retensa Employee Retention Strategies.
The committee recommends the city begin to ask questions and compile answers via
engagement surveys, exit interviews, and other methods to diagnose where and why
turnover is specifically occurring. We recommend that the city retain a third-party
culture/retention expert to conduct a cultural study at the city that considers the following
and to suggest recommended invention retention strategies to remedy turnover to retain
City employees.
• Determine where and why city turnover is occurring by collecting as much information as
possible about the types of city positions that have the highest turnover This would include:
why it is specifically occurring; which city departments have ongoing retention or turnover
issues; why the higher turnover is specifically happening and; determining if there are any
generational or demographic factors where turnover is higher.
• Perform exit surveys to capture the reasons city employees have left. Use of a third-party
vendor typically creates a safer environment for honest answers about why an employee
chooses to leave. Sadly, the employee has left the city at this point. However, being asked by
a third party why he/she left and understanding that the city is working on improving may
cause an employee to reconsider leaving.
• Government and city leadership has the potential to change every four years, which
contributes to a loss of continuity and provides a challenge in building sustainable cultural
values. The effects of this should be examined by the third-party vendor also.
• Ask current employees what they value and why they stay**. Assuming that compensation or
benefits are the reason(s) employees stay or leave may be incorrect. Asking employees
through confidential surveys, retention interviews, and other methods will assist the city in
getting a better understanding of this important retention information of specifically why
employees stay and what would cause them to leave.
**Caveat: If the city asks employees for this information, it must be prepared to share the
feedback that it received, good and bad, with employees and also share with them how this
information will be used to make improvements. It is important to note the process of obtaining
specific turnover information, creating a retention strategy to mitigate turnover, and building
cultural values is a long-term process. It does not happen quickly and will require time,
dedication, monitoring and evaluation by the city HR Department in partner ship with city
management to create sustainable processes and programs to improve retention.
3) Provide an assessment of the city’s long-standing salary practice of identifying no
less than 95% of market as the preferred range for setting employee
compensation and the city’s overall benefits offerings, including:
a. Should the city’s benefits package be holistically reviewed more frequently?
Aligned with the recommendation received in NFP’s benefit and compensation
analysis and report, the committee agrees best practice would be to review the
city’s benefits with a maximum gap of 3-5 years.
b. Is the benefits package still sufficiently competitive and generous in today’s
market to warrant the up to 5% of salary reduction from market?
According to results of a more comprehensive employee benefits study NFP
conducted on the city’s behalf at the end of 2019, it was determined Salt Lake
City’s benefits add the following value (in dollar amount) to overall compensation
(compared to market), as follows:
- Compared to other Public Sector organizations: $3,152.37
- Compared to Private Sector organizations: $3,568.41
- For Public Safety compared to Public Sector organizations: $4,694.33
- For Public Safety compared to Private Sector organizations: $5,110.37
Where value was most added/lost
- The city’s medical plans added $1,909.06 toward the overall value of the benefits
package. This was due to the low cost to employees but was tempered by the city
lagging in deductibles and out of pocket maximums.
- The city’s LTD offering of 66.67% to SSNRA and the low cost for public safety
added $416.04 annually toward the overall value of benefits for public safety
employees.
- The city’s STD offering added $420.00 per year when compared against the
private sector.
- The city’s longevity pay offering added $1,050.00 across all groups.
- The city’s tuition reimbursement added $379.10 across all groups.
- The city’s EAP added $180 across all groups.
- The cost of the city’s dental plan to employees subtracted $593.37 from the
overall benefits package value across all groups.
Other benefits, such as HSA contributions, retirement benefits (when compared to the Public Sector),
paid holidays and leave, at the median, meaning that they neither added nor subtracted overall value.
APPENDIX F – SHRM articles on impact of COVID-19 on salary budgets
Included in the following pages—
- “Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years,” by Society for
Human Resource Management (August 17, 2020)
- “One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim Projected Pay Raises for 2021,” by Society
for Human Resource Management (October 13, 2020)
- “Fewer Workers Will Get Pay Raises in 2021; Bonuses Gain Ground,” by Society
for Human Resource Management (November 17, 2020)
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 1/8
H
Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First
Time in 12 Years
Pay increase rates plunged but may rise again as economy reopens
By Stephen Miller, CEBS
August 17, 2020
updated Sept. 3, 2020
oping for an economic rebound before year-end, employers haven't abandoned their salary increase budgets for 2020, although
they have trimmed them a bit, new research shows. They don't expect to step up salary budget growth next year, given uncertainty
over the economic outlook, salary increase forecasts show.
Responding to Uncertainty
WorldatWork's 2020-2021 Salary Budget Survey, conducted from May 27 to June 26, with 4,754 responses from total rewards
professionals, found that salary increase budgets are still in play at most organizations.
Respondents said that they anticipated employee compensation at their organizations would grow by an average of 2.9 percent in 2020,
down from the projected average increase of 3.3 percent expected at the start of the year and the rst time in 12 years that the rate of
increase has fallen (https://worldatwork.org/workspan/articles/salary-increase-budgets-fall-for- rst-time-in-12-years) from the prior year. "The
last time the survey saw a decline in salary budget increases was during the Great Recession of 2008-09," WorldatWork reported.
The table below summarizes the survey's top-level results (https://www.worldatwork.org/docs/research-and-surveys/sbs/SBS2020-
21_TopLevelData.pdf ) for 2020 and projected salary budget increases for 2021, compared with 2019 salary budget increases
(https://www.worldatwork.org/docs/research-and-surveys/sbs/SBS2019_20_TopLevelData_NonParticipants.pdf ). The mean is the
mathematical average, and the median is the middle value after listing expected budget increases in successive order. Outliers, or extreme
values on either the high or low end, have a bigger e ect on the mean and less on the median.
The nding that projections for 2021 closely mirror 2020 outcomes shows the high level of uncertainty among compensation planners
about the state of the economy next year, WorldatWork's analysis suggested.
______________
Total U.S. Salary Budget Increases: 2019-2021
Salary increase budgets are the pool of money available annually for base pay adjustments.
Employee Category Actual
2019
Mean
Actual
2019
Median
Actual
2020
Mean
Actual
2020
Median
Projected
2021
Mean
Projected
2021
Median
Nonexempt hourly, nonunion 3.2%3.3%2.8%3.0%2.9%3.0%
Nonexempt salaried (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-
and-samples/hr-
qa/Pages/whatisthemeaningofsalaried,nonexemptemployee.aspx)
3.1%3.0%2.9%3.0%2.9%3.0%
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 2/8
Exempt salaried 3.2%3.0%2.9%3.0%2.9%3.0%
O cers/executives 3.3%3.0%3.3%3.0%3.3%3.0%
All 3.2%3.0%2.9%3.0%2.9%3.0%
Source: WorldatWork 2020-2021 Salary Budget Survey: Top-Level Results and 2019-2020 Salary Budget Survey: Top-Level Results.
SHRM RESOURCE SPOTLIGHT
Coronavirus and COVID-19 (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/Pages/communicable-diseases.aspx)
A Range of Adjustments
Contributing to the decline in salary budget growth was a signi cant rise in organizations that expect to keep their salary budgets to remain
at throughout 2020. "The sudden jolt of the pandemic has driven a higher percentage of organizations [to indicate] a zero salary increase
budget for 2020," nearly 10 times higher than 2019, said Sue Holloway, director at WorldatWork, an association of total rewards
professionals, most of whom work for large, North American rms.
Nevertheless, 84 percent of organizations expect to pay some form of salary increases in 2020. At the high end of the spectrum, "more
than 70 percent of companies are still giving increases in the 3 percent to 4 percent range," Holloway said, "but we recognize the impact of
the pandemic will lag" and those gures could be adjusted lower if the economy becomes mired in a recession.
Pay Equity Adjustments
Among surveyed organizations, 65 percent expect to make pay changes in 2020 to address pay equity issues, making pay more
equivalent for women and minority employees based on factors such as position, tenure, education and experience, WorldatWork found.
About the same number or organizations anticipate making pay equity adjustments in 2021.
Merit-Based Rewards
WorldatWork reported average base-pay merit increase budgets for 2020 at 2.6 percent of compensation, a 0.3 percent drop from 2019.
Although the size of all salary increase budgets, including merit budgets, declined in 2020, organizations continue to di erentiate base
pay-related awards.
______________
Merit Increase Di erentiation
High Performers
Mean
Middle Performers
Mean
Low Performers
Mean
2020 3.6%2.5% 0.6%
2019 4.0% 2.7%0.8%
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 3/8
Source: WorldatWork Salary Budget Survey 2019-2020: Executive Report & Analysis.
WorldatWork will eld a survey in October to update these ndings in light of the state of the economy later this year.
'Wait and See' Approach Popular
Compensation advisory rm Empsight's August 2020 Policies, Practices & Merit Survey Report
(https://www.empsight.com/s.nl/it.I/id.151/.f) analyzes results from a survey of 248 large U.S. companies, which asked participants to forecast
their merit increase budget for 2021, if known.
Only 175 companies (70 percent of participants) were able to forecast merit budgets for 2021, while 217 provided forecasts last year (86
percent of the total). This "wait and see" approach is consistent with many other survey responses, Empsight pointed out.
______________
Forecasted Merit Increase Budget for 2021
(includes companies planning no merit budget increase for next year)
Mean 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile
Overall Forecasted Merit
Increase Budget
2.66%2.50% 3.00%3.00%
Executive 2.49%2.44% 3.00%3.00%
Management 2.66%2.50% 3.00%3.00%
Professionals 2.67% 2.50%3.00%3.00%
Support / Nonexempt 2.62% 2.50%3.00%3.00%
Source: Empsight, Policies, Practices & Merit Survey Report, August 2020.
______________
Empsight also asked participating companies to forecast their total percentage salary increase budget (merit + promotional + special
competitive adjustment) for 2021:
Forecasted Total Increase Budget for 2021
(includes companies planning no salary budget increase for next year)
Mean 25th Percentile Median 75th
Percentile
Forecasted Total Increase
Budget
2.91%3.00%3.00% 3.26%
Executive 2.76%2.55%3.00%3.25%
Management 2.48%2.74%3.00%3.25%
Professionals 2.85% 2.74%3.00%3.25%
Support / Nonexempt 2.80% 2.60%3.00%3.22%
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 4/8
Source: Empsight, Policies, Practices & Merit Survey Report, August 2020.
Other Forecasts in Same Ballpark
A preview of results from consultancy Willis Towers Watson's 2020 General Industry Salary Budget Survey—U.S., conducted between April
and July 2020 with responses from 1,010 organizations, found that:
Companies are projecting average salary increases of 2.8 percent for nonexecutive management and nonmangement exempt
employees in 2021.
Nonexempt salaried and hourly employees as well as executives are in line to receive slightly smaller increases (2.7 percent).
Companies granted employees increases between 2.5 percent and 2.7 percent this year, below the 3 percent companies had budgeted
before the pandemic hit.
Salary increases have hovered around 3 percent for the past decade. Only 7 percent of companies are not planning pay increases next
year, down signi cantly from 14 percent this year, "an indication that many organizations are projecting a turn toward normalcy in 2021," the
rm reported.
"This has been the most challenging compensation planning year for many companies since the Great Recession," said Catherine
Hartmann, North America rewards practice leader at Willis Towers Watson. "While many companies managed to avoid cutting salaries
during the pandemic, most have reduced the size of this year's salary budgets and are holding the line on increases for next year. At the
same time, companies continue to embrace variable pay and other reward initiatives to recognize and help retain their best performers."
______________
Salary Increases: Including Companies Granting No Increase
Total increases (percentage of salary).
Employee Category 2019 Salary Increases
(average %
granted)
2020 Salary Increases
(average %
budgeted)
2021 Salary Increases
(average %
budgeted)
Executives 3.2%2.7%2.7%
Management, excluding
executives
3.2%2.7%2.8%
Exempt, nonmanagement 3.1%2.7%2.8%
Nonexempt salaried 2.9%2.5%2.7%
Nonexempt hourly 3.0%2.6%2.7%
Source: Willis Towers Watson, 2020 General Industry Salary Budget Survey—U.S.
Projected salary increases for 2021 were slightly higher when excluding companies that planned no increases.
______________
Salary Increases: Excluding Companies Granting No increase
Total increases (percentage of salary).
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 5/8
Employee Category 2019 Salary Increases
(average %
granted)
2020 Salary Increases
(average %
budgeted)
2021 Salary Increases
(average %
budgeted)
Executives 3.4%3.2%3.0%
Management, excluding
executives
3.2%3.1%3.0%
Exempt, nonmanagement 3.2%3.1%3.0%
Nonexempt salaried 3.1%3.0%3.0%
Nonexempt hourly 3.1%3.0%3.0%
Source: Willis Towers Watson, 2020 General Industry Salary Budget Survey—U.S.
The Willis Towers Watson survey reports employees receiving the highest possible rating were granted an average increase of 4.7 percent
this year, while those receiving an average rating typically received 2.8 percent increases.
Willis Towers Watson will release full survey results in mid-September.
Other recent research ndings are broadly in line with the survey results above.
Salary.com's annual U.S. and Canada National Salary Budget Survey (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/salarycom-national-2020-
2021-salary-budget-survey-reveals-a-measured-approach-with-increase-budgets-remaining- at-at-3-for-10th-consecutive-year-
301123490.html) found that:
2021 median salary increase budgets were expected to remain at at 3.0 percent for the 10th consecutive year.
The average 2020 actual merit increase of 2.3 percent, however, fell from a 2.6 percent increase in 2019 and is substantially lower
than the 2.6 percent increase that was predicted for 2020 in last year's survey.
The projected recovery to an average 2.6 percent merit increase next year indicates that employers are optimistic about an
economic recovery in 2021 and hope to restore some lost pay as a result, according to Salary.com, which provides compensation
data and analytics.
Over 1,300 HR professionals across 20 industries participated in this year's survey, which closed June 21, 2020.
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 6/8
Salary Structure Changes
WorldatWork's survey reported:
An average salary structure upward adjustments of 1.9 percent in 2020, representing a signi cant slowdown
from 2.2 percent in 2019, a ected by a much larger number of organizations reporting no salary structure
increase.
The projection for 2021 salary structure increases is holding steady at 1.9 percent.
Similarly, salary.com found that salary structure increases hovered in the 1.7 percent to 2.0 percent range for most
employees in 2018 and 2019, and that:
The average salary structure increase fell to the range of 1.3 percent to 1.6 percent in 2020 and is generally
expected to stay the same in 2021
Median salary structure increases, however, are staying relatively stable at 2.0 percent for most employees.
[SHRM members-only how-to guide: How to Establish Salary Ranges (www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/how-to-
guides/pages/howtoestablishsalaryranges.aspx)]
Variable Pay Bonuses
The salary.com survey also tracked changes in variable/performance-based pay as a percentage of base pay and, again, found planning to
be largely in line with prior years, across all employment levels.
"Much to our surprise, in 2020 the average variable pay as a percentage of base salary remained consistent with previous years, and as of
June 2020, was projected to remain consistent in 2021," said Chris Fusco, senior vice president of compensation at Salary.com. "However,
we would not be surprised to nd in next year's survey that bonus prevalence and payouts actually dropped in 2020, given the ongoing
economic e ects of COVID-19."
Fusco noted that given the highly changeable economic climate, salary plans may be signi cantly altered by 2021 depending on the course
of COVID-19 and economic recovery.
Willis Towers Watson's survey found that:
Three in four companies (76 percent) are planning to award annual performance bonuses next year, roughly the same percentage
as this year.
Bonuses, generally tied to company and employee performance goals, are projected to average 11 percent of salary for exempt
employees, while bonuses for nonexempt salaried and hourly employees will average around 6.8 percent and 5.6 percent,
respectively.
"Most companies will continue to be in a cash preservation and cost optimization mode regarding their budgets," Willis Towers
Watson's Hartmann said. "And although many companies are looking toward stabilizing their business next year, the full extent of the
economic impact of the pandemic is yet to play out."
She added, "Companies will remain cautious and continue to adopt strategies that attempt to balance employee engagement with
protecting their core business."
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for-first-time-in-12-years.aspx 7/8
In another look at variable pay trends, consultancy Korn Ferry's May survey of some 3,500 executives
(https://www.kornferry.com/insights/articles/the-bonus-question) at global companies showed that:
16 percent of organizations were not planning to o er bonuses this year, and another 40 percent were unsure of what the payout
would be, if there is one.
Among organizations that plan to distribute bonuses, 33 percent expected payouts to be less than originally intended, and 12
percent anticipated them to be at or above the target level.
Other changes include a refocusing of performance metrics and a shorter measurement period for performance.
"Given the environment, we are seeing the lowering of performance metric thresholds with lower corresponding payouts at these
thresholds," said Tom McMullen, leader of Korn Ferry's rewards and bene ts practice.
Government Pay-Growth Data
Wages and salaries for civilian workers increased 0.4 percent, seasonally adjusted, for the three-month period ending in June 2020
(https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported on July 31. That's a stark fallo from the
year-over-year trend, given that wages and salaries grew 2.9 percent for the 12-month period ending in June 2020, according to BLS data.
A separate measure of personal income compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, also released July 31,
found that overall U.S. income fell by 1.1 percent in June (https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/personal-income-and-outlays-june-2020-and-
annual-update) following a steeper drop of 4.4 percent in May, "as portions of the economy continued to reopen in June," the report stated.
At least 4 million private-sector workers have had their pay cut during the pandemic, according to data provided to The Washington Post
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/01/pay-cut-economy-coronavirus/) in July by economists who worked on a labor
market analysis for the University of Chicago's Becker Friedman Institute.
Related SHRM Resource:
Salary Increase Projections 2021 (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/exreq/Pages/Details.aspx?Erid=145), SHRM
Express Request
Related SHRM Articles:
One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim Projected Pay Raises for 2021 (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/one-
third-of-US-employers-trim-projected-pay-raises-for-2021.aspx), SHRM Online, October 2020
Developing a Post-Pandemic Pay Strategy (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/developing-a-post-pandemic-
pay-strategy.aspx), SHRM Online, June 2020
Employers Adjust Pay and Incentives Amid Economic Turmoil (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-
topics/compensation/Pages/employers-adjust-pay-and-incentives-amid-coronavirus-economic-turmoil.aspx), SHRM Online, April 2020
HR DAILY NEWSLETTER
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim Projected Pay Raises for 2021
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/one-third-of-US-employers-trim-projected-pay-raises-for-2021.aspx 1/4
O
One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim
Projected Pay Raises for 2021
Two-thirds are still planning annual bonuses despite the pandemic
October 13, 2020
ne in 3 U.S. companies responding to a recent survey are lowering their projected salary increases for 2021 amid concerns over
weaker nancial results and budgetary restraints in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these concerns, two-thirds of
employers say they expect to fund their annual short-term bonuses.
The survey of 705 U.S. companies, which together employ 14.3 million people, was conducted in late September.
Consultancy Willis Towers Watson's 2020 North American Compensation Planning Pulse Survey found that:
35 percent of U.S. companies plan to lower salary increases next year.
50 percent anticipate no change.
2 percent project higher increases.
13 percent hadn't decided yet.
When asked what factors led them to change their projections, surveyed employees (allowed to select multiple reasons) said:
They anticipated weaker nancial results than previously expected (68 percent).
They were responding to cost management actions, such as budget cuts (66 percent).
All employee groups other than executives are projected to receive salary increases of 2.6 percent on average in 2021, the survey showed.
Those include managers, nonexempt salaried employees and hourly employees. Executives are projected to receive slightly smaller
increases, averaging 2.5 percent.
While most employers (84 percent) will deliver pay raises on schedule, about 1 in 6 employees will not receive a pay raise in 2021.
An earlier survey conducted by Willis Towers Watson Data Services from May to July showed that companies projected salary increases of
2.8 percent for all employees next year, in line with other surveys conducted during the summer (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-
topics/compensation/pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for- rst-time-in-12-years.aspx). Before the pandemic, many employers
expected average pay increases for 2021 to exceed 3 percent across all employee groups.
"The pandemic's economic implications have led employers in virtually every industry to rethink their compensation plans and budgets for
the coming year," said Catherine Hartmann, North America rewards practice leader at Willis Towers Watson. "For many companies, reducing
salary budgets—and, in some cases, suspending pay raises—was the most viable option, as they balance remaining competitive with
maintaining nancial stability."
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim Projected Pay Raises for 2021
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/one-third-of-US-employers-trim-projected-pay-raises-for-2021.aspx 2/4
Conference Board: Salary Increase Budgets Shrank in 2020
The Conference Board's Salary Increase Budgets for 2021 survey report showed that:
The 2020 average for actual total salary increase budgets—including exempt, executive, and nonexempt salaried
employees—fell from 3.19 percent in 2019 to 2.60 percent in 2020.
For nonexempt workers speci cally, salary increase budgets fell from 3.05 in 2019 to 2.58 in 2020.
The Conference Board, a large-business membership and research association, included 183 organizations in its annual
survey, elded between April 16 and June 21 of 2020.
Many respondents indicated their budgets were not yet nalized due to uncertainty created by the COVID-19 crisis. The
report stated that "even lower salary increase budgets in 2021 are likely, barring surprisingly good vaccine new," which
the end of 2020 apparently brought, making 2021 salary growth di cult to predict.
Bonuses on Track
Willis Towers Watson also asked U.S. companies about their bonus expectations for 2021, and found that:
66 percent plan to award annual bonuses next year.
8 percent don't expect to do so.
26 percent are undecided.
Among employers that plan to pay bonuses, nearly 58 percent expect the bonus pool funding level to be at or above target level.
Executives and management employees are the most likely to receive bonus awards, at 91 percent and 87 percent of surveyed companies,
respectively, while 63 percent of respondents expect to award bonuses to nonexempt hourly workers.
"Employers remain laser-focused on their ability to attract and retain talent during these challenging times," Hartmann said. "Annual
performance bonuses, which are typically tied to individual and company performance, can play a signi cant role in helping employers
achieve those goals, when faced with less-than-robust salary increases."
A stronger-than-expected economic recovery could yet boost next year's pay gains, while a prolonged recession could do the opposite. As
companies navigate through challenging times, "we expect they will test and monitor the external market and their own internal workforce
data more frequently, to better adapt their compensation programs and strategies," Hartmann said.
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim Projected Pay Raises for 2021
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/one-third-of-US-employers-trim-projected-pay-raises-for-2021.aspx 3/4
Employees Working Longer Hours Without Extra Pay
Unpaid hours worked by salaried employees have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report
from the ADP Research Institute (ADP RI), an a liate of payroll services rm ADP.
For its Workforce View 2020: Post-COVID-19 (https://www.adpri.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/06223715/COLL_WFV_Vol2-Print_US_2020_570908_98571_FV.pdf ) report, ADP RI surveyed
employees worldwide, including 1,909 workers in the U.S., between April 28 and May 14, 2020. The researchers
compared the results to similar research conducted between Oct. 29, 2019, and Jan. 6, 2020, before the COVID-19
epidemic.
When U.S. workers were asked, on average, how many hours per week they believed they worked without being paid—
such as hours worked over lunch breaks or by staying up late—they responded:
In January: hours
In May: hours
Employees "have seen a marked uptick in 'free' work, with the proportion doing 11-plus hours almost doubling in a matter
of months," according to the report.
"There could be several reasons for this rise, from job security concerns spurring people to work even harder to
demonstrate their worth, to sta failing to 'switch o ' when working from home," according to ADP RI. "Whatever the
cause, employers will want to weigh up whether this is resulting in improved productivity and keep a close eye on the
impact on stress levels and job satisfaction."
Related SHRM Articles:
(www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for- rst-time-in-12-
years.aspx%3Cbr/%3E%3C/li%3E%20%20%20%3C/ul%3E%20%20%20%3Cul%3E%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cli%3E%3Cspan%20id=%27
ms-rterangeselectionplaceholder-start%27%3E%3C/span%3E%3Cspan%20id=%27ms-rterangeselectionplaceholder-
end%27%3E%3C/span%3Ei/p%3E%3Cp%20class=) Executive Pay Measures Shift Toward Fairness, Social Responsibility
(www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/executive-pay-measures-shift-toward-fairness-and-social-
responsibility.aspx), SHRM Online, September 2020
Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/salary-
increase-budgets-decline-for- rst-time-in-12-years.aspx), SHRM Online, August 2020
Developing a Post-Pandemic Pay Strategy (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/developing-a-post-pandemic-
pay-strategy.aspx), SHRM Online, June 2020
Related SHRM Resource:
Salary Increase Projections 2021 (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/exreq/Pages/Details.aspx), SHRM Express Request
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Fewer Workers Will Get Pay Raises in 2021; Bonuses Gain Ground
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/fewer-workers-will-get-pay-raises-in-2021-as-bonuses-gain-ground.aspx 1/4
T
Fewer Workers Will Get Pay Raises in
2021; Bonuses Gain Ground
More organizations shift from across-the-board increases to variable pay models
By Stephen Miller, CEBS
November 17, 2020
he economic e ects of COVID-19 have forced nearly half of organizations (45 percent) to re-evaluate salary increase plans for 2021,
new survey ndings show.
Researchers collected data from 1,283 U.S. organizations during July and August for bene ts advisory and brokerage rm Gallagher's
2020/2021 Salary Planning Survey report (https://www.ajg.com/us/salary-planning-survey-report/?
utm_medium=Earned&utm_source=Press_Release&utm_campaign=GBS_2020_US_National_HRCC_SPS_Release).
At the start of 2020, two-thirds (66 percent) of surveyed employers had awarded pay raises, as organizations felt primed for growth with a
robust economy and record-high employment. By the end of the rst quarter, however, the reality of COVID-19 had set in, forcing many
employers to put the brakes on wage hikes.
This trend will continue into 2021, according to surveyed employers.
Among the segment of employers that indicated COVID-19 has forced them to re-evaluate 2021 salary increase plans, half (51 percent)
expect to reduce salary increases, and 45 percent plan to suspend salary increases altogether.
According to the report:
For 2020, salary increase budgets will end up rising 2.5 percent, down from earlier projections of a 2.8 percent average increase.
For 2021, Gallagher projects average salary budget increases of 2.1 percent, with variations by employee group (see chart below)
as well as by location and industry.
Average Fiscal Year Salary Increase Budgets by Employee Group
2020 2021
Executives 2.3%2.0%
Managers 2.6%2.1%
Other exempt workers 2.6%2.1%
Nonexempt workers 2.6%2.2%
Source: Gallagher's 2020/2021 Salary Planning Survey report.
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Fewer Workers Will Get Pay Raises in 2021; Bonuses Gain Ground
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/fewer-workers-will-get-pay-raises-in-2021-as-bonuses-gain-ground.aspx 2/4
Salary forecast surveys for 2021 that focus on larger U.S. employers have projected 2021 base-pay increases across employee groups that
are somewhat higher (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/salary-increase-budgets-decline-for- rst-time-in-
12-years.aspx) than Gallagher's results.
Organizations and industries most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to be more restrained than others when setting
salary increase budgets for next year.
Conference Board: Salary Increase Budgets Shrank in 2020
The Conference Board's Salary Increase Budgets for 2021 survey report showed that:
The 2020 average for actual total salary increase budgets—including exempt, executive, and nonexempt salaried
employees—fell from 3.19 percent in 2019 to 2.60 percent in 2020.
For nonexempt workers speci cally, salary increase budgets fell from 3.05 in 2019 to 2.58 in 2020.
The Conference Board, a large-business membership and research association, included 183 organizations in its annual
survey, elded between April 16 and June 21 of 2020.
Many respondents indicated their budgets were not yet nalized due to uncertainty created by the COVID-19 crisis. The
report stated that "even lower salary increase budgets in 2021 are likely, barring surprisingly good vaccine new," which
the end of 2020 apparently brought, making 2021 salary growth di cult to predict.
Shift Toward Variable Pay
As an alternative to salary increases, variable pay, such as annual bonuses, "can save money and serve as an investment in future success,"
according to Gallagher's report.
"Revenue streams and budgets will be unpredictable in 2021, and for these reasons, many employers are pausing across-the-board salary
increases," said William F. Ziebell, CEO of Gallagher's bene ts and HR consulting division. "However, the data shows more employers are
leaning into variable pay models because this allows them to provide employees with a pay increase based on performance."
The researchers found that 40 percent of respondents use variable pay for at least one employee group. In addition:
57 percent don't anticipate changing their variable pay budgets for 2020 despite the pandemic.
73 percent don't anticipate changing their variable pay budgets for 2021.
The bene ts of variable pay, according to the report, include increasing employee productivity by linking compensation to organizational
success while avoiding long-term costs by not adjusting base-pay levels upward.
Incentive Pay Pointers
"Organizations can be prudent in protecting themselves from overpaying under an incentive plan during challenging economic times," said
Bob Lindeman and Linda VanDeventer, managing director and co-founder and director of compensation consulting, respectively, of The
Overture Group, a boutique executive compensation and search rm that specializes in privately held, small-market organizations.
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
1/31/2021 Fewer Workers Will Get Pay Raises in 2021; Bonuses Gain Ground
https://www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/fewer-workers-will-get-pay-raises-in-2021-as-bonuses-gain-ground.aspx 3/4
Lindeman and VanDeventer advise organizations to take the following steps:
Review who is participating in the plan.
Reducing plan participants is a simple way to reduce potential cost, they noted. "Most legal plan documents and employee
communications state—and if not, should state—that management reviews and selects the participants in the plan annually. Stating
this fact tempers the expectations of employees, albeit it is a drastic change to implement," they noted.
Examine the plan's threshold, target and maximum payouts.
Reducing a payout maximum as a percent of salary, such as from 250 percent to 150 percent, can curb excessive payouts.
"Participants will likely notice such a change, but if communicated e ectively, plan participants should respect that an organization
does not have a bottomless checkbook, especially in the era of COVID," Lindeman and VanDeventer said.
Similarly, raising the payout threshold percentage, for example from meeting 60 percent of a targeted goal to 80 percent, "is
another e ective method to modify the plan while still keeping it motivational," they suggested. Increasing the target performance
required for a payout in the nancial formulas can ensure "the organization will have enough pro t dollars to a ord the payout."
Financial Sector Rewards
In at least one area of the U.S. economy, the nancial sector, employees may nd both salary increases and annual bonuses under
pressure.
Year-end incentive payments in the U.S. nancial sector are expected to be lower compared with last year
(https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/12/2125648/0/en/Wall-Street-Year-end-Incentive-Awards-Are-Expected-to-Be-
Lower-Johnson-Associates-Analysis-Finds.html), according to an analysis by Johnson Associates, a compensation consulting rm. "The
pandemic is wreaking havoc on many parts of the U.S. economy this year, and the nancial services industry is no exception," said Alan
Johnson, managing director of the rm.
"Unfortunately, as we look to 2021, even with an optimistic vaccine path, the pandemic will continue to negatively in uence businesses, but
perhaps to a lesser degree than in 2020," Johnson said. "Headcount reductions will continue in the rst half as companies transform and
adapt. For 2021, we expect some stabilization with early projections for modest salary increases and at to slightly increased incentives."
Related SHRM Articles:
One-Third of U.S. Employers Trim Projected Pay Raises for 2021 (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/one-
third-of-us-employers-trim-projected-pay-raises-for-2021.aspx), SHRM Online, October 2020
Salary Increase Budgets Decline for First Time in 12 Years (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/salary-
increase-budgets-decline-for- rst-time-in-12-years.aspx), SHRM Online, August 2020
Developing a Post-Pandemic Pay Strategy (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/hr-topics/compensation/Pages/developing-a-post-pandemic-
pay-strategy.aspx), SHRM Online, June 2020
Related SHRM Resource:
Salary Increase Projections 2021 (www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/tools-and-samples/exreq/Pages/Details.aspx), SHRM Express Request
[Need real-time, HR-reported compensation reports? Check out the SHRM Compensation Data Center
(www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/business-solutions/pages/salary-data-service.aspx)]
Fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
APPENDIX G – 2020 Public Safety (sworn) employee turnover data (detail)
Total Firefighters = 14 (Dismissal = 1, Resignation = 6, Retire = 7)
Department Reason Description Job Title Hire
Date
Term
Date
FIRE DISMISSAL FIRE CAPTAIN 8/18/02 2/12/20
FIRE RESIGNATION FIREFIGHTER II 7/30/18 12/2/20
FIRE RESIGNATION FIREFIGHTER I 2/10/20 3/23/20
FIRE RESIGNATION FIREFIGHTER I 7/30/18 6/29/20
FIRE RESIGNATION FIREFIGHTER I 8/31/20 9/13/20
FIRE RESIGNATION FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC II 7/23/19 7/15/20
FIRE RESIGNATION FIREFIGHTER I 8/31/20 9/13/20
FIRE RETIRE FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC III 1/2/90 1/15/20
FIRE RETIRE FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC III 1/2/90 1/15/20
FIRE RETIRE FIRE CAPTAIN 7/13/87 11/22/20
FIRE RETIRE AIRPORT RESCUE FIREFIGHTER
III
10/29/90 5/30/20
FIRE RETIRE FIRE CAPTAIN 3/11/90 9/15/20
FIRE RETIRE FIREFIGHTER ENGINEER III 6/1/97 8/31/20
FIRE RETIRE FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC III 3/11/90 3/29/20
Total Police Officers = 52 (Resignation = 38, Retire = 14)
Department Reason Description Job Title Hire
Date
Term
Date
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 10/19/20 10/22/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 7/8/19 6/12/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 1/13/20 9/14/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 1/14/19 12/12/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 9/25/18 10/11/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 1/14/19 7/28/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 1/13/20 6/19/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 7/8/19 6/18/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 1/13/20 8/5/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 10/7/19 10/21/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 7/8/19 6/11/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER I 8/14/18 6/29/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 5/9/16 9/3/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 1/25/18 7/16/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 3/17/16 9/18/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 2/20/18 9/12/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 5/8/18 10/1/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 1/13/20 7/22/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 5/8/18 4/30/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER II 8/13/18 8/25/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 8/5/07 11/12/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 9/24/15 9/26/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 6/22/17 10/9/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 5/19/16 12/11/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 4/2/15 10/23/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 9/24/15 11/9/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 4/2/15 10/20/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 9/4/14 10/5/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 10/4/10 8/27/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 1/25/18 7/22/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 7/14/19 9/26/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 9/25/18 10/16/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 7/14/19 12/12/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 9/10/12 11/2/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 1/14/19 4/7/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 6/26/03 10/18/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 8/10/09 5/1/20
POLICE RESIGNATION POLICE OFFICER III 7/13/09 10/11/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 8/1/78 12/15/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 4/3/00 4/15/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 1/2/14 5/15/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 7/9/13 12/15/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 12/18/89 1/15/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 1/3/00 6/30/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 10/1/12 7/7/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 6/8/90 9/12/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 7/30/01 10/13/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 6/8/90 6/7/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 2/23/95 12/14/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 6/26/03 9/15/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 1/5/09 9/1/20
POLICE RETIRE POLICE OFFICER III 12/14/20 9/15/20
Prepared for and on behalf of the Committee by:
349 South 200 East, Suite 500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5464
(801) 535-7900
Deb Alexander, Chief Human Resources Officer
David Salazar, Compensation Program Manager
Eleonore Jackson, Classification & Compensation Analyst
ANNUAL
COMPENSATION PLAN
for Non-Represented
Employees
FY2021
FY2022
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
Page | 1
FY 2021 2022 COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES of SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this plan shall be effective commencing June 28, 2020June 27, 2021, unless
otherwise noted.
EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS PLAN
This plan applies to all full-time city employees. This plan does not apply to employees
classified as: seasonal, hourly, temporary, part -time or those covered by a memorandum
of understanding.
AUTHORITY OF THE MAYOR
Employees covered by this compensation plan may be appointed, classified, and advanced
under rules and regulations promulgated by the mayor, or the Civil Service Commission, if
applicable, within budget limitations established by the city council.
Furthermore, the mayor may authorize leave not specified in this compensation plan to
provide for operational flexibility, so long as the additional leave does not exceed the
equivalent of eight hours of leave per employee, per year. However, with the exception of
a benefit created or expanded pursuant to Section IV, Subsection X (“Emergency Leave”),
the mayor may not otherwise create a new benefit or expand an existing benefit for
employees covered by this compensation plan if doing so will result in a direct,
measurable cost. A direct, measurable cost includes a circumstance where the total cost
of the new benefit or expansion of an existing benefit exceeds appropriated funds.
Further, city council input and approval is required if the creation of a new benefit has
policy implications or is already addressed in this compensation plan.
APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS
All provisions in this compensation plan are subject to the appropriation of funds by the city
council.
MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF PROVISIONS
If a local emergency is declared, any provision in this compensation plan may be temporarily
modified, suspended, or revoked for the duration (or any portion thereof) of the period of local
emergency, if so authorized by the mayor and/or city council .
Page | 2
SECTION I: DEFINITIONS
SUBSECTION I - DEFINITION OF TERMS
As used in this compensation plan:
1. “Appointed employees,” with the exception of justice court judges who are
covered under this plan, means employees who are "at-will" employees serving
at the pleasure of the mayor (or the city council if they are employees of the
Office of the City Council).
2. “Adult Designee” means any individual with whom an employee has a long-term,
committed relationship of mutual caring and support. The adult designee must
have resided in the same household with the eligible employee for at least the
past 12 consecutive months and must have common financial obligations with
the employee. The adult designee and the employee must be jointly responsible
for each other’s welfare.
3. "Exempt” refers to any employee who is not eligible to receive
compensation for overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
4. “FLSA” means the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
5. “Full-time employee” means employees whose positions regularly require more
than 30 hours per week on a full-time schedule.
6. "Non-Exempt” refers to an employee who is entitled to receive overtime
compensation pursuant to the FLSA.
SECTION II: EMPLOYEE WAGES, SALARIES & BENEFITS
SUBSECTION I - COMPENSATION PROGRAM & SALARY SCHEDULES
The city’s compensation system and program, in conjunction with this plan , is intended to
attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel necessary to effectively meet public service
demands.
A. Determination
1. The mayor shall develop policies and guidelines for the administration of the
pay plans.
2. To the degree that funds permit, employees shall be paid com pensation that:
a. Is commensurate with the skills and abilities required of the position;
Page | 3
b. Achieves equal pay for equal work;
c. Attains comparability and is competitive with the compensation paid by
other public and/or private employers with whom the city compares
and/or competes for personnel recruitment and retention. The city shall
consider itself competitive when data indicates actual median employee
pay rates plus the overall additional economic value of benefits equals
at least 100% compared to market.
3. To the extent possible, market surveys shall be used to assess and evaluate the
city’s competitiveness with a cross section of organizations with whom the city
competes for personnel recruitment and retention. This may include one or
more of the following:
a. Compensation surveys, including actual pay and other cash allowances paid
to employees.
b. Benefits surveys, including paid leave, group insurance plans, retirement, and
other employer-provided and voluntary benefits.
c. Regular review of the city’s compensation plans and pay structures to
ensure salary ranges and regular pay practices provide for job growth and
encourage employee productivity.
B. Salary Schedules
1. All Employees covered under this plan (except for those designated as “Elected
Officials”) shall be paid base wages or salaries according to the General Employee
Pay Plan attached as Appendix “A.” Wages and salaries shall not be less than the
established range minimum or higher than the range maximum, unless otherwise
approved by the mayor or mayor’s designee.
2. Appointed Employees: The specific pay level assignments for Appointed
Employees are shown in Appendix “B.”
3. Elected Officials: Elected officials shall be paid annual compensation according
to schedule attached as Appendix "C."
C. Other Compensation
The mayor or the city council may distribute appropriated monies to city employees
as discretionary retention incentives or retirement contributions; or special lump
sum supplemental payments. Retention incentives or special lump sum payments
are subject to the mayor’s or city council’s approval.
Page | 4
SUBSECTION II - EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 20212022
For employees covered under this plan, the city will maintain increase each employee’s base pay
without an increaseby one percent. Salaries for elected officials will, also, be maintained without
an increased by one percent.
The city’s living wage for regular, full-time employees is set and shall be no less than $10.8715.11
per hour.
SUBSECTION III - EMPLOYEE INSURANCE
The city will make available group medical, health and flex savings plans, dental, life,
accidental death & dismemberment, long-term disability insurance, voluntary benefits and
an employee assistance program (EAP) to all eligible employees and their eligible spouse,
adult designee, dependents and dependents of adult designee pursuant to city policy.
A. Employer-Paid Contributions. Effective July 1, 20202021, the city’s contribution
toward the total premium for group medical will be 95% for the high-deductible
Summit Star Plan. For employees enrolled in the high-deductible Summit Star Plan,
the city will also contribute a one-time total of $750 into a qualified health savings
account (HSA) or a Medical Flex Account for those enrolled for single coverage and
$1,500 for those enrolled for double or family coverage per plan year. Health
savings account or Medical Flex account contributions will be pro-rated for any
employee hired after July 1, 20202021.
B. 501(c) (9) Post Employment Health Reimbursement Account. The city will contribute
$24.30 per bi-weekly pay period into each employee’s Educators Benefits Consultants
(EBC) Post Employment Health Reimbursement Account. For any year in which there
are 27 pay periods, no such contribution will be made in the 27th pay period.
SUBSECTION IV - WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
The city will provide workers’ compensation coverage to employees as required by applicable
law.
SUBSECTION V - SOCIAL SECURITY EXCEPTION FOR POLICE & FIRE
All sworn employees in the Police and Fire departments covered under this plan are exempt from
the provisions of the federal Social Security System unless determined otherwise by the city or
required by applicable law.
SUBSECTION VI - RETIREMENT
A. Retirement Programs. The city hereby adopts the Utah State Retirement System for
providing retirement benefits to employees covered by the plan. The city may permit
or require the participation of employees in its retiremen t program(s) under terms
Page | 5
and conditions established by the mayor and consistent with applicable law. Such
programs may include:
1. The Utah State Public Employees (Contributory and Non-Contributory); Public
Safety Retirement Systems; or, the Utah Firefighters Retirement System; or,
2. Deferred compensation programs.
B. The 2020-20212021-2022 fiscal year retirement contribution rates for employees,
including elected officials, are shown in Appendix “D.”
SECTION III: WORK HOURS, OVERTIME & OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES
SUBSECTION I – WORK HOURS
A. The city’s standard work week begins Sunday at 12:00am and ends the following
Saturday at 11:59pm. Alternatives to the standard work week may be authorized and
adopted for specific work groups, such as:
1. The standard work schedule for combat Fire Battalion Chiefs, which includes
two consecutive 24-hour shifts immediately followed by 96 hours off.
A work week beginning Sunday at 7:00am and ending the following Sunday at
6:59am, as in the case of Police Sergeants and Lieutenants.
SUBSECTION II- OVERTIME COMPENSATION
A. Overtime Compensation. The city will pay non-exempt employees overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA. The city will pay overtime hours at 1 ½ times
the employee’s regular hourly rate or, at the employee’s request and with their
department director’s approval, provide compensatory time off at a rate of 1½
hours for each overtime hour in lieu of overtime compensation.
1. Employees may accrue compensatory time up to a maximum amount as
determined by their department director.
2. The city may elect at any time to pay an employee for any or all accrued
compensatory hours.
3. The city will includ e only actual hours worked and holiday leave hours when
calculating overtime.
4. When used, personal leave and compensatory time will not be included in the
calculation of overtime.
Page | 6
5. The city will pay out all accrued compensatory hours whenever an employee’s
status or position changes from FLSA non-exempt to exempt.
B. Labor Costs— Declared Emergency— Overtime Compensation for FLSA Exempt
Employees. The city may pay exempt employees overtime pay for any hours
worked over forty (40) hours in a workweek at a rate equivalent to their regular
base hourly rate of pay during periods of emergency. The city shall only make such
payment when all of the following conditions occur:
1. The mayor or the city council has issued a “Proclamation of Local Emergency”
or the city responds to an extraordinary emergency; and,
2. Exempt employees are required to work over forty (40) hours for one or more
workweek(s) during the emergency period: and,
3. The mayor and/or the city council approve the use of available funds to cover
the overtime payments.
The city shall distribute any overtime payments consistently with a pre -defined
standard that treats all exempt employees equitably. Hours worked under a
declared or extraordinary emergency must be paid hours and cannot be accrued as
compensatory time.
SUBSECTION III - LONGEVITY PAY
A. Eligibility. With the exception of elected officials, the city will pay a monthly
longevity benefit to full-time employees based on the most recent date an employee
began full -time employment as follows:
1. Employees who have completed six (6) consecutive years of employment
with the city will receive $50;
2. Employees who have completed ten (10) consecutive years of employment
with the city will receive $75;
3. Employees who have completed sixteen (16) full years of employment wit h
the city will receive $100; and,
4. Employees who have completed twenty (20) full years of employment with
the city will receive $125.
Page | 7
B. Pension Base Pay. Longevity pay will be included in base pay for purposes of
pension contributions.
C. Longevity While on an Unpaid Leave of Absence. Employees do not earn or
receive longevity payments while on an unpaid leave of absence. When an
employee returns from an approved unpaid leave of absence, longevity
payments will resume.
SUBSECTION IV - WAGE DIFFERENTIALS & ADDITIONAL PAY
Eligible employees receive certain wage differentials as follows:
A. Call Back and Call Out Pay. Non-exempt employees will be paid Call Back or Call Out
pay based upon department director approval and the following guidelines:
1. Call Back Pay: Non-sworn, non-exempt employees who have been released
from normally scheduled work and standby periods, and who are directed
by an appropriate department head or designated representative to return
to work prior to their next scheduled normal duty shift, will be paid for a
minimum of three (3) hours straight-time pay and, in addition, will be
guaranteed a minimum four (4) hours work at straight-time pay.
2. Call Out Pay for Police Sergeants. Sergeants who have been released from
their scheduled work shifts and have been directed by an appropriate
division head or designated representative to perform work without at
least 24 hours advance notice or scheduling, shall be compensated as
follows:
a. Sergeants who are directed to report to work shall receive a
minimum of four (4) hours compensation at one and one-half times
their hourly wage rate, or one and one-half times their hourly wage
rate for actual hours worked, whichever is greater.
b. Sergeants who are assigned to day shift, and who are directed to
perform work within eight (8) hours prior to the beginning of their
regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours
compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate, or
one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual hours
worked, whichever is greater.
c. Sergeants who are assigned to afternoon or grave yard shifts, and who
are directed to perform work within eight (8) hours following the end
of their regularly scheduled shift shall receive a minimum of four (4)
hours compensation at one and one-half times their hourly wage rate,
or one and one-half times their hourly wage rate for actual
Page | 8
hours worked, whichever is greater.
B. Standby Pay : Non-exempt employees are eligible to receive Standby pay based
upon the following guidelines.
1. Standby for Non-Sworn Employees: Non-exempt, non-sworn employees
who have been released from normally scheduled work but have not
been released from standby status will be paid either two (2) hours of
straight time pay for each 24 hour period of limited standby status; or
two (2) hours straight time pay for each 12-hour period of standby status
if they are Department of Airports or Public Utilities Department
employees.
a. First Call to Work. An eligible employee who is directed to return to
his or her normal work site during an assigned Standby period by a
department head or designated representative without advanced
notice or scheduling will be paid a guaranteed minimum of four (4)
hours, which may include any combination of hours worked and/or
non-worked straight-time pay.
b. Additional Calls to Work. An eligible employee will be paid an
additional guaranteed minimum of two (2) hours, which may include
any combination of hours worked and/or non-worked straight-time
pay, for each additional occasion he or she is called to work during
the same twenty-four (24) or twelve (12) hour standby period.
c. Exclusion for Snow Fighters. Any employee on standby as a member
of the Snow Fighter Corps shall not receive standby/on-call pay or
shift differential when on standby or called back to fight snow.
2. Standby for Police Sergeants: Police Sergeants directed by their division
commander or designee to keep themselves available for city service
during otherwise off-duty hours shall be compensated one half hour (30
minutes) two (2) hours of straight time for each 12-hour period of
standby status twelve (12) hours while on a designated Standby status.
This compensation shall be in addition to any callout pay or pay for time
worked the employee may receive during the standby period.
C. Extra-Duty Shifts for Police Sergeants. "Extra-duty shifts" are defined as scheduled or
unscheduled hours worked other than the sergeant's normally scheduled work shifts.
"Extra-duty shifts" do not include extension or carry over of the sergeant's normally
scheduled work shift.
1. Any sergeant required by the city to work extra-duty shifts shall receive
a minimum of three (3) hours compensation at one and one-half times
their regular base hourly rate, or time worked paid at one and one-half
Page | 9
times their regular hourly base wage rate, whichever is greater.
D. Shift Allowance, not including Police Sergeants & Lieutenants. Only non- exempt
employees who perform afternoon/ swing or evening shift work are eligible to
receive a shift allowance.
1. The city will include all shift allowance when computing overtime. An
employee who receives Snow Fighter Corps differential pay is not eligible to
also receive shift allowance.
2. Day Shift: No allowance will be paid for work hours which are part of a
regular day shift.
3. Eligible Hours: For each non-day shift hour worked between the hours of
6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the city will pay an eligible non-exempt
employee a differential of $1.00 per hour.
E. Shift Differential for Police Sergeants & Lieutenants: The city will pay Police sergeants
& lieutenants shift differentials according to the shift actually worked. Actual shift
differential rates are determined as follows:
1. Day Shift: No differential pay for hours worked during day shift, which begins
at 0500 hours until 1159 hours.
2. Swing Shift: A differential of 2.5% in addition to the regular day rate shall be
paid for swing shift, which begins at 1200 hours until 1859 hours.
3. Graveyard Shift: A differential of 5.0% in addition to the regular day rate
shall be paid for graveyard shift, which begins at 1900 hours until 0459
hours.
F. Acting/Working out of Classification. A department head may elect to grant
additional compensation to an employee for work performed on a temporary basis,
whether in an acting capacity or otherwise, beyond the employee’s regular job
classification for any period lasting 20 or more working days. Unless approved by the
mayor or mayor’s designee, acting pay shall be limited to no more than 90 calendar
days from the start date and paid separately from regular earnings on each
employee’s wage statement. Compensation adjustments may be retroactive to the
start date of the temporary job assignmen t. Exceptions may be approved by the
mayor or mayor’s designee.
1. Acting pay shall be excluded when calculating any leave payouts,
including vacation, holiday, and personal leave.
Page | 10
G. Snowfighter Pay. The city will pay employees designated by the department head,
or designee, as members of the Snow Fighter Corps a pay differential equal to $200
per pay period for the snowfighter season not to exceed $2,000 during each fiscal
year for work related to snow removal. This pay shall be separate from regular
earnings on each employee’s wage statement.
SUBSECTION V - EDUCATION AND TRAINING PAY
A. Education Incentives. The mayor may adopt programs to promote employee
education and training, provided that all compensation incentives are authorized
within appropriate budget limitations established by the city council.
1. Police Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains are eligible for a $500 per
year job-related training allowance.
2. Fire Battalion/Division Chiefs are eligible for incentive pay following
completion of degree requirements at a fully accredited college or
university and submission of evidence of a diploma to Human Resources.
The city will pay monthly allowances according to the educational degree
held, as follows:
Doctorate………….. $100.00
Masters………..…... $75.00
Bachelors……...…... $50.00
Associate………….. $35.00
a. Eligibility for this pay allowance ends when the department implements
approved changes to the minimum requirements for promotion to
Battalion/Division Chief by requiring a degree, as anticipated during the fall
of 2020.
SUBSECTION VI – OTHER PAY ALLOWANCES
A. Meal Allowance. When approved by management, employees may receive meal
allowances in the amount of $10.00 when an employee works two or more hours
consecutive to their normally scheduled shift. Employees may also be eligible to
receive $10.00 for each additional four-hour consecutive period of work which is in
addition to the normally scheduled work shift.
1. Fire and police department employees shall be provided with adequate
food and drink to maintain safety and performance during emergencies
or extraordinary circumstances.
B. Business Expenses. City policy shall govern the authorization of employee
advancement or reimbursement for actual expenses reasonably incurred while
Page | 11
performing city business. Advance payment or reimbursement for expenses shall
be approved only when the amounts are documented and within the budget
limitations established by the city council.
C. Automobiles
1. The mayor may authorize, subject to the conditions provided in city
policy, an employee to utilize a city vehicle on a take-home basis and
may require an employee to reimburse the city for a portion of the
take -home vehicle cost as provided in city ordinance.
2. Employees who are authorized to use privately-owned automobiles for
official city business will be reimbursed for the operation expenses at the
rate specif ied in city policy.
3. The city will provide a car allowance to department directors, the mayor’s
chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative officer, up to three additional
employees in the mayor’s office, and the city council Executive Director at
a rate not to exceed $400 per month A car allowance may be paid to
specific appointed employees at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as
recommended by the mayor and approved by the city council.
D. Uniform Allowance. The city will provide employees who are required to wear
uniforms in the performance of their duties a monthly uniform allowance as
follows:
1. Parking Enforcement Field Supervisor—$65.00
2. Non-sworn Police and Fire Department
employees—$65.00
3. Watershed Management Division
employees—$65.00
4. Fire: Battalion Chiefs will be provided uniforms and other job-related
safety equipment, as needed. Employees may select uniforms and
related equipment from an approved list. The total allowance provided
shall be $600 per year, or the amount received by firefighter employees,
whichever is greater. Appointed employees shall be provided uniforms
or uniform allowances to the extent stated in Fire department policy.
a. Dangerous or contaminated safety equipment shall be cleaned,
repaired, or replaced by the Fire department.
5. Police: Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in uniform
Page | 12
assignments, as determined by their bureau commander, will be
enrolled in the department’s quartermaster system.
a. The quartermaster system will operate as follows:
i. Necessary uniform and equipment items, including patrol
uniforms, detective uniforms, duty gear, footwear, cold-
weather gear, headwear, etc. will be provided to Police
sergeants, lieutenants, and captains by the department’s
quartermaster pursuant to department policy.
ii. A full inventory of items that the quartermaster will
provide to Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains within
the quartermaster system and the manner in which they
will be distributed will be stated in department
policy.
iii. Police sergeants, lieutenants and captains in the
quartermaster system will be paid the sum of One
Hundred Dollars ($100) each fiscal year for the purpose of
independently purchasing any incidental uniform item or
equipment not provided by the quartermaster system.
Payment will be made each year on the first day of the
pay-period that includes August 15.
b. The city will provide for the cleaning of uniforms as described in
Police department policy.
c. Police sergeants, lieutenants, and captains in plainclothes
assignments, as determined by their bureau commander, are
provided a clothing and cleaning allowance totaling $39.00 per pay
period. Sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who are transferred
back to a uniform assignment will return to the quartermaster
system upon transfer.
d. Uniforms or uniform allowances for appointed Police employees will
be provided to the extent stated in Police department policy.
E. Allowances for Certified Golf Teaching Professionals. The mayor may, within
budgeted appropriations and as business needs indicate, authorize golf lesson
revenue sharing between the city and employees recognized as Certified Golf
Teaching Professionals as defined in the Golf Division’s Golf Lesson Revenue
Policy. Payment to an employee for lesson revenue generated shall be
reduced by: 1) a ten (10%) percent administrative fee to be retained by the
Golf division, and 2) the employee’s payroll tax withholding requirements in
Page | 13
accordance with applicable law.
F. Other Allowances. The mayor or the city council may, within budgeted
appropriations, authorize th e payment of other allowances in extraordinary
circumstances (as determined by the mayor or the city council).
SUBSECTION VII - SEVERANCE BENEFIT
Subject to availability of funds, any current appointed employee who is not retained, not
terminated for cause and who is separated from city employment involuntarily shall receive
severance benefits based upon their respective appointment date.
A. Severance benefits shall be calculated using the employee’s salary rate in effect on the
employee’s date of termination. Receipt of severance benefits is contingent upon
execution of a release of all claims approved by the city attorney’s office.
1. Employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989 and before January 1,
2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to one months’ base salary
for each continuous year of city employment in an appointed status
before January 1, 2000. Severance shall be calculated on a pro-rata basis
for a total benefit of up to a maximum of six m onths.
2. Current department heads, along with the mayor’s chief of staff and
the executive director of the city council office, appointed on or after
January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance benefit equal to two month’s
base salary after one full year of continuous city employment in an
appointed status; four months’ base salary after two full years of
continuous city employment in an appointed status; or, six months’ base
salary after three full years or more of continuous city employment in an
appointed status.
3. Current appointed employees who are not department heads, and who
were appointed on or after January 1, 2000 shall receive a severance
benefit equal to one week’s base salary for each year of continuous city
employment in an appointed status, calculated on a pro-rata basis, for a
total benefit of up to a maximum of six weeks.
B. Leave Payout: Appointed employees with leave hour account balances under
Plan A or Plan B shall, in addition to the severance benefit provided, receive a
severance benefit equal to the “retirement benefit” value provided under the
leave plan of which they are a participant (either Plan A or Plan B), if
separation is involuntary and not for cause.
C. Not Eligible for Benefit . An appointed employee is ineligible to be paid
severance benefits under the following circumstances:
Page | 14
1. An employee who, at the time of termination of employment, has been
convicted, indicted, charged or is under active criminal investigation
concerning a public offense involving a felony or moral turpitude. This
provision shall not restrict the award of full severance benefits should
such employee subsequently be found not guilty of such charge or if the
charges are otherwise dismissed.
2. An employee who has been terminated or asked for a resignation by the
mayor or department director under bona fide charges of nonfeasance,
misfeasance or malfeasance in office.
3. An employee who fails to execute a Release of All Claims approved by the
city attorney’s office, where required as stipulated above.
4. An employee who is hired into another position in the city prior to their
separation date.
In the event an employee is hired into another position in the city after
their separation date and prior to the expiration of the period of time for
which the severance benefit was provided, the employee is required to
reimburse the City (on a pro-rata basis) for that portion of the severance
benefit covering the period of time between the date of rehire and the
expiration of the period of time for which the severance benefit was
provided.
SECTION IV: HOLIDAY, VACATION & LEAVE ACCRUAL
Benefits-eligible employees shall receive pay for holidays, vacation and other leave as provided
in this section. Employees do not earn or receive holiday and vacation benefits while on unpaid
leave of absence. However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled
to the restoration of such leave benefits, as required by applicable law.
SUBSECTION I – HOLIDAYS
A. The following days are recognized and observed as holidays for covered
employees. Eligible employees will receive pay for non-worked holidays equal
to their regular rate of pay times the total number of hours which make a
regularly scheduled shift. Except as otherwise noted in this subsection, an
employee may not bank a worked holiday.
1. New Year's Day, the first day of January.
2. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the third Monday of January.
3. President's Day, the third Monday in February.
Page | 15
4. Memorial Day, the last Monday of May.
5. Independence Day, July 4.
6. Pioneer Day, July 24.
7. Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
8. Columbus Day, the second Monday of October (only for eligible employees
assigned to the Justice Court)
9. Veteran's Day, November 11.
10. Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
11. The Friday after Thanksgiving Day (excluding employees assigned to the
Justice Court)
12. Christmas Day, December 25.
13. One personal holiday per calendar year, taken upon request of an
employee and as approved by a supervisor.
B. When any holiday listed above falls on a Sunday, the following business day is
considered a holiday. When any holiday listed above falls on a Saturday, the
preceding business day is considered a holiday. In addition to the above, any day
may be designated as a holiday by proclamation of the mayor or the city council.
C. All holiday hours, including personal holidays, must be used in no less than
regular full day or shift increments.
1. A Fire battalion/division chief may be allowed to use a holiday in
less than a full shift increment only when converting from a
“support” to “operations” work schedule results in the creation of a
half-shift.
D. No employee will receive more than the equivalent of one workday or a regular
scheduled shift as holiday pay for a single holiday. Employees must either work
or be in an authorized paid leave status a working day before and a working day
after the holiday to qualify for holiday pay.
1. An employee who is off work and in a paid status covered by short-term
disability or parental leave receives regular pay as a benefit and,
therefore, is not entitled to bank a holiday while off work.
Page | 16
E. Holiday Exceptions: Except for employees assigned to the Justice Court, an
eligible employee may observe the Friday after Thanksgiving Day up to 50 days
prior to the actual holiday with prior management approval. For Columbus Day,
which is limited only to employees assigned to the Justice Court, an employee
may observe the holiday up to 50 days following the actual holiday.
F. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Holiday Hours Worked: When a day
designated as a holiday falls on a scheduled work day, a Police sergeant,
lieutenant, or captain may elect to take the day off work, subject to the approval
of their supervisor, or receive their regular wages for such days worked and
designate an alternate day off work to celebrate the holiday. For a Police
sergeant whose assignment requires staffing on either the graveyard shift prior
to, or the day and afternoon shift on Thanksgiving Day or Christmas Day, all
hours worked will be compensated at a rate of one-and-one-half (1 ½) times the
employee’s regular base wage rate.
G. Police Sergeant, Lieutenant, & Captain Accrued Holiday Leave Payout: Police
sergeants, lieutenants, and captains who retire or separate from city
employment for any reason shall be compensated for any holiday time accrued
and unused during the preceding 12 months. Employees will not be
compensated for any unused holiday time accrued before the 12 months
preceding the employee’s retirement or separation.
1. Any Police sergeant, lieutenant, or captain who is transferred or promoted
to a higher level position within the department, including Deputy Chief,
Assistant Chief, or Police Chief, or to a position in another city department
will be paid out at their current base pay rate for any holiday time accrued
and unused during the preceding 12 months.
SUBSECTION II - VACATION LEAVE
The city will pay eligible employees their regular salaries during vacation periods earned and
taken in accordance with the following provisions. Except as provided for expressly in either city
policy or this plan, vacation leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the
total number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during a work week or a
pay period.
Vacation hours may be used on the first day of the pay period following the period in which
the vacation hours are accrued.
A. Full-Time employees and appointed employees (except for those noted in
paragraphs B and C of this subsection) accrue vacation leave based upon years of
city service as follows:
Page | 17
Years of Hours of Vacation
Accrued Per Bi-weekly
City Service Pay Period
0 to end of year 3 3.73
4 to end of year 6 4.42
7 to end of year 9 4.81
10 to end of year 12 5.54
13 to end of year 15 6.15
16 to end of year 19 6.77
20 or more 7.69
B. Department directors, the mayor’s chief of staff, the mayor’s chief administrative
officer, up t o two additional senior positions in the mayor’s office as specified by the
mayor, the executive director of the city council, and justice court judges will accrue
7.69 hours each bi-weekly pay period.
C. Fire battalion chiefs in the Operations division of the Fire department will
accrue vacation leave according to the following schedule:
Years of Accrued Hours of Vacation Per
City Service Pay Period
0 to end of year 3 5.54
4 to end of year 6 6.46
7 to end of year 9 7.38
10 to end of year 12 8.31
13 to end of year 14 9.23
15 to end of year 19 10.15
20 or more 11.54
D. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no vacation leave hours will be
awarded in the 27th pay period.
Page | 18
E. Years of city service are based on the most recent date the person became a full-time
salaried employee.
F. Full-time employees re-hired by the city are eligible to receive up to three years
of prior service credit for previous full-time city employment and time worked
with other public jurisdictions without a break in service. Prior service credit is
applicable for vacation accrual, and personal leave accrual, short-term disability
benefits, layoff, and awarding of employee service awards and service
certificates only. Prior service credit does not apply to any other benefits,
including longevity pay or short-term disability.
G. Full-time and appointed employees (except those listed in Paragraph B of this
subsection) may accumulate vacations, according to the length of their full-time
years of city Service, up to the following maximum limits:
Up to and including 9 years Up to 30 days/ 15 shifts/ 240 hours
After 9 years Up to 35 days/ 17.5 shifts/ 280 hours
After 14 years Up to 40 days/ 20 shifts/ 320 hours
For purposes of this subsection, "days" means "8-hour" days and “shifts” means
“24-hour” combat shifts.
H. Department directors and those included in Paragraph B of this subsection may
accumulate up to 320 hours of vacation without regard to their years of employment
with the city.
I. Any vacation accrued beyond the allowable maximums will be deemed forfeited
unless used before the end of the calendar year in which the hours are accrued.
However, in the case of an employee’s return from an unpaid military leave of
absence, leave hours may be restored according to requirements under applicable
law.
J. Vacation Payout at Termination : An employee separating from employment may not
exhaust more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or
banked (holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. Employees
shall be paid at their base hourly rate for any unused accrued vacation leave time
following termination of employment, including retirement.
K. Vacation Allowance: As a recruiting incentive, the mayor or the city council may
provide a one-time allowance of up to 120 hours of vacation leave.
Page | 19
SUBSECTION III - SICK AND OTHER RELATED LEAVE OR PERSONAL LEAVE
Benefits in this section are for the purpose of continuing income replacement to for
employees during absence from work due to illness, accident or personal reasons.
Some of these absences may qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
(FMLA). Although the city requires use of accrued paid leave prior to taking unpaid
FMLA leave, employees will be allowed to reserve up to 80 hours of non -lapsing
leave as a contingency for future use by submitting a written request to Human
Resources. Employees are not eligible to earn or receive leave benefits while on an
unpaid leave of absence.
However, employees on an unpaid military leave of absence may be entitled to the
restoration of such leave benefits, as provided by applicable law.
Employees hired on or after November 16, 1997 receive personal leave benefits
under Plan B. All other employees receive personal leave benefits pursuant to the
plan they participated in as of November 15, 1998. Employees hired before
November 16, 1997 shall receive personal leave benefits under Plan B if they
elected to do so during any city- established election period occurring in 1998 or
later.
A. Plan “A ”
1. Sick Leave
a. Sick leave is provided for full-time employees under Plan “A” as insurance
against loss of income when an employee is unable to perform assigned
duties because of illness or injury. The mayor may e stablish rules
governing the interfacing of sick leave and workers’ compensation benefits
and avoiding, to the extent allowable by law, duplicative payments.
b. Each full-time employee accrues sick leave at a rate of 4.62 hours per pay
period. For any plan year in which there are 27 pay periods, no sick leave
hours will be awarded in the 27th pay period. Authorized and unused sick
leave may be accumulated from year to year, subject to the limitations of
this plan.
1. Sick Leave Accrual for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Each covered employee
shall be entitled to 15 days of sick leave each calendar year, except for
members of the Operations division who shall be entitled to 7.5 shifts
of sick leave each calendar year. The City shall credit a covered
employee’s sick leave account in a lump sum (either 15 days or7.5
shifts) during the first month of each calendar year. Authorized and
unused sick leave may be accumulated from year to year subject to the
limitations of this plan.
Page | 20
c. Under this Plan “A,” Full-Time employees who have accumulated 240
hours of sick leave may choose to convert up to 64 hours of the sick leave
earned and unused during any given year to vacation. Any sick leave used
during the calendar year reduces the allowable conversion by an equal
amount.
1. Sick Leave Conversion for Fire Battalion Chiefs – Fire Battalion Chiefs
who have accumulated 15 shifts (for Operations employees), or 240
hours (for non-Operations employees) may choose to convert a
portion of the year sick leave grant from any given year to vacation, as
follows—
Number of Sick Leave Shifts Used
During Previous Calendar Year
(Operations Only)
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Available for Conversion
(Operations Only)
No shifts used 5 shifts
One shift used 4 shifts
Two shifts used 3 shifts
Three shifts used 2 shifts
Four shifts used 1 shift
Five or more shifts used No shifts
Number of Sick Leave Shifts Used
During Previous Calendar Year
(Support Only)
Number of Sick Leave Shifts
Available for Conversion
(Support Only)
No days used 9 days
One day used 8 days
Two days used 7 days
Three days used 6 days
Four days used 5 days
Five or more days used 0 days
d. Conversion at the maximum allowable hours will be made unless the
employee elects otherwise. Any election by an employee for no
conversion, or to convert less than the maximum allowable sick leave
hours to vacation time, must be made by notifying the employee’s
department timekeeper or the city payroll administrator, in writing, not
later than the second pay period of the new calendar year (or the
November vacation draw for Fire Battalion Chiefs). Otherwise, the
opportunity to waive conversion or elect conversion other than the
maximum allowable amount will be deemed waived for that calendar
year. In no event may sick leave days be converted from other than the
current year's sick leave allocation.
e. Any sick leave hours, properly converted to vacation benefits as above
Page | 21
described, must be taken before any other vacation hours to which the
employee is entitled; however, in no event is an employee, upon the
employee’s separation from employment, entitled to any pay or
compensation for any sick leave converted to vacation. An employee
forfeits any sick leave converted to vacation remaining unused at the date
of separation from employment.
f. Sick Leave Benefits Upon Layoff. Employees who are subject to layoff
because of lack of work or lack of funds will be paid at 100% of their
hourly base wage rate as of the date of termination for each accumulated
unused sick leave hour.
2. Hospitalization Leave
a. Hospitalization leave is provided for full -time employees under Plan “A,” in
addition to sick leave authorized hereunder, as insuran ce against loss of
income when an employee is unable to perform assigned duties because of
scheduled surgical procedures, urgent medical treatment, or hospital
inpatient admission.
b. Employees are entitled to 30 days of hospitalization leave each calendar
year. Hospitalization leave does not accumulate from year to year.
Employees may not convert hospitalization leave to vacation or any other
leave, nor may they convert hospitalization leave to any additional benefit
at time of retirement.
c. Employees who are unable to perform their duties during a shift due to
preparations (such as fasting, rest, or ingestion of medicine), for a
scheduled surgical procedure, may report the absence from the affected
shift as hospitalization leave, with the prior approval of their division head
or supervisor.
d. An employee who must receive urgent medical treatment at a hospital,
emergency room, or acute care facility, and who is regularly scheduled for
work or unable to perform their duties during a shift (or work day) due to
urgent medical treatment, may re port the absence from the affected shift
as hospitalization leave. Similarly, an employee who is absent from work
while on approved leave is also allowed to claim hospitalization leave.
1. An employee who wishes to claim hospitalization leave is responsible to
report the receipt of urgent medical treatment to the employee’s
division head or supervisor as soon as practical.
Page | 22
2. For purposes of use of hospitalization leave, urgent medical treatment
includes at-home care directed by a physician immediately after the
urgent medical treatment and within the affected shift.
e. Employees who, because they are admitted as an inpatient to a hospital
for medical treatment, are unable to perform their duties, may report
the absence from duty while in the hospital as hospitalization leave.
f. Medical treatment consisting exclusively or primarily of post -injury
rehabilitation or therapy treatment, whether conducted in a hospital or
other medical facility, shall not be counted as hospitalization leave.
g. An employee requesting hospitalization leave under this section may be
required to provide verification of treatment or care from a competent
medical practitioner.
3. Dependent Leave
a. Under Plan “A,” dependent leave may be requested by a full-time
employee for the following reasons:
1. Becoming a parent through birth or adoption of a child.
2. Placement of a foster child in the employee’s home.
3. Due to the care of the employee’s child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult
designee, adult designee’s unmarried child under age 26, or parent
with a serious health condition.
b. Under Plan “A,” dependent leave may also be requested by a full-time
employee to care for an employee’s child, spouse, spouse’s child, adult
designee, an adult designee’s unmarried child under age 26, or a parent
who is ill or injured but who does not have a serious health condition.
c. The following provisions apply to the use of dependent leave by a full-
time employee:
1. Dependent leave may be granted with pay on a straight time basis.
2. If an employee has available unused sick leave, sick leave may be
used as dependent leave.
3. An employee is required to give notice of the need to take
dependent leave, including the expected duration of leave, to his or
her supervisor as soon as possible.
Page | 23
4. Upon request of a supervisor, an employee will be required to
provide a copy of a birth certificate or evidence of child placement
for adoption, or a letter from the attending physician in the event of
hospitalization, injury, or illness of a child, spouse, spouse’s child,
adult designee, adult designee’s child, or parent within five calendar
days following a return from leave.
5. An employee’s sick leave shall be reduced by the number of hours
taken by an employee as dependent leave.
4. Career Incentive Leave, Plan “A”
Full-Time employees, who have been in continuous full-time employment with
the city for more than 20 years, and who have accumulated to their credit 1500 or
more sick leave hours, may make a one-time election to convert up to 160 hours
of sick leave into 80 hours of paid Career Incentive Leave . Career Incentive Leave
must be taken prior to retirement. Sick leave hours converted to Career Incentive
Leave will not be eligible for a cash payout upon termination or retirement even
though the employee has unused Career Incentive Leave hours available. This
leave can be used for any reason. Requests for Career Incentive Leave must be
submitted in writing to the appropriate department director and be approved
subject to the department’s business needs (e.g., work schedules and workloads).
5. Retirement Benefit, Plan “A”
a. Employees who meet the eligibility requirements of the Utah State
Retirement System and who retire from the city will be paid at their base
hourly rate for 50% of their accumulated sick leave hours balance based
on the schedule below:
Retirement Month 50% sick leave will be:
January 1st – June 30th Contribution to EBC 501(c)9 Health
Reimbursement Account Plan
(premium-only account) July 1st – December 31st Cash to retiree
B. Plan “B”
1. The benefit Plan Year of Plan “B” begins in each calendar year on the first day
of the pay-period that includes November 15. Under Plan “B,” paid personal
leave is provided for employees as insurance against loss of income when an
employee needs to be absent from work because of illness or injury, to care for
a dependent, or for any other emergency or personal reason. Where the leave
is not related to the employee’s own illness or disability —or an event that
qualifies under the FMLA—a personal leave request is subject to supervisory
Page | 24
approval based on the operational requirements of the city and any policies
regarding the use of such leave adopted by the department in which the
employee works. Personal leave hours may be used on the first day of the pay
period following the period in which the hours are earned.
2. Each full-time employee under Plan “B” is awarded personal leave hours
based on the following schedule:
Months of
Consecutive Hours of
City Service Personal Leave
Less than 6 40
Less than 24 60
24 or more 80
Employees hired during the plan year are provided paid personal leave on a
pro-rated basis.
3. Not later than October 31st of each calendar year, employees covered by Plan
“B” may elect, by notifying their department timekeeper or the city payroll
administrator in writing, to:
a. Convert any unused personal leave hours available at the end of the first
pay period of November to a lump sum payment equal to the following:
For each converted hour, the employee will be paid 50 percent of the
employee’s regular hourly base wage rate (not including acting pay) in
effect on the date of conversion. In no event will total pay hereunder
exceed 40 hours of pay (80 hours at 50%); or
b. Carryover to the next calendar year up to 80 unused personal leave hours;
or
c. Convert a portion of unused personal leave hours, to a lump sum payment
as provided in subparagraph (3)(a), above, and carry over a portion as
provided in subparagraph (3)(b), above.
4. Maximum Accrual. A maximum of 80 hours of personal leave may be carried
over to the next plan year. Any personal leave hours unused at the end of the
plan year in excess of 80 will be converted to a lump sum payment as provided
in subparagraph 3(a) above.
5. Termination Benefits. An employee separating from employment may not exhaust
Page | 25
more than 80 hours of any combination of accrued vacation, personal leave, or banked
(holiday or vacation) leave prior to their last day of employment. At termination of
employment for any reason, accumulated unused personal leave hours, minus
any adjustment necessary after calculating the “prorated amount,” shall be paid
to the employee at 50 percent of the regular hourly base wage rate (not
including acting pay) on the date of termination for each unused hour. For
purposes of this paragraph, “prorated amount” shall mean the amount of
personal leave credited at the beginning of the plan year, multiplied by the ratio
of the number of pay periods worked in the plan year (rounded to the end of the
pay period which includes the separation date) to 26 pay periods. If the
employee, at the time of separation, has used personal leave in excess of the
prorated amount, the value of the excess amount shall be reimbursed to the city
and may be deducted f rom the employee’s paycheck.
6. Conditions on Use of Personal Leave include:
a. Minimum use of personal leave, with supervisory approval, must be in no
less than quarter-hour increments.
b. Except in unforeseen circumstances, such as emergencies or the
employee’s inability to work due to illness or accident or an
unforeseen FMLA-qualifying event, an employee must provide their
supervisor with prior notice to allow time for the supervisor to make
arrangements necessary to cover the employee’s work.
c. For leave due to unforeseen circumstances, the employee must give their
supervisor as much prior notice as possible.
d. Except as provided for expressly in either city policy or this plan, personal
leave hours are ineligible to be cashed out or used to exceed the total
number of hours for which an employee is regularly compensated during
a work week or a pay period.
7. Career Enhancement Leave, Plan “B”: A full-time employee covered under this
Plan “B” is eligible, after 15 years of full-time service with the city, to be selected
to receive up to two weeks of career enhancement leave. This one -time leave
benefit could be used for formal training, informal course of study, job -related
travel, internship, mentoring or other activity that could be of benefit to the city
and the employee’s career development. Selected employees will receive their
full regular salary during the leave. Request for this leave must be submitted in
writing to the appropriate department head, stating the purpose of the request
and how the leave is intended to benefit the city. The request must be approved
by the department head and by the Human Resourc es director (who will review
the request to ensure compliance with these guidelines).
Page | 26
8. Retirement/Layoff (RL) Benefit, Plan “B”
a. Full-Time employees currently covered under Plan “B” who were hired
before November 16, 1997, and who elected to be covered under Plan
“B,” shall have a retirement/layoff (RL) account equal to sixty percent of
their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on November 16,
1997, minus any hours withdrawn from that account since it was
established.
b. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16, 1997 and who
elected in 1998 to be covered under Plan “B,” shall have a
retirement/layoff (RL) account equal to fifty percent of their accumulated
unused sick leave hours available on November 14, 1998, minus any hours
withdrawn after the account is established.
c. Full-Time employees who were hired before November 16, 1997 and who
elected in 2007 or later during any period designated by the city to be
covered under Plan “B,” shall have a retirement /layoff (RL) account equal
to forty percent of their accumulated unused sick leave hours available on
the date that Plan B participation began, minus any hours withdrawn after
the account is established.
d. Payment of the RL Account .
1. All hours in an employee’s RL account shall be payable upon
retirement or as a result of layoff. In the case of layoff, 100% of R/L
hours shall be paid to the employee according to the employee’s base
hourly rate of pay on date of layoff. Any employee who quits, resigns,
is separated, or is terminated for cause is not eligible to receive
payment for RL account hours.
2. In the cases of retirement, an eligible employees who meet the
elig ibility requirements of the Utah State Retirement System and
who retire from the city shall be paid at their base hourly rate for
100% of their RL account balance based on the schedule below:
Retirement Month 100% RL hours will be:
January 1st – June 30th Contribution to EBC 501(c)9 Health
Retirement Account Plan
(premium-only account) July 1st – December 31st Cash to retiree
e. Hours may be withdrawn from the RL account to cover an employee’s
absence from work due to illness or injury, need to care for a dependent,
any emergency or to supplement Workers’ Compensation benefits after
personal leave hours are exhausted. RL account hours, when added to
Page | 27
the employee’s workers’ compensation benefit, may not exceed the
employee’s regular net salary.
9. Short-Term Disability Insurance, Plan“B”: Protection against loss of income
when an employee is absent from work due to short-term disability shall be
provided to full-time employees covered under Plan “B” through short-term
disability insurance (SDI). There shall be no cost to the employee for SDI. SDI
shall be administered in accordance with the terms determined by the city.
SUBSECTION IV - PARENTAL LEAVE
A. Full-time employees who become parents through birth, adoption, or foster care may
take up to six consecutive weeks of paid parental leave to care for and bond with the
child. An employee may be allowed to take Pparental leave will up to one year from
start on the date of thea child’s birth or, in the case of adoption or foster care, the
date thea child is placed in the employee’s home. Parental leave may be taken during
a new employee’s probationary period. The probationary period will be extended by
an amount of time equivalent to the parental leave taken.
B. Parental leave will run concurrently (during the same period of time) with FMLA and
SDI (if applicable). Parental leave is limited to six weeks per twelve-month period. For
employees approved for short-term disability, parental leave will make up the
difference between 100% pay and 66 2/3% pay (if applicable) for up to six weeks.
SUBSECTION V - BEREAVEMENT LEAVE
A. Time off with pay will be granted to an An employee who suffers the loss of an
immediate family member including a(n): current spouse, domestic partner, or adult
designee; child, mother, father, brother, sister; current father-in-law, mother-in-law,
son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law; grandparent; current step-
grandfather, step-grandmother; grandchild, or current step grandchild, stepchild,
stepmoth er, stepfather, stepbrother or stepsister, grandfather-in-law, grandmother-
in-law; or, domestic partner’s or adult designee’s relative as if the domestic partner
or adult designee were the employee’s spouse is eligible to be released from work
for bereavement, including attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related
event(s).
B. In the event of death in any of these instancesof an immediate family member, the
city will provide an employee with up to five working days of paid leave for
bereavement, including attendance at a funeral, memorial service, or related
event(s). The employee will be permitted one additional day of bereavement leave if
the employee attends a funeral, memorial service or equivalent event that is held
more than 150 miles from Salt Lake City and the day following the memorial service
or equivalent event is a regular working shift.
Page | 28
B.C. In the event of death of a first-line extended relative of an employee, or of an
employee’s spouse, domestic partner, or adult designee’s relative as if the adult
designee were the employee’s spouse not covered in paragraph A above (such as an
uncle, aunt or cousin), the city will provide an employee with up to pay an employee
for time off for one work shift for bereavement, including attendance at a funeral,
memorial service, or related event(s) to attend memorial services. The employee will
be permitted one additional day of bereavement leave if the employee attends a
funeral, memorial service or equivalent event that is held more than 150 miles from
Salt Lake City and the day following the memorial service or equivalent event is a
regular working shift.
C.D. In the event of death of a friend, an employee may be allowed to use vacation or
personal leave for time off to attend the funeral or memorial service, as
approved by an immediate supervisor.
D.E. In the event of death of any covered family member while an employee is on
vacation leave, an employee’s absence may be extended and authorized as
bereavement leave.
SUBSECTION VI - MILITARY LEAVE
A. Leave of absence for employees who enter uniformed service. An employee who
enters the uniformed services of the United States, including the United States Army,
United States Navy, United States Marin e Corps, United States Air Force,
commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
United States Coast Guard, or the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service,
is entitled to be absent from his or her duties and service from the city, without pay,
as required by applicable l law. Leave will be granted in accordance with the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
B. Leave while on duty with the armed forces or Utah National Guard. An employee
who is or who becomes a member of the reserves of the federal armed forces,
including the United States Army, United States Navy, United States Marine Corps,
United States Air Force, and the United States Coast Guard, or any unit of the Utah
National Guard, is allowed military leave for up to 15 working days per calendar
year for time spent on active or reserve duty. Military leave may be in addition to
vacation leave and need not be consecutive days of service. To be covered, an
employee must provide documentation demonstrating a duty requirement.
SUBSECTION VII - JURY LEAVE & COURT APPEARANCES
A. Jury Leave: An employee will be released from duty with full pay when, in obedience
to a subpoena or direction by proper authority, the employee is required to either
serve on a jury or appear as a witness for the United States, the state of Utah, or
other political subdivision.
Page | 29
1. Employees are entitled to retain statutory fees paid for service in a federal
court, state court, or city/county justice court.
2. On any day that an employee is required to report for service and is
thereafter excused from such service during his or her regular working
hours from the city, he or she must forthwith return to and carry on his
or her regular city employment. Employees who fail to return to work
after being excused from service for the day are subject to discipline.
B. Court Appearances. A Police sergeant is eligible to receive compensation as a
witness subpoenaed by the city, the State of Utah, or the United States for a court
or administrative proceeding appearance as follows:
1. Appearances in court or administrative proceeding made while on-duty will
be compensated as normal hours worked.
2. In the event an appearance extends beyond the end of an employee's
regularly scheduled shift, time will be counted as normal work time for the
purpose of computing an employee's overtime compensation.
3. Employees are entitled to retain statutory witness fees paid for service in a
federal court, state court, or city/county justice court.
34. Appearances made while off-duty will be compensated as follows:
(a) The city will pay employees for two hours of preparation time
plus actual time spent in court or in an administrative hearing
at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate. Lunch
periods granted are not considered compensable time.
Compensation for additional preparation time for any
subsequent appearance during the same day is allowed only
when there is at least two hours between the employee’s
release time from a prior court or administrative proceeding
and the start of the other.
(b) If the time spent in court or administrative proceeding
extends into the beginning of the employee's regularly
scheduled work shift, time spent in court or in administrative
proceeding will be deemed ended at the time such shift is
scheduled to begin.
45. An employee is required to provide a copy of the subpoena, including the
beginning time and time released from the court or administrative hearing,
with initials of the prosecuting or another court representative within seven
working days following the appearance.
Page | 30
56. Any employee failing to appear in compliance with the terms of a
formal notice or subpoena may be subject to disciplinary action.
SUBSECTION VIII - INJURY LEAVE (SWORN POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ONLY)
The city has established rules governing the administration of an injury leave program for sworn
police officers and firefighters under the following qualifications and restrictions:
A. The disability must have resulted from an injury arising out of the discharge of
official duties or while exercising some form of necessary job-related activity as
determined by the city;
B. The employee must be unable to return to work due to the injury, as verified by a
medical provider acceptable to the city;
C. The leave benefit may not exceed the value of the employee's net sala ry during the
period of absence due to the injury, less all amounts paid or credited to the
employee as workers’ compensation, Social Security, long-term disability or
retirement benefits, or any form of governmental relief whatsoever;
D. The value of benefits provided to employees under this injury leave program may
not exceed the total of $5,000 per employee per injury, unless approved in writing
by the employee’s department head after receiving an acceptable treatment plan
and consulting with the city’s risk manager;
E. The city's risk manager is principally responsible for the review of injury leave
claims, except that appeals from the decision of the city’s risk manager may be
reviewed by the Human Resources director, who may make recommendations to
the mayor for final decisions;
F. If an employee is eligible for workers’ compensation as provided by law and is not
receiving injury leave pursuant to this provision, an employee may elect to use
either accumulated sick leave or hours from the RL account, if applicable, and
authorized vacation time to supplement workers’ compensation. The total value of
leave hours or hours from an RL account combined with a workers’ compensation
benefit may not exceed an employee's regular net salary.
SUBSECTION IX - ADDITIONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE
Additional leaves of absence may be requested in writing and granted as identified in policy to
an employee at the discretion of a department director.
SUBSECTION X - EMERGENCY LEAVE
The city may provide additional paid leave to employees if: i) the mayor has declared a local
emergency; and ii) the mayor and/or city council authorize and approve the use of available
Page | 31
funds for such purposes during the period of local emergency.
Emergency leave may also be provided as a form of income replacement for part -time
(hourly) and/or seasonal employees whose work hours are either reduced or discontinued
temporarily, so long as there is an expectation they will return to work after the emergency
period is ended.
APPENDIX A - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
GENERAL EMPLOYEE PAY PLAN (GEPP)
Effective June 28, 2020June 27, 2021
GRADE MINIMUM CITY MARKET MAXIMUM
SEAX/HRLY $10.87 $35.00
10 $11.54 $15.07 $18.60
11 $12.10 $15.83 $19.55
12 $12.71 $16.76 $20.79
13 $13.35 $17.46 $21.56
14 $14.01 $18.26 $22.51
15 $14.71 $19.33 $23.93
16 $15.44 $20.46 $25.46
17 $16.22 $21.28 $26.34
18 $17.03 $22.62 $28.20
19 $17.88 $23.63 $29.36
20 $18.78 $24.63 $30.47
21 $18.95 $25.84 $32.74
22 $19.91 $27.16 $34.40
23 $20.91 $28.52 $36.14
24 $21.95 $29.93 $37.92
25 $23.04 $31.42 $39.81
26 $24.20 $33.01 $41.81
27 $25.40 $34.66 $43.93
28 $26.66 $36.42 $46.17
29 $28.01 $38.24 $48.47
30 $29.41 $40.15 $50.90
31 $30.88 $42.17 $53.45
32 $32.42 $44.27 $56.11
33 $34.05 $46.49 $58.93
34 $35.75 $48.81 $61.88
35 $37.53 $51.25 $64.97
36 $39.41 $53.81 $68.22
37 $41.38 $56.50 $71.62
38 $43.45 $59.33 $75.20
39 $45.63 - $95.83
40 $47.90 - $100.60
41 $50.30 - $163.20
GRADE MINIMUM CITY MARKET MAXIMUM
SEAX/HRLY $10.87 $35.00
10 $11.66 $15.22 $18.79
11 $12.22 $15.99 $19.75
12 $12.84 $16.93 $21.00
13 $13.48 $17.63 $21.78
14 $14.15 $18.44 $22.74
15 $14.86 $19.52 $24.17
16 $15.59 $20.66 $25.71
17 $16.38 $21.49 $26.60
18 $17.20 $22.85 $28.48
19 $18.06 $23.87 $29.65
20 $18.97 $24.88 $30.77
21 $19.14 $26.10 $33.07
22 $20.11 $27.43 $34.74
23 $21.12 $28.81 $36.50
24 $22.17 $30.23 $38.30
25 $23.27 $31.73 $40.21
26 $24.44 $33.34 $42.23
27 $25.65 $35.01 $44.37
28 $26.93 $36.78 $46.63
29 $28.29 $38.62 $48.95
30 $29.70 $40.55 $51.41
31 $31.19 $42.59 $53.98
32 $32.74 $44.71 $56.67
33 $34.39 $46.95 $59.52
34 $36.11 $49.30 $62.50
35 $37.91 $51.76 $65.62
36 $39.80 $54.35 $68.90
37 $41.79 $57.07 $72.34
38 $43.88 $59.92 $75.95
39 $46.09 - $96.79
40 $48.38 - $101.61
41 $50.80 - $164.83
APPENDIX B – APPOINTED EMPLOYEES BY DEPARTMENT
Effective June 28, 2020
June 27, 2021
911 BUREAU Job Title Grade
911 DISPATCH DIRECTOR 041X
911 COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 032X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X
AIRPORT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS 041X
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AIRPORT 040X
DIRECTOR AIRPORT ENGINEERING 039X
DIRECTOR AIRPORT MAINTENANCE 039X
DIRECTOR FINANCE/ACCOUNTING AIRPORT 039X
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT ADMINISTRATION/COMMERCIAL SERVICES 039X
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 039X
DIRECTOR OF AIRPORT PLANNING & CAPITAL PROJECTS 039X
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS - AIRPORT 039X
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL READINESS & TRANSITION 039X
DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 038X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY ATTORNEY 041X
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY 040X
CITY RECORDER 033X
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL MEMBER-ELECT N/A*
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE 041X
COUNCIL LEGAL DIRECTOR 039X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - CITY COUNCIL 039X
ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL 037X
SENIOR ADVISOR CITY COUNCIL 037X
SENIOR PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 033X
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL 031X
COMMUNITY FACILITATOR 031X
OPERATIONS MANAGER & MENTOR – CITY COUNCIL 031X
PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST 031X
POLICY ANALYST/PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 028X
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST II 028X
CONSTITUENT LIAISON/POLICY ANALYST 027X
CONSTITUENT LIAISON 026X
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST I 026X
ASSISTANT TO THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 025X
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT/AGENDA 024X
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 021X
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 041X
CITY ENGINEER 039X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS 037X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMMUNITY SERVICES 037X
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (ENGINEER) 037X
PLANNING DIRECTOR 037X
BUILDING OFFICIAL 035X
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT 035X
DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION (PLANNER) 035X
YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 037X
ARTS DIVISION DIRECTOR 032X
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR 032X
FINANCE
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 041X
CITY TREASURER 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 039X
CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER 033X
FIRE
FIRE CHIEF 041X
DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF 037X
ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF 035X
HUMAN RESOURCES
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 041X
DEPUTY CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER 037X
CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD INVESTIGATOR 035X
TRANSITION CHIEF OF STAFF 041X*
TRANSITION COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X*
TRANSITION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X*
INFORMATION MGT SERVICES
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 041X
CHIEF INNOVATIONS OFFICER 039X
JUSTICE COURTS
JUSTICE COURT JUDGE 037X
CITY COURTS ADMINISTRATOR 033X
MAYOR
CHIEF OF STAFF 041X
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 041X
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 039X
SENIOR ADVISOR 039X
COMMUNICATIONS DEPUTY DIRECTOR 030X
POLICY ADVISOR 029X
REP COMMISSION POLICY ADVISOR 029X
COMMUNITY LIAISON 026X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X
OFFICE MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 024X
COMMUNITY OUTREACH - EQUITY & SPECIAL PROJECTS
COORDINATOR 024X
COMMUNICATION AND CONTENT MANAGER - MAYOR'S OFFICE 021X
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 019X
CONSUMER PROTECTION ANALYST 016X
POLICE
CHIEF OF POLICE 041X
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE 039X
DEPUTY CHIEF POLICE 037X
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS 037X
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR - INTERNAL AFFAIRS 037X
PUBLIC LANDS PUBLIC LANDS DIRECTOR 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PUBLIC LANDS 037X
GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
PUBLIC SERVICES
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES 041X
CITY ENGINEER 039X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 038X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS 038X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LANDS 038X
FACILITIES DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
FLEET DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
GOLF DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
PARKS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
STREETS DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
YOUTH & FAMILY DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
COMPLIANCE DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X
PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 041X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X
FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC UTILITIES 039X
CHIEF ENGINEER - PUBLIC UTILITIES 037X
WATER QUALITY & TREATMENT ADMINSTRATOR 037X
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT 024X
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 039X
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 037X
SUSTAINABILITY
SUSTAINABILITY DIRECTOR 041X
SUSTAINABILITY DEPUTY DIRECTOR 037X
WASTE & RECYCLING DIVISION DIRECTOR 035X
Except for a change in job title or reassignment to a lower pay level, no appointed position on this pay plan may be
added, removed or modified without approval of the City Council.
* Compensation for transitional positions, including city council member -elect, is set as provided under Chapter 2.03.030 of the Salt Lake
City Code. Benefits for transitional employees are equivalent to those provided to full -time employees. Except for leave time, benefits for
city council members-elect are also equivalent to those provided to full-time employees.
APPENDIX C – ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARY SCHEDULE
Annual Salaries
Effective June 28, 2020
June 27, 2021
.
Mayor $146,578
148,034
Council Members $36,650 37,017
Except for leave time, benefits for the mayor and city council members are equivalent to those
provided to full-time employees.
APPENDIX D- U TAH STATE RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FY 20202021-
20212022
Tier 1 Defined Benefit System
System Employee
Contribution Employer Contribution Total
Public Employees Contributory System 06.0% 2014.46
%
20.46%
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0 18.47% 18.47%
Public Safety Noncontributory System 0 46.71% 46.71%
Firefighters Retirement System 0 23.95% 23.95%
Tier 1 Post Retired
System
Post Retired Employment
After 6/30/10 – NO 401(k)
Amortization of UAAL*
Post Retired Employment Before
7/1/2010
Optional 401(k)
Public Employees Noncontributory System
6.61%
11.86%
Public Safety Noncontributory System 24.20% 22.51%
Firefighters Retirement System 0% n/a
Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid System
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution
401(k) Total
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0% 15.80% 0.89% 16.69%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for entry and two year pay steps only)
2.27% (city
paid) 38.28% 6.00% 46.55%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for pay steps year four or more)
2.27% (city
paid) 38.28% 0% 40.55%
Firefighters Retirement System 2.27% (city
paid) 14.08% 0% 16.35%
Tier 2 Defined Contribution Only
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution
401(k) Total
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0% 6.69% 10.00% 16.69%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for entry and two year pay steps only)
0% 24.28% 20.0022.27% 44.2846.55%
Public Safety Noncontributory System
(for pay steps year four or more)
0% 24.28% 14.0016.27% 38.2840.55%
Firefighters Retirement System 0% 0.08% 14.0016.27% 14.0816.35%
Executive Non-Legislative
Position Employer Contribution
Public Employees Noncontributory System
Department Heads, Mayor,
Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Chief
Administrative Officer, Up to Two
Additional Senior Executives in
the Mayor’s Office, Executive
Director for City Council
Normal contribution into Utah Retirement
System (URS)with 3% into 401(k)
– OR –
If Tier 1 and exempt from system or Tier II
and exempt from vesting, 401k contribution
equal to the applicable URS system
contribution plus 3%
Public Safety Noncontributory System Department Head Same as above
Firefighters Retirement System Department Head Same as above
Council Members Elected with prior service in the Utah Retirement System
(Tier 1 Defined Benefit)
System Employee
Contribution Employer Contribution Total
Public Employees Noncontributory System 0 18.47% 18.47%
If exempt… 0 10% base salary to 401(k) 10%
Council Members Elected After July 1, 2011 with no prior service in the Utah Retirement System (may
exempt from vesting)
Tier 2 Defined Contribution Only
Employer 401K Total
6.69% 10% 16.69%
Tier 2 Defined Benefit Hybrid System
Employer 401K Total
15.80% 0.89% 16.69%
SLC Historical Claims
Notes:
1) The red Traditional Trended Claims line represents projected claims using 6.5% annual trend to illustrate how claims would continue to rise if
no action taken.
2) The STAR HDHP plan was added 7/1/2011 and claims dropped $4.2M with 50% enrollment.
3) A significant discount (approx. $1M per year) was negotiated with Mountain Star hospitals, effective July 2015.
4) SLC also stopped covering early retirees effective September 2015.
5) HSA contribution cost for 2018‐19 was approximately $3.6 mil lion
Salt Lake City Benefit Study and
Compensation Analysis: 2019
Administered by NFP
Salt Lake City Executive Benefit Study
and Compensation Analysis
Table of Contents
PART 2
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................p3
2. SUMMARY RESPONSE DATA...........................................p11
3. APPENDIX............................................................................p132
PART 2
1. BENEFIT AND COMPENSATION ANALYSIS..................p133
Executive Summary
Salt Lake City Executive Benefit Study—Executive Summary
On behalf of Salt Lake City, NFP administered
a benefit study to city, county, and state
organizations, as well as private industry
organizations, from across the country.
Questions in the survey addressed all facets
of benefit offerings, including medical benefit
costs, wellness program initiatives, employee
assistance programs, paid leave, retirement,
disability, and more. We received responses
from organizations across the country, although
the highest concentration of responses was
from our neighbors in the state of Utah.
In total, 52 organizations, including Salt Lake
City, participated in the study. Over 90% of
those responses came from other public
administration organizations, although the
private industry firms who responded tended
to be around the same size, in terms of
employees, as the City.
Among respondents, the most common answer
in regards to the number of employees eligible
to receive benefits was 1,000+. Outside of
Utah, respondents tended to come from cities
of similar size to the City. Responses from
within the state came from organizations of
all sizes, both of similar size to Salt Lake City
and smaller. Both of these groups—in-state
and out-of-state—are valuable to the study.
Out-of-state cities of similar size show us how
the city compares to like-sized municipalities.
Organizations of all sizes in-state allow us to see
how Salt Lake City compares to those employers
who are geographically closest to them, even if
they differ in size from the City.
This executive summary focuses on how
Salt Lake City compares to a midpoint (most
common answer, or at market) benchmark of
all respondent data. This data shows where the
City exceeds the midpoint, where it falls behind,
and where potential opportunities may lie for
the City to set itself apart.
Benefit Objectives and Strategies
Compared to 2018, Salt Lake City reported that
it had improved its benefits overall this year,
placing them in a group of 35% of employers
who have seen their benefits improve this
year. Of all respondents, 98% reported that
their benefits either improved or stayed the
same. As was the case with the majority of
employers, this benefit increase was primarily
due to increased employee expectation and
demand with a goal of employee retention.
Other common factors influencing benefits
decisions were (1) escalating benefits costs,
and (2) a goal of recruiting new employees.
Salt Lake City’s top three employee benefit
strategy objectives were to (1) retain
employees), (2) attract employees, and
(3) control the cost of benefits. These
were the three most common answers from
respondents as well—that so many employers
maintained or increased benefits despite a
desire to control costs is due to a competitive
job market, especially within the State of Utah,
where the unemployment rate currently sits at
2.8%, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Medical Insurance Benefit Options
In offering just one medical insurance benefit
option, Salt Lake City falls behind the midpoint,
with two benefit offerings being the most
common answer and more than three being
the second most common answer. In total,
81.48% of respondents offer two or more
benefit offerings. The City is consistent with the
midpoint in providing an HDHP with an HSA.
•For Individual Plans: The City leads in
everything but annual out of pocket max,
where they fall a bit behind the midpoint.
•For Two-party Plans: The City leads in
everything but deductible and annual out
of pocket, where they lag.
•For Family Plans: The City leads in
everything but deductible and annual out
of pocket, where they lag.
4
Salt Lake City pays a higher percentage of total
medical insurance premium than the midpoint
study group response, but tracks close to the
rest of Utah, where employers tend to pay more
toward premium than in other states. The City
sits at the lead of responses in their in-network
single deductible, but lags on maximum family
deductibles and both family and single out-of-
pocket max.
Although the City offers fewer plan options than
average, the HDHP it does provide beats the
overall benchmark in the following for its single-
party plan:
•Premium percentage paid by the employer
•Employer’s share in dollars (monthly dollar
amount)
•Premium percentage paid by the employee
•Employee’s share in dollars (monthly dollar
amount)
•Annual deductible
For its two-party and family plans, Salt Lake City
falls below the benchmark on annual deductible
and annual out of pocket max.
In short, Salt Lake City is better than the
midpoint of respondents with their premium
costs, leads the market for what employers
and employees pay by about half, but the City’s
chosen plans’ out-of-pocket maximums lag
behind the market.
While the City does not offer a second medical
benefit option, the majority of other survey
respondents listed a traditional plan as being
their second most popular option, while an
HDHP tended to be their top offering. The
average cost of a traditional plan was reported
to be 47.6% higher than that of an HDHP.
Salt Lake City joined 61.7% of respondents
in offering a Health Savings Account (HSA)
with a flat dollar employer contribution. The
City comes in at the midpoint of respondents
in annual employer funding provided toward
the HSA. Offering an HSA with employer
contribution based on a matching provision was
the second most common answer, and is
trending upward in Utah.
Gender Dysphoria Benefits
The top three gender dysphoria benefit
offerings were mental health counseling
(offered by 78.72% of respondents), gender
dysphoria related prescription medications
(36.17%), and reassignment surgery (25.53%).
Salt Lake City offers the first of these two
options.
Bariatric Surgery Benefits
The top three bariatric surgery benefit offerings
were gastric bypass surgery (offered by 34.04%
of respondents), sleeve gastrectomy (23.4%),
and adjustable gastric band (23.4%). Salt Lake
City offers each of these options. One potential
avenue to consider here would be to offer
biliopancreatic diversion as an option. This
procedure—along with the Roux-en-Y gastric
bypass procedure—has been shown to reduce
Type 2 Diabetes in patients. Additionally, the
biliopancreatic diversion is considered far
less invasive than a traditional gastric bypass
procedure.
On-Site and Near-Site Health Clinics
Salt Lake City sets itself apart by offering
a near-site health clinic, placing them in
a group of just over 20% of respondents
who offer this benefit. Of those who do offer
an on-or-near-site clinic, the most common
benefits include on-demand appointments
(which the City offers), prescription drugs
(which the City does not offer), and extended
hours (which the City does offer).
Short-Term Disability
Respondents were split into three nearly
equally-sized groups regarding their short-term
disability plan offerings:
•Voluntary 100% employee paid short-term
disability
•100% paid employer paid short-term
disability
•No short-term disability offering
5
Salt Lake City’s offering falls into the most
attractive of the three groups, with the City
paying 100% of plan costs.
The City also falls near the midpoint with a five
day waiting period before disability benefits
are paid. The City’s 12-week maximum benefit
period also matches average benchmark
data. The average short-term disability benefit
amount is 66%.
Long-Term Disability
Salt Lake City offers a voluntary 100% employee
paid long-term disability plan and a 100%
employer paid long term disability plan. This
puts the city slightly above the benchmark; while
64.52% of employers offer an employer-paid
option, only 25.81% offer a voluntary employee-
paid plan.
The City’s monthly long-term benefit amount
of 66.66% is better than average, with the
most common answer being 60%.
Salt Lake City’s 90-day waiting period for
employees to receive LTD payments sits at the
overall midpoint for respondents, as well as
the City’s maximum disability payment benefit
period of Social Security Normal Retirement Age
(SSNRA).
The most common mental health benefit in the
study group was a 24-month benefit period,
which the City matches.
Childcare
Overall, less than 10% of respondents offer
a childcare benefit for their employees.
Only one of the 53 survey respondents has a
childcare option at an on-or-near-site facility,
while the other could best be described as a
discounted referral service.
Tuition Reimbursement and Repayment
The midpoint for tuition reimbursement is to
offer it for current job-related courses; Salt
Lake City comes in above the benchmark by
offering reimbursement for both job-related
and non-job-related courses. At $4,000
annually, Salt Lake City reimburses more
than the majority of respondents.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents,
including Salt Lake City, require repayment of
reimbursed tuition if the employee separates
employment after receiving it. The City, along
with the majority of respondents, requires that
early-terminating employees repay reimbursed
tuition costs at 100%. Generally, employees
must remain with their organization anywhere
from one to two years after reimbursement to
avoid repayment.
Student Loan Assistance
Most employers do not offer student loan
assistance or repayment benefits—Salt Lake
City is part of a group of just over 10% of
respondents to offer a benefit by offering
student loan debt consolidation.
Longevity Pay
Salt Lake City is on the higher end of the
midpoint by offering longevity pay. The City is
at a leading position in the amount that they
offer; its program is the third-best offering
of all respondents. Additionally, Salt Lake City
makes longevity payments more frequently;
the midpoint offering was to distribute pay
annually, while the City distributes per pay
period.
Take-Home Vehicles
Public safety personnel has access to take-
home vehicles with 73.91% of respondents.
Take-home vehicle plan design varies
depending on the program—access and cost
tend to be influenced by employee type and
distance traveled.
6
Retirement
In offering additional funds for members of the
Police Department to equalize Tier 1 and Tier 2
Utah Retirement System participants, Salt Lake
City is slightly above the midpoint for in-state
respondents.
Regarding retirement benefits as a whole, the
City tends to be at market when compared
to other public sector entities, and above
the total market overall. The City’s retirement
matching rate sits at market compared to other
public sector respondents. The City is better
than average in that it does not have a matching
contribution requirement for employees. Salt
Lake City is better than 93% of respondents
by not requiring DC matching.
The vast majority of respondents’ employees
are eligible to participate in their organization’s
retirement plans at their date of hire.
Salt Lake City offers a slightly more generous
retirement package than most, in part because
the City includes personalized investment
advice with both an advisor and a technological
solution. The City’s 4-Year Cliff vesting schedule
is at market for the public sector but lags
behind what is generally offered in the private
sector.
Post-employment Health Reimbursement
Accounts
The City is better than the benchmark in
contributing to Post-employment Health
Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) for employees
and meets or exceeds the benchmark
contribution level among those who do
contribute to such accounts.
Holidays and Leave
The study group benchmark for paid
holidays was 11-12 days per year. The City
met this benchmark.
Not including holidays, employers offer, on
average, 11-15 days for both exempt and
non-exempt employees with less than one
year of service to three years of service. Salt
Lake City meets each of these benchmarks.
The City falls slightly behind the benchmark for
paid leave for exempt employees with between
3-5 years of service, and significantly behind the
benchmark for employees (both exempt and
non-exempt) with over ten years of service. The
midpoint for employees with over ten years of
service was 22-30 days, with several other
respondents offering more than 30 days as
well. However, the City does track to the overall
Utah marketplace, as shown in the Utah
Employee Benefit Study, by offering 16-21 days
of paid leave.
Salt Lake City is at the market rate for unused
paid leave carryover and above average in
providing employees with a “buy-out” option for
their paid leave and holidays. The City is also
better than average by allowing employees to
buy out at 100% for each type of leave, and by
allowing personal leave buy out annually.
Paid and sick leave are accrued at the market
rate for City employees.
Health and Wellness Programs
Salt Lake City is at market with its wellness
program offerings but is better than the market
by offering additional HSA or HRA contributions
to those who participate in wellness programs.
7
Military Benefits
The City is also above market in providing
a program for employees who are active
members of the military.
The City offers full pay up to 15 days per year in
addition to vacation and leave pay, which leads
the market.
Employer-paid Life Insurance
Salt Lake City meets the study benchmark for
the employer-paid life insurance they offer
to employees. The City is also at market for
their life insurance offering for the spouses
of employees, although it is verging on falling
behind the market by not offering employer-
paid life insurance for the children of
employees.
Dental Insurance
The majority of respondents answered that
they only offer one dental plan—Salt Lake City
exceeds this benefit by providing two plans.
The City’s most popular dental plan requires
employees to pay 100% of the premium, which
falls behind the benchmark, where respondents
reported that employers pay 66%-80% of
premium costs.
Accordingly, the City also falls behind the
market as regards the share of the dental plan
employees are required to pay.
The City’s second-most popular dental plan
exceeds the benchmark in their maximum
annual benefit, and meets the benchmark in
their orthodontia benefit.
Ancillary Benefits
Salt Lake City provides ancillary benefit options
at a higher rate than average, and, with 60%
of employees enrolled in a program, does a
better job than most at getting employees to
participate in the products they offer.
Hiring Bonuses, Laterals, Seniority and
Referral Bonuses
Over 80% of respondents do not offer a
hiring bonus. Though the City does not offer
a traditional cash hiring bonus, it can offer up
to 120 hours of vacation upon hire for new
employees.
Most respondents who do offer hiring bonuses
reported that the amount they pay in hiring
bonuses ranges from $400-$1,000 depending
on the position, and is usually paid either at
hire or within 90 days of hire.
Salt Lake City is at or better than the
benchmark regarding hiring laterals. The
City joins 40% of respondents in crediting
experience from another organization to
employees for previous years of service. The
City’s offering (up to three years of vacation
and personal leave accrual) matches up well
with what others offer.
The City is part of a group of 31.71% of
respondents who offer rehired employees
credit for seniority, or time spent within the
organization. Their seniority credit (up to three
years of vacation and personal leave accrual) is
above-market as well.
The majority of respondents (71.79%) do not
offer referral bonuses. This is another avenue
where the City may consider differentiating
themselves—among those who do offer
referral bonuses, the average bonus offered
ranges from $500-$1,000, and is contingent on
the hired employee staying with the company
for a certain amount of time.
Note: The City does offer police: $300 upon
hire, and an additional $300 upon completion
of their probationary period.
8
Employee Assistance Program
Salt Lake City’s Employee Assistance Program
(EAP) is better than the benchmark in most
aspects, although it does fall behind in the
number of sessions it offers—the most
common answer here was to allow for unlimited
appointments. The City’s EAP is better than
average in part because it provides near-site
counseling and a peer support program for first
responders.
Alternate Work Schedules
The most common alternate work schedules to
be offered were (1) compressed work weeks,
(2) flex time, and (3) telecommuting. Salt Lake
City is slightly above average in their options
because the City offers job sharing as an option
as well. Overall, 90.95% of respondents offer
some type of alternate work schedule as an
option for employees.
Main Takeaways
•Salt Lake City’s benefits remain
competitive in most areas.
•The City is above average in offering two
dental plans but falls behind the market in
the costs those plans require of employees.
•The City is better than the average study
group response regarding both short and
long term disability.
•The City is better than market by offering an
on-site clinic.
•The City’s tuition reimbursement amounts
are on the higher end of the study group.
•The City’s medical insurance plan is better
than the majority of respondents regarding
premiums. It requires employees to pay
just about half of what others require,
but the City’s plan’s two-party and family
deductibles are higher than average, and
single, two-party, and family out of pocket
maxes are significantly higher than the
study group average.
•Salt Lake City’s retirement package is above
average compared to the private sector,
and generally at market when compared to
the public sector.
•Wellness programs, ancillary benefits,
and alternate work schedules can all be
distinguishers in a competitive job market.
Salt Lake City is at or above market in these
areas.
•Areas where the City can set itself apart
include (1) offering cash hiring bonuses to
new employees, and (2) even though most
of the study group participants do not
offer a bariatric surgery benefit, the City
may benefit from expanding its bariatric
surgery benefit to cover the biliopancreatic
diversion procedure, which is less invasive
and has been shown to be successful in
reducing Type 2 Diabetes.
9
Summary Response Data
10
Note: All of Salt Lake City's answers will be shown
in maize, and should look something like this.
If the City's answer does not fit within one of the
options for an individual question (examples:
"Varies," "Other,"Not Applicable"), no answer will
be highlighted. For further insight on these
specific questions, please direct inquiries to your
HR representative.
1.85%1
1.85%1
0.00%0
1.85%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
3.70%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
90.74% 49
0.00%0
Q2 In which general industry sector do you primarily operate? Please
select one.
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 54
Building
Trades...
Education
(including...
Engineering &
Scientific...
Finance &
Banking...
Health Care
Industrial
(including...
Information
Technology
Media
(including...
Professional
Services...
Public
Administrati...
Retail &
Wholesale Tr...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building Trades (including other Skilled Trades)
Education (including Professional Coaching)
Engineering & Scientific (including Architecture & Research)
Finance & Banking (including Insurance & Real Estate)
Health Care
Industrial (including Manufacturing, Transportation, Agriculture & Natural Resources)
Information Technology
Media (including Printing, Advertising & Communications)
Professional Services (including Law, Accounting, Collections, Payroll & Professional Writing)
Public Administration (including Government, Non-Profits & Churches)
Retail & Wholesale Trade (including Utilities & Hospitality)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
11
20.37%11
16.67%9
16.67%9
37.04%20
9.26%5
Q3 How many of your employees are eligible for at least one of the
following benefits through your company; insurance programs, retirement
plants, paid leave/or alternate work schedule?
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 54
100-250
251-500
501-1,000
1,000+
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
100-250
251-500
501-1,000
1,000+
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
12
Q4 Please indicate the city and state in which your employees are
located. Also, please indicate any other area in which you have at least
ten employees eligible for any of your benefit plans. (Select all that apply)
Answered: 49 Skipped: 0
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
13
35.19%19
62.96%34
1.85%1
Q5 Pick the statement that best describes your overall benefit offerings in
the last year.
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 54
Our benefits
have improve...
Our benefits
have stayed ...
Our benefits
have decreas...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Our benefits have improved overall
Our benefits have stayed the same overall
Our benefits have decreased overall
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
14
42.59%23
11.11%6
74.07%40
0.00%0
40.74%22
Q6 Based on your selection in the question above, what is the main
factor(s) influencing your overall benefits package? (choose all that apply)
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
Total Respondents: 54
Escalating Cost
Decreasing Cost
Increased
Employee...
Decreased
Employee...
Recruitment of
New Employees
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Escalating Cost
Decreasing Cost
Increased Employee Expectation and Demand—Employee Retention
Decreased Employee Expectation and Demand
Recruitment of New Employees
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
15
Q7 Rank the following long term employee benefit strategy objectives in
order of importance to your organization (list the most important response
as #1, second most important as #2, etc).
Answered: 53 Skipped: 1
16.98%
9
35.85%
19
32.08%
17
7.55%
4
5.66%
3
1.89%
1
0.00%
0 53 5.45
40.38%
21
44.23%
23
5.77%
3
3.85%
2
5.77%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 52 6.10
26.42%
14
5.66%
3
39.62%
21
11.32%
6
9.43%
5
5.66%
3
1.89%
1 53 5.04
1.96%
1
1.96%
1
7.84%
4
23.53%
12
29.41%
15
25.49%
13
9.80%
5 51 3.08
5.88%
3
9.80%
5
7.84%
4
39.22%
20
23.53%
12
9.80%
5
3.92%
2 51 3.90
0.00%
0
1.96%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
11.76%
6
19.61%
10
66.67%
34 51 1.53
9.62%
5
0.00%
0
5.77%
3
15.38%
8
15.38%
8
36.54%
19
17.31%
9 52 2.94
Attract
employees
Retain
employees
Control cost
of benefits
Increase
employee...
Increase
employee job...
Decrease HR
administrati...
Help employees
make better...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL SCORE
(2) Attract employees
(1) Retain employees
(3) Control cost of benefits
(4) Increase employee productivity
(6) Increase employee job satisfaction
(5) Decrease HR administration cost
(7) Help employees make better
financial and benefit decisions
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
16
16.67%9
40.74%22
18.52%10
20.37%11
1.85%1
1.85%1
Q8 How many different medical insurance benefit options are offered by
your organization? (List the most correct response)
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 54
One
Two
Three
More than three
Multiple
options in a...
None, we do
not offer...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
One
Two
Three
More than three
Multiple options in a health exchange
None, we do not offer medical insurance
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
17
16.67%9
12.96%7
70.37%38
Q9 If you do not currently offer an HDHP with an HSA, do you plan on
offering this within the next two years?
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 54
Yes
No
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
18
Q10 What percentage of the total medical insurance premium is paid by
the employer on your least expensive plan? (Select the most correct in
each category)
Answered: 54 Skipped: 0
3.85%
2
0.00%
0
5.77%
3
50.00%
26
9.62%
5
28.85%
15
1.92%
1
0.00%
0 52 4.56
6.25%
3
0.00%
0
10.42%
5
47.92%
23
12.50%
6
20.83%
10
2.08%
1
0.00%
0 48 4.31
Less than 50%50-65%66-79%80-94%95-99%
100%We offer a defined contribution in a health exchange N/A
Single Rate
Family Rate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
LESS
THAN
50%
50-
65%
66-79% 80-94%95-99%100% WE OFFER A DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION IN A
HEALTH EXCHANGE
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Single
Rate
Family
Rate
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
19
Q11 What is the lowest annual deductible offered on a medical plan by
your organization? (Select the most correct in each category)
Answered: 49 Skipped: 0
In-Network
Single...
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
In-Network
Maximum Fami...
$0 - $249 $250 - $499 $500 - $999 $1,000 - $1,999
$2,000 - $2,999 $3,000 - $4,999 $5,000 - $5,999 Over $6,000
We use a health exchange N/A
$0 -
$249
$250 -
$499
$500 -
$999
$1,000
-
$1,999
$2,000
-
$2,999
$3,000
-
$4,999
$5,000
-
$5,999
OVER
$6,000
WE USE A
HEALTH
EXCHANGE
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
8.51%
4
12.77%
6
23.40%
11
34.04%
16
12.77%
6
6.38%
3
0.00%
0
2.13%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 47 3.60
8.51%
4
0.00%
0
8.51%
4
23.40%
11
19.15%
9
27.66%
13
8.51%
4
4.26%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 47 4.83
In-
Network
Single
Deductible
In-
Network
Maximum
Family
Deductible
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
20
HDHP
92.02%
$543.25
10.83%
$42.24
HDHP: $2262; Traditional: $609
$3,515
Q12 Please provide the following information for the most popular
medical plan offered (Individual Plans):
ANSWER CHOICES Average/Most Common Answer
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Health Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
21
HDHP
95%
$403.11
5%
$21.21
$1500
$4,000
HDHP
89.26%
$1,113
12.69%
$285.13
$2,350
$6,115
Q13 Please provide the following information for the most popular
medical plan offered (Two-Party):
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Medical Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
22
HDHP
95%
$906.99
5%
$47.73
$3,000
$8,000
Q14 Please complete the table for the most popular medical plan offered
(Family):
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
HDHP
89.64%
$1,338
14.74%
$273.87
$2,291
$5,764
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Medical Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
23
HDHP
95%
$1,209.30
5%
$63.66
$3,000
$8,000
73 3,410 47
Q15 What percentage of your population has elected your most popular
plan?
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 47
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
24
94
Q16 Please complete the table for the second-most popular medical plan
offered (Individual):
Traditional
88.29%
$560.04
13.08%
$70.68
$1,361.11
$4,167
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Medical Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
25
Q17 Please complete the table for the second-most popular medical plan
offered (Two-Party):
Traditional
86.56%
$1,131
14.538%
$214.15
$2,255
$5,500
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Medical Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
26
Q18 Please complete the table for the second-most popular medical plan
offered (Family):
Answered: 36 Skipped: 13
Traditional
84.69%
$1,376
16.85%
$282.92
$2,478
$5,450
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Medical Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
27
24 965 40
Q19 What percentage of your employees have elected your second-most
popular plan?
Answered: 40 Skipped: 14
Total Respondents: 40
0 10 20 30 40 50
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
28
61.70%29
8.51%4
2.13%1
4.26%2
10.64%5
0.00%0
12.77%6
Q20 Which of the following does your company offer? (Select all that
apply)
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 47
Health Savings
Account (HSA...
HSA with
employer...
HSA without
employer...
HSA as an
option under...
Health
Reimbursemen...
Qualified
Small Employ...
Not
applicable, ...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Health Savings Account (HSA) with flat dollar employer contribution
HSA with employer contribution based on a matching provision
HSA without employer contribution
HSA as an option under a defined contribution arrangement
Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA)
Qualified Small Employer Heath Reimbursement Arrangement (QSEHRA)
Not applicable, we offer neither HSA nor HRA options
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
29
Q21 If applicable, how much annual employer funding is provided toward
the HSA or HRA assuming that an employee maximizes any matching
provision? (Choose the most precise answer in each category)
Answered: 42 Skipped: 7
Single
Coverage
Two-
Party
Family
Coverage
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
10
0
%
90
%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
10
0
%
90
%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
10
0
%
90
%
$500 -$999 $,1,000- $1,999$0 funded by employer $499 or less
$2,000- $2,999 $3,000 - $3,999 $4,000 or more
Federal Maximum Contribution
Employee's choice based on defined contribution N/A
4.26%
2
8.51%
4
51.06%
24
17.02%
8
4.26%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.13%
1
2.13%
1
10.64%
5 47
4.26%
2
2.13%
1
10.64%
5
44.68%
21
12.77%
6
4.26%
2
2.13%
1
2.13%
1
2.13%
1
14.89%
7 47
4.26%
2
2.13%
1
8.51%
4
46.81%
22
14.89%
7
6.38%
3
2.13%
1
2.13%
1
2.13%
1
10.64%
5 47
$0 FUNDED
BY
EMPLOYER
$499
OR
LESS
$500 -
$999
$,1,000-
$1,999
$2,000-
$2,999
$3,000
-
$3,999
$4,000
OR
MORE
FEDERAL
MAXIMUM
CONTRIBUTION
EMPLOYEE'S
CHOICE BASED
ON DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION
N/A TOTAL
Single
Coverage
Two-
Party
Family
Coverage
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
30
78.72%37
36.17%17
29.79%14
25.53%12
19.15%9
4.26%2
Q22 Does your organization does offer any of the below gender
dysphoria benefits, which of the following does your plan offer? (Select all
that apply.)
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 47
Mental Health
Counseling
Gender
Dysphoria...
Reassignment
surgery
Reconstructive
Surgery
Not Applicable
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Mental Health Counseling
Gender Dysphoria Related Prescription Medications
Reassignment surgery
Reconstructive Surgery
Not Applicable
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
31
34.04%16
23.40%11
23.40%11
12.77%6
59.57%28
6.38%3
Q23 Does your organization does offer any of the below bariatric surgery
benefits? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 47
Gastric Bypass
Sleeve
Gastrectomy
Adjustable
Gastric Band
Biliopancreatic
diversion
Not Applicable
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Gastric Bypass
Sleeve Gastrectomy
Adjustable Gastric Band
Biliopancreatic diversion
Not Applicable
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
32
Q24 If applicable, what does your bariatric benefit plan pay?
80%
100% after deductible
90% of AA after deductible
$1,000 co-pay after deductible
100% covered
50% coinsurance
100%
100% after deductible
$10,000 lifetime limit
50%
Up to $20,000
80% after deductible
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
33
23.40%11
76.60%36
Q25 Does your organization offer an on-site or near-site health clinic?
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 47
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
34
90.91%10
72.73%8
27.27%3
18.18%2
45.45%5
9.09%1
27.27%3
Q26 What benefits does your clinic provide? (Select all that apply.)
Answered: 11 Skipped: 43
On-demand
appointments
Prescription
drugs
Occupational
physical exams
X-ray or
imaging
Extended hours
Weekend
appointments
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
On-demand appointments
Prescription drugs
Occupational physical exams
X-ray or imaging
Extended hours
Weekend appointments
Other (please specify) Total
Respondents: 11
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
35
40.43%19
0.00%0
31.91%15
31.91%15
Q27 What type of short term group disability plans are offered by your
company, not including non-group ancillary coverage through vendors
like Aflac or Colonial Life? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
Voluntary 100%
employee pai...
Partially
employer pai...
100% employer
paid short-t...
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Voluntary 100% employee paid short-term disability
Partially employer paid short-term disability
100% employer paid short-term disability
Not Applicable
Total Respondents: 47
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
36
Q28 What is the waiting period before short term disability benefits are
paid?
Answered: 28 Skipped: 21
8, 15, or 30 days
7 days or exhaust sick leave
14 days
10 days
3 days
7 days
6 months
7 days
15 days
2 weeks
7-14 days
14 days
7 or 30 days, depending on whether employee is city paid or employee paid, respectively
7 days
14 days
30, 60, or 90 days, dependent on employee choice
14 days
7 days
7 days
30 days
14 or 60 days, depending on whether employee is city paid or employee paid, respectively
7 days
30 days
7 days
14 days, or 90 days for pre-existing condition
14 days
None
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
37
Q29 What is the maximum short term disability benefit period?
26 weeks
13 weeks
13 weeks
12 weeks
26 weeks
26 weeks
90 days
3 months
160 days
12 weeks
90 days
26 weeks
6 months
180 days
13 months
17 weeks
6 months
90 days
90 days
120 days
13 weeks
90 days
13 weeks
11 weeks
12 weeks
520 hours (if accrued)
90 days
13 weeks
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
38
32%10
36%9
12%
4
Q30 What is your monthly short term disability benefit amount?
25
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
TOTAL
4%
16%
1
3
60%
66% (2/3)
70%
80%
100%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
39
25.81%8
12.90%4
64.52%20
6.45%2
Q31 What type of long term group disability plans are offered by your
company, not including non-group ancillary coverage through vendors
like Aflac or Colonial Life? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 31 Skipped: 23
Voluntary 100%
employee pai...
Partially
employer pai...
100% employer
paid long-te...
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Voluntary 100% employee paid long-term disability
Partially employer paid long-term disability
100% employer paid long-term disability
Not Applicable
Total Respondents: 31
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
40
23.26%10
60.47%26
4.65%2
Q32 How is the premium for your long term disability plans determined?
8
RESPONSES
43
ANSWER CHOICES
Age-based
Flat rate
Combination
Other
TOTAL
11.63%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
41
56 2,567 46
Q33 What is the monthly long term disability benefit amount (as a
percentage)?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 46
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
42
67
Q34 What is the elimination period for employees to receive long term
disability payments?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 8
90 days
6 months
12 Weeks
90 days
90 days
90 days
12 weeks
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
120 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
90 days
120 days
13 weeks
90 days
90 days
180 days
180 days
90 days
180 days
180 days
90 days
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
43
36.96%17
23.91%11
19.57%9
19.57%9
Q35 What is the maximum disability payment benefit period?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 8
46
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
To SSNRA (Social Security Normal Retirement Age)
To age 65
Until eligible for retirement benefits
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
44
95.12%39
97.56%40
Q36 What is the benefit period for mental health-related long term
disability claims?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 8
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Inpatient
Outpatient
24 months for outpatient
24 months
12 months (for age 69 or older)
180 days
Salaried: to SSNRA; Hourly: 2 years
24 months
24 months
90 days to 2 years, depending on circumstances
2 years
To SSNRA
60 days inpatient, 30 days outpatient
24 months
24 months
24 months
24 months
90 days
Individual answers below:
(All answers are the same for inpatient and outpatient, unless otherwise noted.)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
45
6.52%3
89.13%41
4.35%2
Q37 Do you offer childcare for your employees?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
46
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Discounted Mild Illness Care
Fitness center employees can use the facility's
day care at a reduced cost.
Responses under "Other":
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
46
33.33%1
66.67%2
Q38 Is your childcare option at an on-site or near-site facility?
Answered: 3 Skipped: 51
TOTAL 3
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
47
100.00%1
0.00%0
Q39 Is childcare limited to the children of employees?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 53
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
48
Q40 What is the cost of your childcare program?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 53
$588/month 6 w-24 mth, $550 2 yrs and $540 Pre-K
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
49
100.00%1
0.00%0
Q41 Do you offer a discount to your employees who have children
enrolled in the provided childcare?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 53
TOTAL 1
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
50
Q42 What is the discount you offer?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 53
Employee pays $87 under 2 and $106 over 2
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
51
100.00%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q43 What type of services are provided? (Select all that apply.)
Answered: 1 Skipped: 53
Total Respondents: 1
Special
learning...
Special needs
care
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Special learning curriculum
Special needs care
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
52
50.00%1
50.00%1
Q44 Do you have a preferred provider that you recommend to your
employees?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 52
TOTAL 2
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
53
50.00%1
50.00%1
Q45 Does this provider offer a discounted rate for your employees?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 52
TOTAL 2
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
54
Q46 What is the cost of your recommended childcare option?
Answered: 2 Skipped: 52
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
55
Q47 What discount is offered if any?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 50
$30-$100 weekly benefit for qualified employees
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
56
0.00%0
50.00%1
50.00%1
Q48 What type of services are provided? (Select all that apply.)
Answered: 2 Skipped: 52
Total Respondents: 2
Special
learning...
Special needs
care
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Special learning curriculum
Special needs care
Other (please specify)
All day and after-school day care.
Responses under "Other":
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
57
82.61%38
10.87%5
6.52%3
Q49 Does your organization offer tuition reimbursement?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
46
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
$1500 per year
For job related classes
If budget permits
Responses under "Other":
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
58
100.00%38
39.47%15
2.63%1
Q50 If your organization offers tuition reimbursement, what types of
courses are eligible? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
Current
job-related...
Non-job courses
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Current job-related courses
Non-job courses
Not Applicable
Total Respondents: 38
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
59
Q51 What is the maximum amount of tuition that your organization will
reimburse? (Enter dollar amount or percentage.)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
$1,000 annually
$3,000
$2,000 annually
Dependent on budget
$5,250 for FT employees
$4,000
$3,000/fiscal year
100% depending on institution grade
Based on grade and local public college
$2,000
$1,500/year
$2,500
$5,250/year
$3000 for bachelor's degree or $5,000 for
master's degree
$5,000
$1,500/yr
$4,000
$3,500 annually
50%
$5,000
$2,000 per year
$6,000 annually
$5,250
50% up to a max of $10,000 per year
$4,000 per fiscal year up to 4 years = Up
to$16,000 total
$5,120
100%
$2,500 annually
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
$4,000/yr
$2,000
100%
$1,250
Individual answers below:
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
60
73.68%28
26.32%10
Q52 If an employee separates employment after receiving tuition
reimbursement, do you require repayment of the reimbursement?
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
TOTAL 38
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
61
28.95%11
0.00%0
2.63%1
0.00%0
68.42%26
Q53 If you require tuition reimbursement repayment, what are your
repayment terms?
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
38
100%
75%
50%
25%
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
100%
75%
50%
25%
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Prorated on quarterly increments within 2 years of receiving tuition reimbursement.
Varying
Varying based on time period
Dependent on how long the employee stays with the organization after receiving
reimbursement.
Nothing after one year.
Based on how long the employee was employed after tuition repayment.
Prorated amount owed per month on final check.
Prorated for previous 24 months
Prorated
100% of benefits paid within three years. After three years, 0%
Prorated for two years
100% if employee separates less than one year after completion
Based on length of service since reimbursement
Prorated
Responses under "Other":
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
62
Q54 If you require tuition reimbursement repayment, how long must the
recipient be employed to avoid repayment?
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
Six months and work at least 20 hours a week
Two years
More than 12 months after receiving benefit
One year
Two years after reimbursement
One year post reimbursement
One year
One year
Two years
Two years beyond the last reimbursement
One year
One year
One year
Two years
Six months after every reimbursement
Two years
One year
One year
Three years
Two years
One year
One year
One year following course end date
Three years
Three years
Year for year worked
Individual responses listed below:
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
63
10.87%5
84.78%39
4.35%2
Q55 Does your organization offer student loan assistance and/or
repayment benefits?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Student loan debt consolidation benefits
Responses under "Other":
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
64
Q56 If you offer a student loan assistance and/or repayment plan, how is
the plan designed?
$50/month
Full-time employees who have been with the organization for one year are eligible to receive$50 monthly.
Eligibility is determined by position and department.
Plan is designed to provide conseling.
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
65
7 35 5
Q57 What percentage of your workforce participates in either tuition
reimbursement or student loan repayment programs?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 49
Total Respondents: 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
66
32.61%15
67.39%31
Q58 Do you offer employees additional pay based on length of service
(a.k.a. longevity pay)?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
67
Q59 If longevity pay is offered, what is the dollar amount or percentage of
pay in relation to years of service?
$50, increasing by $25 every five years.
$25 per year of service up to a maximum of $5,000 per year.
$2 for every year over five years.
1% for every five years.
$10 per month at 10 years; $20 per month at 18 years.
2.75% after 8 years and be [at] or above the current maximum of the salary range for at
least one year.
2%-5%
Program is only for uniformed officers, and varies by department (sheriffs, police, and fire).
Longevity pay offered on a scale based on years of service after 10, starting at $300 and
ending at $950.
Whichever option is the lesser of: .0025 x hourly rate or $500 for 5-9.9 years, $1000 for
7-14.9 years, or $1500 for 15+ years.
BUA
Longevity pay is offered at the following rates. 6 years: $50/month; 10 years: $75/month;
16 years: $100/month; 20 years: $125/month.
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
68
33.33%5
0.00%0
0.00%0
40.00%6
26.67%4
Q60 If longevity pay is offered, how often is this pay given?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 39
15
Per pay period
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Per pay period
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Per collective bargaining agreement. Varying by employee group.
One-time bonus for employees on step plan. Percent increase to base pay for employees on general pay plan.
Responses under "Other":
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
69
73.91%34
15.22%7
10.87%5
Q61 Does your organization offer take-home vehicles for your public
safety personnel?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
46
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
70
Employees must pay for toll lanes.
A car allowance may be paid to department directors, the RDA chief operating officer, and up to three employees in the mayor’s
office at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as determined by the mayor. A car allowance may be paid to the Council Executive
Director at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as determined by the council chair. A car allowance may be paid to specific
appointed employees at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as recommended by the mayor and approved by the city council.
Personal income tax related to domicile to duty and other non work miles.
[Take-home vehicles are available] for uniform personnel.
[Take-home vehicle program design] varies.
No costs—only first responders can take home vehicles.
Taxable
No cost
Free up to 55 miles, then $20 per pay period.
Employees are responsible for any IRS-determined tax.
No cost to employees.
For officers who live outside of city limits, the cost is $1 per mile (one way) per pay period up to 50 miles; i.e., if you live 10 miles
outside of city limits, it will cost you $10 per pay period to take your car home.
$3 per day for employees, but no cost for law enforcement.
No cost for those that live in [CITY]. $25.00 monthly for those living in [COUNTY]. $50.00 monthly for those living outside the
county.
$62.50 per month for public works; no cost for police or fire departments.
No cost
No cost
We tax them for $3/day.
No cost to employees.
No cost
Cost of gas
Q62 Please detail any employee costs included in your take-home vehicle
plan design:
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
71
23.91%11
32.61%15
43.48%20
Q63 If applicable, does your organization offer additional funds to
equalize Tier 1 and Tier 2 Utah Retirement System participants?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
Yes
No
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
72
100.00%9
88.89%8
Q64 What is the dollar value or percentage of additional funds added for
the following to equalize Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees?
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Civilian
Sworn Officer
6.69%
3% 401(k)
None
Difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 contribution rates.
2% automatic and 2% match.
0
0
0
Individual answers below (Civilian):
6.69%
6% 401(k)
2% automatic and 2% match
10.91%
10%
10%
Difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 contribution rates.
Tier 2: 10.21%
0
Provides 6% into 401(k) for new sworn officers for the first three years of employment.
Individual answers below (Sworn Officer):
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
73
82.61%38
93.48%43
34.78%16
6.52%3
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q65 What types of retirement plans are offered by your organization?
(Select more than one if applicable)
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
Defined
benefit pens...
Defined
contribution...
SIMPLE IRA,
SIMPLE 401(k...
Non-qualified
deferred...
Cash balance
plan
None, we do
not offer a...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Defined benefit pension plan
Defined contribution such as 401(k), 403(b) or 457
SIMPLE IRA, SIMPLE 401(k), Payroll Deduct IRA
Non-qualified deferred compensation plan
Cash balance plan
None, we do not offer a retirement plan
Total Respondents: 46
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
74
2.17%1
10.87%5
10.87%5
10.87%5
19.57%9
17.39%8
21.74%10
6.52%3
Q66 As a percentage of employee income, what is the maximum
employer contribution (not including FICA matches for Social Security)
toward all of your retirement plans?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
1-2%
3-4%
5-6%
7-10%
11-15%
16-20%
More than 20%
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1-2%
3-4%
5-6%
7-10%
11-15%
16-20%
More than 20%
Not Applicable
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
75
58.70%27
39.13%18
2.17%1
Q67 Is there a matching contribution requirement for employees?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
Yes
No
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
76
80.00%20
12.00%3
12.00%3
4.00%1
12.00%3
Q68 Which of the following requires a matching contribution? (Select all
that apply)
Answered: 25 Skipped: 29
Total Respondents: 25
Defined
contribution...
SIMPLE IRA,
SIMPLE 401(k...
Non-qualified
deferred...
Cash balance
plan
None, we do
not offer a...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Defined contribution such as 401(k), 403(b) or 457
SIMPLE IRA, SIMPLE 401(k), Payroll Deduct IRA
Non-qualified deferred compensation plan
Cash balance plan
None, we do not offer a retirement plan
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
77
8%
For defined pension plans, 8% of base pay
8.5%
Executive Exempt Alternative Retirement Plan: 9%
Up to 2.5%
6 or 8.5% depending on date of hire
10% to receive full match
100 of first 5%
DB plan with a required employee contribution of 10.25%
5%
1:1 match up with 3% base salary
2%
One for one up to 4% (for less than 1%, there is no match)
3% and an additional 50% of any 401(k) contribution made in excess of 3% up to 5% of the
employee's salary, for a maximum additional contribution of 1% of employee salary
2%
4%
1.5%
4%
Employee: 5%; Employer: 3.5%
6.2%
9%
5.11%
Q69 If there is a matching contribution requirement, what is the matching
amount?
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
78
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
Q70 What is the eligibility requirement to participate in your retirement
plans? (Choose the answer that most closely matches your policy)
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution
Incoming
Rollover...
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
Date of hire 30 days 60 days 90 days Six months
One year More than one year N/A
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
88.89%
40
2.22%
1
2.22%
1
4.44%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1 45 2.20
86.96%
40
2.17%
1
2.17%
1
2.17%
1
2.17%
1
2.17%
1
0.00%
0
2.17%
1 46 2.33
57.50%
23
5.00%
2
2.50%
1
2.50%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
32.50%
13 40 2.26
DATE OF
HIRE
30
DAYS
60
DAYS
90
DAYS
SIX
MONTHS
ONE
YEAR
MORE THAN
ONE YEAR
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Employee
Contribution
Employer
Contribution
Incoming Rollover
Contribution
79
11.11%5
71.11%32
46.67%21
8.89%4
8.89%4
13.33%6
37.78%17
15.56%7
42.22%19
Q71 Which of the following does your retirement plan incorporate?
(Select all that apply)
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the below or not applicable
Roth deferrals
Automatic enrollment
Auto escalation (automatic deferral rate increases)
Automatic rebalancing
Safe Harbor plan design
Personalized investment advice, not guidance, with an advisor
Personalized investment advice, not guidance, with a technological solution
401(k) Matching
Profit Sharing
Loans
QDIA
Employer Stock
Custom Model Portfolios
Self-directed brokerage account
Total Respondents: 45
4.44%
66.67%
8.89%
0.00%
11.11%
28.89%
2
30
4
0
5
13
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
80
4.44%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
4.44%2
4.44%2
0.00%0
44.44%20
6.67%3
0.00%0
17.78%8
Q72 Which most closely describes your retirement plan vesting
schedule? (Those plans are receiving employer contribution.)
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 45
Immediate
vesting
6-month Cliff
1-year Cliff
2-Year Cliff
3-Year Cliff
3-Year Graded
4-Year Cliff
5-Year Graded
6-Year Graded
None of the
above or not...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Immediate vesting
6-month Cliff
1-year Cliff
2-Year Cliff
3-Year Cliff
3-Year Graded
4-Year Cliff
5-Year Graded
6-Year Graded
None of the above or not applicable
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
81
34.78%16
6.52%3
26.09%12
32.61%15
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q73 In regard to their retirement, as a whole our employees today
(choose the best answer):
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
46
Are more
concerned ab...
Are less
concerned ab...
Seem
indifferent...
Seem to
approach the...
Are confident
they are on...
Not
applicable, ...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Are more concerned about their ability to retire than recent years
Are less concerned about their ability to retire than recent years
Seem indifferent about their ability of future retirement
Seem to approach their ability to retire similarly to how they have in recent years
Are confident they are on track to meet their planned retirement goals
Not applicable, we do not have a retirement plan
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
82
Q74 How many paid holidays does your organization offer per year?
(Select one in each category)
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
8.89%
4
17.78%
8
64.44%
29
6.67%
3 45 4.62
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
9.30%
4
16.28%
7
67.44%
29
6.98%
3 43 4.72
None Less than 6 days 6-8 days 9-10 days 11-12 days
More than 12 days
Exempt
Employees
Non-exempt
Employees
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
NONE LESS THAN 6
DAYS
6-8
DAYS
9-10
DAYS
11-12
DAYS
MORE THAN 12
DAYS
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Exempt Employees
Non-exempt
Employees
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
83
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
17.78%
8
42.22%
19
22.22%
10
15.56%
7
2.22%
1
0.00%
0 45 5.42
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
22.22%
10
46.67%
21
15.56%
7
15.56%
7
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 45 5.24
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
8.89%
4
37.78%
17
33.33%
15
15.56%
7
4.44%
2
0.00%
0 45 5.69
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
13.33%
6
44.44%
20
24.44%
11
17.78%
8
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 45 5.47
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
17.78%
8
42.22%
19
31.11%
14
6.67%
3
0.00%
0 45 6.22
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
28.89%
13
35.56%
16
28.89%
13
4.44%
2
0.00%
0 45 6.04
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
40.00%
18
44.44%
20
13.33%
6
0.00%
0 45 6.69
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
4.44%
2
44.44%
20
42.22%
19
8.89%
4
0.00%
0 45 6.56
1-3 Years of
Service:
Exempt
1-3 Years of
Service:
Non-Exempt
Between 3-5
Years of
Service:
Exempt
Between 3-5
Years of
Service:
Non-Exempt
>5 Years of
Service:
Exempt
>5 Years of
Service:
Non-Exempt
>10 Years of
Service:
Exempt
>10 Years of
Service:
Non-Exempt
2.17%
1
0.00%
0
2.17%
1
17.39%
8
50.00%
23
13.04%
6
13.04%
6
2.17%
1
0.00%
0 46 5.15
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.22%
1
22.22%
10
51.11%
23
11.11%
5
13.33%
6
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 45 5.11
NONE 1-3
DAYS
4-6
DAYS
7-10
DAYS
11-15
DAYS
16-21
DAYS
22-30
DAYS
MORE
THAN
30
DAYS
UNLIMITED
NUMBER
OF DAYS
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
<1 Year of
Service:
Exempt
<1 Year of
Service:
Non-Exempt
Q75 How many days of paid leave are offered per year, not including
holidays? (Select one in each category)
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
84
Q76 How many unused days of paid leave are permitted for carry over to
the following year? (Select one in each category)
None 1-3 days 4-6 days 7-10 days 11-15 days
16-21 days 22-30 days More than 30 days
Unlimited number of days
Exempt
Employees
Non-Exempt
Employees
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
NONE 1-3
DAYS
4-6
DAYS
7-10
DAYS
11-15
DAYS
16-21
DAYS
22-30
DAYS
MORE
THAN 30
DAYS
UNLIMITED
NUMBER OF
DAYS
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
4.88%
2
0.00%
0
4.88%
2
4.88%
2
0.00%
0
7.32%
3
21.95%
9
48.748.7%
20
7.32%
3 41 6.93
4.88%
2
0.00%
0
4.88%
2
4.88%
2
0.00%
0
7.32%
3
24.39%
10
46.34%
19
7.32%
3 41 6.90
Exempt
Employees
Non-exempt
Employees
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
85
47.83%22
52.17%24
Q77 Is there a "buy-out" on leave accruals such as sick leave, vacation
leave, and organization holidays?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
86
28.89%13
0.00%0
0.00%0
68.89%31
2.22%1
Q78 What type of paid leave does your organization offer?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
45
Paid Time Off
(PTO)
Sick Leave only
Vacation only
Combination of
Sick Leave a...
None of the
above
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Paid Time Off (PTO)
Sick Leave only
Vacation only
Combination of Sick Leave and Vacation
None of the above
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
87
Q79 What is your company's terminated employee leave policy payout?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
48.78%
20
36.59%
15
14.63%
6 41 1.66
45.00%
18
30.00%
12
25.00%
10 40 1.80
We offer PTO payout for all unused PTO
We offer PTO payout but limit the number of days
We do not offer any PTO payout
Voluntary
Termination
Involuntary
Termination
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
WE OFFER PTO PAYOUT
FOR ALL UNUSED PTO
WE OFFER PTO PAYOUT BUT
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DAYS
WE DO NOT OFFER
ANY PTO PAYOUT
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Voluntary
Termination
Involuntary
Termination
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
88
22.22%10
4.44%2
20.00%9
0.00%0
53.33%24
Q80 How is time for sick leave, vacation time, and PTO accrued?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
45
Hourly
Weekly
Monthly
Not Applicable
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Hourly
Weekly
Monthly
Not Applicable
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
89
82.86%29
80.00%28
57.14%20
28.57%10
Q81 Based on the frequency of your answer in Question 74, what is the
accrual rate for the following types of leave at your company:
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sick Leave
Vacation Leave
PTO
Other
1 day/month
0.0333 classified, 0.03875 for unclassified
4 hours
8 hours
8 hour/month
3.70
4 hours biweekly
0.0577
4
3.69
3.7
3.08 hours
3.7 hours per pay period
3.64 hours per pay period
8 hours monthly
3.7 hours
3.7 hours per pay period
3.692 biweekly
3.7 hours
0
None
2 hours per month
4 hours biweekly accrued
Individual answers below:
Sick Leave:
0-2 years; 96 hours
FROHQG\HDU
>KRXUV@SHUSD\SHULRGLIKRXUVZRUNHGLQ\HDUV
WRKRXUVGHSHQGLQJRQ\HDUVRIVHUYLFH
9DU\LQJ
KRXUVSHUPRQWK
><5@ ><5@ ><5@ ><5@
>1HJ@
KRXUVELZHHNO\
9DULHVE\OHQJWKRIVHUYLFHDQGZKHWKHUHPSOR\HHLVH[HPSWRU
QRQH[HPSWXSWR
KRXUV\HDUV
3.08 up to 3 years;3.70 after 3 years;4.62 after 9 years;6.15
after 14 years
Varies, 3.46-6.54 hours, increases 0.22 hours for each year of
service
Varies by years of service
Civilian: 8 hours/month (1-4 years of service), 10 hours/month
(5-9 years of service), 12 hours/month (10-14 years of service),
13.33 hours/month (15 or more years of service) Sworn: 9.33
hours/month (1-4 years of service), 10.66 hours/month (5-9
years of service), 12.66 hours/month (10-14 years of service),
14.66 hours/month (15 or more years of service)
3.08-4.62-6.16 per pay period depending on yrs of svc
3.62, 4.308, 5.231, 6.769, 7.693/Bi-Weekly depending on years
of service
3.08 < 3 years; 4.62 >3 -10 years; 6.15 11-20 years; 7.69 >20
years
0
None
Total balance for year added in January
9DFDWLRQ/HDYH
One week deposited on service date, then remainder
accrued biweekly
Depending on tenure
10-19 hours/month, dependent on years of service
18.0 each July 1, must be used by June 30-use or lose
Varies by years of service
After 1 year of service a lump sum of 80 hours is given
to all employees plus: 4 hrs per pay period (ppp) 1-4
yrs, 5 hrs ppp 5-9 yrs, 6 hrs ppp 10-14 years, 7 hrs ppp
15-19 years, 8 hrs ppp 20+ yrs
0.0538 per hour worked
From:5.54 to 6.93 depending on years of service
Varies on length with company
Varies
5 hours every two weeks
4.62
PTO
0
3 floating holidays per year
Varies depending on years of service
Caregiver leave when approved (up to 80 hours); hospital
leave when approved (up to 160 hours).
Part-time employees accrue up to half on a pro rata basis
Personal Leave: Less that 6 mo: 40, Less that 24 mo: 60, 24+
mo: 80
Other
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
90
28.00%7
80.00%20
36.00%9
76.00%19
24.00%6
52.00%13
20.00%5
28.00%7
24.00%6
68.00%17
Q82 If applicable, what are the buy-out levels for each of the following
areas of leave? (Answer all that are applicable; please note any
maximum caps or thresholds)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sick leave ($ amount)
Sick leave (percentage)
Vacation ($ amount)
Vacation (percentage)
Holiday ($ amount)
Holiday (percentage)
Combination ($ amount)
Combination (percentage)
Compensatory time ($ amount)
Compensatory time (percentage)
Full data set can be found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
91
30.00%9
26.67%8
43.33%13
Q83 If applicable, is the buy-out option offered annually or only upon
retirement?
Answered: 30 Skipped: 24
30
Annually
Upon retirement
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Annually
Upon retirement
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
92
13.95%6
67.44%29
18.60%8
Q84 Does your organization contribute to Post–employment Health
Reimbursement Account (HRA) accounts for employees?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 43
Yes
No
Not Applicable
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
93
Q85 If your organization does contribute to post–employment HRA
accounts for employees, what is the annual contribution (in dollars)?
Non represented: $24.30 biweekly, AFSCME: $32.08, Fire: $23.08, Police: $24.30
1k-10k depending on employee experience
One time only contribution of $10,000 if 1,000 hours sick leave are accrued
HRA contributions only for retirees who enroll in CDHP Plan
After 5 years of service - $530.40, after 10 years - 634.40, after 15 years - $738.40
Varies per employee
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
94
66.67%30
66.67%30
68.89%31
66.67%30
46.67%21
55.56%25
13.33%6
Q86 What type of wellness initiatives are offered at your organization?
(Select all that apply)
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
Smoking
cessation
Health
education...
Testing for
biometrics...
Health risk
assessments...
Tracking of
biometric...
Weight loss
programs
Provide meals,
snacks, drin...
Flu shot clinic
Employee
Assistance...
Exercise
programs or...
Paid fitness
club or gym...
Onsite Fitness
Facilities
Fitness
Trackers...
Financial
Wellness
Not Applicable
Other, please
specify
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Smoking cessation
Health education courses
Testing for biometrics (height, weight, blood pressure, cholesterol)
Health risk assessments (health history questionnaire)
Tracking of biometric improvement
Weight loss programs
Provide meals, snacks, drinks in an on-site lunchroom or cafeteria at no/low cost
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
95
84.44%38
91.11%41
53.33%24
24.44%11
60.00%27
28.89%13
62.22%28
0.00%0
6.67%3
Total Respondents: 45
Flu shot clinic
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
Exercise programs or competitions that track results
Paid fitness club or gym membership
Onsite Fitness Facilities
Fitness Trackers (Fitbit, Apple Watch, Garmin, etc.)
Financial Wellness
Not Applicable
Other, please specify
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
96
25.00%11
40.91%18
34.09%15
4.55%2
22.73%10
29.55%13
11.36%5
20.45%9
9.09%4
Q87 If your organization offers financial incentives for participation in
wellness initiatives, what types of incentives are offered? (Select all that
apply)
Answered: 44 Skipped: 10
Cash
Prizes
Gift cards
Paid fitness
club membership
Additional HSA
or HRA...
Employee
discounts on...
Extra paid
leave
Not Applicable
Other, please
specify
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Cash
Prizes
Gift cards
Paid fitness club membership
Additional HSA or HRA contributions
Employee discounts on insurance premiums
Extra paid leave
Not Applicable
Other, please specify
Total Respondents: 44
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
97
40.91%18
59.09%26
Q88 Does your organization have a program/pay for those employees
who are active members of the military?
Answered: 44 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 44
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
98
Q89 If your organization does have a program/pay for those in the
military, what is it?
Standard FMLA for eligible employees
Pay up to 123 hours hours for sworn employees on military leave
Paid military leave of 15 days per fiscal year
Military differential pay for active duty service exceeding 179 days.
Supplement military pay with regular pay, and buy their retirement contribution.
Full pay if in a war (hot) zone. 24 days of military leave.
Military leave
State Law requires payment of 168 hours of military leave per calendar year for active members of
state and US reserves for training or active duty.
15 days
An employee on official military orders in entitled to paid military, which shall not exceed 80 hours
per calendar year to complete military duty. Unused PML may not be carried over year to year.
Up to 15 paid days off for short-term military leave (annual training)
120 hour of pay
110 hours of paid military leave per year plus full retirement contributions while on active duty.
120 hours of paid leave when called to military service
Regular wages paid for annual training for reserve members. None for full-time active duty military
personnel.
12 paid days per year.
15 days with pay per year (not including any vacation or other leave time)
Employees allowed full pay while on military duty up to: 15 calendar days (AFSCME); 11 days
(non represented); 7.5 operational shift (fire); 15 working days (police)
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
99
Q90 How much employer-paid life insurance is provided by your
organization? (Select the most correct answer in each category)
Answered: 42 Skipped: 9
Employee Spouse Children
0
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
5
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
9
0
%
10
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
5
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
9
0
%
10
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
4
0
%
5
0
%
6
0
%
7
0
%
8
0
%
9
0
%
10
0
%
$5,000-$9,999 $10,000-$24,999 $25,000-$49,999$4,999 or less
$50,000-$100,000
1X annual salary
Flat dollar amount more than $100,000
2X annual salary
Multiple of salary greater than 2X salary N/A
2.22%
1
0.00%
0
4.44%
2
20.00%
9
37.78%
17
4.44%
2
20.00%
9
11.11%
5
0.00%
0
0.00%
0 45
19.05%
8
28.57%
12
9.52%
4
2.38%
1
2.38%
1
2.38%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
35.71%
15 42
40.48%
17
14.29%
6
7.14%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.38%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
35.71%
15 42
$4,999
OR
LESS
$5,000-
$9,999
$10,000-
$24,999
$25,000-
$49,999
$50,000-
$100,000
FLAT
DOLLAR
AMOUNT
MORE
THAN
$100,000
1X
ANNUAL
SALARY
2X
ANNUAL
SALARY
MULTIPLE
OF
SALARY
GREATER
THAN 2X
SALARY
N/A TOTAL
AVE
Employee
Spouse
Children
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
100
55.56%25
44.44%20
Q91 Are your organization's employer-paid life insurance benefits
portable upon termination?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 45
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
101
55.81%24
30.23%13
11.63%5
2.33%1
Q92 How many dental plans does your organization offer?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 43
1
2
3
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1
2
3
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
102
Q93 What percentage of the total dental insurance premium is paid by
the employer on your most popular plan? (Select one in each category)
Single
Rate
Two-Party
Rate
Family
Rate
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
0
%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90%
100%
Less than 50% 50-65%
100%
$0, our plan is 100% employee paid
66-80% 81-94% 95-99%
Employee may purchase dental with defined contribution allowance N/A
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
9.76%
4
7.32%
3
9.76%
4
26.83%
11
21.95%
9
0.00%
0
21.95%
9
2.44%
1
0.00%
0 41 5.44
12.20%
5
4.88%
2
12.20%
5
29.27%
12
21.95%
9
2.44%
1
7.32%
3
2.44%
1
7.32%
3 41 5.00
12.20%
5
4.88%
2
17.07%
7
31.71%
13
21.95%
9
2.44%
1
7.32%
3
2.44%
1
0.00%
0 41 4.95
$0, OUR
PLAN IS
100%
EMPLOYEE
PAID
LESS
THAN
50%
50-65% 66-80% 81-94% 95-
99%
100% EMPLOYEE
MAY
PURCHASE
DENTAL WITH
DEFINED
CONTRIBUTION
ALLOWANCE
N/A TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Single
Rate
Two-
Party
Rate
Family
Rate
103
4.88%2
0.00%0
4.88%2
4.88%2
51.22%21
31.71%13
2.44%1
0.00%0
Q94 What is the maximum annual benefit (per person) on your most
popular dental plan?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
41
$0-$499
$500-$999
$1,000-$1,199
$1,200-$1,499
$1,500-$1,999
$2,000 or more
No annual
maximum benefit
Not
applicable, ...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
$0-$499
$500-$999
$1,000-$1,199
$1,200-$1,499
$1,500-$1,999
$2,000 or more
No annual maximum benefit
Not applicable, we do not offer a dental plan
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
104
3.03%1
0.00%0
6.06%2
3.03%1
27.27%9
6.06%2
15.15%5
39.39%13
Q95 What is the maximum annual benefit (per person) on your second-
most popular dental plan?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 21
33
$0-$499
$500-$999
$1,000-$1,199
$1,200-$1,499
$1,500-$1,999
$2,000 or more
No annual
maximum benefit
Not
applicable, ...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
$0-$499
$500-$999
$1,000-$1,199
$1,200-$1,499
$1,500-$1,999
$2,000 or more
No annual maximum benefit
Not applicable, we do not offer a dental plan
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
105
2.44%1
2.44%1
9.76%4
2.44%1
51.22%21
24.39%10
2.44%1
0.00%0
4.88%2
Q96 What is the maximum orthodontia benefit (per person) on your most
popular dental plan?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
41
$0-$499
$500-$999
$1,000-$1,199
$1,200-$1,499
$1,500-$1,999
$2,000 or more
No annual
maximum benefit
Not
applicable, ...
Not
applicable, ...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
$0-$499
$500-$999
$1,000-$1,199
$1,200-$1,499
$1,500-$1,999
$2,000 or more
No annual maximum benefit
Not applicable, we do not offer a dental plan
Not applicable, our dental plan does not offer orthodontia
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
106
81.93%
$31.06
40.62%
$15.69
Q97 Please complete the table for the most popular dental plan offered
(Single ):
ANSWER CHOICES Average response (for all non-zero responses)
Premium percentage paid by employer:
Employer's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Premium percentage paid by employee:
Employee's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
107
0%
$0
100%
$38.55
79.15%
$56.66
37.58%
$28.53
Q98 Please complete the table for the most popular dental plan offered
(Two-Party):
ANSWER CHOICES
Premium percentage paid by employer:
Employer's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Premium percentage paid by employee:
Employee's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Average response (for all non-zero responses)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
108
0%
$0
100%
$77.83
72.93%
$73.12
39.93%
$39.44
Q99 Please complete the table for the most popular dental plan offered
(Family):
ANSWER CHOICES
Premium percentage paid by employer:
Employer's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Premium percentage paid by employee:
Employee's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Full data set from answers found in Appendix.
Average response (for all non-zero responses)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
109
0%
$0
100%
$101.70
60.00%21
62.86%22
57.14%20
37.14%13
31.43%11
28.57%10
2.86%1
34.29%12
22.86%8
11.43%4
11.43%4
Q100 Which of the following does your organization offer? (Check all that
apply.)
Answered: 35 Skipped: 19
Critical
Illness
Accident
Indemnity
Hospital
Indemnity
Legal Insurance
Auto Insurance
Discounts
Home Insurance
Discounts
Purchase of
Precious Metals
ID Theft
Protection
Pet Insurance
Hearing Loss
Discount...
Low Interest
Loans
Student Loan
Refinancing
Discount
Shopping
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Critical Illness
Accident Indemnity
Hospital Indemnity
Legal Insurance
Auto Insurance Discounts Home
Insurance Discounts Purchase
of Precious Metals ID Theft
Protection
Pet Insurance
Hearing Loss Discount Program
Low Interest Loans
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
110
8.57%3
28.57%10
14.29%5
Student Loan Refinancing
Discount Shopping
Other (please specify)
Total Respondents: 35
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
111
44 1,453 33
Q101 What percentage of your population is enrolled in one or more of
these products?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 33
0 10 20 30 40 50
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
112
60%
9.52%4
80.95%34
9.52%4
Q102 Does your organization offer hiring bonuses to new employees?
Answered: 42 Skipped: 12
42
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
On occasion
For hard-to-recruit positions
Typically no, but have offered for certain positions
$1000 for police officers
Yes, certain departments will use this as an
incentive
Responses under "Other":
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
113
Q103 If your organization does offer hiring bonuses, how much is
offered?
$500 for certain positions
Differs by situation
Depends on position
$400 for a Custodian
Varies
$1,000
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
114
Q104 If your organization does offer hiring bonuses, how and when is the
bonus paid?
Upon graduation of the EE
Within five days of employment
At hire
Half at hire, the other half at 6 months
After 90 days of employment
In their first paycheck
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
115
40.00%16
40.00%16
20.00%8
Q105 Are hiring laterals (experience from another organization) credited
to employees for previous years of service?
Answered: 40 Skipped: 14
40
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSES
Police only
Sometimes, if agreed upon during negotiations of a job offer
Only for police
Mostly no, but can be negotiated
Yes for fire/police. Must show documentation of FR service with other employer.
Yes, for certain positions
Only for pay purposes
Yes, for sworn police officers only
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Responses under "Other":
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
116
Q106 If such laterals are credited, what is the credit given to employees
for previous years of service?
Varies on position
5 years for pay only
Up to 3 years of vacation and personal leave accrual
Depends
Determined on a case by case basis
Upon hire
1:1 for direct experience
Determined by hiring manager and department
Generally year for year
Credit determines placement in salary range
12 years for Fire/Policy only
Start at the same vacation accrual. Police will start at their year of service.
Police: Up to 8 years credited. General employees: Negotiable
Year for year
1:1 up to 9 years (Public Safety)
Vacation
100%
All years of applicable service up to a maximum of 10 years
Year for year
Credit to PTO
One year for each year
Increased starting salary based on years of previous service (Fire and Police only)
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
117
31.71%13
60.98%25
7.32%3
Q107 Does your organization offer re-hires credit for seniority (time spent
within the organization)?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
41
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
118
Q108 If re-hires are offered credit for seniority, what is the credit given?
Year for year
100%
Sick leave accrual.
If within 12 months, restored to original hire date for accrual rates.
If hired within a year of leaving, full credit.
If it has been less than one year since they left us, when they come back, they retain their seniority.
If it is more than one year, they don't keep their previous seniority.
Acknowledgment of previous work time.
To determine salary offering and leave accruals.
Full credit if hired within one year.
All "regular" (vs. "temporary") prior service is counted.
Upon hire only for pay purposes.
Based on adjusted
Up to 3 years of vacation and personal leave accrual.
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
119
15.38%6
71.79%28
12.82%5
Q109 Are bonuses offered for employee referrals leading to new hires?
Answered: 39 Skipped: 15
39
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
120
Q110 If referral bonuses are offered, what is the dollar value of the
bonus?
Varying
$500
Varying
$1,000
$1,000
$25-$50
Depends on position—the higher in grade, the higher the bonus
$250-$2,000, depending on position
$500
$500
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
121
Q111 If referral bonuses are offered, how is the referral bonus paid to the
employee?
Varying
Added on 6 months
Upon the successful completion of Police Office Trainee Program
Through payroll
At 6 months
Gift card or payroll deposit
Upon hire of candidate
Through payroll
In their regular paycheck
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
122
97.67%42
2.33%1
Q112 Does your organization offer an Employee Assitance Program
(EAP)?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 43
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
123
11.90%5
33.33%14
21.43%9
33.33%14
Q113 How many sessions do you offer per incident, per year?
Answered: 42 Skipped: 12
TOTAL 42
1-3
4-6
6+
Unlimited
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1-3
4-6
6+
Unlimited
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
124
42.86%18
57.14%24
Q114 Do you offer any onsite or near-site counseling as part of your EAP
package?
Answered: 42 Skipped: 12
TOTAL 42
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
125
31.71%13
51.22%21
9.76%4
7.32%3
Q115 If your agency includes first responders (:911, Police/Fire
Departments), do you have a peer support team as part of your EAP?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
41
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Not Applicable
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Fire and police have implemented peer support groups but not with the EAP.
Responses under "Other":
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
126
Q116 How do you train your peer support team members?
Outside hire to train
As a team and we bring in people from our EAP
Professional training
Attend external training
Professional Counselors train our peer support team
Professional trained as determined by PD/Fire
External vendor
Third party administrator
CIS psychiatrist trains each member
Members are trained by a Clinical Advisor and their department
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
127
23.08%3
76.92%10
Q117 Do you have a separate EAP specifically for first responders?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 41
TOTAL 13
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
128
Q118 If you do have a first responder-specific EAP, please detail your
plan design.
Answered: 3 Skipped: 51
We have contracts with [LOCAL ORGANIZATION]
We offer a pilot program for our Police, Fire and Dispatch departments. They have additional
counseling sessions (up to 15 per event per year) and training throughout their department and
peer support programs.
12+ visits
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
129
27.91%12
72.09%31
Q119 Do you plan on expanding your EAP offerings in the next 1-2
years?
Answered: 43 Skipped: 11
TOTAL 43
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
130
47.62%20
66.67%28
11.90%5
50.00%21
19.05%8
Q120 Which type of alternate work schedule(s) does your organization
offer? Consider the following definitions for this question: (Select all that
apply) ● Telecommuting is working away from a company office location
● Compressed work week is working less than five days per week for full-
time status ● Job sharing is allowing more than one part-time worker to fill
a full-time need ● Flex time is allowing an employee to choose their own
or alternative work hours
Answered: 42 Skipped: 12
Telecommuting
Compressed
work week
Job sharing
Flex time
None of the
above
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
RESPONSESANSWER CHOICES
Telecommuting
Compressed work week
Job sharing
Flex time
None of the above
Total Respondents: 42
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
131
Q121 What additional creative benefit practices do you have to help
attract and increase employee engagement to retain employees?
County offers a comprehensive benefits package
YOS program awards allow employees to choose his/her gifts from Amazon. It's been a big hit.
Employee wellness and emergency preparedness purchases through cashing of accrued leave time.
Police Officers receive a housing incentive $10,000 for the purchase of a home inside City limits and $200
per month towards rent/mortgage inside City limits.
Some agencies may have some programs to accomplish this but not the state as a whole.
Wellness Portal
Robust employee recognition program Frequent bonuses Family celebrations
We have a great team!
Parking
Family initiatives, smart commute benefits (paid time off for sustainable commutes)
Various challenges and intramural sports to support team building and boost morale.
Free Financial Planning Sessions
Employer Paid Transit Pass
Free Parking
Discounted GREENbike Annual Pass
Fitness Reimbursement Program and Altered Work Schedule
Discounts to Fitness Facilities
Parental Leave Policy (6 weeks)
Free Health Coaching Services
Near Site Mental Health Providers
Onsite Flu Clinics, Dermatology Screenings and Biometric Screenings
Employee Annual 5k Event
Service Awards Program
Individual answers below:
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
132
Appendix
133
ORGNIZATIONS WHO COMPLETED THE BENEFT STUDY
ORGANIZATION STATE
1 UT
2 CO
3
4
NM
5
TX
6
WA
7
AL
8
WY
9
UT
10
TN
11
TX
12
AZ
13
UT
14
UT
15
UT
16
UT
17
UT
18
KS
19
UT
20
UT
21
AZ
22
OR
23
AL
24
UT
25
UT
26
UT
27
UT
28
UT
29
MN
30
UT
31
32
UT
33
UT
34
UT
35
UT
36
UT
37
UT
38
Brigham City Corporation
City and County of Denver
City of Artesia
City of Austin
City of Bellevue
City of Birmingham
City of Green River
City of Logan
City of Memphis Compensation
City of San Antonio
City of Scottsdale, AZ
City of South Jordan
Davis County
Eagle Mountain City
Heber City Corporation
Herriman City
Johnson County, Kansas Gov't
Lehi City
Lindon City
Maricopa County
Metro
Montgomery City County Personnel Board
Mountain America Federal Credit Union
Murray City
O.C. Tanner Company
Ogden City Corporation
Provo City
Ramsey County
Salt Lake City Corporation
Salt Lake County
Spanish Fork City
State of Utah
Tooele County
Unified Fire Authority
Unified Police Department
West Valley City UT
The following did not give NFP permission to disclose their information:
39
Jumbo Private Information Technology UT
40
Jumbo Municipality CO
41
Jumbo Municipality MO
42
Jumbo Municipality TX
43
Jumbo Public Admin OR
44
Jumbo Public Admin OR
45
Jumbo Public Admin DND
46
Large Municipality CO
47
Large Public Admin UT
48
Mid-Size Municipality CO
49
Mid-Size Municipality UT
50
Jumbo Private Building Trade UT
51
Small Municipality UT
52
Small Municipality UT
Small Municipality UT
Small Municipality UT
134
All Individual Free Responses
135
100.00%47
97.87%46
95.74%45
97.87%46
95.74%45
95.74%45
95.74%45
Q12 Please provide the following information for the most popular
medical plan offered (Individual Plans):
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
#TYPE OF PLAN (HDHP OR TRADITIONAL HEALTH PLAN)DATE
1 HDHP
2 CDHP
3 Traditional Health Plan
4 Traditional Plan
5 Kaiser HMO
6 HDHP
7 Traditional - Choice EE
8 HDHP
9 HMO
10 PPO
11 x
12 PPO
13 Copay
14 HDHP
15 Traditional
16 HDHP
17 Traditional Health Plan
18 Traditional
19 HDHP
20 HDHP
21 Traditional Health Plan - PPO
22 PPO
23 HDHP
24 High Deductible
25 HDHP
26 HDHP
27 HDHP
28 PEHP Traditional
29 Traditional - SelectHealth SelectMed+
30 HDHP
31 Traditional EPO Health Plan
32 Traditional Health Plan
33 HDHP
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Health Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
136
34 Traditional
35 Traditional
36 Traditional Health Plan
37 HDHP
38 HSA
39 HDHP
40 HDHP
41 Traditional Health Plan
42 HDHP
43 Traditional Health Plan
44 HDHP
45 HDHP
46 Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO
47 HDHP
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYER
1 100%
2 94
3 90
4 80
5 92
6 95%
7 80%
8 70/80
9 97
10 98%
11 98%
12 80%
13 94.5
14 75
15 80%
16 89
17 80
18 92
19 94.5
20 92.5%
21 91
22 100%
23 100%
24 80
25 100%
26 100%
27 90
28 100%
29 85
30 80
31 80%
32 85-90-95 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
33 85%
34 80%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
137
35 100%
36 100
37 100%
38 80
39 100
40 90%
41 82
42 99
43 90
44 100%
45 80%
46 93%
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $416
2 532
3 615.60
4 416.00
5 568.83
6 $403.11
7 533
8 398.40
9 661.80
10 $670.06
11 1
12 500
13 437.80
14 332.01
15 438.37
16 825.50
17 448
18 414
19 464.38
20 $799.05
21 746
22 $701.00
23 492.50
24 697.74
25 $380.90
26 497.96
27 542.30
28 $622.50
29 429
30 628.26
31 $421.04
32 428.66-453.88-479.10
33 455.04
34 294.15
35 23841.48
36 668.42
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
138
37 520.64
38 418.32
39 $382.49
40 570.18
41 734
42 440.64
43 $472
44 $609.34
45 428.86
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYEE
1 0%
2 6
3 93
4 20
5 8
6 5%
7 20%
8 30/20
9 3
10 2%
11 5
12 20%
13 5.5
14 25
15 20%
16 11
17 20
18 8
19 5.5
20 7.5%
21 9
22 0%
23 0%
24 20
25 0
26 0
27 10
28 0%
29 15-10
30 20
31 20%
32 15-10-5 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
33 15%
34 235.32
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 20
39 Deductible $3500 (employer contributes $922.08 to HSA)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
139
40 10%
41 18
42 1
43 10
44 0%
45 20%
46 7%
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 0
2 33
3 51.65
4 104.00
5 49.46
6 $21.21
7 144
8 45.00
9 22.80
10 $10
11 .01
12 50
13 25.48
14 110.50
15 109.59
16 95.50
17 118
18 37
19 27.03
20 $65
21 74
22 $0
23 0
24 89.46
25 0
26 0
27 48.74
28 $0.00
29 51
30 157.06
31 $105.26
32 75.66-50.44-25.22
33 80.30
34 58.83
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 104.58
39 $43.33
40 125.67
41 25
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
140
42 48.96
43 $0
44 $152.34
45 29.00
#ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
1 $2,000
2 1500
3 0.00
4 1000.00
5 150
6 $1500
7 350/ 700
8 2000.00
9 350
10 $500
11 500
12 0
13 1350
14 1500
15 1,500
16 300
17 600
18 1500
19 1450
20 $25
21 750
22 $2,850
23 3,000
24 2,000
25 $2700
26 2000
27 350
28 $750
29 2000
30 1000
31 $500
32 1350.00
33 750.00
34 250.00
35 $1500
36 1500
37 2500
38 2000
39 $750
40 1500
41 1000
42 1500
43 $2000
44 $500
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
141
45 1500
#ANNUAL OUT OF POCKET MAX
1 $3,500
2 3500
3 1,500
4 3000.
5 1150
6 $4000
7 4000/ 8000
8 4000.00
9 1600
10 $4000
11 4000
12 2,500
13 2700
14 4000
15 3,000
16 2500
17 3500
18 2000
19 2900
20 $1200
21 2500
22 $5,500
23 3,000
24 3,000
25 $3000
26 3000
27 3000
28 $5,500
29 4000
30 2000
31 $3,000
32 2700.00
33 5,000.00
34 3000.00
35 $3000
36 2000
37 2500
38 2000
39 $2,500
40 3000
41 4000
42 3000
43 $4000
44 $2500
45 3000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
142
100.00%47
97.87%46
95.74%45
97.87%46
95.74%45
95.74%45
95.74%45
Q13 Please provide the following information for the most popular
medical plan offered (Two-Party):
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
#TYPE OF PLAN (HDHP OR TRADITIONAL MEDICAL PLAN)
1 HDHP
2 CDHP
3 Traditional
4 Traditional Plan
5 Kaiser HMO
6 HDHP
7 Traditional - Choice EE+1
8 HDHP
9 HMO
10 PPO
11 x
12 PPO
13 copay
14 HDHP
15 Traditional
16 HDHP
17 NA
18 Traditional
19 HDHP
20 HDHP
21 NA
22 PPO
23 HDHP
24 High Deductible
25 HDHP
26 HDHP
27 HDHP
28 PEHP Traditional
29 Traditional - SelectHealth SelectMed+
30 HDHP
31 Traditional EPO Medical Plan
32 Traditional
33 HDHP
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP or Traditional Medical Plan)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
143
34 Traditional
35 Traditional
36 Traditional Medical Plan
37 HDHP
38 Traditional
39 HDHP
40 HDHP
41 Traditional Medical Plan
42 HDHP
43 Traditional Health Plan
44 HDHP
45 HDHP
46 Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO
47 HDHP
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYER
1 100%
2 84
3 85
4 80
5 92
6 95%
7 80
8 70/80
9 93
10 75%
11 XX
12 75%
13 87
14 68
15 80%
16 NA
17 80
18 92
19 87
20 NA
21 89
22 100%
23 100%
24 80
25 100%
26 100
27 90
28 75%
29 85
30 78
31 80%
32 85-90-95 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
33 85%
34 80
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
144
35 100%
36 100
37 100%
38 80
39 100
40 94%
41 83
42 77
43 90
44 100%
45 80%
46 92%
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $1,195
2 959
3 1,178
4 915.36
5 1137.65
6 $906.99
7 1,026
8 667.78
9 1228.08
10 $1143.76
11 XX
12 1,000
13 886.71
14 725.26
15 907.41
16 NA
17 822
18 865
19 940.55
20 NA
21 1310
22 $1,314.00
23 1,084.00
24 1,954.78
25 $823.40
26 1030.78
27 1118.13
28 $1,022.46
29 935
30 1226.43
31 $902.32
32 887.32-939.52-991.72
33 1,001.08
34 608.89
35 32536.76
36 1376.94
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
145
37 1158.22
38 865.76
39 $1150.06
40 1397.46
41 1290
42 969.4
43 $1014
44 $1774.87
45 886
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYEE
1 0%
2 16
3 15
4 20
5 8
6 5%
7 20
8 30/20
9 7
10 25%
11 191
12 25%
13 13
14 32
15 20%
16 NA
17 20
18 8
19 13
20 NA
21 11
22 0%
23 0%
24 20
25 0
26 0
27 10
28 25%
29 15
30 22
31 20%
32 15-10-5 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
33 15%
34 487.11
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 20
39 Deductible $5000 (employer contributes $1879.68 to HSA)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
146
40 6%
41 17
42 23
43 10
44 0%
45 20%
46 7%
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 0
2 183
3 223
4 228.84
5 98.93
6 $47.73
7 260
8 209.00
9 99.38
10 $382.24
11 X
12 250
13 132.50
14 338.00
15 226.85
16 NA
17 217
18 78
19 140.54
20 NA
21 145
22 $0
23 0
24 246.58
25 0
26 0
27 100.50
28 $1,349.70
29 113
30 345.91
31 $225.58
32 156.60-104.40-52.20
33 176.66
34 121.78
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 216.44
39 $65
40 277.33
41 302
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
147
42 107.72
43 $0
44 $443.72
45 66.32
#ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
1 $4,000
2 3000
3 0.00
4 2000
5 450
6 $3000
7 350/ 700
8 4000.00
9 700
10 $1000
11 1000
12 0
13 2700
14 1500/3000
15 3,000
16 NA
17 600/1200
18 3000
19 2900
20 NA
21 1500
22 $5,700
23 6,000
24 4,000
25 $5400
26 4000
27 700
28 $1,500
29 6000
30 2000
31 $500
32 2700.00
33 1,500.00
34 500.00
35 3000
36 3000
37 2000.00
38 4000
39 $1,500
40 3000
41 2000
42 3000
43 $4000
44 $1500 family
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
148
45 3000
#ANNUAL OUT OF POCKET MAX
1 $7,000
2 8000
3 3,000
4 6000
5 3450
6 $8000
7 4,000/ 8,000
8 8000.00
9 3200
10 $4000
11 12700
12 2500
13 5400
14 4000/8000
15 6,000
16 NA
17 3500/7000
18 4000
19 5800
20 NA
21 5000
22 $11,000
23 6,000
24 6,000
25 $6000
26 6000
27 6000
28 $11,000
29 8000
30 3000
31 $3,000
32 5400.00
33 10,000.00
34 6000.00
35 6000
36 4000
37 12000.00
38 4000
39 $5,000
40 6000
41 8000
42 6000
43 $8000
44 $5000 family
45 6000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
149
100.00%47
97.87%46
95.74%45
97.87%46
95.74%45
95.74%45
95.74%45
Q14 Please complete the table for the most popular medical plan offered
(Family):
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
#TYPE OF PLAN (HDHP/PPO)
1 HDHP
2 CDHP
3 PPO
4 PPO
5 Kaiser HMO
6 HDHP
7 Traditional - Choice Fam
8 HDHP
9 HMO
10 PPO
11 x
12 PPO
13 copay
14 HDHP
15 Traditional PPO
16 HDHP
17 Traditional PPO
18 Traditional
19 HDHP
20 HDHP
21 Traditional Health Plan - PPO
22 PPO
23 HDHP
24 High Deductible
25 HDHP
26 HDHP
27 HDDP
28 PEHP Traditional
29 Traditional Plan - SelectHealth SelectMed+
30 HDHP
31 Traditional EPO Medical Plan
32 Traditional
33 HDHP
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP/PPO)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
150
34 Traditional
35 Traditional
36 Traditional Medical Plan
37 HDHP
38 Traditional
39 HDHP
40 HDHP
41 PPO
42 HDHP
43 Traditional Health Plan
44 HDHP
45 HDHP
46 Blue Cross Blue Shield
47 HDHP
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYER
1 100%
2 85
3 83
4 80
5 92
6 95%
7 80%
8 70/80
9 91
10 70%
11 X
12 75%
13 84.5
14 78%
15 80%
16 82
17 80
18 92
19 84.5
20 74.7%
21 91
22 100%
23 100%
24 80
25 100%
26 100
27 90
28 70%
29 85
30 77
31 80%
32 85-90-95 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
33 85%
34 80%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
151
35 100%
36 100
37 100%
38 80
39 100
40 88%
41 83
42 80
43 90
44 100%
45 80%
46 92%
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $1,195
2 1400
3 1,770.29
4 1248.32
5 1478.96
6 $1,209.30
7 1,552
8 856.82
9 1576.62
10 $1458.52
11 X
12 1800
13 1252.50
14 1649.16
15 1,227.42
16 940.50
17 1467
18 1172
19 1328.55
20 $1,536.90
21 2303
22 $1,314.00
23 1,459.90
24 2,166.30
25 $1144.60
26 1394.30
27 1492.69
28 $1,284.10
29 1274
30 1810.35
31 $1,214.56
32 1200.24-1270.84-1341.46
33 1,365.10
34 823.62
35 97199.88
36 1844.84
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
152
37 1566.66
38 1171.20
39 $1,063.39
40 1397.46
41 1884
42 1321.92
43 $1391
44 $1774.87
45 1189.10
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYEE
1 0%
2 15
3 17
4 20
5 8
6 5%
7 20%
8 30/20
9 9
10 30%
11 X
12 25%
13 15.5
14 22
15 20%
16 18
17 20
18 8
19 15.5
20 25.3%
21 9
22 0%
23 0%
24 20
25 0
26 0
27 10
28 30%
29 15
30 23
31 20%
32 15-10-5 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
33 15%
34 658.90
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 20
39 Deductible $5000 (employer contributes $2540.88 to HSA)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
153
40 12%
41 17
42 20
43 10
44 0%
45 20%
46 8%
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 0
2 249
3 364.91
4 312.08
5 128.60
6 $63.66
7 479
8 296.00
9 158.14
10 $641.74
11 X
12 400
13 229.75
14 472.33
15 306.86
16 210.50
17 387
18 107
19 243.7
20 $522.32
21 187
22 $0
23 0
24 273.04
25 0
26 0
27 134.16
28 $541.30
29 154
30 540.76
31 $303.64
32 211.82-141.22-70.60
33 240.90
34 164.72
35 0
36 0
37 0
38 292.80
39 $151.67
40 277.33
41 389
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
154
42 146.88
43 $0
44 $443.72
45 99
#ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
1 $4,000
2 3000
3 0.00
4 2000
5 450
6 $3000
7 350/ 700
8 4000.00
9 700
10 $1500
11 X
12 0
13 2700
14 1500/3000
15 3,000
16 900.00
17 600/1200
18 3000
19 2900
20 $25
21 1500
22 $5,700
23 6,000
24 4,000
25 $5400
26 4000
27 700
28 $1,500
29 6000
30 2000
31 $500 Individual / $1,500 Family
32 2700.00
33 1,500.00
34 500.00
35 3000
36 3000
37 2000.00
38 4000
39 $1,500
40 3000
41 3000
42 3000
43 $4000
44 $1500 family
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
155
45 3000
#ANNUAL OUT OF POCKET MAX
1 $7,000
2 8000
3 3,000
4 6000
5 3450
6 $8000
7 4,000/ 8,000
8 8000.00
9 3200
10 $4000
11 X
12 5000
13 2400
14 4000/8000
15 6,000
16 5000
17 3500/7000
18 4000
19 5800
20 $1200
21 5000
22 $11,000
23 6,000
24 6,000
25 $6000
26 6000
27 9000
28 $11,000
29 8000
30 3000
31 $3,000
32 5400.00
33 10,000.00
34 6000.00
35 6000
36 4000
37 12000.00
38 4000
39 $5,000
40 6000
41 8000
42 6000
43 $8000
44 $5000 family
45 6000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
156
73 3,410 47
Q15 What percentage of your population has elected your most popular
plan?
Answered: 47 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 47
#
1 76
2 84
3 70
4 90
5 65
6 94
7 64
8 70
9 43
10 72
11 80
12 80
13 69
14 57
15 86
16 48
17 48
18 70
19 75
20 70
21 87
22 56
23 55
24 97
25 70
26 55
27 60
28 63
29 89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
157
30 70
31 85
32 75
33 100
34 70
35 72
36 90
37 75
38 53
39 80
40 90
41 60
42 27
43 96
44 63
45 100
46 75
47 86
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
158
100.00%42
90.48%38
92.86%39
88.10%37
90.48%38
90.48%38
90.48%38
Q16 Please complete the table for the second-most popular medical plan
offered (Individual):
Answered: 42 Skipped: 12
#TYPE OF PLAN (HDHP/PPO)
1 Traditional PPO
2 PPO
3 HMO
4 Traditional
5 Kaiser Added Choice
6 HDHP (Select EE)
7 PPO
8 PPO
9 CDHP
10 x
11 X
12 PPO
13 HDHP
14 PPO
15 PPO
16 HDHP
17 HDHP
18 PPO
19 DHMO
20 HDHP
21 HDHP
22 Traditional
23 PPO
24 HDHP
25 PPO
26 PEHP Star Plan
27 Traditional Plan - SelectHealth SelectCare+
28 HDHP
29 HDHP
30 PPO
31 HDHP
32 HDHP
33 HDHP
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP/PPO)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
159
34 Traditional Medical Plan
35 PPO
36 Traditional
37 HDHP
38 N/A
39 N/A
40 ppo
41 Blue Cross Blue Shield HSA
42 HDHP
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYER
1 82%
2 77
3 100
4 92
5 81
6 70/80
7 94
8 100
9 X
10 85%
11 94.5
12 90
13 80%
14 95
15 80
16 72
17 84%
18 97
19 100%
20 93%
21 80
22 94%
23 100
24 531.94
25 90%
26 80
27 80
28 80%
29 85-90-95 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
30 85%
31 90%
32 93%
33 96
34 100%
35 100%
36 80
37 80%
38 98
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
160
1 $531
2 532
3 761.09
4 416.00
5 761.66
6 516
7 474.20
8 670.92
9 526.20
10 X
11 482
12 683.16
13 320.78
14 497.65
15 773
16 468
17 414
18 511.17
19 711
20 $872.00
21 612.90
22 184.82
23 379.41
24 567.12
25 100
26 $622.50
27 427
28 539.92
29 $421.04
30 428.66-453.88-479.10
31 386.78
32 294.15
33 51.35
34 736
35 559.52
36 $449.57
37 476.36
38 $545.06
39 428
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYEE
1 22%
2 23
3 0
4 8
5 20
6 30/20
7 6
8 0
9 15%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
161
10 5.5
11 10
12 20%
13 5
14 20
15 28
16 16
17 3
18 0%
19 7%
20 20
21 6%
22 0
23 0
24 10%
25 20
26 20
27 20
28 15-10-5 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
29 15%
30 211.21
31 7%
32 4
33 0
34 0
35 20
36 20%
37 2
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $119
2 161
3 0.00
4 131.30
5 66.23
6 95
7 177.00
8 45.68
9 0
10 121
11 39.76
12 32.50
13 124.41
14 43
15 98
16 163
17 97.36
18 22
19 $0
20 44.30
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
162
21 92.42
22 $21.49
23 0
24 0
25 $76.90
26 110
27 134.99
28 $115.86
29 75.66-50.44-25.22
30 68.26
31 23.47
32 693.40
33 30
34 0
35 0
36 119.10
37 $136.27
38 9
#ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
1 $500
2 500
3 0.00
4 1000
5 250
6 1,500/ 30,000
7 1500.00
8 750
9 $1500
10 750
11 1350
12 1500
13 500
14 1500
15 1500
16 750
17 500
18 1750
19 $1,850
20 1,500
21 2,000
22 $2700
23 750
24 1500
25 $750
26 2000
27 2000
28 $250
29 1350.00
30 1,500.00
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
163
31 1350.00
32 1000
33 750
34 1000.00
35 $1,500
36 1250
37 $1700
38 2700
#ANNUAL OUT OF POCKET MAX
1 $3,500
2 2500
3 2,000
4 3000
5 1250
6 4,000/ 8,000
7 3500.00
8 3500
9 $5000
10 4500
11 2700
12 4000
13 4,000
14 3000
15 3000
16 2000
17 4500
18 3250
19 $3,500
20 3,000
21 4,000
22 $3000
23 3600
24 2500
25 $10,000
26 4000
27 3000
28 $2,500
29 2700.00
30 3,000.00
31 2700.00
32 2000
33 1500
34 6000.00
35 $3,000
36 3000
37 $3000
38 4000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
164
100.00%41
90.24%37
92.68%38
90.24%37
92.68%38
92.68%38
92.68%38
Q17 Please complete the table for the second-most popular medical plan
offered (Two-Party):
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
#TYPE OF PLAN (HDHP/PPO)
1 Traditional PPO
2 PPO
3 HMO
4 PPO
5 Kaiser Added Choice
6 HDHP (Select EE+1)
7 PPO
8 PPO
9 CDHP
10 x
11 XX
12 PPO
13 HDHP
14 PPO
15 PPO
16 NA
17 HDHP
18 PPO
19 DHMO
20 HDHP
21 HDHP
22 Traditional
23 PPO
24 HDHP
25 PPO
26 PEHP Star Plan
27 Traditional Plan - SelectHealth SelectCare+
28 HDHP
29 HDHP
30 PPO
31 HDHP
32 HDHP
33 HDHP
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP/PPO)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
165
34 Traditional Medical Plan
35 PPO
36 HSA
37 HDHP
38 N/A
39 ppo
40 Blue Cross Blue Shield HSA
41 HDHP
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYER
1 82%
2 70
3 90
4 92
5 80
6 70/80
7 88
8 84
9 75%
10 87
11 83
12 80%
13 NA
14 80
15 72
16 76.5
17 96
18 100%
19 94%
20 80
21 94%
22 100
23 100
24 67%
25 80
26 78
27 80%
28 85-90-95 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
29 85%
30 90%
31 93%
32 96
33 100%
34 100%
35 80
36 80%
37 98
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $1,168
2 959
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
166
3 1,515
4 915.36
5 1523.32
6 994
7 640.38
8 1222.64
9 996.84
10 996
11 1383.67
12 702.53
13 1,030.14
14 NA
15 720
16 866
17 1024.15
18 57
19 $1,640
20 1,369.40
21 2,071.24
22 $820.10
23 1173.94
24 1096.77
25 $1,022.46
26 932
27 1052.34
28 $902.32
29 887.32-939.52-991.72
30 850.92
31 485.79
32 4940.96
33 1516
34 1077.70
35 $915.09
36 1048.00
37 $1587.63
38 886
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYEE
1 22%
2 30
3 10
4 8
5 20
6 30/20
7 12
8 16
9 25%
10 13
11 17
12 20%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
167
13 NA
14 20
15 28
16 13.5
17 4
18 0%
19 6%
20 20
21 6%
22 0
23 0
24 33%
25 20
26 22
27 20
28 15-10-5 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
29 15%
30 437.21
31 7%
32 4
33 0
34 0%
35 20
36 20%
37 2
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $261
2 417
3 83.72
4 288.94
5 132.46
6 171
7 662.00
8 169.74
9 183.56
10 265
11 206.76
12 145.17
13 257.54
14 NA
15 180
16 341
17 314.61
18 1264
19 $0
20 77.20
21 258.90
22 $46.80
23 0
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
168
24 0
25 $493.74
26 240
27 296.81
28 $248.38
29 156.60-104.40-52.20
30 150.16
31 48.58
32 365.93
33 62
34 0
35 0
36 262.00
37 $396.91
38 17.62
#ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
1 $1,000
2 1200
3 0.00
4 2000
5 750
6 1,500/ 3,000
7 3000.00
8 1500
9 3000
10 750
11 2700
12 1500/3000
13 1,000
14 NA
15 1500
16 1500
17 1000
18 3500
19 $3,700
20 3,000
21 4,000
22 $5400
23 1500
24 3000
25 $1,500
26 4000
27 3000
28 $250
29 2700.00
30 3,000.00
31 2700.00
32 2000
33 1500
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
169
34 5000.00
35 $3,000
36 1250/2500
37 $3450
38 5400
#ANNUAL OUT OF POCKET MAX
1 $7,000
2 7500
3 4,000
4 6000
5 3750
6 4,000/ 8,000
7 7000.00
8 7000
9 6850
10 4500
11 5400
12 4000/8000
13 8,000
14 NA
15 3000
16 4000
17 9000
18 6500
19 $6,500
20 6,000
21 8,000
22 $6000
23 7200
24 5000
25 $10,000
26 6000
27 5000
28 $2,500
29 5400.00
30 6,000.00
31 5400.00
32 6000
33 3000
34 5000.00
35 $6,000
36 3000/6000
37 $6000
38 8000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
170
100.00%41
90.24%37
92.68%38
90.24%37
92.68%38
92.68%38
92.68%38
Q18 Please complete the table for the second-most popular medical plan
offered (Family):
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
#TYPE OF PLAN (HDHP/PPO)
1 Traditional PPO
2 PPO
3 HMO
4 PPO
5 Kaiser Added Choice
6 HDHP (Select)
7 PPO
8 PPO
9 CDHP
10 x
11 X
12 PPO
13 HDHP
14 PPO
15 PPO
16 HDHP
17 HDHP
18 PPO
19 DHMO
20 HDHP
21 HDHP
22 Traditional
23 PPO
24 HDHP
25 PPO
26 PEHP Star Plan
27 Traditional Plan - SelectHealth SelectCare+
28 HDHP
29 HDHP
30 PPO
31 HDHP
32 HDHP
33 HDHP
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Type of Plan (HDHP/PPO)
Premium % Paid By Employer
Employer's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Premium % Paid by Employee
Employee's Share in Dollars (Monthly dollar amount)
Annual Deductible
Annual Out of Pocket Max
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
171
34 Traditional Medical Plan
35 PPO
36 HSA
37 HDHP
38 N/A
39 ppo
40 Blue Cross Blue Shield HSA
41 HDHP
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYER
1 82%
2 72
3 90
4 92
5 80
6 70/80
7 86
8 74
9 75%
10 84.5
11 87
12 80%
13 87
14 80
15 72
16 74%
17 96
18 100%
19 94%
20 80
21 94%
22 100
23 100
24 63%
25 80
26 77
27 80%
28 85-90-95 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
29 85%
30 90%
31 93%
32 96
33 100%
34 100
35 80
36 80%
37 97
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $1,578
2 1400
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
172
3 1,789
4 1248.32
5 1980.31
6 1,501
7 805.10
8 1561.48
9 1202.44
10 1431
11 1954.76
12 1481.57
13 1,393.42
14 853
15 1288
16 1174
17 1440.99
18 2114
19 $1,640
20 1842.00
21 2,295.36
22 $1140.10
23 1587.94
24 1464.17
25 $1,284.10
26 1270
27 1558.29
28 $1,214.56
29 1200.24-1270.84-1341.46
30 1,160.34
31 657.10
32 3714.52
33 2031
34 1457.76
35 $1,219.21
36 1429.08
37 $1587.63
38 1189
#PREMIUM % PAID BY EMPLOYEE
1 22%
2 28
3 10
4 8
5 20
6 30/20
7 14
8 26
9 25%
10 15.5
11 13
12 20%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
173
13 13
14 20
15 28
16 26%
17 4
18 0%
19 6%
20 20
21 6%
22 0
23 0
24 37%
25 20
26 23
27 20
28 15-10-5 depending on tobacco use and biometrics
29 15%
30 591.39
31 7%
32 4
33 0
34 0
35 20
36 20%
37 3
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT)
1 $348
2 557
3 114
4 393.88
5 172.20
6 285
7 888.00
8 259.10
9 422.16
10 380
11 358.57
12 212.33
13 348.36
14 123
15 322
16 462
17 506.30
18 92
19 $0
20 106.20
21 286.92
22 $64.70
23 0
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
174
24 0
25 $766.30
26 327
27 465.47
28 $333.94
29 211.82-141.22-70.60
30 204.77
31 65.71
32 275.10
33 83
34 0
35 0
36 357.28
37 $396.91
38 34.10
#ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
1 $1,000
2 1200
3 0.00
4 2000
5 750
6 1,500/ 3,000
7 3000.00
8 1500
9 3000
10 1500
11 2700
12 1500/3000
13 1,000
14 3000
15 1500
16 1500
17 1500
18 3500
19 $3,700
20 3,000
21 4,000
22 $5400
23 1500
24 3000
25 $1,500
26 4000
27 3000
28 $250 Individual - $500 Family
29 2700.00
30 3,000.00
31 2700.00
32 2000
33 1500
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
175
34 5000.00
35 $3,000
36 1250/2500
37 $3450
38 5400
#ANNUAL OUT OF POCKET MAX
1 $7,000
2 7500
3 4,000
4 6000
5 3750
6 4,000/ 8,000
7 7000.00
8 7000
9 6850
10 9000
11 5400
12 4000/8000
13 8,000
14 8000
15 3000
16 4000
17 9000
18 6500
19 $6,500
20 6,000
21 8,000
22 $6000
23 7200
24 7500
25 $10,000
26 6000
27 5000
28 $2,500
29 5400.00
30 6,000.00
31 5400.00
32 6000
33 3000
34 5000.00
35 $6,000
36 2500/6000
37 $6000
38 8000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
176
24 965 40
Q19 What percentage of your employees have elected your second-most
popular plan?
Answered: 40 Skipped: 14
Total Respondents: 40
#
1 24
2 18
3 15
4 15
5 30
6 35
7 30
8 37
9 15
10 15
11 15
12 5
13 35
14 14
15 27
16 39
17 16
18 25
19 25
20 26
21 46
22 3
23 30
24 31
25 40
26 34
27 11
28 18
29 15
0 10 20 30 40 50
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
177
30 20
31 0
32 30
33 28
34 8
35 15
36 47
37 40
38 48
39 25
40 15
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
178
Q24 If applicable, what does your bariatric benefit plan pay?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 39
#RESPONSES
1 80
2 100% after deductible
3 90% of AA after deductible (pilot program)
4 N/A
5 1,000 copay after deductible
6 covered service paid based on plan enrolled (ded/coins/copay)
7 50% coinsurance
8 100%
9 PPO 100% once outpatient deductible is met
10 $10,000 lifetime limit
11 50% on one plan only
12 Up to $20K
13 80% after deductible is met. Pre-approval is required for bariatric procedures.
14 n/a
15 SAME AS ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
179
Q28 What is the waiting period before short term disability benefits are
paid?
Answered: 31 Skipped: 23
#RESPONSES
1 8, 15,or 30 days
2 7 days or exhaust sick leave
3 14 days
4 None
5 N/A
6 14 day elimination period, 90 day pre-ex condition limit
7 one week
8 30
9 x
10 7 days
11 14 for city paid / 14 or 60 day employee paid
12 30
13 7 days
14 7 days
15 14 day
16 Employees can choose 30, 60, or 90 days.
17 14 days
18 N/A
19 7 days
20 N/A
21 7 or 30
22 14 Days
23 7-14
24 2 Weeks
25 15 days
26 7 days
27 6 months
28 14 Days
29 10 days
30 3 DAYS
31 7 days - not voluntary, coverage is mandatory
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
180
Q29 What is the maximum short term disability benefit period?
Answered: 31 Skipped: 23
#RESPONSES
1 13 weeks
2 26 weeks
3 13 weeks
4 12 Weeks
5 N/A
6 26 weeks
7 26 weeks
8 90
9 x
10 3 months
11 160 days
12 ?
13 12 weeks
14 90 days
15 26 weeks
16 6 months
17 180 days
18 13 months
19 17 weeks
20 N/A
21 6 months
22 90 Days
23 90 days
24 120 days
25 13 weeks
26 90 days
27 13 weeks
28 11 Weeks
29 12 weeks
30 520 HOURS IF ACCRUED
31 89 days
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
181
22.58%7
9.68%3
67.74%21
Q30 What is your monthly short term disability benefit amount?
Answered: 31 Skipped: 23
TOTAL 31
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 up to 60% of your earnings up to a weekly max of $1,000
2 60
3 66 2/3 up to a maximum of 1,000 per week
4 Varies depending on length of service.
5 N/A
6 Employee can choose 40%, 50%, or 60% plan
7 70
8 50 or 70%
9 70%
10 60% or 40%, employee chooses
11 60
12 70%
13 60%
14 80%
15 N/A
16 Depends on what the employee elects.
17 60%
18 60% of salary up to $1,000 per week
19 60%
20 60%
21 60
66% (2/3)
100%
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
66% (2/3)
100%
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
182
23.91%11
36.96%17
39.13%18
Q32 How is the premium for your long term disability plans determined?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Employer paid
2 salary based
3 age of salary
4 N/A
5 Age and Base Annual Salary based
6 AZ State LTD Plan
7 Rate based on Salary Volume
8 NA - not offered
9 Wage based
10 Income based
11 percent of salary
12 The employer provides a 40% plan which is a flat rate. Employees can purchase an additional 20
which is age based.
13 Actuary
14 percent of income
15 % of salary
16 N/A
17 BASED ON SALARY
18 based on salary - not voluntary, coverage is mandatory
Age-based
Flat rate
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Age-based
Flat rate
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
183
56 2,567 46
Q33 What is the monthly long term disability benefit amount (as a
percentage)?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 46
#
1 60
2 60
3 60
4 66
5 60
6 67
7 70
8 40
9 0
10 60
11 1
12 66
13 68
14 60
15 67
16 0
17 60
18 60
19 60
20 60
21 50
22 60
23 67
24 67
25 67
26 70
27 66
28 0
29 66
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
184
30 60
31 60
32 66
33 67
34 38
35 67
36 70
37 60
38 66
39 60
40 60
41 66
42 60
43 66
44 67
45 66
46 10
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
185
Q34 What is the elimination period for employees to receive long term
disability payments?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
#RESPONSES
1 90
2 6 months
3 180 days
4 12 Weeks
5 90 days
6 90 days
7 180
8 26 weeks after short term
9 N/A
10 90
11 x
12 6 months
13 ?
14 180 days
15 90 days
16 NA
17 90 days
18 90 days
19 6 months or 26 weeks
20 6 months
21 180 days
22 90 days
23 90 days
24 13 weeks
25 3 Months
26 120 days
27 90
28 N/A
29 90 days
30 90 days
31 3 months
32 120 Days
33 90 days
34 90
35 Three months
36 90 Days
37 90
38 ?
39 Normal Retirement Age
40 90 days
41 90 days
42 90 days
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
186
43 12 weeks
44 90 DAYS
45 age of social security
46 90
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
187
32.61%15
17.39%8
19.57%9
30.43%14
Q35 What is the maximum disability payment benefit period?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 N/A
2 Age 69 or older, 12 months
3 Varies
4 To age 65 or SSNRA, whichever is later.
5 NA
6 Salaried - to SSNRA, hourly for 2 years
7 It depends on their age at disability and the type of disability
8 Maximum benefit duration varies by age with under age 61 having a 60 month benefits and then
reducing each year until 65 + having a 12 month benefit.
9 Age 65 or retirement with Utah Retirement Systems
10 N/A
11 To age 65 or until eligible for retirement benefits which ever comes first.
12 younger than 60 to age 65, 60 - 64 5 years, 65 - 68 to age 70, 69 or older 1 year
13 Normal Retirement Age
14 2 years, with voluntary buy-up to SSNRA
To SSNRA
(Social...
To age 65
Until eligible
for retireme...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
To SSNRA (Social Security Normal Retirement Age)
To age 65
Until eligible for retirement benefits
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
188
93.48%43
95.65%44
Q36 What is the benefit period for mental health-related long term
disability claims?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
#INPATIENT
1 .
2 It is treated the same as other medicl conditions
3 N/A
4 24 months
5 24 months
6 Unknown
7 Unknown to me
8 N/A
9 Age 69 or older, 12 months
10 x
11 Varies
12 ?
13 180 days
14 Same as above.
15 NA
16 Salaried - to SSNRA, hourly for 2 years
17 same as any other disability
18 same as medical
19 24 months
20 N/A
21 unknown
22 unknown
23 24 months
24 When employees go on LTD with the State, they no longer are state employees regardless of
reason (at least until they come back - if they do). The approval periods range from 90 days to 2
years depending on the circumstances.
25 2 years
26 same as physical health - up to SSNRA
27 N/A
28 60
29 24 months
30 24 months
31 24 Months
32 ?
33 unknown
34 70%
35 na
36 n/a
37 24 months
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Inpatient
Outpatient
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
189
38 24 months
39 unknown
40 N/A
41 90 DAYS
42 unknown
43 1
#OUTPATIENT
1 24 Month Outpatient
2 It is treated the same as other medical conditions
3 N/A
4 24 months
5 24 months
6 Unknown
7 unknown to me
8 N/A
9 Age 69 or older, 12 months
10 x
11 Varies
12 ?
13 180 days
14 Same as above.
15 NA
16 Salaried - to SSNRA, hourly for 2 years
17 same as any other disability
18 same as medical
19 24 months
20 N/A
21 2 years
22 24 months
23 When employees go on LTD with the State, they no longer are state employees regardless of
reason (at least until they come back - if they do). The approval periods range from 90 days to 2
years depending on the circumstances.
24 2 years
25 same as physical health - up to SSNRA
26 N/A
27 30
28 24 months
29 24 months
30 24 Months
31 ?
32 18 months
33 unknown
34 70%
35 na
36 n/a
37 24 months
38 24 months
39 24 months
40 unknown
41 N/A
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
190
42 90 DAYS
43 unknown
44 6
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
191
Q51 What is the maximum amount of tuition that your organization will
reimburse? (Enter dollar amount or percentage.)
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
#RESPONSES
1 $5,250.00 FT employees
2 depends of budget
3 2,000/year
4 3000
5 1000 annually
6 $4000
7 $3,000 p/ fiscal year
8 100% depending on institution and grade
9 Based on grade and local public college
10 2000
11 x
12 $1500/year
13 2500
14 2500 annually
15 $5,250/year
16 $3000 for bachelor's degree or $5,000 for master's degree
17 5000
18 1500/year
19 $4000
20 3500 annually
21 50%
22 5000
23 2,000 per year
24 6,000 annually
25 5250
26 50% up to a max of $1000 per year
27 $4000 per fiscal year up to 4 years=up to $16000 total
28 5120
29 2000/year
30 100
31 2,500.00/annually
32 $2000
33 1,000
34 2000.00
35 4,000/yr
36 $2,000
37 100
38 1250
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
192
28.95%11
0.00%0
2.63%1
0.00%0
68.42%26
Q53 If you require tuition reimbursement repayment, what are your
repayment terms?
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
TOTAL 38
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Prorated on quarterly increments within 2 years of receiving tuition reimbursement.
2 .
3 Do not require
4 prorated based on termination date and benefit received
5 Repayment
6 n/a
7 Varies
8 varies based on time period
9 Depends on how long the employee works once he/she received the reimbursement.
10 NA
11 nothing after 1 year
12 N/A
13 Based on how long they were employed after tuition payment.
14 Prorate amount owed per month on final check.
15 prorated for previous 24 months
16 Prorated
17 100% of benefits paid within 3 years. After 3 years, 0% repayment
18 pro-rated for 2 years
19 N/A
20 100% if they separate less than one year after completion
100%
75%
50%
25%
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
100%
75%
50%
25%
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
193
21 100% if employee separates in the 12 months following reimbursement. $0 repayment after 12
months.
22 based on length of service since reimbursement
23 Prorated
24 N/A
25 n/a
26 N/A
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
194
Q54 If you require tuition reimbursement repayment, how long must the
recipient be employed to avoid repayment?
Answered: 38 Skipped: 16
#RESPONSES
1 6 months and work at least 20 hours a week
2 .
3 Do not require
4 2 Years
5 more than 12 months after receiving benefit
6 12 months
7 2 years after reimbursement
8 12 months post reimbursement
9 N/A
10 n/a
11 x
12 1 year
13 1 year is max.
14 2 years
15 2 years beyond the last reimbursement
16 1 year
17 NA
18 1 year
19 1 year
20 N/A
21 2 years
22 Six months after every reimbursement.
23 1 Year
24 24 months
25 One year
26 1 year
27 3 years
28 2 years
29 N/A
30 One year after completion
31 One Year
32 12 months following course end date
33 3 Years
34 3 years
35 Year for year worked
36 N/A
37 n/a
38 N/A
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
195
10.87%5
84.78%39
4.35%2
Q55 Does your organization offer student loan assistance and/or
repayment benefits?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Student loan debt consolidation benefits.
2 n/a
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
196
Q56 If you offer a student loan assistance and/or repayment plan, how is
the plan designed?
Answered: 5 Skipped: 49
#RESPONSES
1 FT employees with 1 year are eligible to receive $50 monthly no max.
2 Certain eligible positions in certain eligible departments only
3 $50 per month
4 x
5 To provide counseling
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
197
Q59 If longevity pay is offered, what is the dollar amount or percentage of
pay in relation to years of service?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 39
#RESPONSES
1 1% of base salary once maxed out in salary range
2 6 years- $50/month, 10 years- $75/month, 16 years-$100/month, 20 years- $125/month
3 BUA
4 Less of .0025 x hourly rate or $500 for 5-6.9yrs, $1000 for 7-14.9yrs, or $1500 for 15+ years
5 x
6 scale based on years of service after 10. Starting at $300 ending at $950
7 it is only offered to uniformed officers and it varies by employee group. It is different for sheriff,
police and fire. It is not offered to civilians
8 2%- 5%
9 2.75% after 8 years and be or above the current maximum of the salary range for at least one
year.
10 $10 per month at 10 years; $20 per month at 18 years
11 1% for every 5 years.
12 Don't know
13 $50 increases $25 every five years
14 $25 per year of service up to a maximum of $500 per year.
15 $2.00 for every year over 5 years
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
198
33.33%5
0.00%0
0.00%0
40.00%6
26.67%4
Q60 If longevity pay is offered, how often is this pay given?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 39
TOTAL 15
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 per collective bargaining agreement. It varies by employee group.
2 One time bonus for employees on step plan. % increase to base pay for employees on general
pay plan.
3 Every 3 years
4 One time gift card beginning at 5 years
Per pay period
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Per pay period
Monthly
Quarterly
Annually
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
199
73.91%34
15.22%7
10.87%5
Q61 Does your organization offer take-home vehicles for your public
safety personnel?
Answered: 46 Skipped: 8
TOTAL 46
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 don't know
2 For some not all
3 Some
4 Only when required to be on-call.
5 No public safety personnel
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
200
Q62 Please detail any employee costs included in your take-home vehicle
plan design:
Answered: 34 Skipped: 20
#RESPONSES
1 unsure
2 Employees must pay for toll lanes
3 A car allowance may be paid to department directors, the RDA chief operating officer, and up to
three employees in the mayor’s office at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as determined by the
mayor. A car allowance may be paid to the Council Executive Director at a rate not to exceed $400
per month as determined by the council chair. A car allowance may be paid to specific appointed
employees at a rate not to exceed $400 per month as recommended by the mayor and approved
by the city council.
4 N/A
5 personal income tax related to domicile to duty and other non work miles
6 For uniform personnel
7 *
8 x
9 don't know of any
10 Varies
11 None - only First Responders can take home vehicles.
12 taxable
13 may require follow-up. Are you referring to costs to the employee or to the employer?
14 NA
15 Not available
16 Commuting Rule applied to any employees driving a Non Qualified taxable vehicle. A non-cash
fringe benefit value added to employee's wages.
17 $0
18 n/a
19 N/A
20 N/A
21 Free up to 55 miles then $20 per pay period
22 Employees are responsible for any IRS-determined tax.
23 I'm not sure. If you need to get this information from me, please e-mail me and I can get it for you.
asadler@tooeleco.org
24 no cost to employees
25 For officers who live outside of City Limits the cost is $1 per mile (one way) per pay period up to
50 miles, ie, If you live 10 miles outside of City limits it will cost you $10 per pay period to take your
car home.
26 $3 per day for none law enforcement
27 No cost for those that live in Murray. $25.00 monthly for those living in Salt Lake County. $50.00
monthly for those living outside the county.
28 $62.50 per month for Public Works $0 for Police & Fire Departments
29 na
30 0
31 We tax them for $3/day
32 NO COST TO EMPLOYEES
33 none
34 gas
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
201
100.00%11
90.91%10
Q64 What is the dollar value or percentage of additional funds added for
the following to equalize Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 43
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CIVILIAN
6.69%
3% 401K
x
n/a
0
difference between Tier 1 & Tier 2 contribution rates
2% Automatic and 2% Match
0
0
unsure
0
SWORN OFFICER
6.69%
6% 401K
x
Tier 2/10.21%
0
difference between Tier 1 & Tier 2 contribution rates
2% Automatic and 2% Match
10.91%
10%
10%
Provides 6% into 401(k) for new sworn officers for
the first three years of employment.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Civilian
Sworn Officer
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
202
11
Q69 If there is a matching contribution requirement, what is the matching
amount?
Answered: 25 Skipped: 29
#RESPONSES
1 8
2 6% to Oregon PERS
3 8%
4 for defined pension plan, it is 8% of basepay
5 x
6 8.5%
7 Executive Exempt Alternative Retirement Plan. 9%
8 Up to 2.5%
9 6 or 8.5% depending on hire date
10 10% to receive full match
11 100% of first 5%
12 Unsure how to answer #53 for Denver. We have a DB plan with a required employee contribution
of 10.25%.
13 5%
14 1:1 match up to 3% base salary
15 2%
16 One for one up to 4% (less than 1% there is no match)
17 3% and an additional 50% of any 401k contribution made in excess of 3% up to 5% of the
employee’s salary, for a maximum additional contribution of 1% of employee salary
18 2%
19 4%
20 1.5%
21 4%
22 Employee 5% Employer 3.5%
23 6.2%
24 9%
25 5.11%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
203
22.22%10
4.44%2
20.00%9
0.00%0
53.33%24
Q80 How is time for sick leave, vacation time, and PTO accrued?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
TOTAL 45
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 biweekly
2 hourly for sick, per pay period for vacation depending on classificaiton
3 bi-monthly (bi-weekly for 24 pay periods)
4 Bi-weekly
5 biweekly based on hours worked
6 one week deposited on service date, then remainder accrued biweekly
7 biweely
8 Bi-weekly
9 bi-weekly
10 Vacation and sick bi-weekly; PTO given once a year upon hire.
11 Per pay period
12 bi-weekly
13 per pay period
14 Per Pay Period
15 Per Pay Period
16 per pay period
17 Per Pay Period plus on lump sum annually
18 bi-weekly
19 Bi-Weekly
20 Bi-Weekly
21 bi-weekly
Hourly
Weekly
Monthly
Not Applicable
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Hourly
Weekly
Monthly
Not Applicable
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
204
22 EVERY TWO WEEKS
23 Annual balance in January for vacation; sick leave accrues on a biweekly basis
24 bi-weekly
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
205
82.50%33
82.50%33
55.00%22
27.50%11
Q81 Based on the frequency of your answer in Question 74, what is the
accrual rate for the following types of leave at your company:
Answered: 40 Skipped: 14
#SICK LEAVE
1 8
2 8 hours/month
3 1 Day per month starting
4 .05
5 NA
6 1 day per month
7 .0333 classified .03875 for unclassified
8 4 hours
9 x
10 8
11 8 hours per month
12 3.70
13 4 hours biweekly
14 N/A
15 .0577
16 4
17 3.69
18 3.7
19 3.08 hours
20 3.70 per pay period
21 3.70 hours / pay period
22 3.64 hours per pay period
23 8 hours monthly
24 N/A
25 3.7
26 3.7 per pay period
27 3.692/Bi-Weekly
28 3.70 hours
29 N/A
30 0
31 none
32 2 HOURS PER MONTH
33 accrues 4 hours biweekly
#VACATION LEAVE
1 0-2 years 96 hours
2 7.23
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sick Leave
Vacation Leave
PTO
Other
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
206
3 Starts at 8 hours/month
4 1 day per month starting
5 .0577
6 0-3: 37.3, 4-6: 4.42, 7-9: 4.81, 10-12: 5.54, 13-15: 6.15, 16-19: 6.77, 20+: 7.69
7 co lend year
8 4.65 per period if 40 hours worked in years 1-3
9 varies by years of service: 4.34 to 7.67 hours
10 x
11 varies
12 8 hours per month
13 3.70 [YR.1-5]; 4.62 [YR.6-10]; 5.24 [YR.11-15]; 5.85 [YR.16+]; 6.15 [Neg.]
14 4 hours biweekly
15 N/A
16 Varies by length of service and whether exempt or non exempt. 0.0462 up to 0.0962
17 4
18 4.0
19 3.08, 3.7, 4.62,6.16
20 3.08 hours years 1-3
21 3.08 up to 3 years;3.70 after 3 years;4.62 after 9 years;6.15 after 14 years
22 varies, 3.46-6.54 hours, increases 0.22 hours for each year of service
23 varies by yrs of service
24 Civilian: 8 hours/month (1-4 years of service), 10 hours/month (5-9 years of service), 12
hours/month (10-14 years of service), 13.33 hours/month (15 or more years of service) Sworn:
9.33 hours/month (1-4 years of service), 10.66 hours/month (5-9 years of service), 12.66
hours/month (10-14 years of service), 14.66 hours/month (15 or more years of service)
25 N/A
26 4
27 3.08-4.62-6.16 per pay period depending on yrs of svc
28 3.62, 4.308, 5.231, 6.769, 7.693/Bi-Weekly depending on years of service
29 3.08 < 3 years; 4.62 >3 -10 years; 6.15 11-20 years; 7.69 >20 years
30 N/A
31 0
32 none
33 vacation is put on in January (balance for the year)
#PTO
1 N/A
2 0
3 NA
4 n/a
5 N/A
6 NA
7 one week deposited on service date, then remainder accrued biweekly
8 depends on tenure - see question 59
9 10-19 hours/month, dependent on years of service
10 18.0 each July 1, must be used by June 30-use or lose
11 n/a
12 varies by yrs of service
13 N/A
14 after 1 year of service a lump sum of 80 hours is given to all employees plus: 4 hrs per pay period
(ppp) 1-4 yrs, 5 hrs ppp 5-9 yrs, 6 hrs ppp 10-14 years, 7 hrs ppp 15-19 years, 8 hrs ppp 20+ yrs
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
207
15 n/a
16 .0538 per hour worked
17 From:5.54 to 6.93 depending on years of service
18 Varies on length with company
19 varies
20 5 HOURS PER TWO WEEKS
21 N/A
22 4.62
#OTHER
1 0
2 Personal Leave: Less that 6 mo: 40, Less that 24 mo: 60, 24+ mo: 80
3 n/a
4 haven't gotten to #74 yet
5 Part-time employees accrue up to half on a pro rata basis
6 NA
7 Caregiver leave when approved (up to 80 hours); hospital leave when approved (up to 160 hours).
.
8 Difficult Question - The accrual amount varies depending on years of service.
9 3 floating holidays a year
10 n/a
11 0
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
208
30.77%8
80.77%21
38.46%10
76.92%20
26.92%7
53.85%14
23.08%6
30.77%8
26.92%7
69.23%18
Q82 If applicable, what are the buy-out levels for each of the following
areas of leave? (Answer all that are applicable; please note any
maximum caps or thresholds)
Answered: 26 Skipped: 28
#SICK LEAVE ($ AMOUNT)
1 N/A
2 600 hours
3 paid and with no limit only if hired beforee 10/01/86
4 x
5 n/a
6 Varies
7 na
8 0
#SICK LEAVE (PERCENTAGE)
1 25$
2 100%
3 100% prior to 2011, 50% after
4 Up to 25% of unused sick leave most recently accrued in calendar year.
5 Varies by employee type and length of service. 50% subject to maximum caps
6 20
7 50%
8 n/a
9 25% after 20 years 33%
10 100
11 50% up to a max of 480 hours
12 50% for any unused sick leave above max carryonver (480 hours), converts to Vacation time or
Retirement Health Savings
13 25% only upon retirement
14 100% at the rate when we discontinued sick leave
15 24 hours
16 10-25% at retirement based upon years of service
17 50% of accrued hours if employed prior to January 1, 2103; 0 if hired after 1/1/2013
18 50%
19 25% to 50% years of service
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sick leave ($ amount)
Sick leave (percentage)
Vacation ($ amount)
Vacation (percentage)
Holiday ($ amount)
Holiday (percentage)
Combination ($ amount)
Combination (percentage)
Compensatory time ($ amount)
Compensatory time (percentage)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
209
20 na
21 0
#VACATION ($ AMOUNT)
1 N/A
2 EE Balance
3 Up to 240 hours
4 Unused vacation leave is paid out upon termination of employment.
5 n/a
6 n/a
7 N/A
8 0
9 na
10 0
#VACATION (PERCENTAGE)
1 100%
2 100%
3 N/A
4 100%
5 320 hours
6 100%
7 100
8 100%
9 n/a
10 100%
11 100
12 100%
13 100
14 N/A
15 0
16 100%
17 50% to 100% years of service
18 na
19 0
20 unused balance
#HOLIDAY ($ AMOUNT)
1 0
2 N/A
3 n/a
4 0
5 0
6 NA
7 0
#HOLIDAY (PERCENTAGE)
1 0%
2 100%
3 N/A
4 100%
5 100%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
210
6 n/a
7 0
8 0
9 100
10 100% for past holidays 0% for future holidays
11 0
12 100%
13 NA
14 0
#COMBINATION ($ AMOUNT)
1 0
2 n/a
3 0
4 0
5 NA
6 0
#COMBINATION (PERCENTAGE)
1 0
2 100%
3 n/a
4 0
5 100%
6 0
7 NA
8 0
#COMPENSATORY TIME ($ AMOUNT)
1 0
2 Unused compensatory time is paid out upon termination of employment.
3 n/a
4 n/a
5 0
6 na
7 0
#COMPENSATORY TIME (PERCENTAGE)
1 0
2 100%
3 100%
4 100
5 100%
6 100
7 100%
8 n/a
9 100%
10 100
11 100%
12 1x /year in October can cash out 100% of unused Comp time
13 100%
14 0
15 10%
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
211
16 na
17 100%
18 unused balance
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
212
30.00%9
26.67%8
43.33%13
Q83 If applicable, is the buy-out option offered annually or only upon
retirement?
Answered: 30 Skipped: 24
TOTAL 30
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Personal Leave buyout available annually.
2 N/A
3 upon retirement or separation from employment
4 Sick Leave Incentive-Annually; Vacation&CompTime-Upon Termination
5 Upon retirement or voluntary separation 100% for vacation up to the maximum accumulation of
456.4 hours and 50% of sick up to a maximum of 480 hours to pay out
6 Sick Leave - annual, others at termination/retirement
7 n/a
8 Retirement for vacation; Some sick yearly at 25%
9 annually 2 weeks, other amounts upon termination
10 Sick leave conversion 1/3 of over 120 hrs annually
11 Annually for anyone with over 20 years of service. Max of 40 hours per year.
12 N/A
13 n/a
Annually
Upon retirement
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Annually
Upon retirement
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
213
Q85 If your organization does contribute to post–employment HRA
accounts for employees, what is the annual contribution (in dollars)?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 42
#RESPONSES
1 n/a
2 N/A
3 Non represented: $24.30 biweekly, AFSCME: $32.08, Fire: $23.08, Police: $24.30
4 1 K - 10 K depending on the EE
5 one time only contribution of $10,000 if 1,000 hours sick leave are accrued
6 HRA contributions only for retirees who enroll in CDHP Plan
7 x
8 After 5 years of service - $530.40, after 10 years - 634.40, after 15 years - $738.40
9 N/A
10 n/a
11 Varies per employee
12 n/a
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
214
66.67%30
66.67%30
68.89%31
66.67%30
46.67%21
55.56%25
13.33%6
Q86 What type of wellness initiatives are offered at your organization?
(Select all that apply)
Answered: 45 Skipped: 9
Smoking
cessation
Health
education...
Testing for
biometrics...
Health risk
assessments...
Tracking of
biometric...
Weight loss
programs
Provide meals,
snacks, drin...
Flu shot clinic
Employee
Assistance...
Exercise
programs or...
Paid fitness
club or gym...
Onsite Fitness
Facilities
Fitness
Trackers...
Financial
Wellness
Not Applicable
Other, please
specify
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Smoking cessation
Health education courses
Testing for biometrics (height, weight, blood pressure, cholesterol)
Health risk assessments (health history questionnaire)
Tracking of biometric improvement
Weight loss programs
Provide meals, snacks, drinks in an on-site lunchroom or cafeteria at no/low cost
154 / 204
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
215
84.44%38
91.11%41
53.33%24
24.44%11
60.00%27
28.89%13
62.22%28
0.00%0
6.67%3
Total Respondents: 45
#OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY
1 Fitness Equipment for Employee Use [Coming Soon]
2 PEHP has Healthy Utah and a wide variety of programs to target individual employee health
needs.
3 ofered through health plan
Flu shot clinic
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
Exercise programs or competitions that track results
Paid fitness club or gym membership
Onsite Fitness Facilities
Fitness Trackers (Fitbit, Apple Watch, Garmin, etc.)
Financial Wellness
Not Applicable
Other, please specify
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
216
25.00%11
40.91%18
34.09%15
4.55%2
22.73%10
29.55%13
11.36%5
20.45%9
9.09%4
Q87 If your organization offers financial incentives for participation in
wellness initiatives, what types of incentives are offered? (Select all that
apply)
Answered: 44 Skipped: 10
Total Respondents: 44
#OTHER, PLEASE SPECIFY
1 Our medical provider includes wellness programs, resources, rebates, etc.
2 Points which are added to our recognition program
3 Lower co-pay costs in the medical insurance plan
4 PEHP gives rebates.
Cash
Prizes
Gift cards
Paid fitness
club membership
Additional HSA
or HRA...
Employee
discounts on...
Extra paid
leave
Not Applicable
Other, please
specify
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Cash
Prizes
Gift cards
Paid fitness club membership
Additional HSA or HRA contributions
Employee discounts on insurance premiums
Extra paid leave
Not Applicable
Other, please specify
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
217
Q89 If your organization does have a program/pay for those in the
military, what is it?
Answered: 21 Skipped: 33
#RESPONSES
1 standard FMLA for eligible employees
2 We pay up to 123 hours for our sworn employees on Military leave
3 Military leave - paid 15 days per year for training. Job reinstatement after active duty
4 N/A
5 paid military leave of 15 days per fiscal year
6 x
7 military differential pay for active duty service exceeding 179 days
8 Supplement military pay with regular pay, and buy their retirement contribution.
9 Full pay if in a war (hot) zone. 24 days of military leave
10 Military Leave
11 State Law requires payment of 168 hours of military leave per calendar year for active members of
state and US reserves for training or active duty
12 15 days
13 N/A
14 An employee on official military orders in entitled to paid military, which shall not exceed 80 hours
per calendar year to complete military duty. Unused PML may not be carried over year to year.
15 up to 15 paid days off for short-term military leave (annual training)
16 120 hours of pay
17 110 Hours of paid military leave per year plus full retirement contributions while on active duty.
18 120 hours of paid leave when called to military svc
19 Regular wages paid for annual training for reserve members. None for full-time active duty military
personnel.
20 12 PAID DAYS PER YEAR
21 15 days with pay per year (not including any vacation or other leave time)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
218
100.00%41
90.24%37
95.12%39
90.24%37
Q97 Please complete the table for the most popular dental plan offered
(Single):
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
#PREMIUM PERCENTAGE PAID BY EMPLOYER:
1 80%
2 70
3 88
4 80
5 92
6 0%
7 0
8 44.6
9 100
10 x
11 75%
12 100
13 80%
14 100%
15 80
16 39
17 64
18 66%
19 80
20 78
21 100%
22 80%
23 85%
24 90
25 69%
26 100
27 100%
28 80
29 80
30 80%
31 85
32 85-90-95
33 85%
34 0%
35 100%
36 80
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Premium percentage paid by employer:
Employer's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Premium percentage paid by employee:
Employee's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
219
37 100
38 100
39 73
40 66%
41 50%
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT):
1 $45.60
2 34
3 49.44
4 37.94
5 64.24
6 $0
7 0
8 19.26
9 22.27
10 36
11 44.80
12 36
13 15.2
14 25.24
15 $28.57
16 25.75
17 21
18 $45.00
19 23.43
20 43.84
21 29.85
22 $28.15
23 35
24 $37.60
25 46
26 33.04
27 $43.92
28 54.34
29 23.28-24.66-26.02
30 40.31
31 $0
32 26.74
33 41.47
34 32
35 38
36 $11
37 $13.67
#PREMIUM PERCENTAGE PAID BY EMPLOYEE:
1 20%
2 30
3 12
4 20
5 8
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
220
6 100%
7 100%
8 55.4
9 0
10 25%
11 0
12 20%
13 0
14 20
15 61
16 36
17 34%
18 20
19 12
20 0%
21 18.74
22 15%
23 10
24 31%
25 0
26 0%
27 20
28 20
29 20%
30 15
31 15-10-5
32 15%
33 100%
34 0
35 20
36 0
37 27
38 34%
39 50%
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT):
1 $11.40
2 14
3 6.74
4 9.48
5 5.59
6 $38.55
7 10.200 EE, 20.98 EE+1, 30.53 EE+Family
8 23.90
9 0
10 5
11 11.20
12 9
13 23.4
14 13.24
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
221
15 $16.57
16 5.19
17 6
18 $0
19 4.69
20 8.00
21 3.32
22 $12.43
23 0
24 $0.00
25 11
26 8.26
27 $10.98
28 6.04
29 4.12-2.74-1.38
30 7.11
31 $34.67
32 0
33 10.37
34 0
35 13
36 $5
37 $1367
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
222
97.44%38
89.74%35
89.74%35
89.74%35
Q98 Please complete the table for the most popular dental plan offered
(Two-Party):
Answered: 39 Skipped: 15
#PREMIUM PERCENTAGE PAID BY EMPLOYER:
1 80%
2 40
3 83
4 80
5 92
6 0%
7 N/A
8 44.6
9 60
10 x
11 45%
12 0
13 80%
14 80
15 39
16 58
17 NA
18 80
19 78
20 100%
21 80%
22 83%
23 90
24 70%
25 100
26 76%
27 80
28 80
29 80%
30 85
31 85-90-95
32 85%
33 0%
34 100%
35 80
36 100
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Premium percentage paid by employer:
Employer's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Premium percentage paid by employee:
Employee's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
223
37 74
38 55%
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT):
1 $58.40
2 44
3 86.92
4 51.89
5 127.28
6 $0
7 42.44
8 30.22
9 42
10 61.25
11 66.36
12 28.15
13 51.07
14 NA
15 47.82
16 43
17 $142.00
18 32.04
19 58.90
20 59.68
21 $50.47
22 68
23 $60.98
24 58
25 66.54
26 $55.68
27 71.05
28 49.30-52.20-55.10
29 55.13
30 $0
31 53.08
32 56.72
33 64
34 $17
35 $13.67
#PREMIUM PERCENTAGE PAID BY EMPLOYEE:
1 20%
2 60
3 17
4 20
5 8
6 100%
7 55.4
8 40
9 55%
10 100
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
224
11 20%
12 20
13 61
14 42
15 NA
16 20
17 22
18 0%
19 25.63
20 17%
21 10
22 30%
23 0
24 24%
25 20
26 20
27 20%
28 15
29 15-10-5
30 15%
31 100%
32 0
33 20
34 26
35 45%
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT):
1 $14.60
2 66
3 17.30
4 12.97
5 11.07
6 $77.83
7 52.66
8 25.23
9 48
10 15.31
11 16.59
12 43.55
13 14.34
14 NA
15 9.60
16 12
17 $0
18 6.41
19 12.00
20 6.63
21 $20.98
22 0
23 $19.12
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
225
24 15
25 16.64
26 $13.92
27 7.89
28 8.70-5.80-2.90
29 9.73
30 93.89
31 0
32 14.18
33 23
34 $14
35 $64.91
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
226
97.56%40
87.80%36
87.80%36
87.80%36
Q99 Please complete the table for the most popular dental plan offered
(Family):
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
#PREMIUM PERCENTAGE PAID BY EMPLOYER:
1 80%
2 44
3 81
4 80
5 92
6 0%
7 N/A
8 44.5
9 60
10 x
11 40%
12 0
13 80%
14 100
15 80
16 39
17 56
18 56%
19 80
20 79
21 100%
22 80%
23 85%
24 90
25 65%
26 100
27 70%
28 80
29 80
30 80%
31 85
32 85-90-95
33 85%
34 0%
35 50%
36 80
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Premium percentage paid by employer:
Employer's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Premium percentage paid by employee:
Employee's share in dollars (monthly dollar amount):
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
227
37 100
38 74
39 73
40 55%
#EMPLOYER'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT):
1 $88
2 44
3 143.18
4 78.54
5 198.47
6 $0
7 58.82
8 30.22
9 45
10 92.72
11 112.56
12 43.25
13 79.16
14 $56.50
15 87.06
16 87
17 $142.00
18 48.50
19 91.32
20 99.98
21 $76.36
22 112
23 $80.28
24 84
25 108.23
26 $81.76
27 103.55
28 82.78-87.66-92.52
29 83.45
30 $0
31 51.79
32 85.86
33 64
34 91.43
35 $27
36 $13.67
#PREMIUM PERCENTAGE PAID BY EMPLOYEE:
1 20%
2 56
3 19
4 20
5 8
6 100%
7 55.5
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
228
8 40
9 60%
10 100
11 20%
12 20
13 61
14 44
15 44%
16 20
17 21
18 0%
19 38.80
20 15%
21 10
22 35%
23 0
24 30%
25 20
26 20
27 20%
28 15
29 15-10-5
30 15%
31 100%
32 50%
33 20
34 26
35 27
36 45%
#EMPLOYEE'S SHARE IN DOLLARS (MONTHLY DOLLAR AMOUNT):
1 $22
2 56
3 33.18
4 19.64
5 17.26
6 $101.70
7 73.46
8 25.23
9 77
10 23.18
11 28.14
12 66.95
13 61.66
14 $44.34
15 17.52
16 23
17 $0
18 9.70
19 16.00
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
229
20 11.11
21 $39.76
22 0
23 $34.92
24 21
25 27.06
26 $20.44
27 11.50
28 14.62-9.74-4.88
29 14.73
30 132.35
31 51.79
32 21.46
33 23
34 34.67
35 $22
36 $64.91
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
230
60.00%21
62.86%22
57.14%20
37.14%13
31.43%11
28.57%10
2.86%1
34.29%12
22.86%8
11.43%4
11.43%4
Q100 Which of the following does your organization offer? (Check all that
apply.)
Answered: 35 Skipped: 19
Critical
Illness
Accident
Indemnity
Hospital
Indemnity
Legal Insurance
Auto Insurance
Discounts
Home Insurance
Discounts
Purchase of
Precious Metals
ID Theft
Protection
Pet Insurance
Hearing Loss
Discount...
Low Interest
Loans
Student Loan
Refinancing
Discount
Shopping
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Critical Illness
Accident Indemnity
Hospital Indemnity
Legal Insurance
Auto Insurance Discounts
Home Insurance Discounts
Purchase of Precious Metals
ID Theft Protection
Pet Insurance
Hearing Loss Discount Program
Low Interest Loans
180 / 204
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
231
8.57%3
28.57%10
14.29%5
Total Respondents: 35
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Dicount Program is offered to all employees
2 Various EAP discounts and Government Employee Discounts
3 Discount cell phone
4 We offer some of these through a third party and its all voluntary and it is 100% paid by the
employee.
5 $350 Weekly Accident Indemnity with PEHP-paid by SJC
Student Loan Refinancing
Discount Shopping
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
232
44 1,453 33
Q101 What percentage of your population is enrolled in one or more of
these products?
Answered: 33 Skipped: 21
Total Respondents: 33
#
1 30
2 95
3 25
4 60
5 15
6 60
7 100
8 100
9 54
10 0
11 22
12 99
13 15
14 90
15 6
16 20
17 100
18 11
19 100
20 50
21 60
22 5
23 40
24 18
25 22
26 2
27 10
28 10
29 30
0 10 20 30 40 50
ANSWER CHOICES AVERAGE NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER RESPONSES
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
233
30 46
31 94
32 30
33 34
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
234
Q103 If your organization does offer hiring bonuses, how much is
offered?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 41
#RESPONSES
1 n/a
2 Varies on position
3 N/A
4 500 for certain positions
5 x
6 differs by situation
7 Depends on position
8 NA
9 N/A
10 $400 for a Custodian
11 n/a
12 Varies
13 $1000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
235
Q104 If your organization does offer hiring bonuses, how and when is the
bonus paid?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 41
#RESPONSES
1 n/a
2 Varies. Depending on position
3 N/A
4 upon graduation of the EE
5 x
6 within 5 days of employment
7 at hire
8 NA
9 N/A
10 Half at hire, the other half after 6 months
11 n/a
12 after 90 days employment
13 IN THEIR FIRST CHECK
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
236
40.00%16
40.00%16
20.00%8
Q105 Are hiring laterals (experience from another organization) credited
to employees for previous years of service?
Answered: 40 Skipped: 14
TOTAL 40
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Police only
2 Sometimes, if agreed upon during negotiations of a job offer.
3 Only for Police
4 Mostly no, but can be negotiated
5 Yes for Fire/Police. Must show documentation of FT service with other employer. We typically will
ask to show their URS statement.
6 Yes, for certain positions
7 Only for pay purposees
8 Yes for Sworn Police Officers Only
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
237
Q106 If such laterals are credited, what is the credit given to employees
for previous years of service?
Answered: 23 Skipped: 31
#RESPONSES
1 Varies on position
2 5 Years for pay only
3 Up to 3 years of vacation and personal leave accrual.
4 x
5 Depends
6 Depends, reviewed on a case by case basis.
7 Upon hire
8 1:1 for direct experience
9 it depends and is up to the hiring manager and department
10 Generally, year for year.
11 credit determines placement in salary range
12 12 years for Fire/Police only.
13 Start at the same vacation accrual. Police will start at their year of service
14 Police: up to 8 years credited. General Employees: negotiable
15 year for year
16 1 for 1 up to 9 years (Public Safety)
17 vacation
18 100%
19 All years of applicable service up to a maximum of 10 years.
20 Year for year
21 Credit to PTO
22 ONE YEAR FOR EACH YEAR
23 increased starting salary based on years of previous service (Fire and Police only)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
238
31.71%13
60.98%25
7.32%3
Q107 Does your organization offer re-hires credit for seniority (time spent
within the organization)?
Answered: 41 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 41
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Only for pay purposes
2 Typically no but for hard to fill positions, exceptions have been made.
3 If rehired within 12 months
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
239
Q108 If re-hires are offered credit for seniority, what is the credit given?
Answered: 18 Skipped: 36
#RESPONSES
1 Year for year
2 N/A
3 Up to 3 years of vacation and personal leave accrual.
4 Based on adjusted
5 x
6 upon hire only for pay purposes
7 All "regular" (vs. "temporary") prior service is counted
8 full credit if hired within one year
9 NA
10 to determine salary offering and leave accruals
11 Not sure.
12 Acknowledgement of previous work time
13 If it has been less than one year since they left us when they come back, they retain their seniority.
If it is more than one year, they don't keep their previous seniority.
14 If hired within a year of leaving, full credit
15 If within 12 months, restored to original hire date for accrual rates
16 Sick Leave accrual
17 100%
18 Year for Year
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
240
15.38%6
71.79%28
12.82%5
Q109 Are bonuses offered for employee referrals leading to new hires?
Answered: 39 Skipped: 15
TOTAL 39
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
1 Occaionally, not all positions. Only offered on hard to fill positions
2 Only Police
3 Yes
4 Depends if department has approved each year.
5 FOR POLICE ONLY
Yes
No
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Other (please specify)
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
241
Q110 If referral bonuses are offered, what is the dollar value of the
bonus?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 39
#RESPONSES
1 Varies. No set amount.
2 N/A
3 500.00
4 x
5 $500.00
6 $250 - $2000, depending on position
7 Depends on position - the higher in grade, the higher the bonus
8 NA
9 N/A
10 $25-$250
11 $1,000
12 $500
13 n/a
14 varies
15 $1000
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
242
Q111 If referral bonuses are offered, how is the referral bonus paid to the
employee?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 40
#RESPONSES
1 Varies
2 N/A
3 added on 6 months
4 x
5 Upon the successful completion Police Officer Trainee Program
6 through payroll
7 at 6 months
8 NA
9 N/A
10 Gift card or payroll deposit
11 Upon hire of candidate
12 payroll
13 n/a
14 IN THEIR REGULAR CHECK
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
243
Q116 How do you train your peer support team members?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 42
#RESPONSES
1 We hire someone to do it for us.
2 Members are trained by a Clinical Advisor and their department.
3 Dr. Dupont, out CIS psychiatrist trains each member
4 Third party administrator
5 This is a follow up question for our safety department. HR is not involved.
6 External vendor
7 Idk
8 Professional trained as determined by PD/Fire
9 Professional Counselors train our peer support team
10 Attend external training
11 professional training
12 AS A TEAM AND WE BRING IN PEOPLE FROM OUR EAP
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
244
Q118 If you do have a first responder-specific EAP, please detail your
plan design.
Answered: 3 Skipped: 51
#RESPONSES
1 We have contracts with the U of U
2 We offer a pilot program for our Police, Fire and Dispatch departments. They have additional
counseling sessions (up to 15 per event per year) and training throughout their department and
peer support programs.
3 12+ Visits
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
245
Q121 What additional creative benefit practices do you have to help
attract and increase employee engagement to retain employees?
Answered: 16 Skipped: 38
#RESPONSES
1 The county offers a comprehensive benefits package
2 N/A
3 n/a
4 Various challenges and intramural sports to support team building and boost morale
5 Family initiatives, Smart commute benefits (paid time off for sustainable commutes),
6 x
7 Parking
8 We have a great team!
9 Robust employee recognition program Frequent bonuses Family celebrations
10 wellness portal
11 NA
12 Some agencies may have some programs to accomplish this but not the state as a whole.
13 YOS program awards allow employees to choose his/her gifts from Amazon. It's been a big hit.
14 Employee wellness and emergency preparedness purchases through cashing of accrued leave
time.
15 Police Officers receive a housing incentive $10,000 for the purchase of a home inside City limits
and $200 per month towards rent/mortgage inside City limits.
16 none
Salt Lake City Benefit Study—2019
246
Additional answers provided by the City:
•Free Financial Planning Sessions
•Employer Paid Transit Pass
•Free Parking
•Discounted GREENbike Annual Pass
•Fitness Reimbursement Program and Altered Work Schedule
•Discounts to Fitness Facilities
•Parental Leave Policy (6 weeks)
•Free Health Coaching Services
•Near Site Mental Health Providers
•Onsite Flu Clinics, Dermatology Screenings and Biometric Screenings
•Employee Annual 5k Event
•Service Awards Program
Administered by NFP
247
FY2022 COMPENSATION BUDGET BRIEFING FOR SALT LAKE CITY
COUNCIL
May 25, 2021
The Citizens’ Compensation Advisory
Committee (CCAC) was formed with the purpose
of “…evaluating the total compensation levels of
the city's elected officials, executives and employees
and making recommendations to the human
resources department, mayor and the city council…”
(City Code Title 2, Chapter 2.35.060).
SLC COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY –PAST,
PRESENT & FUTURE
•Past –Compare actual employee base pay to market average
•Present –Compare actual employee base pay plus the additional economic value of city benefits to market median (50th percentile)
•Future –other pay philosophies include
-Top pay rate comparison?
-Top tier comparison (e.g. three largest, highest payors, etc.)
->50th percentile?
SALT LAKE CITY -A LOCAL AREA PAY LEADER
SALT LAKE CITY -A PAY EQUITY LEADER
FY2022 COMPENSATION BUDGET OVERVIEW
Total general fund budget cost is $215.9 million for employee
compensation in FY2022
FY2022 costs are $11.8M (or, 5.8%) over FY2021
Higher costs due to 42.85 new GF positions, planned merit step increases for represented
employees, and increased insurance costs
In addition to merit step increases for eligible union employees, the Mayor’s
recommended budget includes funding for a 1%base pay increase for all city
employees
ALSO, a living wage rate increase from $10.87 to $13.15 per hour for seasonal
and part -time employees covered under the General Fund and Golf Division
FY2022 COMPENSATION BUDGET OVERVIEW
Medical and Retirement Benefits Costs
Costs for the city’s high-deductible Summit STAR health plan include a 3.5%
premium increase to the plan
Estimated reserve balance is $13.1 million, which equals137 days of typical
claims. Higher reserve balance are attributed to a reduced # of claims for
elective procedures and voluntary delay/avoidance for healthcare services during
the COVID-19 pandemic
Utah Retirement System (URS) did not require increases for employer pension
contribution rates for FY22
2021-22 BENEFITS ENHANCEMENTS
•More flexible parental leave benefit allows employees to defer
six weeks of paid leave for up to one-year
•More flexible Short-term Disability Insurance provider allows for
part-time return to work options
•New benefits in medical coverage recommended by the city’s
Employee Benefits Committee include:
-Hearing aid benefit
-Enhanced autism benefit
-Enhanced gender dysphoria benefit
FY2022 COMPENSATION BUDGET OVERVIEW
Market Pay Adjustments
Past budget recommendations have included market pay adjustments based on cost
of labor for employees in benchmarked jobs shown to lag market either slightly or
significantly
Funding for market adjustments are proposed for nine benchmark groups shown to
lag significantly (>10%)
Projected general fund cost for FY22 market adjustments is $154,700
NON-REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEE
SALARIES &
WAGES
Recommended FY2022 budget
proposes a 1% general increase
for non-represented employees,
including all the following–
Elected officials
Appointed department staff & directors
Non-represented professional and
paraprofessional employees
Negotiations with AFSCME are on-going
at this time.
FY2022 budget includes costs required to
honor merit increases for eligible 100,
200 & 330 series employees
100 Series step increases range between 13% and
17%
200 Series step increases range between 6% and
17%
330 Series step increases range between 6% and
11%
Negotiations with SLPA are on-going
at this time.
FY2022 budget includes costs required
to honor merit increases for eligible
Police Officers
Eligible 500 Series Police Officers will
receive merit step increases, which range
between 6% and 17.5%
Negotiations with Firefighters Local 81
are on-going at this time.
Budget request includes costs required
to honor merit increases for eligible
400 Series Firefighters throughout
FY2022
Step increases for Firefighters range
between 6% and 23.5%
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE:May 25, 2021
RE: 911 Department FY 2022 Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes B-26 and B-39, Department Overview E-9 to E-12
Staffing Document F-5
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The 911 Department provides year-round dispatch services for emergency and non-emergency calls in Salt Lake
City as well as Sandy City. The FY 2022 proposed budget of $8,888,505 is $627,934 (7.6%) more than last year.
The proposed budget has eight new FTE dispatchers for a total department staff of 108. Attachment 1 provides a
comparison of the FY 2022 proposed budget and the three prior Council adopted budgets. The proposed budget
includes:
90 Dispatcher FTEs (increase of eight new dispatchers)
Increase of eight authorized and funded dispatcher FTEs to reach 90 in total. Note that the Council added six
dispatchers in FY20. There are currently 13 dispatcher FTEs, three unfunded dispatcher positions, 1 executive
assistant position, and the Director that are vacant.
Three Unfunded FTEs – The Council authorizes but does not fund three dispatcher FTEs to provide
hiring flexibility for the Department (like the unfunded FTE approach used in the Police Department).
However, due to turnover rates higher than the City’s average the Department is limited in how often the
unfunded FTEs can be utilized.
Staffing Levels Below Performance Audit Recommendation – The 2019 Performance Audit of 911 and
nonemergency dispatch services recommends the Department have 100 dispatchers in significant part
to account for high turnover (21% over seven-year average). Even with the eight new dispatchers the
Department would be 10 less than the ideal staffing level.
$153,450 from Funding Our Future for a 32-hour Work Week Six-month Pilot Program
(See Attachment 4 for a business plan detailing the pilot program strategy, finances, and goals)
The budget proposes a six-month pilot program to offer dispatchers a 32-hour work week. It would begin in
January 2022. The eight new dispatcher FTEs are necessary for the pilot program to be tried. The expected half-
year cost is $153,450 and is proposed to come from Funding Our Future. The annual salary for dispatchers will
remain the same. This translates into 52 more days off a year. It is based on the premise that allowing
dispatchers to retain existing salary levels while working eight hours less a week will improve employee
retention and morale and decrease turnover. Dispatchers are considered the “first first responders” and some
studies have shown they experience mental health challenges at similar rates to fire fighters and police officers.
It should be noted that dispatchers are not considered “first responders” from the perspective of state retirement
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 25, 2020
Budget Hearings: May 18 and June 1
Potential Action: June 8 or June 15
Page | 2
programs, although some Council Members have expressed an interest in pursuing a change in this policy at the
state level.
Measuring Pilot Program Success – The Department will measure success of the pilot program by
comparing several outcomes before, during and afterwards. The outcomes include short-term disability
leave, FMLA leave, personal and vacation leave, holiday time, call response times, retention rates,
overtime hours and mental health surveys.
Increasing Call Volumes
The Department experienced total call volume increases the past several years. The table below details call
volume increases from May 2013 to April 2021. Comparing the most recent 12-month period of May 1 – April 30
shows an increase of 18,284 calls which is 2% more than last year. Of this total, the year-over-year change saw a
3% increase in 911 calls and a 2% increase in non-emergency calls. The increase in 911 calls after three years of
decreases may be related to the March 5.7 earthquake series, the September windstorm, and the ongoing
pandemic. Over eight years the total call volume increased 59%.
The proliferation of cell phones in society increases the average number of 911 calls per incident. Abandoned 911
calls must be called back if the call ends before being answered. In recent years nearly 10% of all calls the
Department received were abandoned calls which are called back and can delay response times for other calls.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Call Volume Changes by Type and
12-month Period (May 1 -April 30)
911
Calls
Non-emergent Total Calls
M ay 1 - A p ril 3 0
b y Y e ar
9 11
C all s
%
C h an ge
No n -
e m e rg en t
%
C h an g e
T o t al
C al l s
Y e ar Ov e r Y e ar
% C h an ge
2 0 1 3 -1 4 1 5 8,0 87 - 3 3 7 ,0 5 5 - 4 9 5 ,1 4 2 -
2 0 1 4 -1 5 1 87 ,7 9 9 1 9 %3 81 ,7 1 6 1 3 %5 6 9 ,5 1 5 1 5 %
2 0 1 5 -1 6 2 0 4 ,87 5 9 %4 1 3 ,86 9 8%6 1 8,7 4 4 9 %
2 0 1 6 -1 7 1 9 6 ,86 0 -4 %4 2 3 ,6 5 6 2 %6 2 0 ,5 1 6 0 %
2 0 1 7 -1 8 1 7 0 ,7 9 2 -1 3 %6 2 3 ,7 0 2 4 7 %7 9 4 ,4 9 4 2 8%
2 0 1 8-1 9 1 6 7 ,2 0 6 -2 %6 1 8,89 2 -1 %7 86 ,0 9 8 -1 %
2 0 1 9 -2 0 1 7 3 ,4 5 4 4 %5 9 4 ,2 7 7 -4 %7 6 7 ,7 3 1 -2 %
2 0 2 0 -2 1 1 7 8,6 87 3 %6 0 7 ,3 2 8 2 %7 86 ,0 1 5 2 %
5 9 %T OT A L C h an g e fro m M ay 2 0 13 t o A pri l 2 0 2 1
Page | 3
Some calls must be transferred to other agencies which were almost 15,000 in 2020. There are also outbound
calls at the request of field personnel.
Call Response Times (See Attachment 2 for a breakdown by hour of the day and number of seconds)
The table below summarizes the Department’s emergency call response times over the past six years.
Percentages are shown in red where this best practice was not reached. Answer times significantly improved
since 2017 and have remained above the industry best practice since then. In 2020, 7.62% more calls were
answered within the industry best practice of 10 seconds or less compared to 2017. Answer times are some of the
best reported during the past seven-year period.
911 Call Answer Times by Calendar Year
Attachment 2 shows a breakdown of the 911 Department’s 2020 calendar year response times by hour of the day
and number of seconds to answer. Note that the attachment table uses military time. The breakdown shows that
in each of the 24 hour blocks the 911 Department exceeds the industry best practice of answering 90% of 911
calls within 10 seconds. The answer rate varies between peak call volume times such as late afternoons and
evenings and slower times such as middle of the night. In 2020, the highest rate of answering 911 calls within 10
seconds was 99.21% for the 3:00 pm hour timeslot which is also one of the busiest times of the day in terms of
high call volume. The lowest was 93.79% for the 9:00 am hour timeslot. 0.25% of calls or 419 calls took longer
than 60 seconds to answer.
Full Staffing
The Department reports full staffing was achieved for part of 2020, but seven employees left in the early stages
of the pandemic. Full staffing was again reached in April after a class of dispatchers graduated. However, by the
end of 2020 17 employees left as follows: four were on probation and released from employment, four left to
work at other first responder agencies and nine voluntarily separated citing mental health considerations.
Last year, HR worked with the Department to combine dispatcher level one and two jobs to increase starting pay
to $18.31/hour. This was an increase of approximately two dollars an hour. The Department offered $1,000
retention bonuses during the pandemic. The Department has experienced hiring issues with applicants passing
background checks, employees not completing one-year probationary periods and other agencies offering higher
salary. The Department also participates in several job fairs and recruitment activities throughout the year. The
Council authorized three unfunded FTEs for the Department to help mitigate turnover. See Additional Info
section for details on staff turnover.
A new dispatcher takes five to seven months of training before they can operate independently as a regular
dispatcher on the call floor. First are several trainings and certifications with two months in the classroom
reviewing policies and procedures. Second is three to five months on the call floor working with fully trained
dispatchers doing hands-on training.
Dispatchers Unable to Telecommute
The current technology used by the 911 Department does not provide a telecommuting option for dispatchers.
This created operational challenges during the pandemic because dispatchers had to physically work from the
Public Safety Building (PSB), the existing call answering floor space is unable to accommodate the six-foot social
distancing health guidelines and wearing a mask makes it harder to communicate over the phone and radio.
Over the next 18 months the Utah Communication Authority, State agency overseeing PSAPS, is investing in
new technology from Vesta that can provide a telecommuting option. However, a station would need to be
purchased and installed at the homes of a dispatcher which is estimated to cost $20,000. The Department is
proposed to have 90 dispatchers in the FY22 budget. Providing telecommuting stations for all dispatchers is
estimated to cost $1.8 million. The Department reports a smaller number of telecommuting stations would also
be a significant improvement to operations because dispatchers could check out a station for temporary use and
then return it.
2 0 14 2 0 15 2 0 16 2 0 17 2 0 18 2 0 19 2 0 2 0
1 0 Se c o nd s 87 .1 8%87 .2 8%9 1 .2 6 %89 .9 0 %9 5 .6 2 %9 7 .5 3 %9 7 .5 2 %
1 5 Se c o nd s 89 .2 3 %89 .4 0 %9 2 .5 7 %9 1 .4 4 %9 6 .4 8%9 8.0 3 %9 8.0 2 %
4 0 Se c o nd s 9 5 .2 0 %9 5 .4 5 %9 6 .5 8%9 6 .3 8%9 8.6 6 %9 8.4 3 %9 9 .3 5 %
A n sw er T im e C alen d ar Y e ar
Page | 4
Pilot Partnership with University of Utah Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT)
The Department started a pilot partnership with MCOT and established criteria and a procedure to determine
when a non-violent caller in mental crisis could be diverted away from a sworn police officer response. In FY22
the Department is working to provide additional Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training specifically for
dispatchers as well as an MCOT crisis response training.
Maintain Four Leadership and 10 Dispatch Supervisor FTEs
Leadership positions include one director, one deputy director, and two operations managers. The 10
supervisors oversee a variety of dispatcher and managerial functions such as taking 911 calls, reviewing
investigative reports, and quality assurance in the computer aided dispatch (CAD) and record management
systems (RMS).
E-911 Fund
This Fund receives revenue from surcharges on phone bills. The projected transfer to the General Fund for FY22
is $3.65 million which is 41% of the Department’s annual budget. The E-911 Fund has its own Fund Balance
(savings account) with a projected balance of $2.6 million which is expected to increase to $3.4 million by the
end of FY21. See Additional Info section for details on this fund class. The FY22 budget includes five new
software expenses to be paid out of this fund that are detailed below.
$85,010 for CAD-to-CAD Sharing – Senate Bill 130 requires that "no later than January 1, 2021, a public
safety answering point shall adopt the statewide CAD to CAD call handling and 911 call transfer protocol
adopted by the Utah Communications Authority board, under Subsection 63H-7a-204(17)." In the FY21
budget $111,210 was approved from the E-911 Fund to purchase call handling software to reduce
transfers. In the proposed FY22 budget $85,010 is requested to continue implementation to meet the
state law requirement.
$26,200 Versaterm Data Sharing Hub –This funding will purchase Central Square software to allow
CAD to CAD interoperability with Bountiful and Utah Highway Patrol. The outcome is another
mechanism to decrease the call transfer rate between public safety agencies.
$30,765 NICE Radio Logger Upgrade to Vesta – NICE is the recording software for all radio and phone
communications. The software upgrade is necessary to continue meeting state law requirements that
audio recordings be retained for at least two years.
$63,218 Motorola NICE Redundant GPS – This funding will replace a server that is at end of life.
$201,663 APCO IntelliComm software – This funding will allow the Department to be on the same
platform as VECC which is using two separate protocols software programs. Having VECC and the
Department on the same platforms allows for seamless response in the valley regardless of which PSAP
receives the initial call.
Restore Six-month Hiring Freeze Vacancy Savings ($171,250)
The FY22 proposed budget would restore the $171,250 vacancy savings imposed as part of the FY21 six-month
hiring freeze which was part of the City’s response to the financial uncertainty during the early stages of the
pandemic. The FY22 proposed budget continues $145,724 of vacancy savings which are ongoing, and the
Department is expected to achieve these vacancy savings in FY22 and subsequent years.
Personal Service and Insurance Changes ($303,234)
Increase for base to base salary adjustments, the Mayor’s proposed 1% general pay increase, merit increases
previously agreed to for represented employees and medical insurance premium rate increases.
Capital Expenditures ($60,000)
This request is to renovate dispatcher consoles as well as routine equipment upgrades or replacements. The
funds could also be used for expanding the number of consoles or used for new servers and radio equipment.
Note: Most of the employees in the 911 Department are members of the American Federation of State County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, except for those in supervisory positions. As such, specific
compensation changes will also be addressed within those negotiations and memorandum of understanding
(MOU).
Page | 5
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Coordinating Diversion of Mental Health Crisis Calls – The Council may wish to ask how will
the Administration coordinate diverting mental health crisis calls between the social worker program,
CIT co-responder program, fire fighters with the new EMT mental health responder license (created by
Senate Bill 53 of 2021), the University of Utah’s Mobile Crisis Outreach Team, the County’s
Ungovernable Youth Stabilization and Mobile Response program and other providers?
2.Pilot Partnership with University of Utah Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT) –
Consistent with the City’s overall interest and investment in diversifying emergency response from
relying solely on Police, the Council may wish to ask the Administration if additional resources are
needed to further improve/streamline this partnership with MCOT to help divert mental crises calls.
3.32-Hour Work Week Pilot Program – The Council may wish to discuss with the Department how
the pilot program will improve outcomes for the public and employees and how success will be
measured.
4.Dispatchers Unable to Telecommute – The Council may wish to ask if the Department has plans to
purchase equipment that would allow dispatchers to telecommute. Stations are estimated to cost
$20,000 each.
5.Pandemic Changes in Calls and Operations – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what changes have been observed in calls before and during the pandemic, and how the 911
Department’s operations have changed.
6.2019 Performance Audit of 911 and Nonemergency Dispatch Services – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration what steps have been taken or are planned in FY22 to implement
recommendations of the audit. The Department’s response letter to the audit is available as the last four
pages of Attachment 3. The audit includes 17 specific recommendations. The audit included a customer
satisfaction survey for Salt Lake City and Sandy, employee survey, on-site visits, ride-alongs with fire
fighters and police officers, analyses of workloads, call volumes and other departmental operations. See
the Additional Information section for the audit’s key findings.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Funding Our Future (FOF) Public Safety Category
As part of the FY20 annual budget adoption the Council included the following legislative intent: “It is the intent
of the Council that the definition of “public safety” include the Police Department, Fire Department, and 911
Dispatch for allocation of Funding Our Future revenue.” The FY22 proposed budget would be the first year for
the 911 Department to receive FOF dollars which is for hiring eight more dispatchers.
Contract to Provide Services to Sandy City (Animal Services, Fire and Police)
The five-year contract between Salt Lake City and Sandy City started in October 2013 and ended in October
2018. It was automatically renewed for another five years until October 2023. A second five-year renewal is
contemplated in the contract and will go into effect if neither party acts to end the contract at the expiration
date. A six-month cancellation notice is required for either part to terminate.
Industry Best Practices for a 911 Call Response
Ideally, a 911 call is supposed to elicit the following responses within six minutes:
1. Dispatcher answers incoming call within 10 seconds
2. 60 seconds or less for dispatcher to gather priority information
3. 60 seconds or less for dispatcher to notify appropriate emergency responders; and
4. 4 minutes or less for emergency responders (fire, medical and/or police) to reach the caller’s location.
Minimum Staffing Standard
The 911 Department established a minimum staffing level for 24/7 operations which is: 4 fire dispatchers, 3-5
police dispatchers, and between 3-9 call takers based on the time of day and average call volumes. This staffing
mix is unique to Salt Lake City and based on current call volumes. Thus, the mix is subject to change as the need
for emergency response fluctuates overtime. Going below the minimum staffing level may create situations when
the Department is unable to readily respond to an active emergency. Mandatory overtime is one tool the
Department uses to ensure these minimum staffing levels.
Page | 6
Rapid SOS for Mobile Phone Location Identification
The Administration described Rapid SOS as “a free product offered to all PSAP agencies across the country. The
product allows dispatchers to get a GPS hit when someone calls 911 from a cell phone. The caller must have their
location services turned on in their phone settings. SLC911 has a procedure requiring dispatchers to launch
Rapid SOS each day. Any caller that is unable to give a location or verify that location will be processed through
Rapid SOS to get the best location information possible.”
Current Staffing Levels
The Department currently has 13 dispatcher FTEs, three unfunded public safety dispatcher positions, 1 executive
assistant, and the Director position are vacant. The chart and table below show the Department’s average staff
turnover from 2014 to 2020 was 21%. This is more than double the City’s average turnover across departments
over the same time. One of the Department’s hiring limitations is the number of recruits that can be brought on-
board at any given time. A breakdown of the 21% turnover in 2020 includes: four were on probation and
released from employment, four left to work at other dispatch officers for hiring pay and nine voluntarily
separated citing mental health considerations.
National and local salary data show different perspectives for the competitiveness of dispatcher compensation.
The 2020 AFSCME Salary Survey by Mercer compared Salt Lake City dispatcher pay scales and actual pay to a
national sample of other employers. It concluded the pay scales and actual pay significantly lagged the national
market by approximately 20%. However, the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee’s (CCAC) 2020
Annual Report compared actual pay to the local Wasatch Front market. It concluded dispatcher pay was
competitive at 114% compared to market after factoring in the economic value of the City’s above average
benefits package.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
911 Department Staffing and Turnover
Total # of Employees at the Highest Staffing Level for that Year
# of New Hires that Failed to Complete Probation
# of Experienced Employees Who Left for Any Reason
Turnover Rate %
2 0 14 2 0 15 2 0 16 2 0 17 2 0 18 2 0 19 2 0 2 0
A
To t a l # o f Em p lo y e e s a t the
High e st St affing Le v e l fo r that
Y e ar
7 8 82 80 9 0 88 1 0 0 1 0 0 88
B # o f Ne w Hir e s t h a t Faile d t o
Co m ple te Pr o b at io n 4 8 9 6 7 1 2 1 1 8
C # o f Ex p e r ie nc e d Emplo y e e s
Wh o Le ft fo r A ny Re a so n*1 1 1 5 1 3 6 3 8 1 7 1 0
D Tu r no v e r Rat e (Tu r no v e r =
B+C/A )1 9 %2 8%2 8%1 3 %1 1 %2 0 %2 8%2 1 %
E Re t e nt io n Ra te (Re t e nt io n = 1 -
Tu r no v e r ) x 1 0 0 81 %7 2 %7 3 %87 %89 %80 %7 2 %7 9 %
C A L C UL A T E A V E RA G E
T URNOV E R RA T E A V E RA G EYEAR
Page | 7
Key Findings of 2019 Dispatch Performance Audit
Below are the audit’s high-level key findings split between positives and challenges/opportunities for
improvements. The audit also includes 17 specific recommendations to improve the Department’s operations
shown on pages five and six of the final report (Attachment 3). Each recommendation comes with a priority level
(low, moderate or high), estimated costs or savings, and a timeframe for implementation which ranges from
immediately to one-two years out.
Positive Findings and Attributes
•In general, the Center has already devised a dispatcher and call-taker staffing plan that meets the needs
of the organization with only few adjustments required.
•Staff are positive about the direction the 911 Center is going because of new management and associated
changes.
•The majority of Salt Lake City and Sandy City residents who used emergency or non-emergency services
in the last year believe the 911 Department is doing a good to excellent job overall.
•Customers are, in fact, more satisfied with their interactions with dispatch operators than they are with
the time it takes for help to arrive of on-scene emergency personnel.
•Overall, the 911 Department operates at a high customer service level with few significant improvement
opportunities.
Opportunities for Improvement
•The 911 Department should reformulate how it handles non-emergency call volume in order to enhance
efficiency and effectiveness.
•The 911 Department should adopt an appropriate authorized staffing level to accommodate turnover
issues and better balance staff between police and fire/EMS workstations.
•The 911 Department should re-organize staffing and reporting relationships from the supervisor and
above positions.
•The 911 Department should adopt various protocols relative to recruitment, compensation, quality
assurance, use of script-based software (e.g. ProQA), etc.
•As part of an expanded needs assessment, determine if certain existing practices such as overall police
response times, use of online reporting, and customer expectations such as estimate of arrival time and
"on hold" time are appropriate.
Emergency 911 Dispatch Fund (E-911 Fund)
E911 Fund revenues come from a 911 excise tax paid on phone bills. Revenue in recent years is averaging about
$4.7 million annually. The Utah Legislature requested an audit of how these funds are collected and distributed.
The audit recommended changes to the distribution formula: (1) increase monthly fee rate and (2) allot revenues
to where 911 service occurs rather than the phone billing address. Taken together these changes were expected to
significantly increase Salt Lake City’s E911 Fund revenues. Over the past two fiscal years the fund has
experienced significant increases in annual revenues as a result. The additional annual funding could be as high
as $1 million.
Target for E911 Fund Balance – The Department identified $1.5 million as the ongoing funding target
for the E911 fund balance (rainy day/savings accounts) to cover future equipment replacement and
maintenance costs.
Past Use of E911 Funds – Approximately, $2.7 million in E911 Funds were used to purchase new
equipment and furniture when the 911 Department relocated to the Public Safety Building in 2013. This
fund has also provided several software and hardware upgrades for the Department in recent years.
Accreditations
As a follow up to the 2019 Performance Audit (Attachment 3) the 911 Department ended script-based protocol
software for police calls and is working through accreditation options for police. The Department is pursuing
accreditation for dispatch from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) which
is expected to take two years. The Department is also seeking Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials approval for the in-house training program and all staff are being certified with the Utah Bureau of
Emergency Services for Dispatch Professionals.
Page | 8
Variations in Call Volume
The Department provided the graph below showing average call volumes (911 and non-emergency) by hour of
the day. Note that the graph uses military time. The graph shows daily call volume typically peaks around 15:00
hours (3:00 pm) and then reaches the daily low point at 4:00 hours (4:00 am). The Department adjusts staffing
levels to account for these call volume variations but never falls below the minimum staffing standard (see
section below).
Note: PSAP is Public Safety Answering Point
Single CAD and RMS for Salt Lake County
The Salt Lake Valley Emergency Communications Center (VECC) and Salt Lake City 911 Department handle all
911 calls in Salt Lake County. They are moving to a single interoperable computer aided dispatch (CAD) and
record management system (RMS) platform. The vendor was selected in early 2016 and the Salt Lake City
Council approved the interlocal agreement with VECC in July 2016. The interlocal agreement will bring 22
public safety agencies in Salt Lake County together under one CAD and RMS system. Thousands of calls are
transferred between VECC and Salt Lake City 911 each year. Transferring calls typically results in a longer
response time. This agreement will eliminate the need for these transfers, reduce associated errors, and is
expected to decrease response times. The coalition of agencies in Salt Lake County continue to work towards a
single CAD system. Salt Lake City Police Department, Fire Department and the 911 Department already use the
system identified for the whole County. Three remaining agencies need to complete the transition. No additional
City funding for the project is anticipated at this time.
Emergency Calls Tracking System (ECaTS)
The State contracts with a private company called Emergency Calls Tracking System (ECaTS) which
automatically records data from all 911 call centers in Utah. The tracking system allows call response times to be
analyzed by customized time periods such as year, days of the week, times of the day, and type of call.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. 2020 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Breakdown of 911 Department’s Answer Times by Hour of
the Day and Number of Seconds to Answer
3. Performance Audit of 911 and Nonemergency Dispatch Services
4. Business Plan for 32-hour Work Week 911 Dispatch Pilot Program
Page | 9
ACRONYMS
AFSCME – Association of Federal State County and Municipal Employees
CAD – Computer Aided Dispatch
CALEA – Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies
DPS – Department of Public Safety
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HR – Human Resources
MCOT – Mobile Crisis Outreach Team
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
PSAP – Public Safety Answering Point
PSB – Public Safety Building
RMS – Record Management System
TBD – To Be Determined
VECC – Valley Emergency Communications Center
YTD – Year To Date
Page | 10
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF BUDGET CHANGES
$ A m o u n t % C h an ge
Pe r so nal Se r v ic e s $ 6 ,81 7 ,5 4 7 $ 7 ,5 4 8,2 2 9 $ 7 ,2 9 7 ,7 3 1 $ 7 ,9 2 6 ,6 6 1 $ 6 2 8,9 3 0 8.6 %
Op e r atio ns a nd
Ma int e nanc e $ 3 3 ,9 5 2 $ 5 9 ,0 1 1 $ 4 2 ,4 0 0 $ 4 2 ,4 0 0 $ - 0 .0 %
Ch ar ge s and Se r v ic e s $ 9 1 4 ,6 2 7 $ 2 4 5 ,81 9 $ 86 0 ,4 4 0 $ 85 9 ,4 4 4 $ (9 9 6 )-0 .1 %
Ca p it al Ex pe nd it u r e s* $ 2 4 9 ,3 5 2 $ 1 0 2 ,6 4 0 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 $ 6 0 ,0 0 0 $ - -
TOTA LS $ 8,0 15 ,47 8 $7 ,9 5 5 ,6 9 9 $8,2 6 0 ,5 7 1 $8,888,5 0 5 $6 2 7 ,9 3 4 7 .6 %
Differe n c eFY 2 0 2 1-2 2
Pro p o se d
*No te : Th e 9 1 1 Bur e au r e c e iv e d ne w e q u ip me nt in 2 0 1 3 as p a r t o f the m o v e into the Pu b lic Safe ty Bu ild ing
91 1 Communications Bureau
PROP OSED BU DGET COMPARI SON
E x pe n se FY 2 0 18-19
A c t u als
FY 2 0 19 -2 0
A c t u al s
FY 2 0 2 0 -2 1
A do p t e d
Salt Lake City 9-1-1
315 E 200 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111 County: Salt Lake
Year:2020
Agency Affiliation Emergency Communications
PSAP Answer Time Report Date:05/19/2021 10:45:49
Report Date From:01/01/2020
Report Date To:12/31/2020
Period Group:All
Time Group:60 Minute
Time Block:00:00 - 23:59
Days Of Week:All
Call Type:911 Calls
Abandoned Filters:Exclude Abandoned
Agency Affiliation:All
Answer Times In Seconds Avg.% Answered
Call Hour 0 - 10 11-15 16 - 20 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 120 120+Total Duration ≤ 10 Secs ≤ 15 Secs ≤ 20 Secs ≤ 40 Secs
00:00 5,171 11 17 30 17 13 2 5,261 145.9 98.29 %98.50 %98.82 %99.39 %
01:00 4,608 18 16 33 22 16 0 4,713 146.9 97.77 %98.15 %98.49 %99.19 %
02:00 3,678 9 8 17 1 4 0 3,717 150.0 98.95 %99.19 %99.41 %99.87 %
03:00 3,016 11 9 36 7 12 0 3,091 156.0 97.57 %97.93 %98.22 %99.39 %
04:00 2,844 8 5 19 3 3 1 2,883 144.3 98.65 %98.92 %99.10 %99.76 %
05:00 2,874 14 16 39 24 28 6 3,001 142.4 95.77 %96.23 %96.77 %98.07 %
06:00 3,787 11 18 29 15 10 1 3,871 125.5 97.83 %98.11 %98.58 %99.33 %
07:00 4,718 38 29 71 40 50 9 4,955 125.4 95.22 %95.98 %96.57 %98.00 %
08:00 5,513 42 33 78 59 17 0 5,742 122.2 96.01 %96.74 %97.32 %98.68 %
09:00 6,130 71 61 175 56 40 3 6,536 121.7 93.79 %94.87 %95.81 %98.49 %
10:00 6,874 86 79 157 66 46 3 7,311 119.1 94.02 %95.20 %96.28 %98.43 %
11:00 8,079 28 28 72 20 10 1 8,238 125.9 98.07 %98.41 %98.75 %99.62 %
12:00 8,492 36 20 58 30 11 0 8,647 123.6 98.21 %98.62 %98.86 %99.53 %
13:00 8,875 30 29 70 21 16 0 9,041 124.7 98.16 %98.50 %98.82 %99.59 %
14:00 9,513 37 18 56 12 8 0 9,644 121.5 98.64 %99.03 %99.21 %99.79 %
15:00 10,088 26 11 28 10 5 0 10,168 122.6 99.21 %99.47 %99.58 %99.85 %
16:00 9,554 24 10 33 6 8 0 9,635 125.1 99.16 %99.41 %99.51 %99.85 %
17:00 9,144 75 59 139 44 31 0 9,492 128.5 96.33 %97.12 %97.75 %99.21 %
18:00 8,911 79 54 97 49 23 1 9,214 133.3 96.71 %97.57 %98.15 %99.21 %
19:00 8,605 71 34 105 42 18 0 8,875 137.8 96.96 %97.76 %98.14 %99.32 %
20:00 8,245 24 37 59 27 11 2 8,405 143.2 98.10 %98.38 %98.82 %99.52 %
21:00 8,104 41 26 62 25 22 0 8,280 135.4 97.87 %98.37 %98.68 %99.43 %
22:00 7,432 20 15 25 7 2 0 7,501 133.2 99.08 %99.35 %99.55 %99.88 %
23:00 6,104 23 17 39 23 15 0 6,221 139.6 98.12 %98.49 %98.76 %99.39 %
Total:160,359 833 649 1,527 626 419 29 164,442 131.0 97.52 %98.02 %98.42 %99.35 %
Overall %:97.52%0.51%0.39%0.93%0.38%0.25%0.02%
The PSAP Answer Time Report is representative of the caller's answer time experience. Seizure-to-Answer Time is measured from the time of call seizure to the time of
agent answer. Times shown include Setup, and may include Queue Seconds and/or Ring Seconds depending on PSAP configuration.
Page 1 of 1
JACQUELINE M. BISKUPSKI Mayor
Cl1Y COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: LISA BURNETTE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR --------
TO: Salt Lake City Council
Charlie Luke, Chair
Date sent to Council: ------
DATE:
FROM:
May 20, 2019 ,ry/_ M,.. .Ji. .Lisa Burnette, Director, SLC911 _�-"· -+
1
_
1
_-+-"�--------
SUBJECT: Matrix Consulting SLC911 Dispatch Audit
STAFF CONTACTS: Lisa Burnette, Director, 801.799.3592, lisa.burnette@slcgov.com
DOCUMENTlYPE: Performance Audit (Information Item)
RECOMMENDATION: Please review
BUDGET IMPACT: MATRIX SUGGESTED 20 NEW FTEs AND FUNDING 3 UNFUNDED FTEs. BUDGET IMPACT
$1,433,922
DISPATCH CENTER REQUESTED 9 NEW FTES. BUDGET IMPACT $561,100
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET RE-CLASSIFIED 3 EXISTING PBX POSITIONS PLUS THE
RECOMMENDATION OF 3 NEW FTES FOR A NET OF 6 NEW FTES. BUDGET IMPACT $187,034
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Council has requested the completed audit by Matrix Consulting
Group.
PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A
EXHIBITS:
1.Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services
a.Letter to Matrix Consulting Group
i.Commentary on recommendations
911 BUREAU
475 SOUTH 300 EAST
P .0. Box 145497, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14-5497
WWW .SLCPD.COM
TEL 801-799-3554 FAX 801-799-4180
May 21, 2019
May 21, 2019
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency
Dispatch Services
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
FINAL
March 1, 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. Analysis of Operations and Technology 8
3. Analysis of Staffing 23
4. Analysis of Management and Oversight 38
5. External Customer Survey Analysis 54
Appendix A: Descriptive Profile 87
Appendix B: Employee Survey Analysis 96
Appendix C: Police and Fire Survey Analysis 115
Appendix D: Staffing Models
130
Appendix E: Impact of Patrol Saturation in 2018
152
Appendix F: Ancillary Observations from Study 154
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1 Introduction and Executive Summary
The Matrix Consulting Group was hired by Salt Lake City to conduct a performance audit
of public safety emergency and non -emergency dispatch services. We are pleased to
present the results of this effort in the following report. The sections below provide an
introduction to the audit, a description of our methodology, and a summary of our key
findings and recommendations.
1. Introduction
The Salt Lake City 911 Center (SLC 911)1 serves as the public safety answering point
(PSAP) for all of Salt Lake City, as well as the City of Sandy through an interlocal
agreement. The organization has 97 authorized positions and functions as a bureau
within the City’s government, led by an Exec utive Director who reports to the Mayor’s
Office.
The Matrix Consulting Group undertook this performance audit of the 911 Center with a
set of clear directives:
• Perform customer satisfaction surveys of callers that have used both the
emergency 911 telephone line and the non-emergency line.
• Perform a 911 Bureau employee survey.
• Perform a comprehensive operational needs assessment of the 911 Bureau.
• Provide accountability recommendations for the 911 Bureau organization and
operations.
This report presents our evaluation, analysis, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations the findings resulting from these tasks and our recommendations on a
wide range of issues including oversight and governance, technology effectiveness,
staffing needs, workload and position allocation, policies and procedures, alternative
organizational structures, strategic planning, and other important issues.
1 Throughout this report 911 Center, Bureau, and SLC911 are used interchangeably.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
2. Methodology
In the development of this analysis, the project team undertook a number of tasks to
ensure a thorough understanding of the 911 Center’s operational protocols, dispatching
workload, personnel needs, operating environment, contractual obligations, employee
opinions, and stakeholder needs. The following activities were part of this audit and
allowed us to attain this familiarity:
• Conducted a series of on-site interviews with staff from the 911 Center, including
the Executive Director and Deputy Director, technological and administrative
support staff, managers and supervisors, and line level staff. These interviews also
included sit-in time on the dispatch floor where live operations could be observed.
• Conducted ride-along observations with field staff from each of the 911 Center’s
partner agencies, the police and fire departments in both Salt Lake City and Sandy.
• Collected data and documentation of the 911 Center’s operations and oversight,
including budget information, organizational charts and staff hiring and separations
data, policies and procedures, the contract with Sandy, expenditures and cost
allocation data, overtime use, staff training, public education, workload related to
phone calls, CAD incidents, non-emergency communications, technology
systems, and performance measurement. This data was reviewed and analyzed
for use in developing conclusions and recommendations.
• Conducted a customer satisfaction survey of individuals in the greater Salt Lake
area who have called the 911 Center in an emergency or non -emergency capacity
to assess their opinions on customer service, clarity of communication, and
responsiveness of emergency response.
• Conducted electronic surveys of 911 Center staff, as well as a survey of employees
at the 911 Center’s partner public safety agencies to gather their opinions on the
operations of the Center and the support provided to first responders in the region,
as well as to identify potential issues for further scrutiny.
• Conducted quantitative analysis of call volume and CAD incident volume to
develop a model of workload and determine the necessary number of s taff to
accommodate it at a high level of customer service.
The information gathered from these efforts was used to identify key issues in the
following areas:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
(1) Operations and Technology,
(2) Staffing, and
(3) Management and Oversight
Interim deliverables, including a descriptive profile, analysis of survey results, and an
initial issues assessment were provided to the 911 Center and the Mayor’s office during
the course of the audit to provide insight into the feedback involved in crafting anal ysis
and frame conversations regarding the project team’s findings and conclusions.
3. Key Findings and Conclusions.
In the course of an emergency communication center audit, the focus tends to be on the
areas within the organization where improvement opportunities exist, or where change is
needed. The project team completed a full assessment of the 911 Center’s staffing and
operations, and a number of recommendations have been developed to enhance
efficiency, service levels, and accountability. However, there are a number of positive
attributes of the 911 Center which should be acknowledged.
• In general, the Center has already devised a dispatcher and call-taker staffing plan
that meets the needs of the organization with only few adjustments required.
• Staff are positive about the direction the 911 Center is going as a consequence of
new management and associated changes.
• The majority of Salt Lake City and Sandy City residents who used emergency or
non-emergency services in the last year believe the 911 Communications Bureau
is doing a good to excellent job overall.
• Customers are, in fact, more satisfied with their interactions with dispatch
operators than they are with the time it takes for help to arrive of on -scene
emergency personnel.
• Overall, the 911 Center operates at a high customer service level with few
significant improvement opportunities.
Along with these positives, the project team has identified a number of opportunities for
improvement and change at the 911 Center. While addressed in detail in the body of the
report, the following bullet points summarize the primary recommendations of resulting
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 4
from the audit.
• The 911 Center should reformulate how it handles non-emergency call volume in
order to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
• The 911 Center should adopt an appropriate authorized staffing level to
accommodate turnover issues and better balance staff between police and
fire/EMS workstations.
• The 911 Center should re-organize staffing and reporting relationships from the
supervisor and above positions.
• The 911 Center should adopt various protocols relative to recruitment,
compensation, quality assurance, use of script-based software (e.g. ProQA), etc.
• As part of an expanded needs assessment, determine if certain existing practices
such as overall police response times, use of online reporting, and customer
expectations such as estimate of arrival time and “on hold” time are appropriate.
A summary of all of the specific recommendations follow.
4. List of Recommendations
The following exhibit provides a numbered list of the recommendations in this report, with
the priority level, estimated cost or savings, and target timeframe for each
recommendation. The chapters within this report should be reviewed for a detailed
discussion and analysis of each issue and the background behind each recommendation.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
# Recommendation Priority Level Est. Cost
(Savings)
Timeframe
Operations and Technology
1 The 911 Center should eliminate the PBX
Operator job classification position and instead
use trained and certified dispatchers to handle
incoming non-emergency call volume.
High ($139,500) Immediate
2 The 911 Bureau should ensure that the
Center’s new CAD/RMS allows patrol officers
to view Fire/EMS calls as they occur in order to
optimize the level of support they provide.
High N/A Concurrent
with new
CAD/RMS
3 The 911 Bureau should continue to use script-
based software, such as ProQA, to help ensure
consistent questioning of 911 callers and
support the optimization of customer service.
Initial and on-going refresher training should be
provided on such software, with expectations
of call-takers clearly delineated as part of the
quality assurance and quality control process,
to help facilitate the best call-taking
experience.
High N/A Immediate
Staffing
4 The 911 Center should authorize 98
Dispatcher/Call-Taker positions to meet
staffing needs for both emergency and non-
emergency call volume, which includes the
PBX workstation, while accounting for 22%
annual turnover.
Moderate $142,500 3-6 Months
5 The 911 Center should increase the number of
authorized Police Dispatcher/Call-Taker
positions to 79.
Low N/A 1-2 Years
6 The 911 Center should reduce authorized
Fire/EMS Dispatcher/Call-Taker positions to
19.
Low N/A 1-2 Years
7 The 911 Center should eliminate two
Supervisor positions by promotion or attrition,
bringing the total to 8. One of these will still be
an Administrative Supervisor.
Moderate ($183,000) 3-6 Months
8 Maintain management and support staffing in
the 911 Bureau consisting of 1 Executive
Director, 1 Deputy Director, 1 Administrative
Assistant, 1 Administrative Supervisor and 2
Operations Managers for a total of 6 positions
of these classifications.
Moderate N/A 2019
9 The 911 Center should use overtime at similar
levels to 2018, minimizing mandatory overtime
while offering voluntary overtime up to a
reasonable limit of about 10,500 hours per
year.
Low N/A 2019
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
# Recommendation Priority Level Est. Cost
(Savings)
Timeframe
Management and Oversight
10 Ensure the public safety committee composed
of the police and fire chiefs and 911 Bureau
Director all report directly to the Mayor’s Chief
of Staff. No position in this committee should
be subordinate to others vis-à-vis decision-
making authority.
Moderate N/A 2019
11 The 911 Center should eliminate 1:1 reporting
relationships and flatten the organizational
structure so that the Executive Director
supervises the Deputy Director and Operations
Managers.
Moderate N/A Immediate
12 When updating the 911 Bureau strategic plan,
accomplish this in concert with the
development of police and fire strategic
planning efforts.
Low N/A 1-2 Years
13 The 911 Center should expand the existing
quality assurance program into a formal
performance management program overseen
by the Deputy Director. The program should
include regular review of call recordings and
quantitative metrics, planning and goal-setting
for improvement, concrete incentives for
performance, and long-term tracking of results
over time.
Moderate $10,000 6-12 Months
14 The 911 Center should prepare citizens to use
911 and enhance public relations and
recruitment efforts by continuing to build its
public education program.
Moderate $5,000 1-2 Years
15 The 911 Center should expand and formalize
existing recruitment efforts to maximize
awareness and job applications among
qualified candidates.
High $6,000 3-6 Months
16 The 911 Bureau should ensure that the results
of exit interviews conducted by the City’s HR
Department are regularly provided to the
Executive Director or their designee for
analysis.
Low N/A Immediate
17 The 911 Bureau should conduct a classification
and compensation survey every 3-5 years to
determine the appropriateness of
compensation and ensure that the agency is
well-positioned in the labor market.
Moderate $15,000 1-2 Years
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
2 Operations and Technology
The following chapter represents the project team’s analysis of operational practices and
the utilization of technology at the 911 Center, including the general effectiveness of call-
taking and dispatch operations, the quality of the work environment on th e dispatch floor,
the use of PBX operators, and the functionality of various software and technologies in
use by the Bureau.
1. Call-Taking and Dispatch Effectiveness
The 911 Center’s call-taking and dispatch functions are divided by function. Each function
has a separate location, or “pod” on the dispatch floor. The three functions are:
• Call-Taking: Dedicated call-takers use the 911 Center’s Intrado digital phone
system to receive incoming emergency calls as quickly as possible. They ascertain
basic information about the call and route it to the Fire/EMS pod if appropriate. If
the call is not a Fire/EMS call, they gather key information from the caller and route
it to the Police dispatchers. Call-takers also handle incoming non-emergency calls,
queuing these below emergency calls in order of importance.
• Law Enforcement Dispatching: Dedicated law enforcement dispatchers receive
call information from the call-takers and communicate it to field law enforcement
units in Salt Lake City PD and Sandy PD. They prioritize calls for dispatch and
remain in communication with field units.
• Fire/EMS Dispatching: Dedicated Fire and EMS dispatchers take calls related to
these types of incidents from call-takers, gather additional information from callers,
and dispatch fire and EMS units for Salt Lake City and Sandy. They remain in
contact with responding units throughout the duration of the call. These personnel
also receive non-emergency calls directed to the City’s Fire Department.
(1) The 911 Center Has Many Operational Strengths.
The 911 Center operates efficiently in many respects. Incoming calls are immediately
assigned to the queue of a trained call-taker using technology which enables them to
record call information in real time while talking to the caller. The 911 Center is also
equipped to handle alternative communications such as TTY and text-to-911. The queue
for each call-taker is clearly visible to the floor. Dedicated dispatchers monitor radio traffic
on channels specific to police and fire/EMS operations, and their numbers are generally
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
determined by fluctuating radio traffic levels throughout the day. Calls are recorded for
quality assurance, supervisors are capable to assist on the floor when call volume
dictates, and an integrated CAD/RMS is used to record key data on calls from the public
and emergency response.
(2) The 911 Center Does Not Meet All Internal or NENA Call-Taking Targets.
The 911 Center has established goals for call-taking timeliness, seeking to answer 95%
of calls within 10-15 seconds, and 98% of calls within 20 seconds. A review of the 911
Center’s incoming 911 call data for a 12-month period shows that 90% of calls are
answered within 10 seconds, meeting both the agency’s goal and the National
Emergency Number Association (NENA) target. However, only 93.5% of calls are
answered within 20 seconds, meaning that 6.5 % of calls ring for longer than the target
time of 20 seconds.
Similarly, the 911 Center does not meet the secondary NENA standard of 99% calls
answered within 40 seconds. A review of the data provided shows that 96.7% of calls are
answered within 40 seconds, leaving the remaining 3.3% (1 in 30) to ring longer than this
target time.
(3) While The 911 Center Processes Calls Efficiently, The Time Elapsed from
Call-Taking to Dispatch of Field Units Is Often Excessive for Salt Lake City
Police.
Additionally, the elapsed time from the point at which a call is received to when field units
are dispatched is excessive in some cases. The following tables show a number of CAD
metrics for Police, Fire, and Medical calls over a 12-month period ending in 2018.
Specifically, the metrics shown are:
RCV to QUEUE: The number of seconds from when a call is received by the 911
Center’s phone system to when it is coded and assigned to a dispatcher.
RCV to DISP: The number of seconds from when a call is received by the 911 C enter’s
phone system to when it is broadcast on the radio for units to respond.
These metrics area shown at the 50th percentile (median), 90th percentile, 95th percentile,
and 99th percentile to provide a sense of the timeframes that callers experience with a
given level of frequency.
Police CAD Incidents
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
RCV to QUEUE (seconds) RCV to DISP (seconds)
Priority Count Median 90th% 95th% 99th% Median 90th% 95th% 99th%
Salt Lake City
1 9,350 35 146 204 1,038 183 519 851 1,839
2 40,995 34 119 178 1,051 270 1,315 2,120 4,854
3 42,773 44 146 207 885 700 4,634 7,053 12,998
4 21,007 47 151 218 1,267 2,036 13,928 19,662 29,666
5 63 33 132 398 475 384 20,063 28,713 43,705
6 5 30 73 74 75 775 3,306 3,623 3,876
7 335 52 117 158 424 1,478 4,648 6,395 7,856
8 78 95 192 255 537 223 840 917 979
9 2,653 73 152 198 350 418 6,390 9,130 22,492
All 117,259 41 139 200 954 452 4,777 8,440 19,884
Sandy
1 1,499 22 87 145 723 147 302 382 968
2 6,966 31 122 176 973 205 535 846 1,920
3 12,693 41 132 185 612 243 1,087 1,785 3,853
4 9,416 41 128 177 634 290 1,987 3,007 5,930
5 2 - - - - - - - -
6 115 35 157 190 417 707 3,484 4,028 10,481
7 65 66 196 243 443 283 1,018 1,421 3,029
8 - - - - - - - - -
9 2 - - - - - - - -
All 30,758 38 127 180 706 235 1,212 2,020 4,484
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
Fire CAD Incidents
RCV to QUEUE (seconds) RCV to DISP (seconds)
Salt Lake City
Median 30 103
90th% 78 182
95th% 114 222
99th% 346 382
Sandy
Median 29 104
90th% 78 191
95th% 117 226
99th% 316 346
Medical CAD Incidents
RCV to QUEUE (seconds) RCV to DISP (seconds)
Salt Lake City
Median 32 117
90th% 74 199
95th% 101 232
99th% 242 320
Sandy
Median 30 119
90th% 68 195
95th% 94 228
99th% 206 305
As the tables above show, many calls take longer than 60 seconds for the call -taker to
code them for dispatch, and significantly longer for dispatchers to ask public safety
personnel to respond. Specifically:
• Police: the time from call receipt to coding for dispatch (RCV to QUEUE) at the
90th percentile for Police CAD incidents is 139 seconds in Salt Lake City, and 127
seconds in Sandy. This means 10% of calls (even Priority 1 calls) take more than
2 minutes and 19 seconds for call-takers to code them for a dispatcher. A review
of the data showed that 66% of calls are coded within one minute.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
• Police: the time from call receipt to dispatching units on the radio airwaves (RCV
to DISP) is 519 seconds (8 minutes and 39 seconds) at the 90th percentile for
Priority 1 calls in Salt Lake City, and 302 seconds in Sandy. This means that 10%
of Priority 1 calls in Salt Lake City take longer than 8 minutes and 39 seconds for
emergency responders to be dispatched. Given the call processing time in the prior
bullet point, this indicates that about 10% of high -priority calls wait at least 6
minutes and 20 seconds before police units are dispatched.
• Fire: The time from call receipt to coding for dispatch (RCV to QUEUE) at the 90 th
percentile is 78 seconds for both Salt Lake City and Sandy. A review of the data
showed that 84% of fire calls are coded within one minute. The time from call
receipt to dispatching units on the radio airwaves (RCV to DISP) is 182 seconds
at the 90th percentile in Salt Lake City, and slightly longer in Sandy. This means
that 10% of Fire calls take longer than 3 minutes and 2 seconds to be dispatched.
Given the RCV to QUEUE time of 78 seconds, this means dispatchers hold about
10% of Fire calls for at least 1 minute and 44 seconds before broadcasting them
over the radio for a response.
• Medical: The time from call receipt to coding for dispatch (RCV to QUEUE) at the
90th percentile is 74 seconds in Salt Lake City, and 68 seconds in Sandy. A review
of the data showed that 84% of medical calls are coded within one minute. The
time from call receipt to dispatching units on the radio airwaves (RCV to DISP ) is
199 seconds at the 90th percentile in Salt Lake City, and 195 seconds in Sandy.
This means that 10% of Fire calls take longer than 3 minutes and 19 seconds to
be dispatched. Given the RCV to QUEUE time of 74 seconds, this means
dispatchers hold about 10% of Medical calls for at least 2 minutes and 5 seconds
before broadcasting them over the radio for a response.
The most notable issues with th is processing time lie on the police side, where nearly half
of all calls are coded for dispatch within 30 sec onds but are not dispatched to field units
for three minutes. This delay could be the result of inefficient dispatch procedures, but
given the 911 Center’s professional environment, the efficiency of dispatchers observed
on site by the project team, the sp eed with which calls are processed, and the positive
impression of the 911 Center held by the public, the delay is more likely a symptom of
limited availability among field units. While Police Department staffing and operations are
outside the scope of this study, the data analyzed in the course of this study suggests
that an examination of the Department’s personnel and deployment strategy is urgently
necessary.
It should also be noted that the Salt Lake City Police Department used non -patrol staff to
saturate patrol in 2018 from June 10th to October 6th. As shown in Appendix E, this period
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
saw a consistent but very small improvement in RCV to DISP times, suggesting that it
slightly improved the availability of the Department’s field units.
(4) The Staffing Recommendations in this Report Will Ensure that the 911 Center
Has Adequate Personnel to Provide Responsive 911 Service.
The staffing recommendations in later sections of this report are intended to ensure that
sufficient personnel are available in the 911 center around the clock to provide a level of
service that meets the needs of the community. Adopting these recommendations will
provide assurance that the Bureau is acting to optimize responsiveness to the public.
2. Physical Work Environment
As part of the operations study for the Bureau, the project team evaluated the physical
work environment of the 911 Center. Because PSAP operations can be high -stress and
involve repetitive tasks which require a high degree of focus and self -moderation, it is
important that the physical work environment in which staff perform their duties is
conducive to a high level of performance. The effectiveness of the work environment in a
911 Center can be assessed by determining the answers to a number of questions which
are categorized into two general topic areas:
• Call center layout: Are work stations easily accessible, including for individuals
with disabilities? Are they appropriately grouped (neither cramped nor isolated)?
Are call-takers and dispatchers close enough together to be able to speak to each
other if necessary? Are like functions (police, fire, etc.) grouped together? Is the
supervisors’ post centrally located with a clear view of the floor? Are bathrooms
and break rooms conveniently located?
• Individual work stations: Are staff equipped with ergonomically friendly cha irs,
desks, and computer equipment? Are work stations large enough for staff to keep
snacks, humidifiers, and other personal comfort devices? Is the provided
technology comfortable (screens large enough, headsets well-fitted, etc.)? Is
lighting sufficient and non-distracting?
The project team received a tour of the 911 Center during the time spent on -site and
observed call-takers and dispatchers as they worked on the floor. The 911 Center is
located in a modern, $125 million state-of-the-art public safety building completed in 2013.
In addition to a plethora of impressive energy efficiency and seismic resilience features,
the building’s design is very well-suited to the needs of the 911 Center:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
• Staff work in a comfortable space with excellent lighting and visibility. The dispatch
floor is ADA-accessible and compactly arranged without restricting movement or
feeling cramped.
• The call-taking and dispatching functions are grouped into pods, which are close
enough together that staff can see each other and communicate if needed.
• Supervisors are located at a central post with excellent visibility of the dispatch
floor.
• Bathrooms and employee break area are available, wheelchair accessible, and
conveniently located to the dispatch floor.
A review of the individual workstation components yields similarly positive results:
employees work with technology that minimizes the need for uncomfortable movement
(computers, keyboards and mice, headsets) and enjoy large work station desks and
ergonomic seating.
In summary, the physical work environment at the 911 Center is excellent. It poses no
barriers to effective work, staff heath or morale, or the efficient use of time.
3. PBX Line Operations
The 911 Center received both emergency and non-emergency calls. Non-emergency
calls for the Fire Department are routed to Fire/EMS dispatchers, and non -emergency
calls for the Police Department (a 7-digit line) are routed to a phone tree. The phone tree’s
options are the following:
Dial 2 = Reach a SLC PD detective or officer
Dial 3 = Evidence division
Dial 4 = Records, information on an impound, or copy of report
Dial 5 = County jail or check booking status of inmate
Dial 7 = Report non-emergency crime or incident to a dispatcher, or obtain case n umber
If a caller dials 7, the call goes to the center’s call-takers. Call-takers have the capability
to queue non-emergency calls in order to p rioritize incoming 911 calls, but the non-
emergency calls still take a considerable amount of time: in the 12-month period ending
at the conclusion of August 2017, a total of 433,786 inbound non-emergency calls were
received, totaling 19,132 hours of phone time.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
To address this, the 911 center added a private branch exchange (PBX) phone line which
receives incoming non-emergency calls for the Police Department. The PBX Operator
answers those calls and provides the appropriate assistance to callers. If the PBX
operator is busy or unable to answer, the calls go to the phone tree, as they did previously
before the PBX line was instituted.
(1) The PBX Line Should be Operated to Minimize Non-Emergency Workload on
Call-Takers and Optimize Customer Service.
The PBX line is intended to meet two primary goals:
1) Relieve the workload of call-takers so that they can focus on incoming 911 calls
instead of non-emergency requests, as outlined above.
2) Replace the phone tree with a more responsive, personal option. In instances
when someone calls the police station’s 7-digit line with an emergency, an operator
can get them connected to a dispatcher more quickly than a phone tree. And most
callers appreciate hearing a human voice when they call, particularly if they have
been transferred once or twice already to reach the SLC PD (which is frequently
the case).
To meet these two goals, respectively, the staffing and operations of the PBX line should
be optimized according to the following pair of principles:
• Answer as many incoming non -emergency calls as possible, minimizing the
number that go to the phone tree.
• Provide the best possible customer service possible to callers, answering their
questions and addressing their concerns, whenever possible, witho ut transferring
them to another division.
(2) The PBX Line Is Not Fulfilling Its Purposes.
Currently, the PBX Operator routes many calls to dispatchers, because many who call
the Police Department want to report a non -emergency incident or obtain a case number.
Because the PBX Operators cannot perform these duties, requests of this type must be
passed along to call-takers and dispatchers. This, however, is counterproductive to both
of the position’s goals: it feeds another call directly through to the dis patch floor instead
of removing it from the call-taker workload, and it results in a call transfer rather than
quickly resolving callers’ concerns.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
(3) Non-Emergency Calls Should Be Answered by Trained and Certified
Dispatchers.
In order to meet the goals of the position, PBX Operators would need to be able to take
incident reports, check on the status of cases or missing property, transfer callers to the
appropriate division or external agency, and generally provide them with the help they
need in all non-emergency capacities. This cannot happen currently, because the PBX
Operators are not fully certified dispatchers. In order for non-emergency calls to be
handled in a way that meets the goals of customer service and 911 call-taker availability,
they must be answered by personnel with all the qualifications held by call-takers
currently.
With fully certified dispatchers replacing the PBX operators, the key functions of the role
can be effectively fulfilled. Incoming non-emergency calls will be answered by live
personnel rather than a phone tree, and calls which are currently transferred will instead
be handled by the call-taker answering the call, without the need to interfere with incoming
911 call load. Additionally, they will be better prepared to handle instances when callers
on the 7-digit line are having an emergency.
When non-emergency call-takers are all busy and unavailable to answer an incoming
administrative call, the caller should not be routed to a phone tree. Instead, they should
be placed on hold, with a message like the following:
“Thank you for calling the Salt Lake City Police Department. If this is an
emergency, please hang up and dial 9 -1-1. All staff are busy at the moment; the
next available representative will take your call. If you know your party’s extension,
you may dial it at any time. The estimated wait time for your call to be answered is
___ minutes. If you would prefer a call back when a staff member becomes
available, press XX now. Thank you for your patience!”
This will ensure that overflow non -emergency callers do not use the phone tree to reach
a dispatcher, which would be counterproductive. It will also allow them to quickly reach
their party if they know the correct extension.
Instituting this change will require a number of other changes on the part of the 911
Center:
1) This will require a subset of the call-takers on duty in each shift to be dedicated to
incoming non-emergency calls, only taking emergency calls if all the 911 call-
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
takers are busy and unable to handle them. The number of call-takers needed for
non-emergency calls throughout the day is shown in the staffing analysis chapter
of this report.
2) This will mean an increase in per-position costs, since trained and certified
dispatchers are paid more than a PBX Operator. The $139,500 in annual funding
designated for PBX operators at $13.69 per hour should be re-allocated toward
certified dispatchers at $15.20 per hour. This may mean that the 911 Center can
only have two of these positions instead of three. However, the PBX Operator post
has proven difficult to fill (all three are currently vacant) since most staff would
prefer the pay increase that comes with being a certified dispatcher, so it is likely
that it will be easier to fill two Dispatcher posts than three PBX Operator posts.
3) The use of 911 Center dispatchers to staff the Salt Lake City’s Police Department
non-emergency line may require an adjustment in cost allocation for the service
contract with the City of Sandy, since call-takers working the non-emergency line
do not provide service to Sandy residents while they take 7-digit calls for Salt Lake
City.
Recommendation #1: The 911 Center should eliminate the PBX Operator job
classification position and instead use trained and certified dispatchers to handle
incoming non-emergency call volume.
4. CAD/RMS Functionality
The 911 Center’s current CAD system, Versadex, includes mobile access for emergency
personnel in the field. In addition to receiving dispatch instructions over the radio, law
enforcement officers are able to view the details of a CAD case on their vehicle -mounted
screens in order to gather as much information as possible.
When asked about the reliability of the system and the level of service it enables them to
provide, employees of the 911 Center gave very positive re sponses. On a scale of 1-4,
with 1 being poor and 4 being excellent, the vast majority of respondents rated Versadex
as a 3 or 4. See the following:
Employees Rated Versadex CAD/RMS
Highly in Terms of Reliability and Service Level
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
System 4 3 2 1
Versadex CAD - Reliability 23% 56% 14% 7%
Versadex CAD - Service Level 24% 59% 11% 6%
Versadex RMS - Reliability 28% 58% 11% 4%
Versadex RMS - Service Level 28% 52% 17% 4%
One issue with the system exists with the visibility currently afforded to field staff: law
enforcement officers are not able to view fire and EMS calls in their mobile Versadex
display, and vice versa. Each agency has access only to the CAD cases generated for
their agency, and the two are not integrated to provide visibility between the fire and police
departments. Because active officers in the patrol division are frequently called upon to
provide support to fire and EMS units, allowing field officers to see the nature of calls as
they occur is beneficial to allow them to arrive on scene as quickly as possible to stabi lize
citizens in need of medical attention or ensure traffic access for fire engines and
apparatus.
As the 911 Center moves toward the implementation of a new CAD/RMS system, this
issue should be addressed so that patrol staff are able to view Fire/EMS ca lls in real time
and optimize the support they provide.
Recommendation #2: The 911 Bureau should ensure that the Center’s new
CAD/RMS allows patrol officers to view Fire/EMS calls as they occur in order to
optimize the level of support they provide.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
5. Priority Dispatch Software
During the course of the study, indeed one of the major initial impetuses for the
engagement, is the use of Priority Dispatch (ProQA) software used during the call-taking
process for fire, emergency medical, and police call for service contacts.
During our interview process, and reiterated during Steering Committee sessions, s ome
dispatch staff and many (patrol) field staff believe that the Priority Dispatch ProQA system
hinders the level of service that the Center is able to provide to officers in the field and by
association the emergency requestor. Those who hold this sentiment believe that the
rigidity of ProQA inhibits call-takers’ ability to interact with callers using common sense,
quickly obtain and relay the most vital information, and correctly determine the level of
priority for calls.
These qualitative observations and further supported by confidential survey information
completed by the four public safety customers to the 911 Bureau. Based upon an open-
ended question of issues, the following table shows the most common response themes
by responding agency. This table demonstrates ProQA is an important issue for police
agencies.
SLC FD SLC PD SANDY FD SANDY PD
Technology ProQA Coordination between PSAPs Dispatch information
Call coding system Dispatch information Data tracking Distinction between agencies
Dispatch information Efficient dispatching Dispatch information Accuracy
Employee turnover Understanding of field ops Automated "Siri" Voice ProQA
Channel assignments Agency of dispatchers Technology Understanding of field ops
Attitude of Improvement Staffing Training
Automated "Siri" Voice
Moreover, in the confidential employee survey, we asked respondents to rate each of the
primary technology systems in use by the 911 Center in terms of the level of service they
allow and the reliability of the system. Ratings were given on a scale of 1 -4, with 4 being
excellent. The table below shows how employees rated each system. Notably, Priority
Dispatch ProQA received a poor score.
System 4 3 2 1
Versadex CAD - Reliability 23% 56% 14% 7%
Versadex CAD - Service Level 24% 59% 11% 6%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
Versadex RMS - Reliability 28% 58% 11% 4%
Versadex RMS - Service Level 28% 52% 17% 4%
Priority Dispatch ProQA - Reliability 18% 38% 25% 18%
Priority Dispatch ProQA - Service Level 17% 28% 28% 26%
Intrado Phone System - Reliability 16% 25% 30% 29%
Intrado Phone System - Service Level 10% 29% 27% 35%
Motorola Radios - Reliability 42% 38% 15% 6%
Motorola Radios - Service Level 39% 37% 18% 6%
These ProQA observations by Center staff and their internal customers might suggest a
potential impediment to service delivery, but this is not the case when dealing with the
emergency callers. Indeed, positive responses from external customers suggest that the
ProQA software is not an issue with respect to 911 call-taker performance as evidenced
by the following responses:
• According to the survey of 911 service requestors, 90% strongly agreed or agreed
that the 911 call-taker was knowledgeable; only 4% disagreed.
• According to the survey of 911 service requestors, 92% strongly agreed or agreed
that the 911 call-taker asked relevant and appropriate questions. This reflects
directly on the ProQA script-based software. Only 4% disagreed.
Finally, the ProQA software does not appear to be an impediment related to internal
processing. The time elapsed between a call being taken and sent to a dispatcher for
processing is, on average, minimal, and consistent with best practice guidelines. The
following table demonstrates such elapsed time.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
Median Number of Seconds Before Call Information Sent to Dispatcher
CALL RECEIVED to QUEUE (seconds)
Police 41
Fire 30
Medical 32
Whereas many public safety service providers are not proponents of the ProQA software,
this perception does not translate into a customer service issue for the customer
requesting emergency services.
The Center has understood some of the perceptions ass ociated with the ProQA
implementation and as such has modified certain quality control and quality assurance
approaches related to this software. Recently, the 911 Bureau has provided the
department with Standard Operating Guidelines that gives call takers the ability to alter
the script as long as they still obtain the necessary information from the call. They are
required to listen to the caller and are only given lower compliance scores when they have
to re-ask obvious questions.
In summary, the standardization of call-taking protocols have been commonplace for
years in the fire and emergency medical dispatch field and is now becoming more
prevalent in the law enforcement field. As such, irrespective of the vendor software used,
the 911 Bureau should continue to use standardized script questioning approaches,
whether or not the ProQA software is the vendor of choice. Consistent with this, on -going
training should be provided to ensure consistent use of the product.
Recommendation #3: The 911 Bureau should continue to use script -based
software, such as ProQA, to help ensure consistent questioning of 911 callers and
support the optimization of customer service. Initial and on-going refresher
training should be provided on such software, with expectations of call -takers
clearly delineated as part of the quality assurance and quality control process, to
help facilitate the best call-taking experience.
6. Radio Functionality
The 911 Center’s radio system is used by dispatchers to communicate with public safety
responders in the field. Dispatch pods are equipped with Motorola consoles as well as a
backup switchboard. Police dispatchers primarily use two channels for Salt Lake City and
one for Sandy, while Fire/EMS dispatchers use one main channel for Salt Lake City and
one for Sandy. A service channel is also staffed at all times.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
In addition to the Salt Lake City and Sandy public safety channels, the 911 Center also
monitors a shared Salt Lake metro area inter-agency channel, as well as a Salt Lake
Regional radio channel operated by the State highway Patrol.
When asked about the reliability of the 911 Center’s radio equipment and the level of
service it enables them to provide, employees of the 911 Center gave very posi tive
responses. On a scale of 1-4, with 1 being poor and 4 being excellent, the vast majority
of respondents rated the current equipment as a 3 or 4. See the following:
Employees Rated the Motorola Radio Equipment
Highly in Terms of Reliability and Service Level
System 4 3 2 1
Motorola Radios - Reliability 42% 38% 15% 6%
Motorola Radios - Service Level 39% 37% 18% 6%
The radio technology and configuration in use by the 911 Center meets the needs of the
agency and its public safety partners. It allows dispatchers to communicate clearly and
efficiently with field staff, utilize tactical channels as necessary, and monitor activity
throughout the region. Police and Fire agencies raised no complaints about the radios,
and staff rate them highly. The project team sees this as a strength, and no
recommendation is made regarding this technology.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 22
3 Staffing
The following chapter represents the project team’s assessment of staffing needs at the
911 Center, including a quantitative analysis of dispatch and call-taking personnel,
supervisory staff, and support positions. It also includes considerations related to
overtime utilization, personnel leave, and employee turnover.
1. Dispatch and Call-Taker Staffing Analysis
The following section of this chapter analyzes the staffing needs for Call-takers and Police
and Fire/EMS dispatchers in light of the 911 Center’s workload volume. Call volume,
radio, and CAD data provided by the 911 Center are utilized to determine the number of
positions needed in each pod, hour by hour. Additionally, our quantitative models account
for employee leave and turnover rates to produce a calculation of the number of positions
needed to meet daily staffing needs. Expanded explanation of the staffing models can be
found in Appendix E.
(1) The 911 Center’s Current Schedule Requires 79.5 Filled Positions to Staff.
The following table, provided by the 911 Center to the project team, show the number of
staff assigned to Police dispatch, Fire/EMS dispatch, and call-taking throughout the week.
These are known as fixed post positions, since they are intended to be occupied
irrespective of workload.
Hours Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
7-11 PD 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 4 5 5 5 5 5 4
Total 11 13 13 13 13 13 12
11-15 PD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 5 7 7 7 7 7 6
Total 14 16 16 16 16 16 15
15-17 PD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 8 8 9 9 9 9 8
Total 17 17 18 18 18 18 17
17-19 PD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
Hours Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
CT 6 6 7 7 7 7 6
Total 15 15 16 16 16 16 15
19-23 PD 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 6 6 6 6 6 8 7
Total 14 15 15 15 15 17 16
23-03 PD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 4 4 4 4 4 5 5
Total 12 12 12 12 12 13 13
03-07 PD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
This schedule results in a total of 2,304 hours per week of fixed -post staffing which must
be filled; 1,632 hours for police dispatchers and call-takers, and 672 hours for Fire/EMS
positions. Multiplied by the 52.14 weeks in each year, this equates to 120,131 fixed -post
hours per year which must be filled. Given the net availability of staff (see Appendix E),
this will require 79.5 filled positions, which would be an increase of 6% from the cur rent
allocation of 75 positions.
(2) Dispatch Workload Necessitates 15 Fire/EMS Dispatchers and 25 Law
Enforcement Dispatchers.
The project team uses a staffing model known as the APCO RETAINS model to determine
the number of staff needed for a given workload volume. The model accounts for time
spent processing calls on the telephone, over the radio and in the CAD system. It also
accounts for net availability. This calculation has been applied to each hour of the day
and day of the week in the following tables. These tables show the number of dispatchers
needed at a 50% agent occupancy rate, as outlined in Appendix E.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
FIRE/EMS POLICE
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12a 3 3 3 4 4 5 6
1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 5 6
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4
3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 2 3 3 3 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
8 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 8 4 4 5 5 5 4 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 9 5 5 5 5 5 4 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 10 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
12p 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 12p 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
13 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 13 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
14 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 14 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
15 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 15 6 6 5 5 5 5 4
16 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 16 6 6 6 6 6 5 5
17 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 17 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 5 6 5 5 5 5 5
19 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 19 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
22 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 22 5 6 5 6 6 6 5
23 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 23 4 5 5 5 6 6 5
• The model above takes into account the various elements of dispatcher workload
(radio, phone, CAD, refresh time, etc.) and ensures that the agent occupancy rate
does not exceed 50% in any hour of the week (in most cases, the occupancy rate
falls far below that level).
• The model’s results require significantly fewer dispatcher hours per week than the
current staffing model in use; the model above produces a total of 723 Police
dispatch hours per week and 421 Fire/EMS dispatch hours per week , a total
decrease of 148 hours per week.
• While a number of factors (the logistics of shift staffing, the need for dispatchers
on dedicated channels, or a policy to always have more than one dispatcher
available in each pod) may prevent the 911 Center from aligning dispatch levels to
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
the level outlined in this model, it should be used as a baseline for the number of
dispatchers needed throughout the week.
The following table shows the number of filled and authorized positions which are
required, based on the net availability and current average turnover rates of staff, to meet
the staffing requirements provided by the model.
Police Fire/EMS
Total Dispatch Hours Per Week 723 421
Total Dispatch Hours Per Year 37,726 21,968
Annual Net Availability 1,519 1,493
Total Filled Positions Needed 24.8 14.7
Turnover Rate Per Year 22% 22%
Total Authorized Positions Needed 31.7 18.9
As the table shows, the 911 Center’s staffing should accommodate the need for 14.7
Fire/EMS dispatchers and 24.8 Police dispatcher/call-takers, both at a 22% average
annual turnover rate. This would result in 18.9 Fire/EMS dispatchers and 31.7 Police
Dispatcher/Call-Takers.
(3) Incoming Phone Call Volume Necessitates 37 Staff to Handle Emergency and
Non-Emergency Calls.
The ability to quickly answer the phone is absolutely vital to any 911 operation. Based on
data provided by the project team, the following tables show the rate of 911 and non-
emergency calls per hour for each hour of the week.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
Emergency Calls Per Hour Non-Emergency Calls Per Hour
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 11.3 10.2 10.5 11.7 12.7 19.0 22.1 12a 21.6 22.6 23.6 23.4 27.4 36.5 34.9
1a 9.4 9.6 9.2 9.1 10.6 17.9 20.6 1a 17.2 18.5 19.7 19.2 22.0 30.5 29.2
2a 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.9 9.4 13.1 15.3 2a 13.7 13.9 15.3 14.3 17.3 21.8 23.7
3a 6.8 6.6 6.4 7.3 7.0 9.6 10.9 3a 10.5 10.8 12.3 13.1 12.5 15.1 18.0
4a 6.8 6.4 7.2 7.1 6.8 7.2 9.0 4a 10.8 9.7 11.3 11.3 12.1 12.8 15.1
5a 7.7 7.2 7.1 6.6 8.1 6.6 8.8 5a 14.8 12.5 13.1 13.5 14.5 13.0 13.3
6a 10.1 10.7 10.0 9.3 10.4 7.2 8.4 6a 21.9 21.5 22.2 23.9 20.8 15.7 12.3
7a 15.0 15.9 14.3 14.5 14.5 9.4 8.9 7a 40.7 43.1 42.4 41.0 38.3 25.6 19.1
8a 19.0 18.8 18.4 20.0 20.5 13.3 11.2 8a 65.6 64.3 59.9 64.5 60.9 41.7 31.5
9a 21.3 21.7 21.7 21.3 20.3 19.4 13.1 9a 76.5 74.3 74.9 73.9 72.6 52.1 38.3
10a 22.0 22.7 23.1 22.8 23.1 20.6 17.6 10a 78.8 77.8 75.3 73.8 74.4 58.8 43.1
11a 24.6 24.6 24.0 24.2 25.7 22.8 18.2 11a 79.9 78.1 77.7 72.3 77.4 63.5 47.9
12p 24.0 25.3 25.5 25.0 28.3 26.5 20.0 12p 73.5 74.4 81.4 74.5 77.3 65.5 50.3
1p 26.1 27.2 30.3 27.3 28.1 27.1 20.7 1p 84.7 85.0 89.0 85.5 82.9 69.2 49.9
2p 27.1 29.0 28.0 28.4 32.3 28.5 21.5 2p 89.7 89.6 93.5 83.6 86.4 67.0 49.6
3p 30.8 29.4 32.9 32.6 36.4 26.1 22.7 3p 94.6 98.2 99.2 89.9 88.9 64.8 49.4
4p 29.3 31.8 33.0 29.2 30.4 24.6 21.0 4p 91.3 99.3 93.9 90.7 88.4 59.9 47.6
5p 28.7 30.9 34.5 32.7 32.4 27.7 22.1 5p 81.2 84.3 86.1 82.9 81.8 55.2 45.4
6p 26.4 27.9 30.8 28.6 30.9 28.4 20.5 6p 64.6 69.6 69.0 68.6 68.1 51.6 43.3
7p 23.1 24.4 24.5 24.7 27.2 25.6 22.1 7p 57.4 61.4 62.0 59.8 60.2 50.1 44.5
8p 21.9 21.1 25.0 25.8 24.7 25.3 21.0 8p 49.4 51.8 56.3 58.1 52.5 50.2 42.3
9p 21.1 23.8 21.9 22.7 27.1 24.2 19.8 9p 47.7 48.2 51.1 52.5 54.2 49.4 40.1
10p 17.5 19.2 19.1 20.2 23.6 26.8 18.1 10p 38.8 43.3 44.2 46.4 52.7 47.6 36.8
11p 14.5 14.9 14.5 17.6 20.3 23.6 13.1 11p 27.2 31.2 32.9 36.3 43.2 44.4 28.7
As the table shows, call volume for both emergency and non -emergency calls fluctuates
throughout the week, peaking during weekday afternoons. These call volume tables are
used to calculate the number of call-takers needed.
• The Erlang staffing model (see Appendix E for more information) relies on the
volume of incoming calls per hour as a baseline from which to calculate necessary
staffing. Accounting for the volume of calls and the average duration of calls (133
seconds at SLC911), it ensures that enough staff are present to meet the Agency’s
standard of service. This requires that 95% of emergency calls be answered within
10 seconds, and 99% of calls answered within 40 seconds.
• The model also provides enough staff to handle incoming non -emergency call
volume, in replacement of the PBX Operator positions which we have
recommended for elimination.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
• Additionally, the model’s results ensure that call-takers under this model can
typically expect to have at least 23 minutes free in each hour of the week to
decompress, make outbound calls, and take care of tasks other than receiving
incoming calls.
The results of the model are shown in the following table:
Call-Taker Staffing – Emergency and Non-Emergency Combined
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 4 4 5 5 5 6 6
1a 4 4 4 4 4 6 6
2a 4 4 4 4 4 4 6
3a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6a 4 4 4 5 4 4 4
7a 5 6 5 5 5 5 4
8a 7 7 7 7 7 5 5
9a 8 8 8 8 8 7 5
10a 8 8 8 8 8 7 6
11a 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
12p 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
1p 8 8 9 8 8 8 7
2p 8 9 9 8 9 8 7
3p 10 10 10 9 9 7 7
4p 10 10 10 10 9 7 7
5p 9 9 9 9 9 7 7
6p 7 8 9 9 9 7 6
7p 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
8p 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
9p 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
10p 6 6 6 7 7 7 6
11p 5 5 5 6 6 6 5
Based on the model above, a weekly total of 1,083 call-taker hours are needed to provide
required service levels. Given the existing call-taker staffing levels of 912 hours per week,
this represents an increase of 171 hours per week, or 19%.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
The following table shows the filled and authorized positions which will be needed to staff
call-taking positions at the optimal level according to the model’s results, based on the
net availability and current turnover rates of staff.
Call-Takers
Total Call-Taker Hours Per Week 1,083
Total Call-Taker Hours Per Year 56,468
Annual Net Availability 1,519
Total Filled Positions Needed 37.2
Turnover Rate Per Year 22%
Total Authorized Positions Needed 47.7
As the table shows, this results in a total of 37.2 positions which should be filled, and 47.7
positions which should be authorized to account for staff turnover.
(4) The 911 Center Has Nearly Enough Staff Currently to Meet Workload
Demand, and Should Authorize Additional Positions to Account for
Turnover.
The following table provides a summary of the current schedule’s hourly staffing needs,
as well as the results of our modeling for hourly staffing and total filled and authorized
positions for each position.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
Current Proposed Percent Change
Weekly Hours 2,304 2,227 -3.3%
Police Dispatch 720 723 0.4%
Fire/EMS Dispatch 672 421 -37.4%
Call-Taker 912 1,083 18.8%
Filled Positions 74.0 76.7 3.6%
Police Dispatch/Call-Taker 54.0 62.0 14.8%
Fire/EMS Dispatch 20.0 14.7 -26.5%
Authorized Positions 75.0 98.32 31.2%
Police Dispatch/Call-Taker 55.0 79.4 44.5%
Fire/EMS Dispatch 20.0 18.9 -5.5%
The following points are relevant regarding this table and call-taker and dispatcher staffing
analysis at a broad level:
• The proposed 76.7 filled positions can meet the proposed weekly workload of
2,227 total scheduled hours while working 1,513 hours per year, which is in line
with historical leave utilization rates for the agency.
• The agency’s current authorized dispatcher staffing of 75 positions (74 of which
are filled) is very close to the recommended figure of 76.7 staff required to
accommodate existing workloads.
• The proposed authorized strength of 98.3 positions considers the rate of staff
turnover over the last three years, which averages 22% annually. This ensures that
the agency can hire and train new staff to replace departed employees without an
unsustainable increase in workload.
• If the 911 Center finds that improved training methodologies allow new staff to
become available over a 6-month cycle rather than a full year, then a turnover rate
of 11% could be used to project authorized strength thereby reducing the 98
authorized staff positions recommended.
The hourly rate for a new dispatcher is $15.20 per hour. Applying the average benefits
rate of 42% and 7.65% FICA to that rate at 2,080 hours per year results in an annual cost
of about $47,500 for each new hire. Increasing from 74 existing to 77 (76.7) positions
2 47.7 authorized call-taking staff + 31.7 authorized police dispatch staff + 18.9 authorized fire/EMS staff based on
workloads as shown in prior tables.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
required for workload would result in an estimated expenditure of $142,500. The
recommended increase in authorized positions to 98 would not impact real expenditures,
since it is anticipated that only 77 would be filled at a given time as a consequence of on-
going staff turnover. In effect, the authorized staffing level allows for effective continuous
recruitment without concern for reaching a staff “ceiling.”
Recommendation 4: The 911 Center should authorize 98 Dispatcher/Call-Taker
positions to meet staffing needs for both emergency and non -emergency call
volume, which includes the PBX workstation, while accounting for 22% annual
turnover.
Recommendation 5: The 911 Center should increase the number of authorized
Police Dispatcher/Call-Taker positions to 79.
Recommendation 6: The 911 Center should reduce authorized Fire/EMS
Dispatcher/Call-Taker positions to 19.
2. Supervisory Staffing
The 911 Center’s policy for supervisory staffing is to have one supervisor on the floor
throughout the day, with an additional supervisor for six hours during peak volume.
Supervisors oversee line staff, troubleshoot issues when possible, and fill in as call-takers
or dispatchers as necessary. Currently, the Bureau has ten full-time filled Supervisor
positions. The project team’s evaluation of supervisor staffing needs is contained in the
bullet points and table:
• To meet the fixed supervisor posts requirements, 30 hours per day must be filled
(a full 24-hour day at one post, with 25% of a day [6 hours] at an additional post).
This results in a total of 10,950 supervisor hours which must be worked each year.
• Given the annual net availability of 1,519 hours, a total of 7.2 filled supervisor
positions will be required to meet this workload.
• Turnover could influence staffing levels of supervisors as with other line positions.
However, given these could be filled almost immediately through promotion, a
turnover factor is not considered here.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
TITLE TITLE
Hours Per Year 8,760
Supervisor Posts 1.25
Annual Supervisor Hours 10,950
Net Availability 1,519
Filled Supervisor Positions 7.2
Based on these calculations, the 911 Center only needs to fill 7.2 Supervisor positions to
meet their staffing requirements. Since one supervisor has significant administrative
duties, the figure should be rounded up to eight, which represents a marked decrease
from the current ten supervisors. While the Bureau may decide that ten supervisor s are
preferred, this number is not be necessary to ensure minimum supervisory staffing levels
are met.
Supervisors at the salary midpoint make $29.34 per hour. Adding the agency average
42% benefits and 7.65% FICA rate to an assumed 2,080 hours per year at the midpoint
wage yields about $91,500 per employee. The reduction of two supervisor positions will
thus result in savings of about $183,000.
Recommendation 7: The 911 Center should eliminate two Supervisor positions by
promotion or attrition, bringing the total to 8. One of these supervisors will still be
an Administrative Supervisor.
3. Management and Support Staffing
The managerial and supporting positions for the 911 Bureau are composed of six
positions as reflected in the organizational structure below.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
Managerial and Support Staff Positions and Reporting Relationship
The roles and responsibilities of these staff as reflected in the profile in the appendix of
this report, and the number of staff dedicated to such efforts, is consistent with common
practice in agencies of this size. At issue is the reporting relationship s, which are
discussed in a section dedicated to organizational structure later in this report . In
summary, no changes to the number of management and support staffing positions are
recommended.
Recommendation 8: Maintain management and support staffing in the 911 Bureau
consisting of 1 Executive Director, 1 Deputy Director, 1 Administrative Assistant, 1
Administrative Supervisor and 2 Operations Managers for a total of 6 positions of
these classifications.
4. Overtime Utilization
The project team reviewed overtime data made available by staff to determine the cost of
overtime and evaluate whether the current overtime practices are efficient as opposed to
hiring more full-time staff.
Executive
Director
(1)
Deputy Director
(1)
Operations
Manager
(2)
Administrative
Supervisor
(1)
Administrative
Assistant
(1)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
(1) Overtime Considerations
Overtime analysis involves balancing the needs of the agency, its employees, and its
customers. This must be done in a way that ensures the risk of insufficient staffing or
employee burnout is minimized to with an acceptable level. In determining whether
overtime is used in an appropriate and cost-effective manner, a series of considerations
must be made. These are:
• Is current overtime utilization reasonable? Some overtime can reasonably be
expected in shift-based professions such as dispatching, and many staff look
forward to overtime as an opportunity to increase their income. When overtime
rises to exceed 10% of salary, however, the risk of burnout becomes unjustifiable.
• Are the major causes of overtime appropriate? For example, an agency which
plans to offer a certain level of overtime and does so acts appropriately, as
opposed to an agency which is forced into unforeseen or mandatory overtime due
to excessive staff turnover, poor scheduling, or personnel absences.
• What is the incremental cost of overtime, and how does it compare to the
incremental cost of regular time for a full-time employee?
Based on these considerations, it can be determined whether overtime is cost effective
and optimally balanced compared to existing staffing levels.
(2) Overtime Utilization is Within Control, and Mandatory Overtime Has Been
Reduced Dramatically.
The following table shows the agency’s total volume of overtime and mandatory o vertime
(in hours) in each of the last three years, as well as in 2018 until July 24 th.
Year Overtime Mandatory OT
2015 11,600 1,881
2016 13,131 1,239
2017 11,351 1,042
2018 10,327 26
Overtime utilization as a whole has dropped over the last three years, with the 10,327
hours in 2018 marking a 21% drop from the 2016 high. More striking, however, is the
drastic reduction – nearly complete elimination – of mandatory overtime in 2018. This is
due to a change in policy which sought to limit the use of mandatory overtime by having
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
on-duty supervisors cover missed shifts rather than forcing overtime. From the total of 26
mandatory overtime hours worked in 2018, it is clear that the policy was effective. Based
on these figures, the use of overtime at the 911 Center appears to be appropriate and
within the agency’s control.
(3) Overtime Analysis Suggests that the 911 Center’s 2018 Overtime Utilizat ion
Presents an Effective Ongoing Policy.
In analyzing whether overtime utilization levels are reasonable, the cost of both overtime
and non-overtime personnel expenditures must be accounted for in order to determine a)
whether the cost of overtime composes an outsized proportion of overall personnel
spending, and b) how the incremental costs of overtime and regular time compare.
The following table shows key salary, overtime, and benefit expenditures from budget
data provided by the 911 Center for 2017. Total salaries amounted to $3,990,254 and
total benefits amounted to $1,677,053, for a benefit rate of 42.0%.
Expenditure Line Item Amount
Personnel Salaries - All Staff $ 3,990,254
Overtime Expenditures - All Staff $ 461,002
Personnel Salaries - Operations Staff Only $ 3,061,463
Overtime Expenditures - Operations Staff Only $ 439,435
Total Benefits - Retirement, Insurance, 401k, Etc. $ 1,677,053
Total Benefit Rate on Personnel Salaries 42.0%
With 67 operations staff employed at the 911 Center in 2017, and 2,080 hours paid for
each employee, the average annual salary amounts to $45,693, an hourly rate of $21.97.
See the following table:
Personnel Salaries - Operations Staff Only $ 3,061,463
2017 Operations Staff 67
Average Annual Salary $ 45,693
Annual Hours Scheduled 2,080
Base Hourly Rate $ 21.97
With this information, a calculation can be made to determine the incremental cost of each
hour of straight time and overtime.
• Straight time involves the Base Hourly Rate with benefits and FICA contributions
added to achieve a fully burdened hourly rate. This is not the full cost of an hour
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
worked, however; because of scheduled and unscheduled leave, an employee will
get paid their full salary but will not work 2,080 hours per year. By example,
operations staff at the 911 Bureau average about 1,519 work hours per year (their
Net Availability), and the remaining hours must be covered when they are absent.
Therefore, the cost to cover one FTE of 2,808 hours exceeds the cost of salary
and benefits alone.
• Overtime multiplies the Base Hourly Rate by the overtime rate of 1.5, with FICA
contributions added (since these costs accrue based on wages earned) but not
additional benefits (since insurance, retirement, and other benefits are accrued
irrespective of overtime earnings).
The following table shows the incremental costs of straight time and overtime.
Straight Time Overtime
Hourly Rate (Overtime rate is 1.5 regular time) $ 21.97 $ 32.95
Benefit Cost (42.0%) $ 9.23 $ -
FICA Contribution (7.65%) $ 1.68 $ 2.52
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate $ 32.88 $ 35.47
Net Availability (1,519 hrs) as % of 2,080 Scheduled Hours 73%
Incremental Cost Per Hour Worked $ 45.03 $ 35.47
As the table shows, the incremental cost of overtime is significantly (21%) less than the
incremental cost of straight time. This suggests that the Bureau is best served fiscally by
using overtime as much as possible, up to a reasonable level.
The following table is compiled using data provided by the 911 Cent er. It shows overtime
expenditures for operations staff over the last three years compared to salary
expenditures for operations staff during those years.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
Year OT Paid Ops Salaries Total Wages
OT Paid as %
of Total Wages
2015 $ 664,055 $2,583,127 $3,247,182 20%
2016 $ 491,490 $2,759,603 $3,251,093 15%
2017 $ 439,435 $3,061,463 $3,500,898 13%
As the table shows, overtime wages have exceeded 10% of total wages in each of the
last three years, although that trend is diminishing. The following table shows the
maximum amount of annual overtime which should be offered in order to achieve
overtime expenditures that compose less than 10% of base salary expenditures,
assuming that overtime wages average $33 per hou r (rounded from the $32.95 in the
calculations prior), and that base Operations staff salaries total $3.2 million without
overtime.
Base Salaries $3,200,000
Target Overtime % of Total Wages 10%
Target Total Wages $3,555,556
Target Overtime Wages $ 355,556
Overtime Base Hourly Rate $ 33.00
Target Overtime Hours 10,774
The 911 Bureau should seek to use overtime, as previously stated, but keep overtime
within reasonable limits.
• This figure of 10,774 hours would be reasonable under budgeted personnel
salaries of $3.2 million, which is aligned with the likely trend of recent years.
• This figure of 10,774 hours would result in 140 hours of annual overtime for each
dispatcher if the recommended staffing levels of 77 total dispatchers and call-
takers are implemented.
The agency worked 10,353 total hours of overtime in 2018, suggesting that overtime has
likely been reined in to reasonable levels. The Bureau should monitor overtime utilization
and seek to keep it within this range over the coming years.
Recommendation 9: The 911 Center should use overtime at similar levels to 2018,
minimizing mandatory overtime while offering voluntary overtime up to a
reasonable limit of about 10,500 hours per year.
4 Management and Oversight
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
The following chapter represents the project team’s analysis of management practices
and the oversight and governance structure of the 911 Center, including the involvement
of stakeholders, the Bureau’s organizational structure, the management of service
contracts and associated cost allocations, and various aspects of strategic planning
including public education, recruitment, and retention.
1. Oversight Mechanisms
In order to help facilitate the executive management of the 911 Bureau, a committee of
three executive managers, to include the SLC911 Executive Director, Police Chief and
Fire Chief, reports directly to the Mayor’s Chief of Staff. While these positions are
equivalent as they are all department-heads, based on information provided they appear
to operate where the Executive Director is essentially subordinate to her public safety
chief “customers.” This situation has likely been exacerbated by the fact the Bureau has
a long history of reporting to different public safety functions in the City, as opposed to
being its own independent department.
With respect to effective oversight of emergency and non -emergency communications
delivery, all parties reporting to the Mayor’s Office should be perceived and interacted
with as equivalent executives. No “department-head” should be placed in an actual or
perceived role as subordinate to another. Re -framing the committee with this dynamic
will potentially shift decision-making, giving the 911 Bureau Executive Director equal
authority and gravitas in delivering the best public safety product possible.
Recommendation 10: Ensure the public safety committee composed of the police
and fire chiefs and 911 Bureau Director all report directly to the Mayor’s Chief of
Staff. No position in this committee should be subordinate to others vis -à-vis
decision-making authority.
2. Organizational Structure
The following section explores the 911 Bureau’s organizational structure, examining its
benefits and drawbacks for optimizing performance, and analyzing its compliance with
professionally accepted concepts such as: unity of command; span of control; and the
logical grouping of activities, functions, and organizational components. The current state
of the organization is considered, and recommendations are offered for improving its
structure to better support the activities of the Bureau.
(1) Guiding Principles for Organizational Structures
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
The purpose of an organizational structure is not only to provide the traditional command
and control of an agency, but also to help define job duties and responsibilities, ensure
efficient and effective workflow, establish a reporting hierarchy, and ultimately determine
appropriate lines of authority and accountability. To accomplish this, the design of an
organizational structure and placement of employees within the organization should be
established on general principles that provide the organizational cohesion necessary to
accomplish the primary mission of the agency, in this case, the 911 Bureau. These
organizational principles include:
• Responsibility & Authority: A structure must have clear lines of responsibility to
accomplish the mission and goals of the organization; and the authority within the
organization to manage assigned operations to accomplish the organizational
mission and stated goals.
• Accountability: A structure that provides clear lines of accountability among
management and supervisory staff. While this is highly dependent upon the
individuals assigned to the functions, the organizational structure itself should
facilitate, and not impede, general supervision of employees and the daily
performance of an organization.
• Complementary Functions: Like functions are grouped together to support
regular interaction for planning and scheduling approaches and for effective
service delivery.
• Coordination of Work Efforts: The organizational structure should facilitate
communication and working relationships among staff and work units. Many
functions need close or indirect alignment in order to maximize efficiency and
effectiveness. The structure should also provide easy identification of job function
to people outside the organization, including other government partners and user
agencies.
• Degree of Organizational Risk: This relates to how much risk a function incurs
if an activity is not performed or is performed poorly. Risk might involve operations,
consequence of error, or service level concerns. Generally, higher risk functions
have closer management oversight.
• Degree of Public Scrutiny: This factor is concerned with the degree to which
public attention is routinely paid to a given activity. Activities with potentially high
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
public scrutiny, such as a communications center, are best performed under closer
supervision.
• Supervisor & Management Span of Control: This relates to whether
supervisors are fully devoted to overseeing a select few primary activities or a
broader set of duties and responsibilities. Appropriate spans of control are related
to both the number of staff directly supervised as well as the complexity of activities
overseen.
• Degree of Centralization: The geographic or physical dispersal of functions also
relates to supervisory and management requirements – the greater the level of
physical decentralization, the greater the number of managers and/or supervisors
are generally required.
The following sections evaluate the 911 Center’s organizational structure in light of these
guiding principles.
(2) Summary of Current Organizational Structure
The following organizational chart has been developed to reflect the existing chain of
command in the organization; it is shown here:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
Current Organizational Structure
*includes operations (9) and administrative (1) supervisors.
As the chart shows, the Bureau is currently led by an Executive Director who oversees
the activities of the Deputy Director. This Deputy Director oversees the Operations
Managers who supervise the activities of the dispatch floor, as well as the Administrative
Supervisor who manages training, recruitment, and the professional activities of the
Center not related to call-taking and dispatch operations.
(3) Strengths of Current Structure
The existing organizational structure exhibits a number of strengths which allow for
effective accountability, coordination of effort, and risk management in accordance with
the previously outlined guiding principles:
• The span of control at the Operations Manager level is 4.5 (two Operations
Managers overseeing 9 Supervisors). This level of oversight responsibility strikes
a balance between efficiency and manageability. If the number of supervisors is
increased according with staffing recommendations in this report, the span of
control will still remain within the optimal range of 3 to 8 direct reports.
Executive
Director
(1)
Deputy Director
(1)
Operations
Manager
(2)
Supervisor*
(10)
Police Dispatch/
Call Taker
(54, 1 vacant)
Fire Dispatch/ Call
Taker
(20)
PBX Operator
(3 vacant)
Administrative
Assistant
(1)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 41
• The current staffing arrangement of one fixed supervisor post at all times and an
additional supervisor during peak volume ensures that the span of control does not
exceed 9 during the Center’s busiest hour (18 call-takers and dispatchers).
• Operations staff are overseen by dedicated operations management, and their
functions are effectively grouped within the organizational structure.
In summary, the operations function of the Bureau is well-organized and provided with an
appropriate amount of managerial supervision .
(4) Recommendations to Improve Existing Structure
While it exhibits a number of strengths, the organizational structure of the Bureau can
also be improved. Specifically, the Bureau’s organizational structure is hierarchical,
including a 1:1 reporting relationship between the Director and the Deputy Direct or. Ideal
spans of control at the top of an organization should be in the range of 3 -5, with
supervisors at lower levels having broader responsibility over more staff. The Director has
only the Deputy as a direct report, and the Deputy position has only th e two Operations
Managers as direct reports.
The organizational structure should be adjusted so that the Director manages the
Operations Managers directly. This will be better aligned with the practices of good
organizational management, and it will place the Director in an immediate supervisory
capacity for the staff who oversee 911 operations on a daily basis. In reality, the Director’s
role already involves a significant amount of interaction with staff at all levels of the
organization; adjusting the organizational structure to be less hierarchical will simply
reflect the high degree of access to the Director that staff throughout the agency already
have.
While the Deputy Director should not directly supervise Operations Managers, the
position is valuable to the Bureau. The Deputy Director’s knowledge and expertise are
important for succession planning purposes and allow the position to be used in a
versatile role, handling special projects, troubleshooting staffing and operational issues,
developing public programming, assisting with high -level administrative tasks, and
serving as a liaison to other City departments and outside agencies. The position should
continue to report to the Executive Director.
The proposed revised organizational structure is shown in the following diagram:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 42
Proposed Organizational Structure
*includes operations (9) and administrative (1) supervisors.
Recommendation 11: The 911 Center should eliminate 1:1 reporting relationships
and flatten the organizational structure so that the Executive Director supervises
the Deputy Director and Operations Managers.
3. Strategic Planning
With respect to strategic planning, the 911 Bureau has an aged plan that needs to be
updated. More importantly, however, all public safety strategic plans should be
developed simultaneously, and in concert with one another, to ensure the appropriate
alignment of vision, mission, goals, objectives and relevant performance measures.
Recommendation 12: When updating the 911 Bureau strategic plan, accomplish
this in concert with the development of police and fire strategic planning efforts.
4. Employee Performance Management
Performance management is the ongoing process of improving performance by
establishing goals which are aligned to those of the organization, adopting strategies to
achieve those goals, reviewing and evaluating progress, and developing the capabilities
and knowledge of staff. It is a continuous cycle of planning, action, observation, feedback,
and communication between managers and employees.
Executive
Director
(1)
Deputy Director
(1)
Operations
Manager
(2)
Supervisor*
(8)
Police Dispatch/
Call Taker
(79)
Fire Dispatch/
Call Taker
(19)
Administrative
Assistant
(1)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 43
In the context of a 911 Center, where the responsibilities of line staff are conc rete, the
focus is on consistently meeting clear objectives and providing fast, courteous service to
callers. Performance management is vital for emergency communications, because the
goals and metrics which organizations use to assess staff and determine effectiveness
are crucial to the safety of citizens in the community. Regular reviews ensure that staff
and management maintain agreement about the standards for performance, and that
employees have a realistic understanding of their own performance.
Currently, the performance management program involves quality assurance reviews of
randomly selected call recordings. Management staff meet with call-takers to conduct
these reviews, where they point out strengths and weaknesses in the call to evaluate their
performance. There is an incentive involved in these reviews; g ood reviews have the
potential to earn casual dress coupons for the call-taker, and poor reviews result in
recurrent training with a supervisor.
Quality assurance reviews form a key component of an effective 911 performance
management system, but they do not encompass other key components. A robust
performance management program should include the following components:
• Management reviews should include an examination of call-takers’ cumulative
metrics for the period under review, including how quickly they answer emergency
calls routed to them, and the typical duration of their calls.
• Management reviews should include the quality assurance practices currently in
place. In any area where these reviews are subjective, a rubric should be instituted
with tiers established (excellent, good, fair, poor) to provide concrete feedback to
call-takers.
Plan
Act
Monitor
Review
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 44
• Aberrations from the 911 Center’s efficiency and customer service standards
should be discussed, and those which represent an issue should be noted.
• Goals should be set for the coming performance cycle, with management and staff
in agreement on their content. Goals should be specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time-sensitive (SMART goals).
• Training should be planned as a result of performance management meetings and
reviewed at the next meeting.
• Incentives should be instituted based on specific criteria (attaining a particular
rating, etc.). In addition to the existing casual dress coupons and possibility of
remedial training, the 911 Center should consider tangible incentives (gift cards,
small bonuses) for reviews in the highest tiers; a budget of $10,000 would be
sufficient to fund them.
• Staff should have the opportunity to provide feedback on the performance of their
supervisors according to an established set of criteria.
• The progression of staff over time should be tracked, with reviews and the
accompanying results from cycle to cycle recorded to enable the analysis of tr ends
over time.
The program should be overseen by the Deputy Director, with regular summary reports
on its results presented to the Executive Director. The 911 Center’s existing quality
assurance program can serve as the foundation for a more comprehensive performance
management cycle. By instituting and adhering to such a system, the Bureau can promote
and reward high levels of performance among staff and identify improvement
opportunities in both customer service and efficiency.
Recommendation 13: The 911 Center should expand the existing quality assurance
program into a formal performance management program overseen by the Deputy
Director. The program should include regular review of call recordings and
quantitative metrics, planning and goal-setting for improvement, concrete
incentives for performance, and long-term tracking of results over time.
5. Contract Management
The Salt Lake City 911 Bureau maintains a contract with one partner agency, the City of
Sandy. Under the terms of this contract, the 911 Center provides call-taking and dispatch
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 45
services for the police, fire, and animal control officers in Sandy. Some of the key
provisions of the contract are outlined in the following points:
• The 911 Center provides all PSAP services, including call-taking, CAD, RMS, and
radio communications for public safety personnel in Sandy, at a level of quality
consistent with Sandy’s standards and the quality provided to Salt Lake City.
• Sandy’s allocation of 911 costs is determined to be 17.5% of personn el and 23%
of non-personnel expenses, to be revisited annually by both parties and updated
as necessary.
• Sandy’s E911 tax revenue is collected by the SLC 911 Bureau , and any
discrepancy between the revenue collected and Sandy’s allocation of 911
personnel and expenses is reconciled on a quarterly basis.
This agreement has been in place since the fall of 2013. The primary administrator of the
contract for the 911 Center is the Executive Director.
In evaluating the management of this contract, the project team assessed the 911
Center’s practices against five key criteria:
1. Has responsibility for managing the contract been clearly assigned?
Answer: Yes. The Executive Director manages the 911 Center’s side of the
contract, delegating some duties to the Deputy Director.
2. Are regular meetings held with the contract partner agencies?
Answer: Yes. The Executive Director meets with the public safety agency
executives from the City of Sandy on at least an annual basis to revisit the
allocation of costs and discuss the contract.
3. Are performance metrics utilized to determine the level of service provided?
Answer: Yes. Priority Dispatch reports on dispatch time are produced and
provided to both parties in the contract to determine levels of service and ISO
ratings.
4. Is there an established mechanism for communication and complaints?
Answer: Yes. Partner agencies use their chain of command to transmit
communication or complaints to the 911 Center via their commanding officers.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 46
5. Are agreed-upon, transparent methods used to re-apportion costs on an annual
basis?
Answer: Yes. Call volume and the number of calls for service in Salt Lake City
and Sandy, respectively, are made available to both parties. The parties may
choose to re-apportion cost sharing based on these metrics.
Based on the performance indicators outlined above, as well as the duration of the
contract and the City of Sandy’s level of satisfaction with the contract, the project team
believes that the 911 Center’s contract management practices are sound. No
recommendation is made to change the way this contract is handled.
6. Cost Allocation
The interlocal agreement listed in the previous section involves an allocation of costs:
17.5% of personnel costs at the 911 Center are borne by the City of Sandy, along with
23% of other (non-personnel) operating costs. The following table provides an example
of this allocation, showing totals from FY 2018. It should be n oted (and it is reflected in
this table) that through the end of 2018, costs were being calculated using a multiplier of
17.0% rather than the contractual 17.5%. This has since been corrected.
FY 2018 911 Center Costs SLC Portion Sandy Portion
Personnel Services $ 6,397,100 $ 5,296,799 $ 1,100,301
Operating & Maintenance $ 36,347 $ 27,987 $ 8,360
Charges and Services $ 572,990 $ 441,202 $ 131,788
Capital Expenses $ 1,135 $ 874 $ 261
TOTAL $ 7,007,572 $ 5,766,862 $ 1,240,710
The appropriateness of this cost allocation is left to the participating agencies. Since
2013, the allocations have not been adjusted, suggesting satisfaction on the part of both
parties. To estimate the workload associated with Salt Lake City and Sandy, r espectively,
the project team reviewed data on radio airtime over a recent 12 -month period for each
jurisdiction. The results of this comparison are shown in the following table:
All Radio Channels Sandy Radio Channels
Period Reviewed (12 months) Jul 2017 to Jun 2018 Nov 2017 to Oct 2018
Total Airtime (mins) 613,583 93,914
Percentage of Total 100% 15.3%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 47
This rough calculation suggests that approximately 15% of the 911 Center’s workload (as
measured by radio airtime) is related to the City of Sandy. This calculation is limited,
however, because it does not account for the total number of CAD incidents or p hone
calls associated with each city, nor differences in radio protocol for the responding
agencies in each which may impact the average amount of per-call radio airtime. Because
this calculation does not reveal any drastic disparities between workload and cost
allocations, and because the data used is transparently available to both parties, the
project team believes that cost allocations are currently handled appropriately and
according to the contract.
7. Public Education
Public education programs play a key role in the operations and community relations of
a PSAP. These programs provide a number of benefits to both the agency and the general
public:
• They help members of the help public know when and how to use 911, which
ensures that citizens call quickly in an emergency and refrain from using 911
during non-emergency situations. They also serve to raise awareness of new
features such as text-to-911 so that citizens are prepared to use them.
• They serve as public relations efforts, building rapport with citizens and humanizing
the voices answering emergency phone calls so that they are more likely to interact
comfortably and professionally under pressure.
• They function as a recruitment tool, building brand awareness for the 911 Center
among the public and publicizing the work done by call-takers and dispatchers.
The public education program at the 911 Center, while in its infancy, is being built. Some
ride-alongs have been introduced for schoolchildren in Sandy, and local elementary
school principals have been contacted about doing presentations to students, for which
call-taker and dispatcher staff have volunteered. This program should be developed in
the coming years. Additionally, the 911 Center should consider building public awareness
through sponsorships and participation in public events such as festivals, parades, and
sporting events. A small annual budget of $5,000 should be set aside for these efforts.
Recommendation 14: The 911 Center should prepare citizens to use 911 and
enhance public relations and recruitment efforts by continuing to build its public
education program.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 48
8. Recruitment and Retention
Recruitment and retention of telecommunications staff has become an increasing concern
in the emergency services industry, and for good reason. The cost of recruiting, training,
and then losing a candidate is more than financial; it takes an emotional toll on trainers
and co-workers as well. When recruitment efforts are successful in generating a pipeline
of qualified applicants and working conditions are such that retention remains high, it
eases the burden on the organization’s staff and enables stability in scheduling. It also
results in greater levels of experience among dispatchers and call-takers. The following
sections discuss the 911 Center’s recruitment and retention efforts.
(1) Separations Have Decreased Since 2015.
The following table shows the number of staff separations from the 911 Center in each
year since 2015.
Year Separations
2015 21
2016 17
2017 11
2018 10
As the table shows, the number of separations has been cut in half from its 2015 level,
holding steady in 2017 and 2018.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 49
(2) The 911 Bureau Should Establish a Formal Recruitment Plan.
Currently, the 911 Bureau does not have a formal recruitment and retention plan. The
department has begun to develop its formal recruitment efforts in recent years, attending
career events and promoting job opportunities on the Bureau’s website. Among
employees of the Bureau, recruitment and retention are seen more as strengths than
weaknesses, with about 2/3 of staff agreeing that the agency does a good job of recruiting
and retaining high-quality staff.
Statement SA A D SD
Our agency does a good job of recruiting qualified applicants. 11% 60% 23% 4%
Our agency does a good job of retaining high-quality staff. 5% 60% 26% 9%
Nonetheless, the lack of a recruitment plan, along with staffing levels well below the
number of authorized positions, suggests that enhanced recruitment efforts are likely to
prove beneficial to the 911 Center. Specifically, the Bureau should focus on three specific
aspects of recruiting:
• Develop an effective “employer brand” to attract qualified applicants, emphasizing
the key benefits of becoming a dispatcher versus pursuing other professions. This
may include job satisfaction, community service, interaction with emergency
responders, and compensatory benefits. This brand should be reflected in
recruitment materials used in the following point.
• Allocate a dedicated budget for advertising, and focus on advertising in local and
regional mediums. This should include a heavy proportion of electronic and web -
based advertising, as well as participation in career days and job fairs throughout
the region. A recruitment advertising budget of $500 per month would provide a
start from which the agency may evaluate the results of the program.
• Ensure the agency’s website is updated and prominently displays recruiting
materials. While the current website includes a “Join Our Team” section, it should
be located near the top of the page, include a promotional video (which can a lso
be used in other digital advertisement), and the list of requirements which is
present currently.
Taking these steps to enhance recruitment, along with the previously noted public
education program, will ensure that the 911 Center’s approach produces as much
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 50
awareness of the agency’s job openings as possible and maximizes opportunities to
attract qualified applicants.
Recommendation 15: The 911 Center should expand and formalize existing
recruitment efforts to maximize awareness and job applications among qualified
candidates.
(3) Exit Interviews Are a Valuable Tool for Authentically Assessing Staff Morale
and Identifying Potential Issues.
In the context of managing recruitment, retention, and employee separations, a practice
of regularly conducting exit interviews often proves valuable. These should ideally be
conducted face-to-face, but can also be handled electronically or through the mail. These
interviews, a best practice in the human resources realm, provide a number of important
benefits to employers:
• They represent an opportunity to learn about the positive and negative aspects of
employees’ time with the agency. This is valuable, especially in the absence of
routine, anonymous employee surveys, because it can identify acute problems
with the employee experience which need to be addresse d. It can also highlight
the agency’s strengths or particular individuals who contribute to a positive
employee experience.
• Exit interviews provide a non-confrontational setting in which the departing
employee can express their opinions freely without fear of repercussion, which
increases the likelihood that their unfiltered opinions will be shared. A conversation
based on mutual understanding is also more likely to result in employee s leaving
the agency on good terms.
• The data compiled from exit interviews over time can be analyzed to reveal issues
that the agency must address, or to show trends in employee opinions on various
topics over time, as well as changes in the reasons for departure. In effect, they
are a feedback tool which can serve as a ba rometer of the agency’s success in
creating a work environment that promotes retention.
Currently, the 911 center does not conduct exit interviews of their own staff; these are
handled by the City’s Human Resources Department. There are benefits to this
arrangement, specifically having exit interviews conducted by a neutral third party rather
than staff with whom a departing employee has worked during their tenure with the
agency. However, in order to realize the benefits outlined above, the 911 Cent er should
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 51
ensure that the exit interviews are conducted in a standardized format, and that the results
are regularly (on a quarterly basis) shared with the Bureau’s Executive Director or their
designee. With this type of periodic data from the HR Departmen t, the 911 Bureau will be
able to take appropriate action in response to the results of exit interviews.
Recommendation 16: The 911 Bureau should ensure that the results of exit
interviews conducted by the City’s HR Department are regularly provided to the
Executive Director or their designee for analysis.
(8) Compensation Does Not Appear to Be a Cause of Separations. A
Classification and Compensation Study Would Be Necessary to Determine
the Bureau’s Position in the Market.
During the project team’s on-site interviews and observations, some staff mentioned a
belief that the Bureau has difficulty hiring and retaining quality staff due to the lack of a
competitive compensation package. In the employee survey, this sentiment was
reiterated by some staff, appearing in about 10% of open-ended responses.
However, a closer look reveals that those who hold this sentiment are in th e minority.
When specifically asked in the employee survey to respond to the statement, “Our agency
offers a compensation package that is fair and equitable compared to surrounding
agencies”, 79% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed. This suggests that
compensation is not a widespread concern for employees.
# Statement SA A D SD
6
Our agency offers a compensation package that is fair and equitable
compared to surrounding agencies. 26% 53% 10% 5%
A review of separations data reveals a similar result. The Bureau’s staff provided the
project team with a list of employees who have separated from the agency in the last
three years. This data set was primarily used for calculating turnover rate, but the list of
reasons for leaving is useful in this context:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 52
Cause Count
Unable to do the job 14
Resigned 10
Other job/career 9
Terminated 7
Compensation 5
Moved out of state 5
Retired 4
Health Issue 3
Family 2
Total 59
As the table shows, dissatisfaction with compensation (or leaving for a higher-paying job)
was the stated cause for less than 10% of separations from the agency since the
beginning of 2015.
Based on the results of employee surveys and the reasons for separations over the last
three years, it appears that compensation is not a serious factor in limiting the 911
Center’s ability to recruit and retain qualified staff. To fully make this determination,
however, and to ensure that the agency is well-positioned in the labor market, the 911
Center should conduct a regular classification and compensation study. This study should
include the full scope of compensation (salary, overtime and comp time, health and dental
insurance, retirement, etc.) and be revisited every 3-5 years to ensure that it remains
current and the agency has up-to-date information. Typically, classification and
compensation studies can be conducted for about $15,000.
Recommendation 17: The 911 Bureau should conduct a classification and
compensation survey every 3 -5 years to determine the appropriateness of
compensation and ensure that the agency is well-positioned in the labor market.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 53
5 External Customer Survey Analysis
As part of the larger performance audit of public safety emergency and non -emergency
dispatch services for Salt Lake City and Sandy City, Matrix Consulting Group contracted
with Public Values Research to conduct a customer satisfaction survey of callers who
have used the 911 and 7-digit telephone lines in the last year. The purpose of the research
was to gauge customers’ perceptions of the services provided by the Salt Lake City 911
Communications Bureau and to help identify service gaps and priorities. The study
addressed three service areas, including dispatch operators, respons e time, and on-
scene personnel. While included as an appendix here, the survey was conducted as a
supplementary study rather than as an appendix or chapter of the audit, which is
represented in the format of the following sections.
1. Summary
The findings presented below reflect the content of telephone interviews conducted
between October 9 and October 12, 2018, with a sample of 610 adults, 18 years of age
or older, who used emergency or non-emergency services between September 1, 2017,
and September 1, 2018. The study was based on a random sample of callers, stratified
by city, type of telephone line , and public safety service provided by the respective
department (Police, Fire, or Emergency Medical Services). For purposes of this study,
EMS included medical response by Fire Department personnel as well as the Gold Cross.
Given that the Fire Department responds to the vast majority of medical calls, the EMS
category can be understood to largely reflect Fire Department services.3 When results
were analyzed for the system as a whole, design weights were applied to ensure that the
sample of surveyed individuals matched the distrib ution of callers in the original database.
Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and included both cell phones and
landlines. The margin of error for the study as a whole was +/-4% at the 95% confidence
interval, not including the design effects of weighting.
Key findings are summarized below for customers overall, followed by any observed
differences by city, 911 versus 7-digit callers, and respective public safety departments.
3 The database received from the 911 Communications Bureau did not separate cases within the EMS category to
distinguish between the Fire Department and the Gold Cross. Inquiries regarding the exact proportion of fire medical
response versus Gold Cross should be directed to Bureau staff.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 54
2. Key Findings
Results presented below are for all callers combined, followed by results disaggregated
by department, city, and type of telephone line when appropriate. In some cases, the
sample size was not sufficient to run statistical analyses at the department level.
The following points describe findings gathered from responses about general satisfaction
with the 911 Communications Bureau.
• The majority of Salt Lake City and Sandy City residents who used emergency
or non-emergency services in the last year believe the 911 Communications
Bureau is doing a good to excellent job overall. More than eight-out-of-ten
(84%) residents who used the dispatch service gave the Bureau a top score of 4
or 5, based on a 5-point scale where 5 is “Excellent” and 1 is “Poor.” Ratings were
consistent for both Salt Lake City and Sandy City and regardless of whether a
customer dialed 911 or a 7-digit number. No differences were found by income or
race and ethnicity.
• While overall performance ratings are high, results vary by department.
Police had statistically lower overall satisfaction ratings compared to Fire and
Emergency Medical Services (EMS). A total of 82% of residents who had
requested Police gave the Bureau top ratings, compared to 93% who requested
the Fire Department, and 91% who requested EMS.
• Customers are more satisfied with their interactions with dispatch operators
than they are with the time it takes for help to arrive and the performance of
on-scene personnel. Dispatch services received the highest performance ratings
overall. Nearly nine-out-of-ten customers (89%) gave dispatch a top score (4 or 5),
compared to 76% overall for all departments wh o gave a similar rating for response
time and 73% for on-scene personnel.
Results suggest that while all three service areas are important to residents,
response time and on-scene performance may have a greater impact on overall
satisfaction than interactions with dispatch operators. Performance ratings for
response time and on-scene personnel had a strong, positive correlation of .734 and .738,
respectively, followed by dispatch at .609. (Due to limited sample size for Fire and EMS,
which make up a small percentage of all calls, this correlation could not be run by
department.)
The following findings are based on responses gathered to questions about respondents’
satisfaction with dispatch operators.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 55
• The majority of customers are able to reach a live operator on their first
attempt without receiving a busy signal. A total of 92% of all callers surveyed
reported that they were able to reach an operator.
• Once customers reach an operator, however, 13% report being placed on
hold. The median reported hold time was two minutes, with several outlying cases
driving the average up to four minutes. The likelihood of receiving a busy signal or
being placed on hold was consistent regardless of whether the customer dialed
911 or a 7-digit number.4
• The majority of customers give dispatch operators top performance scores
across all key indicators. More than eight-out-ten customers reported that they
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree” with every statement regarding operator performance,
including whether the operator asked re levant questions, listened to the caller, was
knowledgeable, and gave clear instructions.
• Customers who reach dispatch by dialing 911 view the Bureau more
favorably than customers who call a 7-digit number. Customers who reached
dispatch by calling 911 were more likely to rate the dispatch service as “Excellent,”
compared to customers who dialed a 7 -digit number, 75% compared to 67%, a
statistically significant difference. Despite these differences in overall performance
ratings, 911 and 7-digit callers gave similar ratings for dispatch across key
attributes.
• Results suggest that customers prefer to speak with a live operator rather
than report an incident online, even when they are reporting a non -
emergency situation. More than three-fourths of customers (77%) reported that
they had not been given the online option (online reports are only offered for certain
call types). Of those customers not told about the online option, only 12% said they
would have preferred that the operator had presented them with a choice.
The points below describe findings gathered based on responses about survey
participants’ satisfaction with response time.
4 12% of callers who dialed a 7-digit number reported that they were placed on hold, compared to 16% who called
911. These observed differences fall within the margin of error and do not reflect a real difference. Data provided
does not specifically identify VECC transferred calls.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 56
• The median reported wait time for services to arrive was 10 minutes;
however, outliers push the average to nearly one hour (52 minutes). While no
differences were observed in the median wait time by city overall, results suggest
that there may be a difference in the response time for Salt Lake City Police and
Sandy City Police. Salt Lake City customers reported a median wait time of 15
minutes for officers to arrive, compared to 10 minutes for Sandy City customers.
Customers reported the shortest wait times for Fire and EMS, followed by Police.
It should be noted that observed differences in reported wait times were not verified
statistically since medians, rather than means, were used in the analysis. Results
should be confirmed by identifying actual respon se times as recorded in the call
database.
• Satisfaction with response time varies by department service provided.
Customers who were requesting services from the Fire Department for non-
medical response were more likely to rate the response time to their call as
“Excellent” compared to customers who called for the Fire Department’s EMS or
Police. A total of 71% of customers who called for fire services rated the response
time as Excellent, compared to only about half of customers requesting Police or
EMS. No statistical differences were found by City or between 911 and 7 -digit
callers.
• Customers who are told how long they have to wait for help to arrive are
more likely to be satisfied with the response time compared to customers
who are not given an estimate. More than eight-out-of-ten (85%) of customers
who were given a time estimate gave the Bureau a top score for response time,
compared to just under two-thirds (68%) of those who were not told how long they
had to wait.
The points below show findings gathered based on respondents’ level of satisfaction with
on-scene personnel.
• The majority of customers who receive an on-site visit are satisfied with the
number and type of personnel who arrive on-scene. More than eight-out-of-ten
(83%) customers who received an on-site visit agreed that the response was
appropriate for the situation. (At the department level, 81% of callers agreed that
that the Police response was appropriate, 85% for EMS and 90% for Fire. Results
for Fire and EMS are not statistically reliable due to small sample size and should
be interpreted with caution.)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 57
• Other performance scores for on-scene personnel varied. Approximately
three-fourths of customers agree that personnel were well informed about the
reason for the call, were polite, and handled the situation well. Two-thirds of
customers (67%) agreed that on-scene personnel explained to them what would
happen next.
• On-scene performance ratings for fire personnel were significantly higher
than ratings for Police or EMS. More than nine-out-of-ten customers agreed that
fire fighters were professional and courteous, well informed about the reason for
the call, and generally handled the situation well, compared to just over three
fourths for EMS and Police. Findings were consistent for both Salt Lake City and
Sandy City.
3. Recommendations
The study found the majority of Salt Lake City and Sandy City residents who have used
emergency or non-emergency services in the last year believe the 911 Communications
Bureau is doing a good to excellent job overall. Moreover, performance scores for
dispatch operators were high across all key indicators including whether the operator
listened, was knowledgeable, and asked rele vant and appropriate questions.
Despite these positive indicators, aggregate data from the study found that residents are
generally less satisfied with response times and on-scene personnel. When results for all
calls are combined, customers reported a median wait time of 10 minutes for help to
arrive, although individual respondents reported waiting more than 90 minutes for
services, raising the average wait time to nearly an hour. Less than three -fourths of
customers surveyed gave the Bureau a top score for response time and 12% gave the
Bureau a low score of 1 or 2, significantly lower than the scores for dispatch operators.
On-scene personnel received similar scores.
Results suggest that while all three service areas are important to residents, response
time and on-scene performance may have a greater impact on overall satisfaction than
interactions with dispatch operators. Dispatch performance, while very important to
customers and strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, may not translate into highly
satisfied customers if their expectations for response time and on -scene personnel are
not met.
Based on these findings, we recommend the following:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 58
• Recommendation 1: As part of the needs assessment and analysis,
determine whether current response times overall, and for police in
particular, are adequate and consistent with best practice standards.
Response time was a source of dissatisfaction for some customers and perceived
wait times should be confirmed by an analysis of actual call data. This information
is also discussed further in the body of the Matrix operations report.
• Recommendation 2: If feasible, determine how often 911 callers are placed
on hold and for how long to help assess operator staffing levels.
• Recommendation 3: Consider conducting focus group research to better
understand public expectations regarding response time and on -scene
personnel and to identify strategies for improving s ervice and/or educating
the public. Survey results, for example, suggest that customers are more satisfied
when told how long they will have to wait for service to arrive , although specific
ETA’s cannot be given due to the unpredictable nature of emergency response
and the potential liability involved with giving a concrete response time.
• Recommendation 4: Consider focus group research to understand the
concerns and barriers that cause residents to be reluctant to use online
reporting services. Online reporting services were not popular among survey
respondents; however, variations on the approach and alternative reporting
models might be explored.
4. Methodology
In 2018, Salt Lake City commissioned a performance audit of the City’s public safety
emergency and non-emergency dispatch services performed by the 911 Communications
Bureau. As part of the audit, Matrix Consulting Group contracted with Public Values
Research, an independent research and consulting firm, to conduct a public opinion
survey with residents who had called the 911 or 7-digit service in the last year. The
purpose of the research was to gauge customers’ perceptions of the services provided
by the 911 Bureau and to help identify service gaps and priorities. Specifically, the survey
addressed: (1) public satisfaction with the Bureau overall; (2) satisfaction with dispatch
operators across key attributes; (3) satisfaction with response time; and, (4) satisfaction
with on-scene personnel.
The remainder of this report presents the survey meth odology and findings that emerged
from the data analyses and is organized as follows:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 59
• The methodology section below, which describes data collection and statistical
methods
• Detailed findings;
• Summary and recommendations; and,
• The appendices, which include the survey instrument with frequencies and a
profile of residents surveyed compared to the caller database and population
estimates.
(1) Overview
The findings presented in this report reflect the content of telephone interviews conducted
between October 9 and October 12, 2018, with a stratified random sample of 610 adults,
18 years of age or older who called the Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
between September 1, 2017, and September 1, 2018. The sample was stratified by city
(Salt Lake City or Sandy City), department (Police, Fire, or Emergency Medical Services),
and call type (911 versus 7-digit). A total of 86 respondents were interviewed on a landline
telephone and 524 were interviewed on a cell phone. The sample database was provided
by the 911 Bureau. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of
error for the study as a whole was +/-4% at the 95% confidence interval, not including the
design effects of weighting. Telephone interviews were conducted by Interviewing S ervice
of America and study design, analysis, and reporting were conducted by Public Value
Research.
(2) Weighting
Design weights were calculated by raking (an iterative proportional fitting algorithm).
Weights were generated based on the actual distribu tion of all calls to the 911 Bureau
between September 1, 2017 and September 1, 2018, as provided to Public Values
Research by the 911 Communications Bureau. The data were weighted by city,
department, and call type to correct for oversampling. From weighting alone, the design
effect of the survey was 1.37 and the design factor was 1.17. All 610 completes had
adequate item responses for all weighting variables. The data were not weighted on
demographic characteristics such as gender or age since the true dis tribution of those
characteristics among Bureau callers is unknown.
(3) Statistical Comparisons
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 60
Statistical tests were conducted for all comparative analyses to identify whether observed
differences among demographic groups or categories were statistical ly significant.5 All
reported differences were statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level or
higher. The margin of error for these comparisons was not adjusted for design effects.
(4) Definition Of Geographic Areas
To help analyze differences by area, Salt Lake City callers were grouped into four
contiguous geographic zones. The consolidation was based on original zone, street
address, and police beat. The grouping of the zones was provided to Public Values
Research by the 911 Bureau. A similar analyses with Sandy City callers was not possible
due to limited sample size.
(5) Report Organization
This report has been organized around the following topic areas:
• General satisfaction with the 911 Bureau;
• Satisfaction with Dispatch Services;
• Satisfaction with Response Time; and,
• Satisfaction with On-Scene Personnel.
The next section of this report presents study findings.
5. Findings
This section outlines the findings of the survey according to the four major themes
identified above.
5 A statistically significant difference means that the difference between groups is not by chance, and that a real difference exists.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 61
(1) General Satisfaction with The 911 Communications Bureau
(1.1) Overall Performance Ratings Systemwide and by Department
Customer satisfaction with the 911 Communications Bureau was measured using a series
of questions in which customers were asked how they would rate the Bureau overall and
across specific attributes, including interactions with the dispatch operator, response time,
and on-scene personnel. Results are presented in Figure 1. The study found that the
majority of Salt Lake City and Sandy City re sidents who used emergency or non-
emergency services believe the 911 Communications Bureau is doing a good to
excellent job overall. More than eight-out-of-ten (84%) residents who used the dispatch
service gave the Bureau a top score of 4 or 5, based on a 5-point scale where 5 is
“Excellent” and 1 is “Poor.”
While overall performance ratings were high, results varied by department. Police
had statistically lower overall satisfaction ratings compared to Fire and Emergency
Medical Services (EMS). A total of 82% of residents who had requested police assistance
gave the Bureau top ratings, compared to 93% who requested the Fire Department, and
91% who requested EMS.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Police (n=304)
EMS (n=91)
Fire (n=85)
Systemwide (n=480)
57%
62%
75%
60%
25%
29%
18%
25%
Figure 1: Overall Performance Ratings
Systemwide and by Department
Customers who gave the Bureau a top performance rating of 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5, where
5 is "Excellent" and 1 is "Poor"
Excellent (score of 5)Good (score of 4)
84%
93%
91%
82%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 62
*Figure based on Q21: “Using the same scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent, how would you rate the emergency or non-emergency
services you received overall, including the dispatch operator, the time it took for services to arrive, and the on -scene personnel?”
Neutral score of 3 and Don’t Know not shown. Overall scores exclude customers who spoke with dispatch but did not receive an on -
site visit. Statistically significant differences at the 90% confidence level are circled. Ratings for police were statistica lly lower than for
Fire and EMS.
(1.2) Overall Performance Ratings by City and Zone
Performance ratings were consistent regardless of whether residents were from
Salt Lake City or Sandy City. As seen in Figure 2, 84% of Salt Lake City customers
gave the Bureau top ratings, compared to 85% among Sandy City residents, statistically
equivalent results.
*Figure based on Q21: “Using the same scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent, how would you rate the emergency or non -emergency
services you received overall, including the dispatch operator, the time it took for services to arrive, and the on-scene personnel?”
Neutral score of 3 and Don’t Know not shown. Overall scores exclude customers who spoke with dispatch but di d not receive an on-
site visit.
To examine differences by geographic area, seven service zones for Salt La ke City were
collapsed into four contiguous areas. Although the sample size for Zone 1 and 2 were
59%60%
25%25%
84%85%
Salt Lake City (n=329) Sandy City (n=156)
Figure 2: Overall Performance Rating
Salt Lake City and Sandy City
Customers who gave the Bureau a top performance rating of 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5
is "Excellent" and 1 is "Poor"
Excellent (score of 5)Good (score of 4)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 63
extremely small, results suggest that customer ratings across the four geographic
zones are similar. More than eight-out-of-ten customers in each zone gave the Bureau
top performance ratings of 4 or 5, where 5 is “Excellent.” Results are presented in Figure
3. Observed differences by zone fall within the margin of error. (Analysis of ratings by
zone within Sandy City was not possible due to sample size.)
*Figure based on Q21: “Using the same scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent, how would you rate the emergency or non -emergency
services you received overall, including the dispatch officer, the time it took for services to arrive, and the on-scene personnel?”
**Extremely small sample size. To be interpreted with caution. Observed differences by zone fall within the margin of error a nd do not
represent real differences. Neutral score of 3 and Don’t Know not shown.
(1.3) Performance Ratings by Service Function
In addition to analyzing performance ratings by area, the study compared performance
scores by service function, including dispatch, response time, and on -scene personnel.
Findings suggest that residents are more satisf ied with their interactions with
dispatch operators than they are with the time it takes for help to arrive and the
performance of on-scene personnel. As seen in Figure 4, nearly nine-out-of-ten
residents (89%) gave dispatch a top score (4 or 5), compared to 76% who gave a similar
rating for the departments’ on-scene personnel and 73% for response time.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Zone 4 (n=92)
Zone 3 (n=94)
Zone 2 (n=69)
Zone 1 (n=69)
61%
59%
60%
57%
20%
26%
29%
25%
Figure 3: Overall Performance Ratings
by Zone within Salt Lake City
Customers who gave the Bureau a top performance rating of 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5, where
5 is "Excellent" and 1 is "Poor"
Excellent (score of 5)Good (score of 4)
89%
85%
81%
82%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 64
*Figure based on Q13: “On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent and 1 is “Poor” how would you rate the telephone dispatch s ervice
overall?” Q18: “How would you rate the response time to your call?” Q20: How would you rate the on -scene personnel who responded
to your call? Neutral score of 3 and Don’t Know not shown. **Statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence leve l are circled.
Ratings for dispatch were statistically higher than ratings for on -scene personnel and response time.
No statistical differences were found between customers from Salt Lake City and Sandy
City in terms of satisfaction with dispatch operators, response tim e, or on-scene
personnel. Results are presented in Table 1.6
Table 1: Overall Performance Ratings by City
Top Rating (Score of 4 or 5)
Salt Lake City
Top Rating (score of 4 or 5)
Sandy City
Overall ratings for dispatch 90% 86%
Overall ratings for response time 72% 75%
Overall ratings for on-scene personnel 76% 76%
*Figure based on Q13: “On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent and 1 is “Poor” how would you rate the telephone dispatch s ervice
overall?” Q18: “How would you rate the response time to your call?” Q20: How would you rate the on -scene personnel who responded
to your call? Neutral score of 3 and Don’t Know not shown. All cells had a minimum sample size of 156.
(1.4) Demographic Comparisons by Income and Race
6 Sample sizes were not sufficient to compare ratings for fire and EMS within each City.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Response Time (n=480)
On-Scene (n=480)
Dispatch (n=610)
52%
64%
69%
20%
12%
21%
Figure 4: Overall Performance Ratings
by Dispatch, Response Time, and On-Scene Personnel
Customers who gave the Bureau a top performance rating of 4 or 5 for each service area, on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is "Excellent" and 1 is "Poor"
Excellent (score of 5)Good (score of 4)
89%
76%
73%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 65
Figures 5 and 6 present overall performance ratings by income and race. No statistically
significant differences in overall performance ratings were found based on a caller’s
income level or racial/ethnic background. 7
*Figure based on Q21: “Using the same scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent, how would you rate the emergency or non-emergency
services you received overall, including the dispatch officer, the time it took for services to arrive, and the on -scene personnel?”
Neutral score of 3 and Don’t Know not shown.
Drivers of Satisfaction
7 Median income for Salt Lake City County of approximately $70,000 was used to determine above and below
median income breaks. Racial and ethnic categories, including African-American, Latino, Asian, and other groups
were collapsed into a dichotomous category of white/non-white to preserve sample size.
66%61%
20%25%
86%
4%
86%
4%
Above Median (n=260) Below Median (n=113)
Figure 5: Overall Performance Ratings
Customers Above and Below Median Income
Customers rated overall performance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is "Excellent and 1 is "Poor"
Excellent (5)Good (4)Fair (2)Poor (1)
60%59%
25%23%
85%
4%
83%
7%
White (n=342) Non-White (n=110)
Figure 6: Overal Performance Ratings
by Race/Ethnicity
Customers rated overall performance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is "Excellent and 1 is "Poor"
Excellent (5)Good (4)Fair (2)Poor (1)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 66
To further understand which service attributes are most important to customers in
determining their overall satisfaction with the Bureau, statistical correlations were run
between performance scores for each service area—dispatch, response time, and on-
scene personnel—and performance scores for the Bureau as a whole. Attributes with the
strongest correlation to overall performance are commonly interpreted as driving
satisfaction. Performance ratings for response time and on-scene personnel had a strong,
positive correlation of .734 and .738, respectively, followed by dispatch at .609. Results
suggest that while all three service areas are important to residents, response time
and on-scene performance may have a greater impact on overall satisfaction than
interactions with dispatch operators. Dispatch performance, while very important to
customers and strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, may not translate into highly
satisfied customers if their expectations for response time and on-scene personnel are
not met. Results are presented below in Table 2.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 67
Table 2: Importance of Each Service Area to Overall Satisfaction
SLC 911 Communications Bureau Customers
Pearson Correlation Coefficient Significance (2-tailed)
Satisfaction with Dispatch
Services
.609 .000
Satisfaction with Response
Time
.734 .000
Satisfaction with On-Scene
Personnel
.738 .000
All correlations were statistically significant at the .01 level.
(2) Satisfaction with Dispatch Services
(2.1) Likelihood of Reaching a Busy Signal or Being Placed on Hold
A key objective of the research was to understand the customer experience from the
moment a call is placed to the arrival of on-scene personnel. Customers were first asked
whether they received a busy signal when they called for assistance. More than nine out
of ten customers (92%) reported that they were able to get through to a live operator
without receiving a busy signal. When customers reached an operator, 13%
reported being placed on hold. More than three-fourths (77%) of customers who had
to wait to speak to an operator were told that they would be placed on hold. The median
reported wait time was two minutes, with several outlying cases driving the average up to
four minutes. The likelihood of receiving a busy signal or being placed on hold was
consistent regardless of whether the customer dialed 911 or a 7 -digit number.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 68
*Figure based on Q8: “When you called, did you receive a busy signal?
Yes, Received
Busy Signal,
3%
No, Did Not
Receive a Busy
Signal, 92%
DK, 5%
Figure 7: Did you receive a busy signal when you called?
SLC 911 Communications Bureau Customers (n=610)
Yes, Received Busy Signal No, Did Not Receive a Busy Signal DK
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 69
(2.2) Dispatch Performance Ratings across Key Indicators
Next, customers were asked to rate their interactions with the dispatch operator across a
variety of indicators, including whether they felt the operator listened to them, asked
relevant and appropriate questions, and provided clear instructions. Results are
presented in Figure 8. Customers rated dispatch performance consistently high
across all indicators. More than eight-out-of-ten customers reported that they “Agree”
or “Strongly Agree” with each statement regarding operator performance. Customers
gave lower ratings for explaining next steps compared to most attributes measured. (All
other observed differences fall with the margin of error.) See Figure 8.
*Figure based on Q12: “”Thinking about your interaction with the dispatch operator, please tell me whether you Strongly Agree,
Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with the following statements. You can also tell me if it doesn’t app ly.
The operator was…” Don’t Know and Does Not Apply not charted. Statisticall y significant differences at the 95% confidence level are
circled. Customers gave lower ratings for explaining next steps compared to all other attributes, with the exception of showi ng kindness
and compassion.
(2.3) Dispatch Performance Ratings for 911 and 7-Digit Callers
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Explained next steps
Kind/Compassionate
Answered my questions
Knowledgeable
Asked relevant questions
Calm/gave clear directions
Polite
Listened to me
48%
50%
54%
54%
58%
62%
59%
61%
36%
39%
35%
36%
34%
32%
35%
34%
Figure 8: Dispatch Performance Ratings Across Key Indicators (n=610)
Customers who "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" with each statement describing dispatch operators
Strongly Agree Agree
92%
94%
94%
95%
90%
89%
88%
85%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 70
While performance ratings for dispatch were high overall, the study found that
customers who dialed 911 gave dispatch higher performance ratings than did
customers who dialed a 7-digit number. Customers who reached dispatch by calling
911 were more likely to rate the dispatch service as “Excellent,” compared to customers
who dialed a 7-digit number, 75% compared to 67%, a statistically significant difference.
It should be noted, however, that when the top scores of Excellent (score of 5) and Good
(score of 4) are combined, no difference was found in performance score among 911
versus 7-digit callers. Despite these differences in overall performance ratings, 911 and
7-digit callers gave similar ratings for dispatch across key attributes, a s seen below in
Table 3. The only statistically significant difference was whether the operator informed
the customer of next steps. A total of 89% of 911 callers “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that
the operator kept them informed about what would happen next, compared to 84% among
customers who dialed a 7-digit number. This difference, however, may be due to the
nature of emergency calls in which next steps would be important to communicate.
Table 3: Performance Ratings for Dispatch across Key Indicators
911 and 7-Digit Callers
Agree/Strongly Agree: 911
(n=207)
Agree/Strongly Agree: 7-Digit
(n=403)
Operator listened to what I had to
say 94% 95%
Operator was polite in how he or
she spoke to me 95% 93%
Operator was calm and gave
clear instructions 94% 94%
Operator asked
relevant/appropriate questions 91% 93%
Operator was knowledgeable 92% 90%
Operator answered my questions 89% 89%
Operator showed kindness and
compassion 87% 89%
Operator kept me informed about
what would happen next 89% 84%
*Statistically significant differences at the 90% confidence level are circled. Customers who reached dispatch by calling 911 were
more likely than those calling from a 7-digit number to report that the operator kept them informed about what would happen n ext.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 71
(2.4) Interest in Online Reporting for Non-Emergency Incidents
To explore public support for online reporting, customers who had reported a police
incident by calling a 7-digit number were asked if the operator had given them the option
of reporting the incident online and, if not, whether they would like to have the option.
Results suggest that customers prefer to speak with a live dispatch operator rather
than report an incident online, even when they are reporting a non -emergency
situation. More than three-fourths of customers (77%) reported that they had not been
given the online option. Of those customers not told about the online option, only 12%
said they would have preferred that the operator had presented them with a choice.
*Figure based on Q11: “Did the operator give you the option of reporting the incident online and receiving a follow -up call at a later
time?” Q11a: “Would you have preferred to be given an online option?”
(3) Satisfaction with Response Time
(3.1) Performance Ratings Overall and by Department
After answering questions about dispatch services, respondents were asked a series of
questions about how long they waited for help to arrive. Figure 7 below shows overall
performance ratings for response time, followed by ratings for Fire, EMS, and Police. Less
than three-fourths of customers gave the Bureau top scores for response time (score of
15%
77%
7%
12%
82%
6%
Given Online Option (n=152)Prefer to have the Option (n=130)
Figure 9: Interest in Online Reporting for Non-Emergency Police Incidents
Proportion of customers who were given the option of reporting online and those who would
have preferred to have the option
Yes No Don't Know
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 72
4 or 5), however, some departments had high marks. Customers who were requesting
services from the Fire Department were more likely to rate t he response time to
their call as “Excellent” compared to customers who called for EMS or Police. A
total of 71% of customers who called for fire services rated the response time as
Excellent, compared to only about half of customers requesting Police or E MS. No
statistical differences were found by City or between 911 and 7 -digit callers.
*Figure based on Q18: “On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent, how would you rate the response time to your call?” Neutral score
of 3 and Don’t Know not shown. Statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level are circled. Customers who called
regarding a fire emergency were more likely to rate fire response as “Excellent” compared to customers who called for EMS or police
services.
(3.2) Reported Wait Time Overall and by City and Department
Customers were asked to estimate how long they waited before services arrived. The
median wait time systemwide was 10 minutes; however, several outlier cases
pushed the average to nearly one hour (52 minutes). Median wait times by city and
department are presented below in Table 4. While no differences were observed in the
median wait time by city overall, results suggest that there may be a difference in the
response time for Salt Lake City Police and Sandy City Police. Salt Lake City customers
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Police (n=304)
EMS (n=91)
Fire (n=85)
Systemwide (n=480)
51%
48%
71%
52%
21%
28%
10%
20%
Figure 10: Satisfaction with Response Time
Systemwide and by Department
Customers who gave the Bureau a top performance rating of 4 or 5, where 5 is is "Excellent" and
1 is "Poor"
Excellent (score of 5)Good (score of 4)
73%
81%
76%
71%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 73
reported a median wait time of 15 minutes for officers to arrive, compared to 10 minutes
for Sandy City customers. Customers reported the shortest wait times for Fire and EMS,
followed by Police. (It should be noted that observed differences in reported wait times
were not verified statistically since medians, rather than means, were used in th e analysis.
Results should be confirmed by identifying actual response times as recorded in the call
database.)
Table 4: Median Reported Wait Times
Overall and by City and Department
Median Reported
Wait Time
Overall (n=610) 10
Salt Lake City Police (n=410) 15
Sandy City Police (n=200) 10
Fire (n=107) 7
EMS (n=101) 8
Police (n=402) 10
(3.3) Notifying Customers of Estimated Response Time
Customers were asked if they were told how long it would be before services arrived. Just
over a quarter of customers (28%) were given a time estimate. Of those, 85% reported
that the time estimate was accurate. Customers who were not given an estimated
response time were asked if they would have preferred to have that information. More
than two thirds (68%) said they would have preferred to know the wait time. Results are
presented in Figure 11.
Customers who were given an estimated response time were mo re likely than other
customers to give the Bureau a top score of 4 or 5 for response time. More than
eight-out-of-ten (85%) customers who were given a time estimate gave the Bureau a top
score, compared to just under two-thirds (68%) of those who were not told how long they
had to wait. (Only respondents who could recall whether or not they were given the
information were included in the analysis.)8
8We recommend that this topic be explored through focus group research to determine whether or not informing
customers of expected wait times will lead to higher rates of satisfaction. The statistical analysis has identified a
correlation between the two variables, but further research is needed to verify cause and effect.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 74
*Figure based on Q15: “Were you told how long the response time would be?” Q17 “Would you have preferred t o have that
information?”
(4) Satisfaction with On-Scene Personnel
(4.1) Performance Ratings Across Key Indicators
Customers who received an on -site response and were present when help arrived were
read a series of statements about the performance of the on-scene personnel and asked
if they “Strongly Agree,” “Somewhat Agree,” “Somewhat Disagree,” or “Strongly Disagree”
with each statement. Results are presented in Figure 12. More than eight-out-of-ten
(83%) customers who received an on-site visit agreed that the number and type of
personnel was appropriate, and more than three -fourths agreed that personnel
were well informed about the reason for the call, were polite and courteous, and
handled the situation well. Two-thirds of customers (67%) agreed that on-scene
personnel explained to them what would happen next. Customers were most likely to
agree that the number and type of personnel were appropriate to the situation, and least
likely to agree that personnel explained next steps.
28%
51%
21%
68%
24%
9%
Told Response Time (n=480)Would Have Wanted Information (n=346)
Figure 11: Interest in Knowning Estimated Response Time
Proportion of customers who were told how long the response time would be and the
proportion who would have preferred to have been given that information
Yes No Don't Know
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 75
*Figure based on Q19: “Please tell me whether you Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with
the following statements about on-site personnel. You can also tell me if it doesn’t apply.” Statistically significant differences at the
90% confidence interval or higher are circled. Number and type of personnel were rated higher t han all other attributes. Explained
next steps was rated lower than all other attributes.
(4.2) Performance Ratings by Department and City
As seen in Table 5, customers who requested help from the Fire Department gave
on-scene personnel higher performanc e ratings than did customers who had
requested EMS or Police. More than nine-out-of-ten customers agreed that fire fighters
were professional and courteous, well informed about the reason for the call, and
generally handled the situation well, compared to just over three fourths for EMS and
Police. Findings were consistent for both Salt Lake City and Sandy City. See Table 6.
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Explained next steps
Handled situation well
Polite/courteous
Informed about call
Number/type of personnel
appropriate
41%
53%
54%
46%
57%
26%
23%
23%
31%
26%
Figure 12: On-Scene Performance Ratings Across Key Indicators (n=480)
Customers who "Agree" or "Strongly Agree" with each statement about on-scene personnel
Strongly Agree Agree
78%
77%
77%
83%
67%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 76
Table 5: On-Scene Performance Ratings across Key Indicators
Fire, EMS, and Police
Agree/Strongly Agree:
Fire
(n=85)
Agree/Strongly Agree:
EMS
(n=91)
Agree/Strongly Agree:
Police
(n=304)
The number and type of
personnel who arrived on the
scene were appropriate to the
situation
90% 85% 81%
On-scene personnel were
professional and courteous 91% 79% 75%
On-scene personnel were well
informed about the reason for
the call
92% 78% 76%
On-scene personnel handled
the situation well 90% 78% 75%
On-scene personnel explained
what would happen next 78% 75% 64%
*Figure based on 19: “Please tell me whether you Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with
the following statements about the on-site personnel. You can also tell me if it doesn’t apply.”
Table 6: On-Scene Performance Ratings across Key Indicators
Salt Lake City and Sandy City
Agree/Strongly Agree
Salt Lake City
Agree/Strongly Agree
Sandy City
The number and type of personnel who
arrived on the scene were appropriate to
the situation
83% 80%
On-scene personnel were professional and
courteous 77% 78%
On-scene personnel were well informed
about the reason for the call 78% 77%
On-scene personnel handled the situation
well 76% 79%
On-scene personnel explained what would
happen next 67% 58%
*Figure based on Q34 and Q37: “Please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement
about the Cleveland Police in general based…”
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 77
6. Summary and Recommendations
The study found the majority of Salt Lake City and Sandy City residents who have used
emergency or non-emergency services in the last year believe the 911 Communications
Bureau is doing a good to excellent job overall. Moreover, performance scores for
dispatch operators were high across all key indicators including whether the operator
listened, was knowledgeable, and asked relevant and appropriate questions.
Despite these positive indicators, the study found that residents are less satisfied with
response times and on-scene personnel. Customers reported a median wait time of 10
minutes for help to arrive, although individual respondents reported waiting more than 90
minutes for services, raising the average wait time to nearly an hour. Less than three -
fourths of customers surveyed gave the Bureau a top score for response time and 12%
gave the Bureau a low score of 1 or 2, significantly lower than the scores for dispatch
operators. On-scene personnel received similar scores.
Results suggest that while all three service areas are important to residents, response
time and on-scene performance may have a greater impact on overall satisfaction than
interactions with dispatch operators. Dispatch performance, while very important to
customers and strongly correlated with overall satisfaction, may not translate into highly
satisfied customers if their expectations for response time and on -scene personnel are
not met.
Based on these findings, we recommend the following:
• Recommendation 1: As part of the needs assessment and analysis,
determine whether current response times overall and for police in particular
are adequate and consistent with best practice standards. Response time was
a source of dissatisfaction for some customers and perceived wait times should be
confirmed regularly by an analysis of actual call data.
• Recommendation 2: If feasible, determine how often 911 callers are placed
on hold and for how long to help assess operator staffing levels.
• Recommendation 3: Consider conducting focus group res earch to better
understand public expectations regarding response time and on -scene
personnel and to identify strategies for improving service and/or educating
the public. Survey results, for example, suggest that customers are more satisfied
when told how long they will have to wait for service to arrive.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 78
• Recommendation 4: Consider focus group research to understand the
concerns and barriers that cause residents to be reluctant to use online
reporting services. Online reporting services were not popular among survey
respondents; however, variations on the approach and alternative reporting
models might be explored.
Survey Instrument and Frequencies
The survey as it was presented to participants is portrayed in its entirety below:
Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau
External Customer Dispatch Survey 2018
Weighted Frequencies (n=unweighted number of respondents)
INTRODUCTION
Hello. I am calling on behalf of the Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau. We are
conducting a survey with people who called the City’s 911 emergency or non -emergency
dispatch services in the last year and want your feedback. Your answers will be anonymous.
01 willing to continue
02 refusal
03 call back <at specific time>
04 call back <no specific time>
05 no answer
06 busy
07 answering machine
08 disconnected number
09 language barrier (not Spanish or English)
10 business number
11 fax machine
SCREENER QUESTIONS (n=610)
Landline 13%
1. According to our records, you called Salt Lake City 911 or non-emergency dispatch from this
number in the last year. Is that correct? (If necessary: Salt Lake City emergency dispatch also
serves Sandy City)
1 Yes
2 No (“May I speak to the person who placed the call?” transferring to the person,
restart intro)
3 Not available now (arrange a call-back)
9 Refused (terminate)
Cell Phone 87%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 79
1. According to our records, you called Salt Lake City 911 or non-emergency dispatch from this
number in the last year. I’d like to ask you some questions about how satisfied you were with
the services. (If necessary: Salt Lake City emergency dispatch also serves Sandy City)
1b. Since you are on a cell phone, I can call you back if you are driving or doing anything else
that requires
your full attention. Can you talk safely and privately now, or not?
1 Yes
2 Not right now (try and arrange a time to call -back)
9 Refused (terminate)
All Respondents
2. Are you 18 years or older? (n=610)
1 Yes (continue interview) 100%
2 No (terminate)
9 Refused (terminate)
3. Are you comfortable taking this survey in English? [DO NOT READ OPTIONS] (n=610)
1 Yes, comfortable in English 98%
2 No, need survey in Spanish [SWITCH TO SPANISH VERSION] 2%
3 No, need other language [TERMINATE]
4. What city do you live in? (Don’t Read) (n=610)
1 Salt Lake City 79%
2 Sandy City 21%
3 Other
9 Don’t know/refused
5. What is your zip code? [Record 5 digit zip code. Zip code list to be provided.]
5a. Zone_Modified (backfilled, not asked of respondents) (n=610)
1 Zone 1, Salt Lake 15%
2 Zone 2, Salt Lake 17%
3 Zone 3, Salt Lake 23%
4 Zone 4, Salt Lake 24%
5 Alta, Sandy City
6 Bell, Sandy City
7 Crescent, Sandy City
8 Sandy, Sandy City
SATISFACTION WITH DISPATCH
I’d like to ask you some questions about the telephone dispatch service.
6. When you called the 911 Communications Bureau, did you dial 911 or a 7 -digit telephone
number? (n=610)
1 911 Emergency 20%
7%
14
%
%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 80
2 7-digit Non-emergency 80%
9 Don’t know/refused (backfill based on dataset)
[IF RESPONDENT HAD MORE THAN ONE EXPERIENCE OR CALLED MULTIPLE TIMES
ASK: “In that case, just answer with regard to your most significant interaction w ith the 911
Bureau.]
7. What type of service did you request? (READ LIST. Check one.) (n=610)
1 Police 80%
2 Fire 10%
3 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 10%
4 Other (specify) ______________
9 Don’t know/refused (don’t read. Backfill from database)
8. When you called, did you receive a busy signal? (n=610)
1 Yes 3%
2 No 92%
9 Don’t know/refused 5%
9. Were you placed on hold? (n=610)
1 Yes 13%
2 No (Skip to Q11) 79%
9 Don’t know/refused (Skip to Q11) 9%
10. Did the operator inform you that you would be placed on hold? (n=80 unweighted)
1 Yes 77%
2 No 13%
9 Don’t know/refused 9%
10a. About how long were you on hold before someone answered your call? (n=80 unweighted)
1 Minutes mean = 4; median = 2 (> than 10 minutes = 4%)
9 Don’t know/Refused 20%
11. [AKS ONLY IF Q7 = POLICE AND Q6 = 7-DIGIT or Don’t Know. ALL OTHERS SKIP TO
Q12] Did the operator give you the option of reporting the incident online and receiving a follow -
up at a later time? (n=152 unweighted)
1 Yes (Skip to Q12) 15%
2 No 77%
9 Don’t know/refused 7%
11a. Would you have preferred to be given an online option? (n=130 unweighted)
1 Yes 12%
2 No 82%
9 Don’t know/refused 6%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 81
12. Thinking about your interaction with the dispatch operator, please tell me whether you
Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, or Strongly Disagree with the following
statements. You can also tell me if it doesn’t apply. (ROTATE) (n=610)
SCALE
1 Strongly Agree
2 Agree
3 Disagree
4 Strongly Disagree
5 Doesn’t Apply (Read)
9 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t Read)
ITEMS
a) The operator was polite in how he or she spoke to me 94% Agree/Str Agree; 3%
Disagree/Str Disagree
b) The operator listened to what I had to say 95% Agree/Str Agree; 4% Disagree/Str
Disagree
c) The operator answered my questions and/or directed me to someone who could help
89% Agree/Str Agree; 4% Disagree/Str Disagree
d) The operator was knowledgeable 90% Agree/Str Agree; 4% Disagree/Str Disagree
e) The operator asked relevant and appropriate question s 92% Agree/Str Agree; 4%
Disagree/Str Disagree
f) The operator was calm and gave clear instructions 94% Agree/Str Agree; 2%
Disagree/Str Disagree
g) The operator kept me informed about what would happen next 85% Agree/Str Agree;
8% Disagree/Str Disagree
h) The operator showed kindness and compassion 88% Agree/Str Agree; 6%
Disagree/Str Disagree
13. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent and 1 is Poor, how would you rate the telephone
dispatch service overall? (9=Don’t Know) (n=610)
89% dispatch top score of 4 or 5, where 5 is “Excellent”; 6% neutral score of 3; 3% low
score of 1 or 2, where 1 is “Poor”; 1 % DK
Consistently high ratings; no statistical differences based on type of call (Police/Fire/EMS), or
City. Dispatch ratings statistically higher than ratings for response time or on -scene personnel.
Customers were most satisfied with 911 dispatch (75% of respondents who dialed 911 rated
dispatch as “Excellent” overall compared to 67% who used a 7 -digit number).
SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSE TIME
The next few questions are about response times.
14. How long did you wait before services ar rived? (Don’t Read. Check one) (n=610)
1 Minutes mean = 52 minutes; median = 10 minutes
2 There was no on-site visit (Skip to Q22) 14%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 82
3 Didn’t meet the on-site team/wasn’t there (Skip to Q22) 10%
9 Don’t know/Refused 11%
15. Were you told how long the response time would be? (n=480 unweighted)
1 Yes 28%
2 No (Skip to Q17) 51%
9 Don’t Know/Refused (Skip to Q17) 21%
16. [IF Yes] Was the time estimate accurate? (n=134 unweighted)
1 Yes 84%
2 No 11%
9 Don’t Know/Refused 5%
17. [If No] Would you have preferred to have that information? (n=346 unweighted)
1 Yes 68%
2 No 24%
9 Don’t Know/Refused 9%
18. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent and 1 is Poor, how would you rate the response
time to your call? (9=Don’t Know) (n=480 unweighted)
73% response time top score of 4 or 5, where 5 is “Excellent;” 11% neutral score of 3;
12% low score of 1 or 2, where 1 is “Poor”; 4 % DK.
Fire had highest response time ratings: 71% of respondents rated fire response as
“Excellent,” compared to 48% for EMS and 51% for Police. No statistical difference based
on City, or 911 versus 7-digit.
SATISFACTION WITH ON SITE RESPONSE
The last set of questions are about the services provided when personnel arrived on the
scene.
19. Please tell me whether you Strongly Agree, Somewhat Agree, Somewhat Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree with the following statements about the on-site personnel. You can also tell
me if it doesn’t apply. (ROTATE ITEMS)
SCALE
6 Strongly Agree
7 Agree
8 Disagree
9 Strongly Disagree
10 Doesn’t Apply (Read)
10 Don’t know/Refused (Don’t Read)
ITEMS (n=480 unweighted)
a) The number and type of personnel who arrived on the scene were appropriate to the
situation 83% Agree/Str Agree; 3% Disagree/Str Disagree (statistically higher than
other attributes at 90% confidence level)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 83
b) On-scene personnel were professional and courteous 77% Agree/Str Agree; 6%
Disagree/Str Disagree
c) On-scene personnel were well-informed about the reason for the call 78% Agree/Str
Agree; 5% Disagree/Str Disagree
d) On-scene personnel handled the situation well 77% Agree/Str Agree; 7%
Disagree/Str Disagree
e) On-scene personnel explained what would happen next 67% Agree/Str Agree; 9%
Disagree/Str Disagree (statistically lower than other attributes at 95% confidence
level)
20. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent and 1 is Poor, how would you rate th e on-scene
personnel who responded to your call? (9=Don’t Know) (n=480 unweighted)
76% gave on-scene personnel a top score of 4 or 5, where 5 is “Excellent;” 7% neutral
score of 3; 6% low score of 1 or 2, where 1 is “Poor”; 11 % DK.
Fire had highest on-site ratings: 91% of respondents rated gave fire responders top score of
4 or 5; compared to 74% for EMS and 75% for Police. No significant differences by City or
911 versus 7-digit.
OVERALL SATISFACTION
21. Using the same scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is Excellent, how would you rate the emergency or
non-emergency services you received overall, including the dispatch operator, the time it
took for services to arrive, and the on-scene personnel? (n=480 unweighted) Only asked of
respondents who had spoken with dispatch and received a site visit.
84% gave top score of 4 or 5, where 5 is “Excellent;” 8% gave neutral rating of 3; 5% gave
low score of 1 or 2, where 1 is “Poor,” and 2% DK.
Fire had highest overall ratings; 75% of respondents gave Fire an overall mark of
“Excellent,” compared to 57% for Police and 62% for EMS.
DEMOGRAPHICS
I have a few, final questions just to make sure we have a representative sample.
22. What year were you born? (n=610) mean = 42; median = 39.
23. Can you please tell me what racial or ethnic group you most identify with? (READ) (n=610)
1 Hispanic/Latino 15%
2 Black/African American 2%
3 Asian-American 4%
4 White/Caucasian 70%
5 Other racial or ethnic background (specify) 3%
9 Refused (Don’t Read) 7%
24. What is the highest level of schooling you’ve completed? (Don’t Read) (n=610)
1 Grades 1-8 2%
2 Some High School 3%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 84
3 High School Graduate/GED 23%
4 Some College/Vocational Training 24%
5 College Graduate 33%
6 Post Graduate/Professional School 12%
9 Refused 4%
25. I am going to read some categories of household income. Please stop me when I reach the
category of your total 2017 annual household income, before taxes: (n=610)
01 Less than $10,000 6%
02 $10,000 to under $30,000 16%
03 $30,000 to under $50,000 15%
04 $50,000 to under $70,000 14%
05 $70,000 to under $100,000 11%
06 $100,000 to under $150,000 9%
08 More than $150,000 6%
99 Refused (DON’T READ) 23%
26. [By observation] (n=610)
1 Male 54%
2 Female 46%
27. Note Language (English or Spanish) (n=610) 98% English, 2% Spanish
28. [Optional] If we conduct additional research, such as focus groups, would you like to be
contacted to discuss this information further? (n=610)
1 Yes 36%
2 No (skip to end) 64%
29. Can I please have your name and phone number and/or an email address? (enter verbatim)
220 individuals provided contact information
Demographic Profile of Residents Surveyed Compared to Population Estimates
Profile of Residents Surveyed
Compared to U.S. Census Population Estimates for Salt Lake County, Utah
Population Characteristic
U.S. Census
Population
Estimates
Unweighted
Sample*
Weighted
Sample
Male 50.2% 51% 54%
Female 49.8% 49% 46%
White/Caucasian 71.4% 72% 70%
Black/African American 2.1% 2% 2%
Hispanic/Latino 18.3% 13% 15%
Asian American 4.3% 3% 4%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 85
Other/Mixed 4.5% 2% 3%
Refused NA 6% 6%
*May not add to 100% due to rounding error.
Profile of Residents Surveyed
Compared to Salt Lake City 911 Communications Bureau Database
Respondent Characteristic
Total Database
Distribution
Unweighted
Sample
Weighted
Sample
Salt Lake City 79% 67% 79%
Sandy City 21% 33% 21%
7-Digit Dispatch 80% 66% 80%
911 Dispatch 20% 34% 20%
Police 86% 66% 80%
Fire 4% 18% 10%
Medical 10% 17% 10%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 86
Appendix A: Descriptive Profile
This document provides a descriptive profile of the Salt Lake City 911 Center. The
purpose of this profile is to document the project team’s understanding of the
organization, staffing, levels of service, operations, technology, and costs for the 911
Center, as well as key issues impacting and shaping service requirements. The data
contained in the profile was developed based on the work conducted by the project team,
including:
• One-on-one interviews conducted with 911 Center staff;
• On-site floor observations and ride along observations with public safety staff;
• Collection of workload and service provision data;
• Review of strategic documents and reports, budget data, organizational structure,
and key practices.
The descriptive profile is not intended to include every organizational and operational
facet of the organization, but rather to provide an overview and to serve as the “base line”
or “status quo” against which any recommendations made at the conclusion of the study
can be compared to demonstrate the change in role s, organizational structure, or
operational practice.
The profile includes a summary of the organizational structure, budget, services provided,
roles and responsibilities of staff, and technology used by the 911 Center. As part of this
review, the project team spoke directly with various members of the Center’s staff, and
collected and reviewed various data describing the organization a nd work processes.
Information contained in this descriptive profile will be employed in the analysis of issues
during subsequent stages of the project.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Salt Lake City 911 Center serves as the single public safety answering point (PSAP)
for the entirety of Salt Lake City, as well as the City of Sandy. The combined population
of these two cities is approximately 300,000. The 911 Center provides call-taking and
police and fire dispatch services to the following agencies:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 87
• Salt Lake City Fire Department
• Salt Lake City Police Department
• City of Sandy Fire Department
• City of Sandy Police Department
• City of Sandy Animal Services
The 911 Center is managed by an Executive Director, who reports to the Mayor’s Office.
The following sections of this profile explore the 911 Dispatch Center’s budget, staffing
and organizational structure, technology, staff roles and responsibilities, and
workload/performance benchmarks.
2. BUDGET
The following table summarizes the 911 Center budget data provided to the project team,
showing revenues and expenditures for each of the last three fiscal years.
Revenue 2016 2017 2018
INTERLOCAL FOR E911 SERVICES 516,160.00 600,275.00 467,045.00
FUEL REIMBURSEMENT 1,653.60 954.00 954.00
CELL PHONE REIMBURSEMENT 156.00 162.00 144.00
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES -82,464.00 0.00 0.00
TRANSFER FROM E911/CF DISPATCH 2,800,000.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 3,235,505.60 601,391.00 468,143.00
Expenditures 2016 2017 2018
BASE PAY 3,646,179.97 3,954,452.98 3,501,703.57
LONGEVITY PAY 34,849.10 34,281.25 31,431.25
OVERTIME PAY 509,975.37 461,002.35 420,457.03
OTHER PAY 1,730.35 1,805.36 1,655.36
HOURLY/SEASONAL PAY 54,298.24 30,921.32 30,470.82
ST DISAB/PARENTAL PAYMENT 64,655.40 89,683.02 85,138.71
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 0.00 23.88 23.88
ANNUAL CASH CONVERSION 8,111.31 9,556.86 9,556.86
TAXABLE FRINGE BENEFIT 0.00 382.15 382.15
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS-FICA 318,644.90 335,713.16 298,883.22
STATE RETIREMENT 28,447.34 29,072.06 25,729.31
DEFERRED BENEFIT 401K 38,350.53 38,804.73 34,482.94
EMPL BENEFITS-STATE RET.NON.CT 696,428.72 736,727.05 655,070.53
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 501C9 OPEB 62,125.55 77,942.70 70,249.46
POLICE RETIREMENT 0.00 227.33 227.33
RETIREMENT PAYOUT 0.00 0.00 0.00
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 88
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE -3,740.25 -11,462.20 -11,462.20
HSA - CITY CONTRIBUTION 616,926.72 690,179.51 607,476.80
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 96,643.99 104,327.24 102,531.56
SALARY CONTINGENCY 0.00 4,721.15 4,721.15
OPERATING EXPENSES 687,961.82 795,316.54 593,133.58
TOTAL 6,861,589.06 7,383,678.44 6,461,863.31
Expenditures rose overall from 2016 to 2017, and fell from 2017 to 2018, ending at below-
2016 levels this year. Major expenditure categories such as base and overtime pay, FICA
contributions, State retirement, HSA contributions, and operating expenses all rose and
fell in lockstep with – and clearly contributed to – the overall spending trend.
3. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The following organizational chart shows the reporting structure of staff within SLC 911.
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Executive
Director
(1)
Deputy Director
(1)
Administartive
Supervisor
(1)
Operations
Manager
(1, 1 vacant)
Operations
Supervisor
(9)
Police Dispatch/
Call Taker
(54, 1 vacant)
Fire Dispatch/
Call Taker
(20)
PBX Operator
(3 vacant)
Administrative
Assistant
(1)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 89
The following table shows the number of authorized and filled positions within each job
title in the organization, as well as a summary of their key job duties. This table is not
intended to provide a “job description” level of detail, but to outline the core functions for
wh ich each position is responsible.
KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Position Title Authorized
Positions
Filled
Positions
Key Roles and Responsibilities
Executive Director
1.0
1.0
• Reports to the Office of the Mayor.
• Plans, organizes, and oversees all operational
and administrative functions of the 911 Center.
• Plans and evaluates the work of the operations
managers and the administrative and
operations supervisors.
• Directs the development and execution of
programs, initiatives, and systems to achieve
the 911 Center’s goals.
• Oversees the Center’s relationships with
partner agencies, and ensures that the Center
meets the needs of all partner agencies.
• Establishes and tracks performance targets
and professional development targets for 911
Center staff and management. Ensures that
staff perform at optimal levels.
• Ensures that the Center’s technology
infrastructure is optimized to provide the
highest level of service possible.
Deputy Director
1.0
1.0
• Reports to the Executive Director.
• Leads, supervises, and directs the 911
Center’s Operations Managers and
Supervisors.
• Assists in the development and preparation of
the Bureau’s budget, and oversees budget
expenditures.
• Manages operations of the 911 Center on a
daily basis and during emergencies.
• Sets employee performance standards and
ensures the availability of training and
certifications to meet them.
• Leads projects, programming and upgrades
related to the Bureau’s software and
technology.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 90
KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Position Title Authorized
Positions
Filled
Positions
Key Roles and Responsibilities
Operations Manager
2.0
1.0
• Reports to the Deputy Director.
• Provides direct oversight of floor supervisors.
• Oversee core dispatch operations, including
problems resolution, staff discipline, quality
assurance oversight, customer interface and
related.
• Performs a variety of special projects, as
assigned.
Administrative
Supervisor
1.0
1.0
• Reports to the Deputy Director.
• Provides special services support including
database management and update.
• Performs QA activities on a team of personnel
similar to Operations Supervisors.
• Performs special projects, as directed.
• Significant time and effort currently dedicated
to implementation of new CAD system in spring
2019.
Administrative
Assistant
1.0
1.0
• Reports to Executive Director.
• Processes GRAMA requests, when members
of the public ask for audio copies of taped 911
calls. Finds and listens to the recording, alerts
Executive Director of content which may need
to be redacted, and coordinates with Police
Department staff to ensure appropriate
redactions occur before distribution.
• Orders dispatch equipment such as uniforms,
headsets, etc.
• Runs timekeeping for the payroll process,
ensuring that employee calendars are correct
and all time accounted for.
• Posts listings for new job openings.
Operations Supervisor
9.0
9.0
• Reports to the active Operations Manager.
• Provides direct supervision of call takers and
dispatchers.
• Enforces 911 Center policies and procedures.
• Handles problems between employees, and
dispenses discipline as necessary.
• Provides performance feedback to call takers
and dispatchers.
• Handles complaints from citizens and field
units.
• Accepts and processes overflow 911 calls as
needed.
• Troubleshoots problems with CAD, radio, and
telephone systems.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 91
KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Position Title Authorized
Positions
Filled
Positions
Key Roles and Responsibilities
Police Dispatch/
Call Taker
Dispatcher 3
55.0
54.0
• Reports to the active Operations Supervisor(s)
or Operations manager.
CALL TAKING
• Takes incoming emergency calls from the
public. Provides professional, compassionate,
and expedient service to callers.
• Gathers crucial information from callers,
classifies incidents types, and
creates/populates CAD calls for police
dispatchers.
• Transfers fire-related calls to the fire dispatch/
call-takers.
• Transfers non-emergency calls to the
appropriate public safety personnel or the non-
emergency line.
• Answers text-to-911 messages.
DISPATCH
• Receives incoming CAD calls from call-takers,
identifies the priority level of incidents, and
dispatches the correct police units to respond.
• Provides initial call information and updates
field units as the call progresses.
• Provides support to field units, runs plates or
background checks as necessary, and
dispatches backup if needed.
• All duties of other dispatch/call-takers.
• Also conducts training of new dispatch/call-
takers.
• Is trained and capable of taking all call types:
law enforcement/fire/medical.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 92
KEY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Position Title Authorized
Positions
Filled
Positions
Key Roles and Responsibilities
Fire Dispatch/
Call Taker
Dispatcher 3
20.0
20.0
• Reports to the active Operations Supervisor or
Operations manager.
• Takes fire-related emergency calls from the
public when transferred by police call-takers.
Provides professional, compassionate, and
expedient service to callers.
• Gathers crucial information from callers,
classifies fire-related incidents types, and
creates/populates CAD calls.
• Identifies the priority level of incidents, and
dispatches the correct fire/EMS units to
respond.
• Provides initial call information and updates
field units as the call progresses.
• Provides support to field units, tracks progress
of call, and dispatches backup if needed.
• Answers non-emergency fire calls. Handles
administrative fire requests or transfers to the
appropriate fire personnel.
• Answers fire-related text-to-911 messages.
• All duties of other dispatch/call-takers.
• Also conducts training of new dispatch/call-
takers.
• Is trained and capable of taking all call types:
law enforcement/fire/medical.
PBX Operator
3.0
0.0
• Reports to the active Operations Supervisor or
Operations manager.
• Takes incoming calls to the non-emergency
police line from the public.
• Provides basic Police Department information
to callers.
• Transfers callers to the appropriate officer or
dispatcher as necessary.
• Transfers callers to the appropriate PSAP as
necessary.
5. CURRENT PERSONNEL SCHEDULING
The table below shows the number of staff assigned under the current schedule to work
each of the three floor positions (police dispatch, fire dispatch, police call-taking) during
each segment of the week. As the table shows, the number of police dispatche rs rises
and falls slightly throughout the week depending on the number of channels operating for
the City and whether the Rio Grande channel is operating. The number of fire dispatchers
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 93
does not change, and the number of call-takers varies to reflect workload at each time of
day and day of the week.
Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
POLICE DISPATCH
0300-0700 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0700-1100 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
1100-1500 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1500-1700 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1700-1900 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
1900-2300 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
2300-0300 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
FIRE DISPATCH
0300-0700 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
0700-1100 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1100-1500 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1500-1700 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1700-1900 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1900-2300 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2300-0300 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
POLICE CALL TAKERS
0300-0700 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0700-1100 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
1100-1500 7 7 7 7 7 6 5
1500-1700 8 9 9 9 9 8 8
1700-1900 6 7 7 7 7 6 6
1900-2300 6 6 6 6 8 7 6
2300-0300 4 4 4 4 5 5 4
The SLC 911 Center’s schedule relies mostly on 10 -hour and 12-hour shifts, which have
the advantage of providing staff with more than 2 days off per week. The schedule is
developed based on historical call volume, and is revisited three times per year to ensure
that sufficient manpower is in place to handle periods of heavy call volume.
6. KEY TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
The following table shows the primary technologies in use by the organization, along with
a brief description of their functionality and utilization by staff.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 94
TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION
Technology Description
Versadex CAD
• Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system by
Versaterm, allows the creation and modification of
police, fire, and EMS calls.
• Used by 911 staff to create calls for service, share
them with public safety responders, and update
the calls with new information as they progress.
• Used by field public safety staff to
• Will be replaced by Hexagon®, another CAD
system. Transition to the new system is underway.
Versadex RMS
• Records Management System (RMS) by
Versaterm, allows searching of statewide and
national law enforcement records.
• Used by 911 center staff and public safety
responders in the field to run license plates,
property records, criminal records, and check
other vital records in a timely manner.
Intrado
• 911-specific multi-trunk phone system with the
capability to queue and connect multiple calls
concurrently. Uses an on-screen interface for call-
takers.
• Used by the 911 center staff to receive, prioritize,
and process emergency calls.
ProQA
• Call script system by Priority Dispatch, integrated
with the agency’s CAD system. Uses a series of
logic-based prompts to populate necessary
information fields of a CAD call, whether police,
fire, medical.
• Used by 911 Center staff to gather necessary
information from callers about incidents and
automatically fill out CAD calls for dispatch.
Motorola Radios
• 911-specific digital radio system used by
dispatchers and public safety agencies to direct
field personnel and communicate in real time.
NICE
• Call recording software
Telestaff
• Scheduling system used to manage all employees’
time.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 95
Appendix B: Employee Survey Analysis
As part of the Matrix Consulting Group’s study for the Salt Lake City 911 Center, the
project team distributed an anonymous survey to employees of the 911 Center to gauge
their opinions on a variety of topics relevant to the study. Survey responses were gathered
and analyzed to understand employee sentiments on the Center’s operational efficiency,
training, leadership, and work environment.
The survey generally asked two types of questions:
• Multiple Choice Questions: Respondents were presented with a number of
multiple choice questions, or statements where respondents indicated their level
of agreement or disagreement with the statement. They could also indicate how
effective they perceive each of the 911 Center’s technology systems to be.
• Open-ended response questions: At the end of the survey, staff were given
space to provide opinions about the 911 Center’s strengths and weaknesses in
their own words.
The link to the online survey was distributed to staff in September via email. A total of 64
responses were received out of 83 invitations, for a response rate of 77%. A copy of the
survey as seen by respondents is included as an appendix following the analysis.
1. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
While a more detailed analysis can be found in the sections below, the f ollowing points
summarize the key findings from this survey:
Findings of Strengths
Findings of Improvement Opportunities
• Respondents believe they provide a high
level of service to the public and to first
responders.
• Most employees said that they believe the
911 Center’s workload is equitably
distributed among staff.
• Respondents are generally happy with their
managers and supervisors, particularly
their responsiveness to staff needs.
• Many respondents said that they do not have
high-quality training available to them, and that
they do not have time available to take training.
They would like to see improved/expanded
training opportunities.
• Several staff said that they feel the 911
Center’s policies and procedures are not
consistently applied.
• The ProQA system and the Intrado phone
system were both poorly reviewed by staff,
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 96
Findings of Strengths
Findings of Improvement Opportunities
• Respondents believe the 911 Center
provides good initial training to staff.
• Most staff believe compensation is fair and
the use of overtime is appropriate at the
911 Center.
• Respondents are pleased with the
performance of the CAD/RMS suite and the
radios used by dispatchers.
• Employees see teamwork and a strong
Director as the 911 Center’s greatest
strengths.
particularly for the level of service they
provide.
• A number of employees said that line staff
should be valued or heard more than they
currently are.
• Several respondents stated that they
believe the 911 Center is in need of
additional staffing, and that the current
staffing numbers are insufficient to meet
workload demand.
• A number of staff listed increases in
compensation as an opportunity for
improvement.
2. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
While responses to the survey were confidential, the project team asked respondents to
indicate some information about their position in order to understand the source of
responses themes and identify trends among respondents.
(2.1) A Mix of Employees With Different Tenures At the 911 Center Responded To
the Survey.
The following table and chart show the number of survey responses received, broken
down by the length of time that respondents have worked for the 911 Center.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 97
Agency Percentage Count
0-1 Years 22% 14
2-5 Years 36% 23
6-9 Years 5% 3
10+ Years 38% 24
Total 100% 64
The Vast Majority of Respondents are Dispatcher/Call-takers; Less Than 15%
Are Supervisory Staff.
The table and chart below show the number of respondents who are line staff,
supervisors/management, or “other”. The two “other” responses were the Director and an
administrative employee.
Position Type Percentage Count
Call Taker/Dispatcher 83% 53
Supervisor/Manager 14% 9
Other 3% 2
Total 100% 64
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0-1 Years
2-5 Years
6-9 Years
10+ Years
How Long Have You Worked for the 911 Center?
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 98
Day Shifts, Swing Shifts, and Night Shifts Were All Represented Among
Participants.
The following table and chart show the survey’s participants by the shift that they work.
Shift Percentage Count
Day Shift 41% 26
Swing Shift 23% 15
Night Shift 33% 21
N/A (not on shift schedule) 3% 2
Total 100% 64
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Call Taker/Dispatcher
Supervisor/Manager
Other
Which of the Following Describes Your Position?
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Day Shift
Swing Shift
Night Shift
N/A (not on shift schedule)
Which Shift Do You Currently Work?
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 99
3. MULTIPLE CHOICE RESPONSES
The second section of the survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement
or disagreement with nineteen (19) statements about the 911 Center. The response
options were “strongly agree” (SA), “agree” (A), “disagree” (D), and “strongly disagree ”
(SD). Respondents could also choose “N/A” or opt out of responding to the statement at
all, in which case they were not counted among the respondents for that statement. For
this reason, percentages may not add up to 100%. There were a total of 62 respondents
who participated in these statements.
The 911 Center’s Employees Believe They Provide A High Level of Service to
the Community.
The table below shows the responses received to statements about the level of service
provided by the 911 Center.
# Statement SA A D SD
1 Our agency provides a high level of service to the public that calls in. 56% 42% 2% 0%
2 Our agency provides a high level of service to all of our police and fire
public safety partner agencies. 58% 42% 0% 0%
3 Our agency provides a consistent level of service (day-to-day and shift-
to-shift). 42% 47% 11% 0%
4 Our agency's personnel are professional and polite with the public. 35% 61% 2% 0%
5 Our agency's personnel are professional and polite with all our public
safety partner agencies. 45% 48% 5% 0%
6 Our agency's work ethic is strong. 42% 45% 10% 3%
7 I believe that I clearly understand the operations of all our public safety
partner agencies well. 39% 46% 15% 0%
8 I believe we handle emergency phone calls in a timely manner. 52% 42% 6% 0%
9 I believe we handle non-emergency phone calls in a timely manner. 42% 45% 11% 2%
10 I believe that the dedicated non-emergency phone line improves our
level of service. 42% 35% 15% 8%
As the table shows, nearly every statement received agreement levels of 85% or greater,
and only one statement received more than 20% disagreement. The employees of the
911 center clearly believe they provide excellent service to their partner public safet y
agencies and to the public. Statement #10, regarding the impact of the non -emergency
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 100
line on the 911 Center’s level of service, received a slightly smaller, but still robust,
majority of agreement.
Employees Believe the 911 Center’s Workload is Well-Distributed, But That
Overall Staffing Is Not Sufficient To Handle the Call Volume.
The table below shows the responses received to statements about staffing and the
handling of the 911 Center’s workload.
# Statement SA A D SD
1 Workload for call-takers is equitably distributed -- I am about as busy as
my colleagues. 22% 59% 14% 5%
2 Workload for dispatchers is equitably distributed -- I am about as busy
as my colleagues. 26% 53% 19% 2%
3 Our staff rotation practices (reliefs) help to equally distribute workload. 28% 56% 14% 2%
4 Our staff rotation practices (reliefs) allow the operations of the floor to
continue smoothly and uninterrupted. 21% 57% 21% 2%
5 We are sufficiently staffed to meet our agency's call-taking needs. 3% 31% 43% 22%
6 We are sufficiently staffed to meet our agency's dispatch needs. 5% 45% 33% 17%
• Statements about the equitable distribution of workload all received strong positive
majorities, with more than 75% agreement for each.
• Statements about the sufficiency of staffing received much less agreement. 65%
of employees do not believe the agency is staffed enough to handle call volume,
and employees are split on whether staffing is sufficient for the 911 Center’s
dispatch duties.
• Staff hired more than 5 years ago tended to disagree more (77% disagreement)
than those hired within the last 5 years (56% disagreement) with Statement #5
regarding the sufficiency of staff for call-taking. Likewise, longer-tenured staff
tended to disagree more (65% disagreement) with Statement #6 about staffing for
dispatch needs than those more recently hired (38% disagreement).
Employees Are Generally Happy With Their Managers and Supervisors,
Particularly Their Responsiveness to Staff’s Needs.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 101
The table below shows the responses received to statements about supervision and
management at the 911 Center.
# Statement SA A D SD
7 My supervisor provides adequate direction and leadership which
motivates me to work well. 31% 41% 14% 10%
8 My supervisor is consistent in their oversight. 28% 29% 26% 14%
9 My managers spend enough time with me to evaluate me individually. 29% 36% 24% 9%
10 My managers are available and responsive to my needs. 41% 45% 9% 3%
• More than 70% of respondents said that their supervisor provides adequate
direction and leadership.
• 57% of staff said that their supervisor is consistent in their oversight, and 65% said
that their manager spends enough time with them to evaluate them individually.
• Nearly all staff said that their managers are available and responsive to their
needs.
Employees Believe the 911 Center Provides Quality Initial training, But Good
Ongoing Training is Difficult to Find. Staff Lack the Time to Take Advantage of
Training.
The table below shows the responses received to statements about the support which
staff receive, specifically in the form of ongoing training and the application of employee
policies and procedures.
# Statement SA A D SD
11 Our agency provides new staff with strong initial training so that they
are prepared to do their jobs well. 31% 52% 7% 5%
12 The training program for our new employees is appropriate in length
and content. 24% 57% 7% 5%
13 I have high-quality in-service training available to me. 22% 53% 17% 5%
14 I have high-quality outside training available to me. 12% 29% 34% 21%
15 I have sufficient time available to take training. 16% 24% 41% 19%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 102
16 Our agency's policies and procedures are clear and answer nearly all
questions I may have. 12% 60% 22% 2%
17 Our agency's policies and procedures are consistently applied. 10% 47% 29% 14%
• Employees have a high opinion of the training provided to new staff, with greater
than 80% saying that it is strong enough to prepare employees well and that it is
appropriate in length and content.
• The quality of in-service training received positive responses, with 75% of staff
agreeing that they have high-quality in-service training available to them.
• There was more disagreement than agreement with Statement #14, regarding the
availability of high-quality outside training to staff.
• Similarly, 60% of staff disagreed with Statement #15, that they have sufficient time
to take training. Staff hired within the last year ten ded to agree with this statement
more (83% agreement, 17% disagreement) than other respondents (28%
agreement, 72% disagreement).
• Most staff (72%) believe the 911 Center’s policies and procedures are clear
enough to answer their questions, but when aske d whether the policies and
procedures are equally applied, the majority shrunk to 57%.
Employees Believe the 911 Center Is A Good Place to Work. Opinions, However,
Are Split on Staff Retention and the Use of Unscheduled Leave.
The table below shows the responses received to statements about morale and retention
in the 911 Center.
# Statement SA A D SD
1
I feel that our agency has the respect of all our public safety partner
agencies. 19% 53% 21% 5%
2 I currently have high work morale. 26% 43% 22% 9%
3 I am planning to make a career at this agency. 40% 33% 16% 5%
4 Our agency does a good job of recruiting qualified applicants. 11% 60% 23% 4%
5 Our agency does a good job of retaining high-quality staff. 5% 60% 26% 9%
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 103
6
Our agency offers a compensation package that is fair and equitable
compared to surrounding agencies. 26% 53% 10% 5%
7 I currently work an appropriate and reasonable amount of overtime. 26% 48% 5% 2%
8
Our agency as a whole works an appropriate and reasonable amount
of mandated overtime. 24% 53% 10% 5%
9 I am comfortable with the amount of voluntary overtime that I work. 28% 53% 5% 2%
10
Unscheduled leave (example: sick time) is only used when it is
appropriate at our agency. 14% 38% 24% 21%
• Statements #1-3 all focused on the intangible attitudes of staff, and they all
received strong majorities of at least 69% agreement, with no more than a third of
employees disagreeing on any statement.
• Statement #4, regarding the 911 Center’s ability to recruit qualified applicants,
received 71% agreement and 27% disagreement.
• Statement #5, regarding retention of high-quality staff at the 911 Center, received
65% agreement and 35% disagreement, which is a slightly less positive response
than Statement #4.
• Statements regarding compensation levels and overtime were all met with
agreement of 75% or greater, and disagreement did not surpass 15% for any of
these statements. Statement #8 however, showed that 56% of man agers and
supervisors believe the agency works too much mandated overtime, whereas just
9% of line staff hold this opinion.
• Statement #10 received 52% agreement and 45% disagreement: a slim majority
believe that unscheduled leave is used appropriately. However, when
disaggregating this data to Employees’ roles, this majority was stronger among
line staff (62% agree, 34% disagree), while supervisors overwhelming disagreed
with the statement (11% agree, 89% disagree).
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 104
4. RATING OF TECHNOLOGY
The third section of the survey asked respondents to rate each of the primary technology
systems in use by the 911 Center in terms of the level of service they allow and the
reliability of the system. Ratings were given on a scale of 1 -4, with 4 being excellent. The
table below shows how employees rated each system.
System 4 3 2 1
Versadex CAD - Reliability 23% 56% 14% 7%
Versadex CAD - Service Level 24% 59% 11% 6%
Versadex RMS - Reliability 28% 58% 11% 4%
Versadex RMS - Service Level 28% 52% 17% 4%
Priority Dispatch ProQA - Reliability 18% 38% 25% 18%
Priority Dispatch ProQA - Service Level 17% 28% 28% 26%
Intrado Phone System - Reliability 16% 25% 30% 29%
Intrado Phone System - Service Level 10% 29% 27% 35%
Motorola Radios - Reliability 42% 38% 15% 6%
Motorola Radios - Service Level 39% 37% 18% 6%
• As the table shows, employees think highly of the Versadex products in use by the
911 Center, as well as their Motorola radio consoles.
• Opinions were less favorable regarding ProQA, where 43% of all respondents (and
51% of line staff) gave a low rating to the system’s reliability, and 54% of
respondents rated it poorly for the level of service it allows.
• Furthermore, ratings of the Intrado phone system were less fa vorable: 59% of
respondents rated the system’s reliability poorly (although staff hired within the last
2 years gave it an average score of 3.2, as opposed to the average of 2.1 among
other staff), and 62% of them gave a poor rating to the level of service it allows.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 105
5. OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
The final section of the survey asked respondents to provide answers to a set of open -
ended questions in their own words. The following points illustrate the primary themes
raised by participants in this format.
Employees View the Teamwork Among Staff and the Quality of Leadership As
the 911 Center’s Key Strengths.
The first open-ended question asked respondents to list the top strengths of the 911
Center in their own words. A total of 48 responses were received, most of them with 2 or
3 topics listed. The following table shows the most common response themes.
Category %
Teamwork 15%
Leadership 13%
Camaraderie 7%
Dedicated staff 6%
Compensation 5%
Customer Service 5%
Professionalism 5%
Quality staff 5%
Training 5%
• The sense of teamwork was the most commonly listed strength, along with the
sense of camaraderie that staff share. Staff work well together, and they enjoy
each other’s company.
• Many staff cited strong leadership from the Director as one of the 911 Center’s
key strengths.
• The dedication, professionalism, and overall high quality of staff was listed as one
of the primary strengths as well, with a combined 16% of responses listing some
combination of the three.
• The 911 Center’s compensation package was listed as a strength by some staff,
but the following section reveals that other view it as a weakness.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 106
Improved Training Opportunities, Additional Staff, and Compensation Growth
Were the Top Improvement Opportunities Listed by Staff.
The second open-ended question asked respondents to list the 911 Center’s most
important opportunities for improvement. A total of 48 responses were received, most of
them with 2 or 3 topics listed. The following table shows the most common response
themes.
Category %
Training 14%
Compensation 10%
Staffing 10%
Consistency 7%
Chain of command 5%
Policies and Procedures 5%
• More training opportunities and better quality training were the top concerns for
employees in response to this question.
• Several staff listed the available compensation packages as an opportunity for
improvement.
• Staffing was a common refrain: many employees believe the 911 Center is simply
understaffed and would benefit from more personnel.
• Enhanced consistency and policy/procedure improvements were among the top
responses as well – staff want to know what they can expect at work.
• Several responses dealt with the chain of command at the 911 Center, specifically
line staff feeling that they should be valued or listened to more than at present.
6. SURVEY QUESTIONS
The survey as presented to respondents is shown below:
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 107
The Matrix Consulting Group has been retained by Salt Lake City to conduct a performance audit of
the 911 Center. As part of this effort, the project team is distributing this survey to employees of the
911 Center in order to gauge employee opinions on topics important to the audit and ensure that
the input of each individual within the organization is heard.
Please take a few minutes to thoughtfully complete this survey. Your responses are entirely
confidential, and no participant's individual survey responses will be shared.
If you have any questions regarding this survey, you can reach the survey administrator, David
Branch, at 951-295-7581 or dbranch@matrixcg.net
Survey Introduction
1. How long have you worked for the 911 Center?
0-1 Years
2-5 Years
6-9 Years
10+ Years
While the survey is confidential, knowing some information about your position will help the project
team recognize trends and patterns among different groups of respondents for analysis purposes.
Employee Background
2. Which of the following best describes your position?
Call-taker/Dispatcher Supervisor/Manager
Other (please specify)
3. Which shift do you currently work?
Day Shift (shifts starting in the early morning or mid-morning)
Afternoon Shift (shifts starting late morning or afternoon)
Night Shift (shifts starting in the evening, late night, or very early morning)
N/A, I work normal business hours instead of a shift schedule.
Agency Performance and Service Level
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 108
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
1. Our agency provides
a high level of service to
the public that calls in.
2. Our agency provides
a high level of service to
all of our police and fire
public safety partner
agencies.
3. Our agency provides
a consistent level of
service (day-to-day and
shift-to-shift).
4. Our agency's
personnel are
professional and polite
with the public.
5. Our agency's
personnel are
professional and polite
with all our public safety
partner agencies.
6. Our agency's work
ethic is strong.
7. I believe that I clearly
understand the
operations of all
our public safety partner
agencies well.
8. I believe we handle
emergency phone calls
in a timely manner.
9. I believe we handle
non-emergency phone
calls in a timely manner.
10. I believe that the
dedicated non-
emergency phone
line improves our level
of service.
4. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements. If a statement is
not relevant to you, please select N/A.
Agency Operations and Management
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 109
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
1. Workload for call-
takers is equitably
distributed -- I am about
as busy as my
colleagues.
2. Workload for
dispatchers is equitably
distributed -- I am about
as busy as my
colleagues.
3. Our staff rotation
practices (reliefs) help to
equally distribute
workload.
4. Our staff rotation
practices (reliefs) allow
the operations of the
floor to continue
smoothly and
uninterrupted.
5. We are sufficiently
staffed to meet our
agency's call-taking
needs.
6. We are sufficiently
staffed to meet our
agency's dispatch
needs.
7. My supervisor
provides adequate
direction and
leadership which
motivates me to work
well.
8. My supervisor is
consistent in their
oversight.
9. My managers spend
enough time with me to
evaluate me individually.
10. My managers are
available and
responsive to my needs.
5. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements. If a
statement is not relevant to you, please select N/A.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 110
11. Our agency provides
new staff with strong
initial training so that
they are prepared to do
their jobs well.
12. The training
program for our new
employees is
appropriate in length
and content.
13. I have high-quality
in-service training
available to me.
14. I have high-quality
outside training available
to me.
15. I have sufficient time
available to take
training.
16. Our agency's
policies and procedures
are clear and answer
nearly all questions I
may have.
17. Our agency's
policies and procedures
are consistently applied.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Agency Work Environment
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 111
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
1. I feel that our agency
has the respect of all our
public safety partner
agencies.
2. I currently have high
work morale.
3. I am planning to make
a career at this agency.
4. Our agency does a
good job of recruiting
qualified applicants.
5. Our agency does a
good job of retaining
high-quality staff.
6. Our agency offers a
compensation package
that is fair and equitable
compared
to surrounding
agencies.
7. I currently work an
appropriate and
reasonable amount of
overtime.
8. Our agency as a
whole works an
appropriate and
reasonable amount of
mandated overtime.
9. I am comfortable with
the amount of voluntary
overtime that I work.
10. Unscheduled leave
(example: sick time) is
only used when it is
appropriate at our
agency.
6. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements. If a
statement is not relevant to you, please select N/A.
Technology
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 112
Reliability
(on a scale of 1-4, with 4 being highest)
Level of Service
(on a scale of 1-4, with 4 being highest)
Versadex CAD system
Versadex RMS
Priority Dispatch ProQA
Intrado phone system
Motorola radios
7. Please indicate the degree to which each of the following technologies in use by the 911 Center are 1)
reliable, and 2) effective in providing a high level of service. If you do not have experience with one or more
technologies, please skip them.
Please answer the following questions with regard to what you believe is the average amount of
time required for each task. If you do not have experience with a particular task, please skip it.
While it is recognized these are only estimates, your judgment based on your professional
experience is appreciated.
Please enter your answers in terms of the number of minutes and seconds required for each. For
example, for a 45-second task, you would put a "0" in the minutes box, and a "45" in the seconds
box. For a task taking 2.5 minutes, you would put a "2" in the minutes box and a "30" in the
seconds box.
Processing Time
Minutes
Seconds
8. As a call-taker, how much time do you typically spend on an incoming emergency phone call (law
enforcement)?
Minutes
Seconds
9. As a call-taker, how much time do you typically spend on an incoming emergency phone call (fire)?
Minutes
Seconds
10. As a call-taker, how much time do you typically spend on an incoming emergency phone call (medical)?
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 113
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 114
Appendix C: Police and Fire Survey Analysis
As part of the Matrix Consulting Group’s study for the Salt Lake City 911 Center, the
project team distributed an anonymous survey to employees of public safety agencies
(police and fire departments) served by the 911 Center to gauge their opinions on a
variety of topics relevant to the study. Survey responses were gathered and analyzed to
understand customer sentiments on the level of service, professionalism, and customer
service provided by the Salt Lake City 911 Center.
The survey generally asked two types of questions:
• Multiple Choice Questions: Respondents were presented with a number of
multiple choice questions, or statements where respondents indicated their level
of agreement or disagreement with the statement.
• Open-ended response questions: At the end of the survey, staff were given
space to provide opinions about the division’s strengths and weaknesses in their
own words.
The link to the online survey was distributed to staff in September via email and web link.
Of the 641 emails distributed, 291 responses were received, for a rate of 45%. The
remaining 27 responses came from the web link which was sent to the Sandy Police
Department.
Summary of Key Findings
While a more detailed analysis can be found in the sections below, the following points
summarize the key findings from the responses received to this survey:
Findings of Strengths
Findings of Improvement Opportunities
• More than 70% of respondents said that
the 911 Center provides a high level of
service to its customer public safety
agencies and to the public.
• More than 70% of respondents said that
the correct number and types of units are
dispatched on calls.
• More than 80% of respondents said that
dispatchers are responsive and polite to
their agencies’ staff.
• The 911 Center’s processes for dispatching
emergency and non-emergency calls were
considered “efficient and effective” by fewer
than 50% of respondents.
• Over 40% of respondents disagreed when
asked if the initial details they receive from
dispatchers are accurate. Likewise, 40%
disagreed when asked if they receive dispatch
information that is timely and complete.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 115
Findings of Strengths
Findings of Improvement Opportunities
• 70% of respondents said that the 911
Center’s dispatchers are appropriately
trained for the procedures and protocols in
their particular agency.
• Over 75% of respondents said that the 911
Center’s supervisors are accessible and
responsive when they need help.
• More than 80% of respondents agreed that
their agency and the 911 Center work well
together during critical incidents.
• The dedication, experience, and
competence of the 911 Center’s personnel
were lauded as the greatest strengths of
the organization.
• The Sandy Fire Department’s respondents
were particularly happy with the service
they receive, regularly providing more
agreeing responses than the other
agencies.
• Just 40% of respondents believe that the 911
Center is appropriately staffed for their
workload.
• Staff who interact with dispatch more (line -level
officers) are less pleased with the Center’s
operations and level of service than
management and civilian employees.
• The Sandy Police Department is particularly
concerned about the 911 Center’s dispatching.
They gave 70% or more disagreeing responses
to questions about the efficiency and
effectiveness of the emergency dispatch
process, and about the accuracy,
completeness, timeliness of detail provided on
calls.
• Police respondents have a very negative
opinion of ProQA, repeatedly citing its
elimination as a major opportunity for
improvement. They said that it removes
dispatchers’ agency and takes too long to
follow its scripted protocols, both of which
impede service provision.
2. RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
While responses to the survey were confidential, the project team asked respondents to
indicate some information about their position in order to understand the source of
responses themes and identify trends among respondents.
The Salt Lake City Police Department Provided the Most Responses of Any
Agency.
The following table and chart show the number of survey responses received, broken
down by the employee’s agency. Given the smaller size of the Sandy public safety
departments, responses herein cannot be considered statistically significant but only
representative of those choosing to respond.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 116
Agency Percentage Count
Salt Lake City Fire Department 18% 57
Salt Lake City Police Department 70% 222
Sandy Fire Department 4% 12
Sandy Police Department 8% 27
Total 100% 318
The Vast Majority of Respondents are Full-Time Staff. Just 2% Are Part-Time or
Volunteers.
The table and chart below show the number of respondents who are full-time, part-time,
and volunteer staff.
Employment Status Percentage Count
Full time 98% 311
Part time 2% 5
Volunteer 0% 1
Total 100% 317
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Salt Lake City Fire Department
Salt Lake City Police Department
Sandy Fire Department
Sandy Police Department
Respondents by Public Safety Agency
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 117
Sworn Field Staff Account for About Half of Respondents, While Supervisors,
Management, and Civilians Compose the Other Half.
The following table and chart show the survey’s participants by their position type,
whether line level staff, supervisors, management, or civilians.
Position Type Percentage Count
Certified (Sworn) - Line Level 46% 144
Certified (Sworn) - Supervisory 27% 83
Certified (Sworn) - Management 10% 31
Civilian Position 17% 54
Total 100% 312
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Full time
Part time
Volunteer
Respondents by Employment Status
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 118
3. MULTIPLE CHOICE RESPONSES
The second section of the survey asked respondents to indicate their level of agreement
or disagreement with nineteen (19) statements about the 911 Center. The response
options were “strongly agree” (SA), “agree” (A), “disagree” (D), and “strongly disagree ”
(SD). Respondents could also choose “N/A” or opt out of responding to the statement at
all, in which case they were not counted among the respondents for that statement. For
this reason, percentages may not add up to 100%. There were a total of 286 respondents
who participated in these statements.
The table below shows the percentage of participants who responded “strongly agree”
(SA), “agree” (A), “disagree” (D), or “strongly disagree” (SD) to each statement. The
shading in the right-hand columns helps to illustrate trends in the comparative level of
agreement or disagreement with each statement.
# Statement SA A D SD
1 The SLC 911 Center provides a high level of service to personnel in
my agency. 31% 45% 14% 6%
2 The SLC 911 Center provides a high level of service to members of
the public who call. 30% 41% 13% 7%
3 The current process of dispatching emergency (911) calls for service is
efficient and effective. 11% 32% 26% 25%
4 The current process of dispatching non-emergency calls for service is
efficient and effective. 10% 35% 29% 19%
0%10%20%30%40%50%
Certified (Sworn) - Line Level
Certified (Sworn) - Supervisory
Certified (Sworn) - Management
Civilian Position
Respondents by Position Type
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 119
5 The initial details received from dispatch when responding to calls are
accurate. 7% 44% 28% 14%
6 The initial priority assigned to the calls I am sent on is accurate. 7% 44% 29% 8%
7 The number and types of units dispatched to calls are appropriate. 10% 63% 14% 3%
8 Dispatch information provided to us is done so in a timely manner. 12% 41% 29% 13%
9 Dispatch information provided is complete to help ensure field safety. 10% 42% 28% 12%
10 I do not get too much unnecessary information from dispatch. 13% 48% 25% 8%
11 The SLC 911 Center personnel are responsive when I need additional
information. 31% 50% 12% 2%
12 The SLC 911 Center personnel are polite to our staff. 45% 47% 4% 1%
13 Dispatch center personnel are trained to follow the appropriate policies
and procedures for my agency’s call responses. 17% 53% 14% 5%
14 The SLC 911 Center provides a consistent level of service (day to day,
shift by shift). 18% 49% 20% 6%
15 The SLC 911 Center is adequately staffed to meet our Agency’s
needs. 6% 34% 28% 17%
16 Our IT and communication systems integrate well with those at the
SLC 911 Center. 5% 43% 21% 9%
17 When issues arise between the SLC 911 Center personnel and my
Agency, they are resolved quickly and fairly. 15% 47% 17% 7%
18 SLC 911 Center shift supervisors are available and responsive to my
needs. 25% 52% 6% 2%
19 My Agency and the SLC 911 Center work well together during critical
incidents. 27% 56% 8% 2%
The following points outline key takeaways from these statements, including differences
in responses from different respondent groups.
The Sandy Fire Department Agreed with Every Statement More Often Than the
Other Agencies.
Throughout this section of the survey, the difference in opinion between agencies was
clear. For every single statement, the participants from the Sandy Fire Department
responded with more agreement than any other agency. This was true whether the
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 120
statement received more agreement or disagreement in general, and regardless of how
the other agencies responded.
Statements About The 911 Center’s Quality of Personnel Received Widespread
Agreement.
Most of the statements which received the heaviest agreeing and strongly agreeing
responses dealt with the 911 Center’s personnel and their interpersonal skills. Examples
include:
• Statement #1 and #2: the level of service provided to public safety agenc ies and
members of the public.
• Statement #11 and #12: the responsiveness and politeness of the 911 Center’s
staff.
• Statement #13: the training of the 911 Center’s staff related to policies and
procedures.
• Statement #14: the consistency of the 911 Center’s service level.
• Statement #18 and #19: the availability of supervisors and the 911 Center’s ability
to work with public safety agencies during critical incidents.
Statements About the Dispatch Process and the 911 Center’s Staffing Levels
Received More Disagreement Than Agreement.
Most statements received more agreement than disagreement, but there were three
exceptions which illustrate concerns held by the 911 Center’s customers. These were:
• Statement #3 and #4: the efficiency and effectiveness of dispatching emergency
and non-emergency call.
• Statement #15: the sufficiency of staffing levels at the 911 Center.
The Sandy Police Department Expressed Notably More Disagreement Than
Other Agencies to Statements About Dispatch Level of Service.
On a number of statements, the Sandy Police Department gave responses which were in
greater disagreement than the other agencies did. Collectively, this pattern appears to
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 121
show that the Sandy PD believes the 911 Center’s level of service is co mpromised by a
failure to quickly and accurately provide the information that the Department’s officers
need to respond to emergency calls. The statements are:
• Statement #1 and #2: the level of service provided to public safety agencies and
members of the public (60%+ disagreement for both).
• Statement #3: “the current process of dispatching emergency (911) calls for
service is efficient and effective” (92% disagreement).
• Statement #5: the accuracy of initial details received while responding to calls
(72% disagreement).
• Statement #8 and #9: the timeliness and completeness of dispatch information
provided to field officers (80%+ disagreement for both).
• Statement #13: “Dispatch center personnel are trained to follow the appropri ate
policies and procedures for my agency’s call responses” (56% disagreement).
• Statement #14: the consistency of the 911 Center’s level of service from day to
day and hour to hour (52% disagreement).
Line Staff Disagreed More Than Those in Management or Civilian Positions on
Statements About Dispatching, Staffing, and Technology.
For most statements, sworn line -level staff produced the lowest levels of agreement,
followed by supervisors, then management, and finally civilian employees. Thi s was
particularly pronounced in statements related directly to the dispatch process, the
sufficiency of staffing, and the integration of technology. The following statements saw
this pattern emerge:
• Statement #1 and #2: the level of service provided to public safety agencies and
members of the public.
• Statement #3 and #4: the processes of dispatching emergency and non -
emergency calls are efficient and effective.
• Statement #5: the accuracy of initial details received while responding to calls.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 122
• Statement #8 and #9: the timeliness and completeness of dispatch information
provided to field officers.
• Statement #15: the sufficiency of staffing at the 911 Center.
• Statement #16: the departments’ IT and communication systems integrate we ll
with those at the SLC 911 Center.
4. OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
The final section of the survey asked respondents to provide answers to a set of open -
ended questions in their own words. The following points illustrate the primary themes
raised by participants in this format.
The 911 Center’s Customers Believe that Quality Personnel Are the Center’s
Greatest Strength.
The first open-ended question asked respondents to list the top strengths of the 911
Center in their own words. A total of 196 res ponses were received, most of them with 2
or 3 topics listed. The following table shows the most common response themes by
responding agency.
SLC FD SLC PD SANDY FD SANDY PD
Quality staff Quality staff Efficient dispatch Friendly staff
Individual Employee Friendly staff Friendly staff Clear communication
Training Dedicated staff Quality staff Consistency in protocols
Care and concern Professionalism Customer service Responsiveness
Dedicated staff Responsiveness Responsiveness Care and concern
Facility Care and concern Clear communication Dedicated staff
Assignments of staff Experienced staff Technology Quality staff
• As the table shows, nearly all of the most common themes have to do with the
personnel at the 911 center, citing their experience, competence, dedication,
responsiveness, and general high quality (many responses simply said things like
“great people”).
• Themes such as training, facilities, and technology utilization were also men tioned,
but fewer responses focused on those topics.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 123
• For the Sandy FD and PD, qualitative strengths were still important, but some of
their top responses focused on the efficiency of dispatching, clear communication,
and consistency that they experience with the SLC 911 Center.
The 911 Center’s Customer Agencies Are Frustrated by the Accuracy and
Completeness of Dispatch Information. Police Departments Particularly Take
Issue with ProQA.
The first open-ended question asked respondents to list the 911 Center’s most important
opportunities for improvement. A total of 196 responses were received, most of them with
2 or 3 topics listed. The following table shows the most common response themes by
responding agency.
SLC FD SLC PD SANDY FD SANDY PD
Technology ProQA Coordination between PSAPs Dispatch information
Call coding system Dispatch information Data tracking Distinction between agencies
Dispatch information Efficient dispatching Dispatch information Accuracy
Employee turnover Understanding of field ops Automated "Siri" Voice ProQA
Channel assignments Agency of dispatchers Technology Understanding of field ops
Attitude of Improvement Staffing Training
Automated "Siri" Voice
• The most common response theme had to do with the information received from
dispatchers, particularly the completeness and accuracy of that information. A
number of staff complained that important information is not always included during
high-priority calls, or that they receive inaccurate information from dispatchers.
• Among Salt Lake City Police respondents, the most common response by far dealt
with frustrations regarding the ProQA system currently in use by the 911 Center.
The Sandy PD also mentioned it. One in five respondents from the Salt Lake City
PD mentioned the system directly, and several more touched on it tangentially with
statements about “not allowing dispatchers to use their judgement”, “call taking
protocols”, or “technology utilization”.
• Other common themes included the timeliness of dispatch responses and the
training routinely provided to 911 Center staff.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 124
• The Salt Lake City Fire Department had several participants mention the system
of call coding used by the 911 Center, saying that is often does not accurately
represent the type or urgency of calls.
• Both fire departments took issue with the automated voice (“Siri”) which sounds at
their stations when they are dispatched on a call.
• Some of the Sandy Police Department’s staff stated that they believe the 911
Center does not treat them as a distinct agency, and should learn the unique
aspects of their department and its procedures.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 125
5. SURVEY QUESTIONS
The survey as presented to respondents is shown below. Results of data contained
therein are noted in this report, or to be discussed in the overall Draft/Final Report.
The Matrix Consulting Group has been retained by Salt Lake City to conduct a performance audit of
its 911 Center. As part of this study, we are distributing a survey to the customer agencies which
are served by the 911 Center. This survey will help the project team gather the opinions of the
public safety agencies who rely on SLC911 for dispatch service and ensure that the input of
stakeholders is heard.
Please take a few minutes to thoughtfully complete this survey. All responses are confidential, and
your individual responses will not be shared.
If you have questions about the survey, please feel free to contact the survey administrator, David
Branch, at 951-295-7581 or dbranch@matrixcg.net
Survey Introduction
Salt Lake City 911 Customer Survey
1. Which agency do you work for?
Salt Lake City Fire Department
Salt Lake City Police Department
Sandy Fire Department
Sandy Police Department
Position Background
Salt Lake City 911 Customer Survey
2. Which of the following best describes your position?
Full time
Part time
Volunteer
3. Which of the following best describes your position?
Certified (Sworn) - Line Level
Certified (Sworn) - Supervisory
Certified (Sworn) - Management
Civilian Position
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 126
Multiple Choice Questions
Salt Lake City 911 Customer Survey
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
1. The SLC 911 Center
provides a high level of
service to personnel in
my agency.
2. The SLC 911 Center
provides a high level of
service to members of
the public who call.
3. The current process
of dispatching
emergency (911) calls
for service is efficient
and effective.
4. The current process
of dispatching non-
emergency calls for
service is efficient and
effective.
5. The initial details
received from dispatch
when responding to calls
are accurate.
6. The initial priority
assigned to the calls I
am sent on is accurate.
7. The number and
types of units
dispatched to calls are
appropriate.
8. Dispatch information
provided to us is done
so in a timely manner.
9. Dispatch information
provided is complete to
help ensure field safety.
4. Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements. If a
statement is not relevant to you, please select N/A.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 127
10. I do not get too
much unnecessary
information from
dispatch.
11. The SLC 911 Center
personnel are
responsive when I need
additional information.
12. The SLC 911 Center
personnel are polite to
our staff.
13. Dispatch center
personnel are trained to
follow the appropriate
policies and procedures
for my agency’s call
responses.
14. The SLC 911
Center provides a
consistent level of
service (day to day, shift
by shift).
15. The SLC 911 Center
is adequately staffed to
meet our Agency’s
needs.
16. Our IT and
communication systems
integrate well with those
at the SLC 911 Center.
17. When issues arise
between the SLC 911
Center personnel and
my Agency, they are
resolved quickly and
fairly.
18. SLC 911 Center shift
supervisors are
available and
responsive to my needs.
19. My Agency and the
SLC 911 Center work
well together during
critical incidents.
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A
Salt Lake City 911 Customer Survey
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 128
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 129
Appendix D: Staffing Models
The following Appendix provides a more detailed explanation of the project team’s
analysis of line-level staffing needs at the 911 Center, including the models implemented
and the resulting calculations.
1. Fixed Post Staffing Requirements (Based on Current Schedule)
The first analysis of call-taker and dispatcher staffing needs is shown in the following
sections. It is intended to provide staffing numbers required based on the 911 Center’s
current shift schedule. This involves a discussion of the variables used to make the
staffing calculation.
(1.1) Net Availability
While traditionally one Full-time Equivalent (FTE) staff position is based on a standard
Monday through Friday, 0800 hours to 1700 hours work schedule consisting of 2,080
hours per year. In public safety professions, such as emergency communications, this is
not always the case and it is common for non-traditional schedules to be utilized to meet
service level demands. These often include a mix of 8 -hour, 10-hour, or 12-hour daily
schedules, such as those worked by staff at the 911 Center.
Most call-taker and dispatcher staff at the 911 Center work four 10 -hour shifts per week.
Others work a modified shift schedule utilizing 12-hour shifts. While typically working 12 -
hour shifts would result in 2,190 total work hou rs in a year, this is not the case for SLC
911 employees. The current scheduling approach for the 12 -hour shifts at the 911 Center
includes three 12-hour shifts and alternative 4-6 hour shifts in each week, resulting in a
more traditional 2,080 hour total.
A critical workload element to determine staffing requirements is the amount of annual
time available for dispatch personnel to perform their work, their “Net Availability”. The
Matrix Consulting Group uses net availability in our modeling and defines it as the number
of hours that a dispatcher or call-takers is available to perform their key roles and
responsibilities after calculating the impact of such things as scheduled leave, sick leave,
training time, meals and breaks, etc. Based on leave information provided by the 911
Center, this “unavailable time” has been subtracted from their gross annual scheduled
hours of work, providing the Net Available time for each position. Note that staff on 10 -
hour shifts (call-takers and police dispatchers) receive two 15-minute breaks per shift,
while staff on 12-hour shifts (Fire/EMS dispatchers) receive three such breaks.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 130
Leave Type Average Annual
Hours Taken (Police)
Average Annual
Hours Taken (Fire/EMS)
Comp Time 1.4 1.4
FMLA 40.9 40.9
Funeral Leave 9.3 9.3
Holiday 113.7 113.7
Personal Leave 81.3 81.3
Short Term 43.9 43.9
Breaks 104.3 130.4
Vacation 171.8 171.8
Total 566.5 592.6
Net Availability 1,519 1,493
This calculation of Net Availability is used in the calculations to determine how many of
an employee’s annual hours can expect to be working hours.
(1.2) Turnover Rate
The attrition rate, also called turnover, is the loss of any staff due to retirement,
termination, or separation by the employee. While attrition is inherent in any profess ion,
it’s impact on emergency communications is a key factor that must be accounted for in
order for staff modeling to be accurate. Dispatcher turnover nationally averages 17% to
19%. In reviewing recent historical data provided by the 911 Center, the thre e-year
average attrition rate was 22% per year.
Separations over 3-year period 49
Current Staff 74
Annual Turnover 22%
This percentage is used by the project team in staffing calculations to help ensure
appropriate coverage of positions that could be vacant as a result of retirements,
resignations, etc.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 131
(1.3) Fixed Posts Required
The 911 Center currently deploys a fixed -post schedule which included dedicated call-
takers, police dispatchers, and fire dispatchers (fire dispatchers have their own pod and
also take calls related to fire incidents). The following table, provided by the 911 Center
to the project team, show the number of staff assigned to each function throughout the
week.
Hours Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
7-11 PD 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 4 5 5 5 5 5 4
Total 11 13 13 13 13 13 12
11-15 PD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 5 7 7 7 7 7 6
Total 14 16 16 16 16 16 15
15-17 PD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 8 8 9 9 9 9 8
Total 17 17 18 18 18 18 17
17-19 PD 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 6 6 7 7 7 7 6
Total 15 15 16 16 16 16 15
19-23 PD 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 6 6 6 6 6 8 7
Total 14 15 15 15 15 17 16
23-03 PD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 4 4 4 4 4 5 5
Total 12 12 12 12 12 13 13
03-07 PD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
FD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
A fixed-post position is an assignment that is typically deployed every day, irrespective of
workload. Typically, it is in reference to 24-hour, 7-day/week, 365- days/year deployment,
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 132
although some fixed-posts are only for a portion of a 24-hour period to accommodate a
higher workload during that time. The Matrix Consulting Group compares existing fixed -
post deployment strategies against alternative deployment strategies based on workload
and service-level modeling to ultimately determine staffing recommendations.
The Bureau’s current schedule results in a total of 2,304 hours per week of fixed -post
staffing which must be filled; 1,632 hours for police dispatchers and call-takers, and 672
hours for Fire/EMS positions. Multiplied by the 52.14 weeks in each year, this equates to
120,131 fixed-post hours per year which must be filled. The table below shows that this
will require 79.5 filled positions, which would be an increase of 6% from the current
allocation of 75 positions. To account for annual turnover in addition to the other factors
and provide staffing backfill for an annual attrition rate of 22%, a total of 101.9 position s
would be required.
Fixed Post Hours (Police) 1,632
Net Availability (Police) 1,519
Filled Positions Needed (Police) 56.0
Fixed Post Hours (Fire/EMS) 672
Net Availability (Fire/EMS) 1,493
Filled Positions Needed (Fire/EMS) 23.5
Total Filled Positions Needed 79.5
Turnover Rate 22%
Total Authorized Positions 101.9
In the following section, the fixed-post model will be compared to a workload-based model
of staffing requirements. The same variables of net availability and turnover rate will be
employed in the workload-based model.
2. APCO Retains Model for Dispatch Positions
The following sections provide an alternative analysis of call-taker and dispatcher staffing
needs, based on call volume workload rather than the needs necessitated by the 911
Center’s existing schedule. This analysis applies empirical models (the APCO RETAINS
model and the Erlang model) to the agency’s quantitative data to produce hour -by-hour
staffing needs and the number of positions which will be requ ired to meet them.
(2.1) Introduction to the APCO RETAINS Model
The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO) has published a
PSAP staffing model as part of their Project RETAINS efforts, developed by the University
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 133
of Denver Research Institute. In effect, the APCO project RETAINS model requires
several discreet data elements based on actual workloads to be effective. These include:
• Net Availability, as shown earlier in this chapter.
• Average Telephone Busy Time, (call duration in seconds), from phone or other
records. This should ideally distinguish between law and fire E911 calls and
administrative calls for service.
• Average Call Completion Time, which includes time for keyboard data entry,
radio transmission, address verification, etc. Average call completion time is often
not accurately available. While some agencies are capable of collecting accurate
radio transmission time, other dispatcher-related workload, such as records
checks or keyboard data entry by staff, is most often not available.
• Agent Utilization Rate, which signals the proportion of time that the agency
desires a dispatcher to be occupied with core workload. Common benchmarks
suggest 50% agent utilization rate with 50% “downtime” for recovery and
supporting services.
In brief, the APCO project RETAINS staffing model is an accepted methodology within
the industry, but it has its limitations. These include:
• The model is originally designed for a call-taker/dispatcher position whereby staff
performs both functions simultaneously. This is often referred to as a “vertical”
dispatch environment. Many dispatch agencies, such as BOEC, now operate with
distinct call-taker positions and dispatcher positions performing separate functions,
often referred to as a “horizontal” dispatch environment.
• The APCO model fails to account for the workload directly related to other activities
that are unrelated to the tasks resulting from telephone calls. That is, for example,
police officer self-initiated activities and the variety of tasks associated thereto.
• The APCO model suggests some kind of “estimate” for call wrap -up time, keyboard
data entry, records checks, etc., with no suggested benchmark for this kind of
workload.
For these reasons, the Matrix Consulting Group uses the APCO model as a baseline, and
has augmented it by addressing the issues noted above, for determining call-taker and
dispatcher staffing levels.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 134
(2.2) Workloads Associated with Dispatching
The APCO-based model can use the actual number of radio transmission transaction
time as a primary workload driver. Dispatchers are responsible for relaying information
effectively via the radio and are usually multi-tasking (keyboard entry or console
monitoring) while such “air time” is transacting. It is a primary responsibility of dispatch
staff. The total time associated with radio transactions is calculated to determine an
average amount of time spent on this key task.
While we recognize that not every CAD incident requires the same amount of radio time
(many are shorter and some are longer), all radio time must be captured by a key
workload element for modeling purposes.
Based on a full year of recent radio airtime data provided by the 911 Center, the project
team calculated the average amount of radio time that could be allocated to each unique
CAD incident. The results are shown in the table below: one minute per call for police
incidents and 0.93 minutes per call for Fire/EMS incidents.
Police Fire/EMS
Total Radio Airtime Minutes 333,322 93,911
Salt Lake City 239,408 79,659
Sandy 93,914 14,252
Annual Volume 333,525 101,281
Minutes/Call 1.00 0.93
These timeframes are also consistent with the range of observations in the project team’s
experience in PSAP’s around the country, suggesting that the 911 Center’s radio
utilization practices are within the bounds of normal practice.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 135
(2.3) Dispatch Processing Time
Perhaps one of the most difficult workload elements to capture is the task time associated
with an incident that is unrelated to radio time. This includes th e aforementioned
keystroke entries, record checks off-line, display monitoring, administrative data entry, e -
mail checking, etc. APCO, NENA and others have not provided any benchmarks with
respect to this kind of workload, suggesting an estimate be develop ed for such work.
Other dispatch organizations have developed estimates ranging from 90 seconds for
each call for service (as opposed to a CAD incident), to ten seconds per telephone call
(NOT dispatcher activity) for call wrap -up, to no time allocation for such activities given
many of them are accomplished during radio traffic as part of multi-tasking. Consequently,
developing a reasonable time estimate is the only current approach beyond an industrial
engineering exercise which is beyond the scope of this study.
One estimate of the time required for call processing can be gathered using the results of
the employee survey. When asked how much dispatch time is typically required for each
call type, answers from staff varied widely, but a timeframe of 2.00 minutes (120 seconds)
falls at the upper end (or within the upper half) of the middle 50% of responses, suggesting
that employees view it as fairly accurate9. See the chart below:
In addition to employee survey results, these timeframes are fairly consistent with the
project team’s observations in a broad array of dispatch agencies. Accordingly, we
believe that in the current operational environment at the 911 Center, 2 minutes per
9 It is also worth noting that, while not shown here, the reported time to process a self -initiated activity by a law enforcement officer
had a middle 50% range of 10-60 seconds. These types of calls, therefore, which take much less dispatcher time, would bring down
the average of time spent on law enforcement calls, to a range more closely in line with Fire and EMS calls.
Law
Fire
EMS
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Ca
l
l
T
y
p
e
Seconds
Survey -Typical Call Processing Time by Type
(Middle 50% of Responses)
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 136
incident is a very reasonable estimate to capture incident “wrap -up” and related activities
that include such things as keyboard entry, display monitoring, etc.
(2.4) Telephone Time
For agencies which utilize combined dispatcher/call-taker positions, telephone time is
factored into the dispatcher workload because it occupies dispatcher time. In Salt Lake
City, call-takers and dispatchers are separate, although the fire pod is unique in that a
majority of fire and EMS-related calls are transferred immediately to a call-taking position
in that pod (since only supervisors and a small group of “Dispatcher 3” staff can handle
fire and medical calls from the call-taking stations). Based on this arrangement, the
following process was used to determine workload and staffing needs.
• For police dispatch posts, telephone call time is not factored into workload because
they do not make or receive telephone calls as part of their routine duties.
• For call-taking posts, the entirety of a 12-month telephone call data set is used to
calculate workload, because every incoming call (emergency and non -emergency)
comes through the call-taking posts.
• For fire dispatch posts, the number of incoming Fire and EMS emergency calls is
determined from the provided data set, and the phone time for those calls is applied
to the fire pod.
(2.5) Call Taking and Dispatching Utilization Rates
The calculation for net (hour) annual availability for dispatchers noted previously
essentially results in the amount of time each dispatcher is available to perform work.
However, as in any profession, no position is occupied 100% of the time.
The amount of time dedicated to actual work in emergency communications is based on
several inter-related variables and an allowance needs to be made regarding the
proportion of time a dispatcher or call-taker is actively involved in call handling. An
allowance needs to be made regarding the proportion of time desirable to have a
dispatcher actually involved in call han dling, radio transmissions, keyboard entry, records
search, etc. There are several reasons why tasks performed by the 911 Center’s staff
should not occupy 100% of their time. These include:
• Dispatch centers which have excessively high utilization levels tend to "burn-out"
staff and consequently have high levels of employee turnover.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 137
• Professions which require extreme concentration during work activities, such as
dispatch, air traffic control, trauma centers, or other professions in which failure
brings unacceptable risk, should have lower work utilization rates to incorporate
“down time.”
• Dispatch centers which have high utilization levels experience "queuing" problems
in which responses to incoming telephone calls and radio transmissions are
regularly delayed because the dispatcher is preoccupied with other concurrent
workload.
• In dispatch centers with high utilization levels quality begins to suffer because
dispatchers must cut calls and radio exchanges short, thereby impacting
dispatcher effectiveness, customer-friendly service, and safety in the field for law
enforcement, fire, and emergency medical response professionals.
• The Matrix Consulting Group has used a utilization rate of 50% for dispatchers to
perform core dispatcher-related functions. This implies that dispatchers will be
busy performing work an average of 30 minutes per hour or one second every two
seconds of net available time. It should be noted that this utilization or “occupancy
rate” is one of the primary drivers in worklo ad-driven staffing requirements.
Modifying this variable by relatively small increments can have an important impact
on staffing requirements.
These utilization rates will be used in the following staff modeling exercises.
(2.6) Initial APCO Results for Fire and PD Dispatch
Based on the totality of the information and assumptions outlined in the subsections
above, the project team used the APCO model to conduct a staffing needs assessment
for dispatchers. This model includes CAD incident volu me for police and fire/EMS, the net
availability rate for dispatchers, target utilization rates, and current turnover rates. The
following tables reflect the staffing baseline necessary to handle the workload related to
all unique incident activity with different staffing levels calculated dependent upon
changes in staff availability and utilization.
The first two iterations of the model show the number of filled positions and authorized
positions needed for Police and Fire/EMS dispatchers at a 50% utiliza tion rate.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 138
POLICE DISPATCHER STAFFING – 50% UTILIZATION RATE
Workload
Average Task Completion Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 2
Average Radio Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 1
Average Total Processing Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 3
Avg. Hourly Processing Capability 20.0
Total CAD Incidents (2017) 333,525
Workload Hours for Dispatchers 16,676
Net Availability
Net Annual Available Work Hours 1,519
Target Utilization Rate 50%
True Annual Availability (based on utilization rate) 759.5
Total Filled Positions Needed 22.0
Turnover
Turnover Rate Per Year 22%
Total Authorized Positions Needed 28.1
FIRE/EMS DISPATCHER STAFFING – 50% UTILIZATION RATE
Workload
Average Task Completion Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 2
Average Radio Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 0.93
Average Phone Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 2.35
Average Total Processing Time Per CAD Incident (in minutes) 5.28
Avg. Hourly Processing Capability 11.36
Total CAD Incidents (2017) 101,281
Workload Hours for Dispatchers 8,913
Net Availability
Net Annual Available Work Hours 1,493
Target Utilization Rate 50%
True Annual Availability (based on utilization rate) 746.5
Total Filled Positions Needed 11.9
Turnover
Turnover Rate Per Year 22%
Total Authorized Positions Needed 15.3
To summarize, the following table shows the Police and Fire/EMS results of the APCO
model.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 139
Police Fire/EMS
Filled Positions Needed 22.0 11.9
Authorized Positions
Needed (with turnover) 28.1 15.3
These figures can be used as a baseline for determining the number of positions which
should be created and filled to ensure adequate dispatcher staffing. The following section
will provide a more detailed analysis of hour-by hour dispatcher staffing needs.
(2.7) Hour-By-Hour Dispatcher Needs Under the APCO Formula
The following tables show the average volume of Police and Fire/EMS CAD incidents
over the course of 2017, by hour of day and day of week.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 140
FIRE/EMS POLICE
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 7.3 7.9 7.2 6.6 7.5 10.3 10.6 12a 28.9 28.5 28.6 31.3 33.2 47.2 53.4
1 5.7 5.6 5.6 6.8 7.2 9.9 10.2 1 22.7 21.0 26.7 26.4 32.6 42.1 52.5
2 5.3 5.5 4.5 5.4 6.3 7.2 10.1 2 21.0 18.8 19.5 19.8 25.2 33.6 36.6
3 5.3 5.6 4.6 5.3 4.6 6.7 6.6 3 17.5 18.3 15.7 17.5 15.9 24.1 26.4
4 5.3 4.7 4.6 4.1 4.3 3.8 5.9 4 14.4 14.7 14.0 14.6 13.5 17.5 20.5
5 5.5 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.5 4.7 5.4 5 14.3 10.7 11.2 12.5 13.4 12.1 14.4
6 7.3 7.3 6.5 6.2 6.0 6.4 6.7 6 20.3 18.2 21.8 21.8 22.6 18.3 15.5
7 9.0 8.6 9.4 8.8 9.6 7.2 7.6 7 29.7 31.3 32.8 32.8 31.8 23.8 21.6
8 12.3 10.7 13.0 11.1 12.0 10.3 8.7 8 38.7 37.8 44.1 41.0 45.0 35.3 27.4
9 13.0 13.5 15.6 15.4 15.3 11.3 10.3 9 46.7 44.2 50.3 45.7 44.4 36.1 29.7
10 13.8 13.1 13.8 15.7 14.9 13.6 11.2 10 44.7 40.5 48.1 46.4 48.4 38.7 35.0
11 14.5 13.8 16.4 14.8 14.5 13.3 10.7 11 43.8 40.9 49.0 43.6 43.4 42.5 32.5
12p 14.5 13.5 13.4 15.4 17.9 14.4 10.9 12p 43.6 41.1 50.4 45.0 47.0 39.7 33.7
13 15.5 17.3 17.1 16.8 17.6 17.6 11.8 13 45.5 40.1 47.4 40.4 43.4 38.8 35.3
14 14.0 15.2 16.1 18.2 15.3 15.8 11.4 14 44.9 42.1 46.1 44.4 42.8 39.1 37.2
15 14.3 16.3 17.3 16.8 17.5 13.9 12.4 15 52.8 54.0 49.5 46.8 47.9 42.8 39.8
16 13.8 17.6 17.7 19.1 16.7 15.2 13.2 16 52.9 55.3 52.2 52.7 52.5 49.9 48.3
17 15.9 15.4 16.6 18.2 19.8 15.6 13.1 17 52.9 56.2 56.5 53.8 53.3 51.7 48.1
18 14.9 16.3 14.5 15.2 15.4 17.0 13.4 18 48.2 55.1 49.5 49.6 45.4 44.8 43.2
19 14.3 13.1 17.3 15.5 16.7 15.3 13.6 19 40.7 46.7 45.0 47.7 45.3 46.3 41.7
20 14.3 13.0 13.8 15.3 13.3 15.2 13.2 20 43.5 49.2 44.6 44.9 42.3 48.8 39.8
21 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.8 14.8 12.7 11.8 21 42.9 43.3 45.1 42.6 46.1 46.9 41.6
22 10.6 11.5 12.0 12.3 14.5 14.2 11.2 22 45.8 50.3 47.7 50.9 57.5 61.1 47.5
23 8.1 11.4 9.8 9.1 11.3 11.7 8.5 23 38.0 43.1 40.1 46.0 54.5 56.3 40.5
Using the calculations from the previous subsection, the number of dispatcher posts
needed to handle the expected call volume of a particular hour can be determined. The
following table shows an example with an incident volume of 17.5 calls per hour, which
would be common for the Fire/EMS pod on Friday at 3pm, or for police dispatchers on
Monday at 3am.
Police Fire/EMS
Calls/Hour 17.5 17.5
Mins/Call 3 5.28
Mins/Hour 52.5 92.4
Positions Needed at 50% Utilization 1.75 3.08
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 141
For the tables below, the number of positions needed will be rounded up to the nearest
whole number, e.g. the 1.75 positions needed for police dispatching in this example would
be rounded up to 2 dispatching posts.
This calculation has been applied to each hour of the day and day of the week in the
following tables.
FIRE/EMS POLICE
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12a 3 3 3 4 4 5 6
1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 5 6
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 4
3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 2 3 3 3 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
8 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 8 4 4 5 5 5 4 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 9 5 5 5 5 5 4 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 10 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 11 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
12p 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 12p 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
13 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 13 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
14 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 14 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
15 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 15 6 6 5 5 5 5 4
16 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 16 6 6 6 6 6 5 5
17 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 17 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
18 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 5 6 5 5 5 5 5
19 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 19 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
20 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 20 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
21 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
22 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 22 5 6 5 6 6 6 5
23 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 23 4 5 5 5 6 6 5
Th e number of dispatchers needed follows a similar pattern over the course of the week
to that of call-takers, although the increase in late night weekend call volume is more
pronounced for dispatchers than call-takers, likely because dispatchers deal exclusively
with emergency calls and are thus unaffected by the patterns of non -emergency calls
throughout the week, which are heaviest at the end of working hours on weekdays.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 142
The model above takes into account the various elements of dispatcher workload and
ensures that the utilization rate does not exceed 50% in any hour of the week (and in
most cases falls far below it), but it requires significantly fewer dispatcher hours per week
than the current staffing model in use. The model above produces a total of 723 Police
dispatch hours per week and 421 Fire/EMS dispatch hours per week . This is very
close to the 720 police dispatch hours needed under the current staffing plan, and a
decrease of 151 hours from the current 672 Fire/EMS dispatch hours per week. This is a
total decrease of 148 hours per week. While a number of factors (the logistics of shift
staffing, the need for dispatchers on dedicated channels, or a policy to always have more
than one dispatcher available in each pod) may prevent the 911 Center fro m aligning
dispatch levels to the level outlined in this model, it should be used as a baseline for the
number of dispatchers needed throughout the week.
(2.8) Dispatcher Staffing Required
The following table shows the number of filled and authorized pos itions which are
required, based on the net availability and current turnover rates of staff, to meet the
staffing requirements provided by the model. These are the figures used in the staffing
section of the project team’s report.
Police Fire/EMS
Total Dispatch Hours Per Week 723 421
Current Dispatch Hours Per Week 720 672
Increase (Decrease) 3 (151)
Total Dispatch Hours Per Year 37,726 21,968
Annual Net Availability 1,519 1,493
Total Filled Positions Needed 24.8 14.7
Turnover Rate Per Year 22% 22%
Total Authorized Positions Needed 31.7 18.9
The following section will discuss staffing needs for call-taker positions, using a model
specifically suited to this function.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 143
3. Erlang Model for Call-Taker Staffing
Call-taker staffing needs are not determined using the APCO RETAINS model, and are
instead calculated using a process based on the work of Danish engineer Agner Erlang.
Unlike the APCO model which estimates staffing based upon different kinds of work
outputs and a desired agent occupancy rate, the Erlang model uses workload variables
but the primary driver is related to developing staffing recommendations based on desired
levels of performance or “response time.” In effect, the Erlang Model is a predictive
performance model that calculates the number of staff required to meet a given level of
service at a given success rate.
One of the primary criticisms of the Erlang model is that it assumes an acceptable “on -
hold” time for the caller. While initially th is may seem to make the Erlang model impractical
for use in an E9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) environment, using national
or local policy-driven standards for call answering times eliminates the shortcoming of an
assumed hold time. The Erlang model uses calculations to find the amount of time it takes
to answer a call based on a certain level of staffing; these times can then be compared
to standards to assure performance minimums are achieved. Although the Erlang model
has been traditionally used to estimate staffing needs and performance predictions for
non-emergency call center operations, the input values can be manipulated such that the
model is well adaptable to a Public Safety Answering Point.
(3.1) Variables Used
The four variable inputs used in this model are:
1. The anticipated call volume in a given hour.
2. The desired level of service (length of ring time).
3. The required success rate (percent of calls which must be answered within the
target ring time).
4. The average call duration.
Currently, the 911 Center aims to answer 95% of all incoming 911 calls within 10 -15
seconds, and 98% within 20 seconds. These metrics are similar to those adopted by the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which state that 95% of calls sho uld
be answered within 15 seconds, and 99% within 40 seconds. Both sets of standards are
used by the project team in this modeling exercise.
(3.2) Call Volume
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 144
The project team analyzed phone data provided by the 911 Center, which shows that
about 170,000 incoming 911 phone calls were received over a recent 12 -month period.
In addition to this, about 434,000 administrative (non -emergency) calls were received,
and about 191,000 outgoing calls were made from the floor. The table below illustrates
this data.
Total Calls Average
Call Time
Total Call
Time (mins)
% of Total
Call Time
Emergency 170,591 133 seconds 378,143 20.5%
Non-Emergency 433,786 159 seconds 1,149,533 62.4%
Outgoing 191,496 99 seconds 315,904 17.1%
Because our project team recommends eliminating the PBX position and instead staffing
sufficiently to handle incoming non-emergency calls with trained and certified dispatchers,
our staff modeling must address the receipt of all incoming calls. To allow a complete
understanding of the 911 Center’s call taking needs our modeling was conducted first
with 911 calls only (the Erlang model), and then with all inbound calls.
The Erlang staffing model relies on the volume of incoming calls per hour as a baseline
from which to calculate necessary staffing. As noted earlier, staffing levels are based on
performance expectations linked to call-answering criteria and are not influenced by the
expected utilization (e.g. agent occupancy) of staff. Analysis of the call data allowed the
project team to populate the following “heat map” tables showing the rate of 911 and non -
emergency calls per hour for each hour of the week.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 145
Emergency Calls Per Hour Non-Emergency Calls Per Hour
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 11.3 10.2 10.5 11.7 12.7 19.0 22.1 12a 21.6 22.6 23.6 23.4 27.4 36.5 34.9
1a 9.4 9.6 9.2 9.1 10.6 17.9 20.6 1a 17.2 18.5 19.7 19.2 22.0 30.5 29.2
2a 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.9 9.4 13.1 15.3 2a 13.7 13.9 15.3 14.3 17.3 21.8 23.7
3a 6.8 6.6 6.4 7.3 7.0 9.6 10.9 3a 10.5 10.8 12.3 13.1 12.5 15.1 18.0
4a 6.8 6.4 7.2 7.1 6.8 7.2 9.0 4a 10.8 9.7 11.3 11.3 12.1 12.8 15.1
5a 7.7 7.2 7.1 6.6 8.1 6.6 8.8 5a 14.8 12.5 13.1 13.5 14.5 13.0 13.3
6a 10.1 10.7 10.0 9.3 10.4 7.2 8.4 6a 21.9 21.5 22.2 23.9 20.8 15.7 12.3
7a 15.0 15.9 14.3 14.5 14.5 9.4 8.9 7a 40.7 43.1 42.4 41.0 38.3 25.6 19.1
8a 19.0 18.8 18.4 20.0 20.5 13.3 11.2 8a 65.6 64.3 59.9 64.5 60.9 41.7 31.5
9a 21.3 21.7 21.7 21.3 20.3 19.4 13.1 9a 76.5 74.3 74.9 73.9 72.6 52.1 38.3
10a 22.0 22.7 23.1 22.8 23.1 20.6 17.6 10a 78.8 77.8 75.3 73.8 74.4 58.8 43.1
11a 24.6 24.6 24.0 24.2 25.7 22.8 18.2 11a 79.9 78.1 77.7 72.3 77.4 63.5 47.9
12p 24.0 25.3 25.5 25.0 28.3 26.5 20.0 12p 73.5 74.4 81.4 74.5 77.3 65.5 50.3
1p 26.1 27.2 30.3 27.3 28.1 27.1 20.7 1p 84.7 85.0 89.0 85.5 82.9 69.2 49.9
2p 27.1 29.0 28.0 28.4 32.3 28.5 21.5 2p 89.7 89.6 93.5 83.6 86.4 67.0 49.6
3p 30.8 29.4 32.9 32.6 36.4 26.1 22.7 3p 94.6 98.2 99.2 89.9 88.9 64.8 49.4
4p 29.3 31.8 33.0 29.2 30.4 24.6 21.0 4p 91.3 99.3 93.9 90.7 88.4 59.9 47.6
5p 28.7 30.9 34.5 32.7 32.4 27.7 22.1 5p 81.2 84.3 86.1 82.9 81.8 55.2 45.4
6p 26.4 27.9 30.8 28.6 30.9 28.4 20.5 6p 64.6 69.6 69.0 68.6 68.1 51.6 43.3
7p 23.1 24.4 24.5 24.7 27.2 25.6 22.1 7p 57.4 61.4 62.0 59.8 60.2 50.1 44.5
8p 21.9 21.1 25.0 25.8 24.7 25.3 21.0 8p 49.4 51.8 56.3 58.1 52.5 50.2 42.3
9p 21.1 23.8 21.9 22.7 27.1 24.2 19.8 9p 47.7 48.2 51.1 52.5 54.2 49.4 40.1
10p 17.5 19.2 19.1 20.2 23.6 26.8 18.1 10p 38.8 43.3 44.2 46.4 52.7 47.6 36.8
11p 14.5 14.9 14.5 17.6 20.3 23.6 13.1 11p 27.2 31.2 32.9 36.3 43.2 44.4 28.7
As the table shows, call volume for both emergency and non -emergency calls fluctuates
throughout the week, peaking during weekday afternoons. These call volume tables are
used to calculate the number of call-takers needed below.
(3.3) Call-Takers Needed for Incoming Emergency Calls
First, the emergency calls are used to populate the Erlang model, which ensures that
there are sufficient staff at each hour of the week to meet the required service levels for
emergency calls. The parameters used include the following:
• The standard of service for all hours of the day is 95% of calls answered within 10
seconds, and 99% of calls answered within 40 seconds.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 146
• The average call duration for emergency calls is 133 seconds, as shown in the
table in section 2.8. In the project team’s experience, the length of a telephone call
is most often influenced by: 1) standardized versus freer-form questioning; 2) the
amount of time the dispatcher believes they have available to speak without
impacting other incoming calls; and 3) The customer service philosophy of the
agency. The time spent by SLC911 is somewhat greater than many other public
safety agencies but not by a wide margin (approximately 30 -45 seconds more).
As such, using this reasonable time -on-call is appropriate for determining staffing
needs.
The results of this portion of the model are shown in the table below, ranging from 3 call -
takers during low-volume periods to 5 call-takers during high volume.
Erlang Model Results – Emergency Call-Takers Only
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
1a 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
2a 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
3a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7a 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
8a 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
9a 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
10a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
12p 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
1p 4 4 5 4 4 4 4
2p 4 5 4 4 5 5 4
3p 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
4p 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
5p 5 5 5 5 5 4 4
6p 4 4 5 5 5 4 4
7p 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8p 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9p 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10p 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11p 3 3 3 4 4 4 3
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 147
(3.4) Call-Takers Needed for Non-Emergency Calls
Secondly, the non-emergency call volume is used to calculate the number of additional
call-takers needed to handle non-emergency calls. This is essential because the PBX
Operator position is recommended for elimination, and incoming non -emergency calls will
be handled by trained and certified dispatchers.
Because there is no urgent level of service requirement for non -emergency calls, this is
a simple arithmetic calculation: The non-emergency call volume for each hour is multiplied
by the average duration of incoming non-emergency calls (159 seconds), and converted
into the number of hours of call time which can be exp ected for non-emergency calls in
each particular hour. When rounded up, this yields the number of additional staff which
are required to handle non -emergency call volume for that hour. The table below shows
the results of this calculation.
Staffing Model Results – Non-Emergency Call-Takers Only
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
1a 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
2a 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
3a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6a 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
7a 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
8a 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
9a 4 4 4 4 4 3 2
10a 4 4 4 4 4 3 2
11a 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
12p 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
1p 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2p 4 4 5 4 4 3 3
3p 5 5 5 4 4 3 3
4p 5 5 5 5 4 3 3
5p 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
6p 3 4 4 4 4 3 2
7p 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
8p 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
9p 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
10p 2 2 2 3 3 3 2
11p 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 148
(3.5) Call-Takers Needed for Emergency and Non-Emergency Combined
Finally, the numbers from these two tables are combined to result in the number of staff
at each hour which are required to both 1) meet the required service levels for 911 calls,
and 2) handle incoming non-emergency calls. This table, as seen in the body of the report,
is shown below.
Call-Taker Staffing – Emergency and Non-Emergency Combined
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
12a 4 4 5 5 5 6 6
1a 4 4 4 4 4 6 6
2a 4 4 4 4 4 4 6
3a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6a 4 4 4 5 4 4 4
7a 5 6 5 5 5 5 4
8a 7 7 7 7 7 5 5
9a 8 8 8 8 8 7 5
10a 8 8 8 8 8 7 6
11a 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
12p 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
1p 8 8 9 8 8 8 7
2p 8 9 9 8 9 8 7
3p 10 10 10 9 9 7 7
4p 10 10 10 10 9 7 7
5p 9 9 9 9 9 7 7
6p 7 8 9 9 9 7 6
7p 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
8p 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
9p 7 7 7 7 7 7 6
10p 6 6 6 7 7 7 6
11p 5 5 5 6 6 6 5
Because call-taking is a stressful activity, a measure of open time should be reserved as
“refresh time” for call-taker positions, similar to dispatcher positions. Call-takers receive
both emergency and non-emergency calls concurrently, and they are able to prioritize
emergency calls over non-emergency in order to ensure that target service levels are
maintained.
To ensure that these activities combined do not create an unreasonable workload, the
expected amount of refresh time for each hour is calculated. The amount of call time
expected in each hour is calculated by multiplying the call volume in each hour for
emergency and non-emergency calls, respectively, by the average duration for each. This
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 149
is divided by the number of call-takers on duty in that hour and subtracted from the 60
minutes available in each hour to yield the expected amount of refresh time.
For the table above, the expected refresh time does not fall below 23 minutes in any hour.
This means that call-takers under this model can typically expect to have at least 23
minutes free in each hour of the week to decompress, make outbound calls, and tak e
care of tasks which do not require being on the phone.
(3.6) Call-Taker Staffing Needs
Based on the previous tables, a weekly total of 1,083 call-taker hours are needed to
provide required service levels. Given the existing call-taker staffing levels of 912 hours
per week, this represents an increase of 171 hours per week, or 19%.
The table below shows the filled and authorized positions which will be needed to staff
call-taking positions at the optimal level according to the model’s results, based on the
net availability and current turnover rates of staff.
Call-Takers
Total Call-Taker Hours Per Week 1,083
Total Call-Taker Hours Per Year 56,468
Annual Net Availability 1,519
Total Filled Positions Needed 37.2
Turnover Rate Per Year 22%
Total Authorized Positions Needed 47.7
As the table shows, this results in a total of 37.2 positions which should be filled, and 47.7
positions which should be authorized to account for staff turnover.
4. SUMMARY
The table below provides a summary of the current schedule’s hourly staffing needs, as
well as the results of our modeling for hourly staffing and total filled and authorized
positions for each position.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 150
Current Proposed Percent Change
Weekly Hours 2,304 2,227 -3.3%
Police Dispatch 720 723 0.4%
Fire/EMS Dispatch 672 421 -37.4%
Call-Taker 912 1,083 18.8%
Filled Positions 74.0 76.7 3.6%
Police Dispatch/Call-Taker 54.0 62.0 14.8%
Fire/EMS Dispatch 20.0 14.7 -26.5%
Authorized Positions 75.0 98.4 31.2%
Police Dispatch/Call-Taker 55.0 79.5 44.5%
Fire/EMS Dispatch 20.0 18.9 -5.5%
The following points are relevant regarding this table and call-taker and dispatcher staffing
analysis at a broad level:
• The proposed 76.7 filled positions can meet the proposed weekly workload of
2,227 total scheduled hours while working 1,513 hours per year, which is in line
with historical leave utilization rates for the agency.
• The agency’s current authorized dispatcher staffing of 75 positions (74 of which
are filled) is very close to the recommended figure of 76.7. The recommended
changes focus on
• The proposed authorized strength of 98.4 positions considers the rate of staff
turnover over the last three years, which averages 22% annually. This ensures that
the agency can hire and train new staff to replace departed employees without an
unsustainable increase in workload. If the 911 Center finds that improved training
methodologies allow new staff to become available over a 6 -month cycle rather
than a full year, then a turnover rate of 11% could be used to project authorized
strength.
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 151
Appendix E: Impact of Patrol Saturation in 2018
As noted in the body of the report, the Salt Lake City Police Department implemented an
initiative in 2018 which involved placing non -patrol staff on patrol assignments in an
attempt to improve field staffing levels and services through saturation patrol. This
initiative took place from June 10th to October 6th. At the request of the steering
committee, the Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the available data to determine the
difference, if any, between call dispatching times during that period compared to t he year
as a whole.
The metric used for this analysis is the RCV to DISP figure, which is the number of
seconds from when a call is received by the 911 Center’s phone system to when a unit is
assigned to respond. As detailed in the body of this report, th is number is too high in most
cases (even for Priority 1 and 2 calls) for the Salt Lake City PD, due in all likelihood to a
lack of available field units to respond.
The following tables and charts compare the elapsed time from RCV to DISP from the
entire year of data against the same metric from June 10th to October 6th. The
comparisons are made for Priority 1 and 2 calls, as well as calls of all priority levels. The
median and the 95th percentile are used to give a sense of the typical timeframes
experienced by callers and the frequency with which they occur.
12 Month Period Saturated Period
Priority Median 95th Percentile Median 95th Percentile
1 183 851 180 735
2 270 2,120 255 1,789
All 452 8,440 433 7,349
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 152
As the tables and charts show, the Department experienced a consistent but small
improvement in RCV to DISP times at the median and the 95 th percentile during the period
of saturation.
-
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 2 All
Se
c
o
n
d
s
Priority Level
RCV to DISP Times of Varying Priority at the
Median: 12 Month Period vs. Saturated Period
12 Month Period Saturated Period
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
1 2 All
Se
c
o
n
d
s
Priority Level
RCV to DISP Times of Varying Priority at the 95th
Percentile: 12 Month Period vs. Saturated Period
12 Month Period Saturated Period
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 153
Appendix F: Ancillary Observations from Study
In the context of a 911 dispatch stud y that involves numerous public safety agencies and
customer service research, some additional observations can be made with respect to
areas the City might wish to further explore in the future. As a result of this study, the
following is provided.
• As part of an expanded needs assessment, determine if certain existing policing
practices, such as overall Salt Lake City police response times, are appropriate.
As replicated in the table below, Salt Lake City’s police response times are in most
priority instances well above Sandy PD.
Police CAD Incidents
RCV to QUEUE (seconds) RCV to DISP (seconds)
Priority Count Median 90th% 95th% 99th% Median 90th% 95th% 99th%
Salt Lake City
1 9,350 35 146 204 1,038 183 519 851 1,839
2 40,995 34 119 178 1,051 270 1,315 2,120 4,854
3 42,773 44 146 207 885 700 4,634 7,053 12,998
4 21,007 47 151 218 1,267 2,036 13,928 19,662 29,666
5 63 33 132 398 475 384 20,063 28,713 43,705
6 5 30 73 74 75 775 3,306 3,623 3,876
7 335 52 117 158 424 1,478 4,648 6,395 7,856
8 78 95 192 255 537 223 840 917 979
9 2,653 73 152 198 350 418 6,390 9,130 22,492
All 117,259 41 139 200 954 452 4,777 8,440 19,884
Sandy
1 1,499 22 87 145 723 147 302 382 968
2 6,966 31 122 176 973 205 535 846 1,920
3 12,693 41 132 185 612 243 1,087 1,785 3,853
4 9,416 41 128 177 634 290 1,987 3,007 5,930
5 2 - - - - - - - -
6 115 35 157 190 417 707 3,484 4,028 10,481
7 65 66 196 243 443 283 1,018 1,421 3,029
8 - - - - - - - - -
9 2 - - - - - - - -
All 30,758 38 127 180 706 235 1,212 2,020 4,484
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 154
• The extended police response times at SLCPD point to a possible issue of patrol
staffing levels in the police department. Moreover, response time was a source of
dissatisfaction for some survey customers. This should be explored further such
that patrol service levels can best meet the needs of the community.
• Consider conducting focus group research to better understand public
expectations regarding response time and on-scene personnel and to identify
strategies for improving service and/or educating the public. Survey results, for
example, suggest that customers are more satisfied when told how long they will
have to wait for service to arrive.
• Similarly, consider focus group research to understand the concerns and barriers
that cause residents to be reluctant to use online reporting services. Online
reporting services were not popular among survey respondents; however,
variations on the approach and alternative reporting models might be explored.
• Customer survey contacts under-represented the overall Latino population in Salt
Lake City. Data is not readily available with respect to the reason for such, whether
a statistical artifact or refusal upon the potential reporting party to participate in the
survey. As such, exploration of how to reach-out to the Latino community
effectively, with respect to public safety services, might be explored in the
aforementioned focus group approach.
• Customer survey contacts under-represented the overall Latino population in Salt
Lake City. Data is not readily available with respect to the reason for such, whether
a statistical artifact or refusal upon the potential reporting party to participate in the
survey. As such, exploration of how to reach -out to the Latino community
effectively, with respect to public safety services, might be explored in the
aforementioned focus group approach.
• The use of script-based inquiry software for law enforcement 911 services remains
a divisive topic nationally. This was also an issue in this engagement.
Fundamentally, the issue is not the use of standard inquiries but the feature -sets
and flexibility of the vendor software. As such, Salt Lake City and Sandy should
use the software product that best meets their unique law enforcement needs. This
may or may not be the existing ProQA software product.
• As discussed with the Steering Committee, recommended staffing levels for line
dispatch staff include an over-hire component to ensure appropriate staffing levels
are consistently available. Similar to SLCPD, a portion of the totality of
recommended positions can be authorized but unfunded in the budget, thereby
Performance Audit of 911 and Non-Emergency Dispatch Services SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
Matrix Consulting Group Page 155
allowing budgetary flexibility while providing necessary authority to expedite on -
going recruitment, selection, and training of new staff.
Lisa Burnette, Director
SLC911 COMMUNICATIONS BUREAU | 801.799.3592
MARCH 19, 2020
Business Plan
32-HOUR WORK WEEK FOR 911 DISPATCHERS
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTON AND OVERVIEW………….……………………………….2
DEPARTMENT CONCERNS…..…………………………………………………………………..3
STRATEGY……………………………………………………………………………………………….5
FINANCIAL PLAN……………………………………………………………………………………..6
APPENDIXES……………………………………………………………………………………………9
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………..14
2
Department Description and Overview
Vision Statement:
We will strive to form a partnership with our officers and firefighters to create a safe, healthy community for
members of the public to work and live. “Excellence is the standard, perfection is the goal.”
Mission Statement:
Salt Lake City 911 will maintain a high state of readiness to provide a caring and committed link between our
first responders and members of the public.
SLC911 serves as the public safety answering point (PSAP) for Salt Lake City, as well as the City of Sandy. They
process all emergency and non-emergent calls in both municipalities. The staff members at SLC911 work
cooperatively with the fire and police departments that they serve, as well as, Sandy animal services, to
address the needs of the public. Managed by an at-will director who reports to the Office of the Mayor,
SLC911 is comprised of public safety professionals who require rigorous training and are held to the highest
standards through quality assurance.
As a PSAP, SLC911 must comply with the NENA Call Answering Standard/Model Recommendation (2017) as
well as, Minimum Standards and Best Practices set forth in SB154 and reviewed annually by Utah
Communications Authority, UCA. This standard states that “ninety-percent (90%) of all 9-1-1 calls arriving at
the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) shall be answered within ten (10) seconds during the busy hour and
ninety-five percent (95%) of all 9-1-1 calls should be answered within twenty (20) seconds” (p. 8).
SLC911 exceeded this goal in 2019, with 97.53% of 9-1-1 calls answered in 10 seconds or less and 98.03%
answered within 15 seconds or less. We also handled 772,855 calls and texts for service to 9-1-1. In addition to
these interactions with the public, SLC911 handled over 6,141,056 radio transmissions with first responders.
With the NENA Call Answering Standard achieved, our focus has shifted to other areas that require
improvement and change to ensure our future success. Areas that need development are work-life balance,
employee wellness and retention.
3
Department Concerns
Determining how to keep our department strong and stay competitive in the current economy, our
administrative team has been looking for new ways to recruit potential candidates, while focusing on retaining
senior staff members. Hurdles that we have encountered include wages, abnormal hours, weekend and
holiday work required, high-stress environment and the potential for overtime and/or mandatory overtime
hours. The job duties are not favorable for individuals who have a family, wish to start a family, do not want to
work overtime or desire holidays off. SLC911 only allows two employees off per shift and that includes
holidays. Staffing, SDI, FMLA and other time off requirements, can reduce the number of employees off per
shift. While the benefit package with the City is competitive, it is not enough to recruit new candidates when
the job duties of a 9-1-1 telecommunicator are so demanding. Another concern is our commitment to the
Mayor’s clean air initiative and helping to make a change in our air quality which affects so many in our
population. The third concern is our commitment to employee wellness and work-life balance. An in-depth
examination these topics have produced a potential solution that will be discussed in this plan.
SLC911 has been exploring new ways to compete in a competitive Utah economy. Finding the right individuals,
who possess the demanding skillsets required for 9-1-1 telecommunicators, is difficult in a normal economic
market, but now, employers must think outside of the box in order to get the right employee for these
challenging roles. Acquiring candidates who can successfully pass an extensive background check has become
increasingly difficult and lower wages and a high-stress environment is not an attractive incentive. Having to
work additional hours or mandatory overtime has become the industry standard. USA Today reports that “no
one keeps national data on 9-1-1 operator shortages” but they reported that the “gaps have worsened and
spread as the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen”. (Sept. 2018, Davidson). However, according to the Center
for State and Local Government Excellence, dispatcher positions have been identified as “difficult to fill”
quoting a 22% degree of difficulty reported by state and local governments. (SLGE, 2019, p. 3)
To give this perspective, SLC911 was fully staffed at the beginning of December but as of December 5, 2019,
we have lost three employees. One employee joined the military and gave no notice. The other two
employees were unable to perform to the rigorous training standards and lacked the appropriate critical
thinking skills necessary to become successful candidates. We must now determine how to recruit new
employees and retain our current staff.
While there have been numerous studies on the impacts of trauma and first responders, dispatchers have not
been the focus of in-depth studies on wellness over the past twenty years. Researchers are starting to take an
interest in telecommunicator’s mental health and a closer look at their findings is important to the overall
project implementation.
Public Safety Dispatchers are the FIRST first responders. As such, they are often subjected to intense life-or-
death situations, both on the telephone as emergency call-takers and over the air as police, fire, and EMS
dispatchers.
Dispatchers work in difficult conditions. They may work long hours, including overtime (voluntary and/or
mandatory). Their ability to leave their desks for breaks or meals is often determined by call volume and
staffing levels. They must stay calm during stressful situations. They must listen to violent and terrifying
4
events unfold on the phone. They must try to keep callers calm and provide instructions for caller safety and
life-saving actions, all the while gathering as much information as possible in order to keep responders safe.
As researchers study the long-term effects of exposure to trauma, dispatchers are more likely than the general
public to suffer from mental and physical health problems. This finding was the result of a groundbreaking
study by Doctors Michelle Lilly and Heather Pierce, that was published in April 2012 in The Journal of
Traumatic Stress. Contained in this study, were average modified peritraumatic distress scores. Peritraumatic
distress is defined a “psychological condition that puts an individual at increased risk for depression and
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Peritraumatic emotional stress has been linked to increased negative
self-perceptions and occurs when someone experiences a traumatic event and after”. (Lilly and Pierce, 2012).
Listed as “average scores for each group was as follows: 1.3 (officers), 1.69 (civilians), and 2.93
(telecommunicators)”. (Lilly and Pierce, 2012). Dr. Lilly reported, “it is very clear that even if it does not
happen to the telecommunicator, just the fact that they have this recurrent exposure to very traumatic events
can lead to PTSD.” She also reported that PTSD in dispatchers manifests itself the same way it does in those
directly exposed to traumatic events:
1. Avoidance (avoiding thoughts, memories, or feelings that bring back memories of a
particularly upsetting call)
2. Numbing (feeling detached, feeling as though the world has changed or that the world is a bad,
malicious place)
3. Hypervigilance (having a strong startle response, feeling on edge all the time, having trouble
concentrating or sleeping)
4. Re-experiencing (flashbacks, unwanted thoughts, thoughts about the call that come up repeatedly)
Dr. Lilly also noted that dispatchers suffer from physical health problems as well, including obesity, headaches,
backaches, insomnia, heartburn, and upset stomach.
In a 2015 article for The Annals of Emergency Dispatch & Response, the authors emphasized that even though
dispatchers are rarely present on scene of a traumatic incident, they may suffer from “secondary or vicarious”
exposure (Meischke, et al, p. 29). This is in addition to the already-noted physical and environmental stressors
dispatchers deal with every day.
In a story reported by Erik Neumann for KUER in 2017, Craig Bryan, who is an assistant professor of psychology
at the University of Utah, said, “It would make sense for a lot of dispatch people to really kind of assume ‘I
have a lot of control and influence over the situation and so I play a big part in whether another person lives
or dies.’”
A dissertation about emergency dispatchers found that the majority of telecommunicators in the sample
reported experiencing peritraumatic distress in reaction to at least one call handled while on duty as a
telecommunicator (Troxell, 2008). These results of the study found that although dispatchers are not
physically present at a traumatic scene and their personal integrity (or safety) is rarely threatened, they may
not be protected from PTSD. Troxell also stated that the study was limited by the self-selection of
participants, therefore the symptoms may be higher in a sample of dispatchers “not selected out of
convenience (Lilly, p. 214).
5
Robert T. Mueller, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, working off a study
conducted by researchers at Northern Illinois University, reported that emergency dispatchers are “exposed to
duty-related trauma, which is defined as an indirect exposure to someone else’s traumatic experience.”
Finally, in keeping with the Mayor’s clean air initiative, we have discovered a new way to help in the fight for
clean air. This comes from examining different shift schedules and determining operational need. We believe
that it takes everyone in every department in the City to effectively impact the clean air crisis. As a result,
SLC911 wants to help lead by example and make a change to the way we staff our department.
Because the Mayor’s clean air initiative has a direct impact on our City as well as, our employees and their
immediate health, we believe that it is important to ensure environmental and physical wellness by
implementing change in our department. Our plan will have an immediate, positive impact that can be
determined over time. By establishing a vision where employees travel to the City less often, we hope to assist
in a positive way with the City’s sustainability goals of the near future.
Strategy
Identified in concerns are how to attract new employees, retain senior staff members, commit to employee
work-life balance and wellness, and to contribute to the City’s sustainability goals. In order to get feedback
from employees, an employee satisfaction survey was circulated to our 59 front-line employees who have
worked for SLC911 at least a year or more. Of those who responded, the results of that survey are as follows:
1- 100% of the employees who responded indicated that their ability to get time off was important to
very important to employee satisfaction.
2- 77% indicated that they would prefer to do training at work on-duty instead of having to come in on
their day off
3- 93% said that having more time off would be beneficial to them
4- 93% said that they would enjoy having more time away from work
5- 85% indicated that money was the most important part of their job
Because of the survey, it was obvious that employees would enjoy more time off, and that their pay is
important to them. As a direct result of information gathered, we are suggesting a pilot program that
addresses all of the concerns and has potential employee benefits.
By recognizing the importance of time off, we are suggesting a 32-hour work week to start in hopes of
expanding the program to a 30-hour work week. Implementation of a 32-hour work week would require 8
additional FTEs for the department. Shifts would center around an 8-hour day and employees would work 4
days a week. To fund this pilot program, SLC911 would use E911 revenues, overtime savings and potentially,
SDI and FMLA savings. We would not be asking for additional general fund monies. With the assistance of Salt
Lake City’s Human Resource Department, we have established that a 32-hour work week complies with the
City’s full-time requirements so that employees still receive benefits, Utah Retirement Systems, and the social
security administration. In addition to those entities, we have been working with AFSCME for approval since
vacation, holiday and personal leave benefits would be reduced given the additional 52 days off per year. We
have received their approval to move forward to see how employees would react to these significant changes.
SLC911 has also been working with the city attorney and will receive instruction on how to proceed.
6
Work schedules have been designed to determine full staffing for the 32-hour work week and financials
calculated to determine cost-savings.
Funding Plan
The budget for SLC911 in Fiscal Year 2020 is $8,271,454. Last fiscal year, SLC911 returned to the general fund
$3,650,000.00 which is a budgeted transfer that occurs each year. The City provides the $3,650,000.00 up
front to SLC911 for payroll purposes and requires a reimbursement at the end of each fiscal year. For FY19, the
Bureau returned $316,575.00 of unspent funds. By reducing the amount of on-going overtime, budgeted at
$400,00.00, the estimated leave savings of $318,000.00(reduction of Vacation, PL, Holidays), and the
reduction of disability costs, at approximately $65,000.00, our potential savings by initiating the pilot program
of a 32-hour work week, could result in a total savings of $783,000.00 (See Appendix A).
We are initially proposing that SLC911 be given 8 additional FTEs (full-time employees) to ensure the success
of a 32-hour work week. SLC911 believes that we can fund these FTEs using the sources of savings listed above
and will not be asking for additional monies from the general fund. While using these proposed savings to
cover the costs of the 8 FTEs, we will not be reducing the budgeted transfer amount. Because benefit
packages are a fixed cost for employees of approximately $24,000.00 and the average salary, based on the
new 32-hour pay rate of 45,693.44 is a total of $69,693.44. Eight employees would cost $557,547.52 (See
Appendix B).
Example:
Lateral Employee with 5 years’ experience:
A Hourly rate of a 40-hour work week 21.97
B Hourly rate of a 32-hour work week 27.46
C Yearly wage of a 40-hour week/52 weeks per year $45,697.60
D Yearly wage of a 32-hour week/52 weeks per year $45,693.44
E Difference in yearly wage (4.16)
F Benefits package (approximate HSA, Taxes, Longevity, FICA, etc..) $24,000.00
G Total cost per employee (D+F=G) $69,693.44
H Total cost of 8 FTEs for a 32-hour work week $557,547.52
I Reduction of Leave savings $318,000.00
J Unspent funds from FY19 $316,575.00
K On-going overtime budget $400,000.00
L Total of existing funds available to cover new 8 FTEs $1,034,575.00
M *Total cost of “additional” hours until 8 FTEs can be trained $250,000.00
*Overtime, which will now be “additional” hours, will still be necessary until all of the new FTEs can be trained.
If we acquire employees from other agencies, then theoretically the time to train these laterals will be
reduced due to prior experience. Overtime will not be paid until the employee has worked more than 40
hours. As a result, employees will make additional money per hours worked, but it will still not be overtime.
The additional hours will be paid at the 32-hour work week wage.
7
Overtime calculations vs Additional hours worked:
A 40-hour pay rate (per hour) 21.97
B Overtime rate for time and ½ based on 40-hour pay rate (21.97+10.96) 32.93
C Total cost for an employee who works an additional 8 hours for a total of 48 263.44
D 32-hour pay rate (per hour) 27.46
E Additional hours worked based on 8 hours for a total of 40 219.68
F Difference of additional hours vs overtime hours work (cost savings C-E=F) -43.76
*There would also be tax savings on the overtime which is not figured in here*
Reduction in MOU accruals
AFSCME Employees are currently entitled to the following vacation accruals based on years of continuous City
service:
Completed years of Continuous City Service Hours of
Vacation
per Year
Hours Accrued
per Pay Period
0 to completion of year 3 97 3.73
Beginning of year 4 to completion of year 6 115 4.42
Beginning of year 7 to completion of year 9 125 4.81
Beginning of year 10 to completion of year 12 144 5.54
Beginning of year 13 to completion of year 15 160 6.15
Beginning of year 16 to completion of year 19 176 6.77
Beginning of year 20 or more 200 7.69
The City recognizes 12 holidays and at 8 hours, that is a total of 96 hours.
Personal leave is given to employees using the following method:
Years of Service Total hours
>6 months 40
>24 months 60
24+ 80
With the new 32-hour work week, we recommend reducing the vacation, holiday and personal leave accruals
in favor of the additional 52 days off per year under the new plan. (Appendix C).
8
Example:
A 5-year employee earns 4.42 hours of vacation per pay period for a total of 115 hours per year. This same
employee earns 80 hours of personal leave per year and 12 holidays at 8 hours per holiday. Under the new
plan here is how those totals would change and be calculated:
Category
(A)
No of hours (B) At “old”
wage
$21.97 (C)
Accruals
reduced by
50% (D)
At “new”
wage $32.93
(E)
Cost savings
(C-E=F)
Vacation 115 hours 2526.55 57 hours 1877.01 649.54
Holidays 96 hours 2109.12 48 hours 1580.64 528.48
PL 80 hours 1757.60 40 hours 1317.20 440.40
Totals 291 hours
(36 days)
6393.27 145 hours
(18 days)
4774.85 1618.42
Column B, converted to days equals 36 8-hour days, compared to column D, which equates to 18 8-hour days.
With the additional day off per week, employees receive 52 additional days off per year. The new time off
total for this 5-year employee is 70 days off, compared to the 36 days off they would receive with the “old”
40-hour work week plan. That is an increased time off benefit of over 94%.
By exploring the pilot program, we predict that employees will be less likely to utilize SDI because they will
have more time off and away from the high-stress environment, more time with their families, more time to
invest in overall wellness, and not having to worry about making less money. Once we begin implementation,
we will monitor costs monthly and assess potential Bureau savings.
9
APPENDIX A
911 Dispatch Center Budget History
General Fund:
Fiscal
Year Budget
Amended
Budget
(A)
$ Spent
(B)
$ Not Spent
(A - B = C)
FY17
$
7,434,050
$
7,535,129
$
6,861,589
$
673,540
FY18
7,655,723
8,392,038
7,769,042
622,996
FY19
7,846,945
8,387,920
8,071,345
316,575
FY20
8,271,454
8,271,454
-
-
E911 Tax Revenue Fund (Fund 60):
Fiscal
Year
E911 Funds
Received
E911 $ to
General
Fund
(D)
Current
Balance of
E911
FY17
3,025,938
$
2,800,000
-
FY18
4,054,886
3,274,917
-
FY19
4,310,924
3,650,000
-
FY20 2,982,521^
3,650,000* $ 886,475
^Year to Date E911 Funds Received
* Transfer Complete
$ Returned to General Fund / Sources of Savings
Fiscal
Year
$ Returned
to General
Fund
(C + D = E)
$ of
Overtime
(F)
$ of
Disability (G)
$ of Leave
Savings
(H)
Total
Potential
Savings
(F + G + H)
FY17
$
3,473,540 $
509,975
$
64,655
-
$
574,631
FY18
3,897,914
461,002
89,683
-
550,685
FY19
3,966,575
419,173
73,126
-
492,299
FY20 >3,650,000
400,000
65,000 $318,000**
783,000 FY 20 Costs are Estimated
**50% reduction of leave time (Personal Leave, Holidays, Vacation)
10
APPENDIX B
11
APPENDIX B CONTINUED
12
APPENDIX C
YEARS
OF
SERVICE
(A)
VACA
HOURS
EARNED
(B)
VACA
HOURS
TTL (C)
PER HR
WAGE
(D)
TTL
AVERAGE
COST
(CXD=E)
VACATION
EARNED
AT 50% (F)
TTL COSTS
AT 50%
(FXG=H)
TTL
COST
SAVINGS
(E-H=I)
0-3 3.73 97 18.31 1776.07 48 1098.72 677.35
4-6 4.42 115 19.67 2262.05 57 1401.63 860.42
7-9 4.81 125 20.76 2595.00 62 1608.90 986.10
10-12 5.54 144 25.70 3700.80 72 2313.36 1387.44
13-15 6.15 160 25.70 4112.00 80 2570.40 1541.60
16-19 6.77 176 25.70 4523.20 88 2827.44 1695.76
20+ 7.69 200 25.70 5140.00 100 3213.00 1927.00
TOTAL GAIN: 52 DAYS PER YEAR (416 HRS AT 8HRS/520 HRS AT 10 HRS)
YEARS
OF
SERVICE
(A)
PL
HOURS
CURRENT
(B)
AT
"OLD"
WAGE
$18.31
(C)
PL
HOURS
AT 50%
(D)
AT
"NEW"
WAGE
$22.89
(E)
COST
SAVINGS
(F) (C-E=F)
>6Mo 40 732.40 20 457.80 274.60
>24 60 1098.60 30 686.70 411.90
24+ 80 1464.80 40 915.60 549.20
YEARS
OF
SERVICE
(A)
PL HOURS
CURRENT
(B)
AT "OLD"
WAGE $25.70
(C)
PL
HOURS
AT 50%
(D)
AT "NEW"
WAGE $32.13
(E)
COST
SAVINGS
(F) (C-E=F)
>6Mo 40 1028 20 642.6 385.4
>24 60 1542 30 963.9 578.1
24+ 80 2056 40 1285.2 771
13
APPENDIX C CONTINUED
HOLIDAY
8
HOURS
"OLD"
(12 DAYS)
AT
"OLD"
WAGE
18.31
HOLIDAY
HOURS
AT 50%
(6 DAYS)
AT
"NEW"
WAGE
22.89
COST
SAVINGS
96 HRS 1757.76 48 HRS 1098.72 659.04
HOLIDAY
HOURS
CURRENT
(12 DAYS)
AT
"OLD"
WAGE
$25.70
HOLIDAY
HOURS AT
50%
(6 DAYS)
AT "NEW"
WAGE $32.13
COST
SAVINGS
(C-E=F)
96 HRS 2467.20 48 HRS 1542.24 924.96
14
References:
NENA Call Answering Standards/Model Recommendation. Revised, August 31, 2017.
https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/NENA_56-005.1_Call_Answering.pdf
September 24, 2018. Davidson, Paul. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/09/24/911-centers-struggle-hire-
operators-slowing-response/1196541002/
State and Local Government Workforce: 2019 Survey. Survey Findings State and Local Government Workforce: 2019
Survey. (p. 3)
Lilly, M. M., London, M.J. & Mercer, M.C. (2015). Predictors of obesity and physical health complaints among 911
telecommunicators. Safety and Health at Work, 7, 55-62.
Lilly, M. & Pearce, H. (2012). Duty-related trauma exposure in 911 telecommunicators: Considering the risk for
posttraumatic stress. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25, 211-215.
Meischke, H., Painter, I., Lilly, M., Beaton, R., Revere, D., Calhoun, B., Seely, K.D., Carslay, Y., Joe, C. & Baseman, J. (2015).
An exploration of sources, symptoms and buffers of occupational stress in 9-1-1 emergency call centers. Annals of
Emergency Dispatch and Response, 3(2), 28-35.
Muller, R.T. (2017). Trauma exposure linked to PTSD in 911 dispatchers. The Trauma and Mental Health Report.
Retrieved from https://joinipsa.org/IPSA-Blog/7827005.
Neumann, E. (2017). For emergency dispatchers, the mental toll of a high-stress job. Retrieved from
http://www.kuer.org/sites/kuer/files/styles/x_large/public/201710/EDITED2_1.jpg)
Troxell, R. (2008). Indirect exposure to the trauma of others: The experience of 9-1-1 telecommunicators (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304351154?accountid=14496
SLC911
Budget
-January 1, 2020 –Fully Staffed
-March 18, 2020 –700 more calls than 2019
-May 30, 2020 –1,200 more calls than 2019
-September 8, 2020 –2,000 more calls than 2019
-December 31, 2020 –Down 20 employees
2020 STATISTICS
Mental Health
-University of Utah Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT) Procedure
-MCOT Training
-Working with SLCPD and SLCFD
-Counselors for staff
-EAP
-Peer Support
Since September 1, 2020
MCOT has assisted on 300+ calls
½ of those were handled
without a police response.
32 Hour Work Week Pilot Program
Program Overview
Benefits
Tracking Success
2020 Changes
in Calls and
Operations
Masks
Riots and Civil Unrest
Employee Turnover
Temperatures
Immunizations
Office Locked Down
Barriers Added to Desks
Cleaning Consoles Every 4 Hours
Longer Wait Times
Constant Callers / Repeat Callers
911 Growth Opportunities in 2022
911 and Non-emergency Calls
•All employees are trained to handle all calls.
•Added staff during certain periods of the day to keep up with the increase in call
volume.
•SLC911 has developed a police and fire questioning structure with the
assistance of SLCPD and SLCFD.
•We are currently working with SLCPD to help give callers additional options to
lower the number of police response calls.
•Responsive and realistic time frames for our citizens.
Follow -up Briefing of the Police Department
Audit
Salt Lake City, Utah
Study Objectives
Last year, the City Council initiated a process of police reform that
focused both on budgeting and operational issues.
The public participated in the development of the scope of work for
a consulting-assisted effort to evaluate opportunities to make the
Police Department more accountable and transparent.
The result was the creation of 17 scope areas focused on:
The development of a ’zero-based budget’ approach to assist the
Council in decision-making about resource allocation.
The examination of alternative response issues associated with lower
priority calls for service and calls involving mental health issues.
The examination of issues associated with disciplinary processes.
The examination of body worn camera reviews and other issues.
Key Findings –Budget Development
Budgets must be organized to allow all expenditures to be allocated
to services provided (both at the functional and organizational block
levels).
A different approach to personnel cost estimation should be
implemented that anticipates attrition rather than using attrition
savings to cover unbudgeted expenses.
Line items historically over or under-budgeted should be adjusted to
align with actual anticipated expenditure levels.
Cost for department-wide expenditures, not related to direct service
provision, should be consolidated into a central services /
administrative overhead category.
Key Findings –Budget Development
All airport expenditures, and other Police Services provided to other
entities, should be fully defined and tracked to provide data regarding
full cost of service provision.
Costs for “internal service” type functions (information technology,
building maintenance and repair, etc.) should be fully centralized
within internal service departments.
Appropriate service level standards and replacement cycles must be adopted and
funded to ensure department needs are met.
Key Findings –Budget Monitoring
All unbudgeted special projects, initiatives and one-time expenses
should be coded with project codes to enable full reporting of
expenditures and transparency regarding unplanned expenditures.
A master contract listing should be developed for the Police
Department to provide visibility to all obligations for the delivery of
police services.
Key Findings –Organizational
Blocks
All department operations should be categorized into organizational
blocks with the following information provided:
Total budgeted costs,
Staffing Allocation, and
Service level metrics and outcome measures.
Organizational blocks can be established based on different factors:
Workload based,
Span of Control,
Fixed Coverage,
Ratio based, or
Non -scaling (unique positions)
Zero Based Budgeting
Implementation
First task completed should be the establishment of the
organizational blocks to be utilized in the ZBB effort.
Adopted FY21-22 Budget and staffing levels will need to be
reformatted and reallocated consistent with prior recommendations
prior to initiation of the ZBB decision-package considerations.
Service level metrics will need to be developed and estimated at the
organizational block levels.
The above three items critical to the effective development of the
decision packages that are fundamental to the use of ZBB and must
occur prior to the Council undertaking the ZBB effort.
Zero Based Budgeting
Implementation
Decision-making at organizational unit will enable more robust review
of operations with full understanding of the staffing, service level, and
expenditure impacts of decisions.
Current Approaches to MH Crisis
SLCPD provides alternative response and services for mental
health needs and crisis intervention through :
Community Connection Center: Walk -in facility with clinicians and
case managers that can connect individuals with services.
CIT/HOST: Team of sworn officers and a sergeant that respond to
mental health crisis events and provide CIT training, as well as
proactive policing.
Co-response: CIT/HOST officers respond with CCC clinicians to
mental health crisis events, triaging 911 calls to be the primary
responder when possible.
The project team examined current operations and opportunities
to better implement these strategies, with the goal of ultimately
achieving better outcomes.
MH Crisis Event Methodology
To quantify calls for service involving persons experiencing
mental health crisis, the project team examined the call types that
most likely involve mental health crisis.
For instance, “Psychiatric Problem –Non Violent” frequently involve
CIT/HOST officers.
The need for specialized co-response to mental health crisis
events are then modeled for all hours and days of the week.
This is critical for the hours and days when CIT/HOST is not on duty,
in order to understand ‘unmet demand’.
Demand for MH Co-Response
The frequency of events that are most likely to require specialized
MH co-response shows significant unmet needs:
Addressing MH Response Needs
Evening hours appear to have the greatest need for specialized
co-response, while CIT is not working.
Saturday and Sunday also have comparable levels of activity.
Staff should be redeployed to address these needs.
Pursuing both the co-response model and prioritizing training all
officers in CIT certification + refresher training comes at the cost
of both.
Providing the CIT training takes significant time. Current refresher
training is short of best practice levels.
By concentrating officers on one shift, co -response is only available
at certain times.
Addressing MH Response Needs
Consequently, fully implementing co-response should be
prioritized over widespread CIT training in order to focus on
achieving outcomes such fewer uses of force and arrest.
In order to address these needs:
Redeploy 2 CIT/HOST officers and 2 Community Connections staff to
Afternoon Shift hours to cover the evening.
Stagger workdays on both teams to cover Saturday and Sunday.
Increase CIT/HOST staffing by four officer positions, and add an
additional clinician to provide for relief factors.
These recommendations will provide for specialized co-response to
MH events that is available 20.5 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Core and Non-Core Functions
The project team examined the core and non-core functions of the
police department in order to identify potential opportunities to for
alternative service provision.
In general, units within a police organization can be considered as
part of one or more core functions of a policing:
Response to calls for service
Investigation of crime
Suppression and prevention of crime and disorder (traffic
enforcement is a component of this)
Build and maintain relationships and trust within the community
Call for Service Diversion
Among these, call response represents a significant opportunity.
The roles of police officers have expanded in recent decades, and
are asked to serve in new capacities.
Call diversion examines how some of these new responses can be
diverted to other, more specialized means.
The approach enables officers to focus on their core services and
have more time to be proactive and engage with the community.
Many departments throughout the country staff civilian community
service officers (CSOs) that response to non-emergency calls for
service that do not require a sworn officer.
Framework for Call Diversion
Before:
After:
Call Diversion Potential Impacts
The project team examined the feasibility of implementing such an
approach, using dispatch data to determine the number of calls
could be diverted.
The analysis shows that up to 12,500 calls for service could be
diverted from sworn patrol to civilian responders.
Based on the workload of each call, this would require adding 20
positions to a new CSO classification.
Impacts include dramatic improvements to patrol service levels,
including in proactive time and response time to low -priority
incidents.
Internal Affairs in the SLCPD
SLCPD conforms to best practice and other agencies in several
areas:
They accept complaints from a variety of sources
All complaints are accepted
All complaints are tracked in a database
There is a set timeline of 75 days to conduct the investigation.
44% of complaints are internally generated indicating a high level
of internal accountability.
However, there is a lack of transparency.
SLCPD is in the process of updating their Internal Affairs policy –
requiring an update to the MOU to allow supervisors to better
address low level policy violations.
Proposed Internal Affairs Changes
Update IA processes to the new proposed policy which outlines
types of corrective action that can be taken that are not
considered discipline.
Allow sergeants to handle limited minor complaints in the field and
provides that the complaint be entered into the employee
management database.
Post complete IA complaint statistics on public website.
Also post more Use of Force information, including demographics
Adopt a policy that would require IA investigations be completed
even when an employee resigns or retires
Discipline Issues and Changes
The current system includes a three-tier level system based on
the seriousness of the complaint
Adopt a formalized ‘discipline matrix’ which helps to make
discipline more consistent.
Adopt a proposed policy recommendation that includes a “policy
deficiency” finding
Adopt a proposed policy recommendation that includes a
“coaching / counseling” finding
Add a “training deficiency” finding which denotes that the member
did not violate policy because they were not trained or there is a
training gap that should be addressed department wide.
Employee Wellness
Two recent employee surveys indicated that many officers are
struggling with depression, had difficulty concentrating and 12%
had suicidal thoughts.
SLCPD has identified the need for clinician to address some of
these issues
Develop a departmental plan to train all personnel regarding
trauma, stress and PTSD for first responders from accredited
behavioral science experts
Create a steering committee of stakeholders to make actionable
recommendations to address officer wellness issues
Measure outcomes of implemented education, programs, and
strategies
Personnel Management Systems
The current early warning system does not operate effectively and
needs significant changes to be more effective.
The current early warning system may not trigger soon enough on
some issues while triggering to often on others.
However, changes will require different software.
The IA Lieutenant is the system administrator which is not a best
practice. Create a new Early Intervention and Identification
System coordinator position.
Body Worn Camera Issues
The body worn camera policy is clearly written and incorporates
State code.
Audit results indicate that officers properly activate their camera
92% of the time, however they only noted activation 47% of the
time and interrupted video within policy only 43% of the time.
Compared to other police department audits reviewed, SLCPD
had a better activation rate than several of their peers.
However, the Ordinance only requires 5 audits per month which is
not adequate to gain meaningful insight into whether body worn
cameras are operated within policy consistently.
BWC Recommendations
Make mandatory the monthly BWC auditing by supervisors.
Conduct random BWC audits by the audits and inspections unit.
Post body worn camera compliance on the public website.
Add an annual body worn camera audit role to the police civilian
review board (PCRB). Create a new position to do this.
The independent body worn camera auditor should review a
minimum of 20 videos per month.
Establish BWC review performance metrics.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
council.slcgov.com/budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:May 25, 2021
RE:FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 BUDGET,
Department of Sustainability
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET (MRB) FY22 PAGES B-37 and E-91
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Sustainability (the department) provides both waste collection and sustainability efforts,
which are supported through a separate enterprise fund (the refuse fund). The department, also known as
SLCgreen, is divided into two divisions: the Waste & Recycling division, which generates revenue and budgets
from fees collected for recycling and waste collection services provided by the City; and the Environment &
Energy division, which houses the efforts and staff for the City’s environmental special projects.
FISCAL YEAR 2022 KEY ITEMS (see attachment 2, appendices and policy questions for more discussion)
- Proposed 12% rate increase for residential waste and recycling collection
- Proposed transition of the Environment & Energy division toward general fund incorporation by fiscal
year 2025
- A requested $655,000 in new projects funding for Environment & Energy (see appendix 2)
- Call 2 Haul adjustments, such as an additional annual green waste collection option and a neighborhood
collection scheduling option
- A $5,676,289 revenue request for Waste & Recycling to initiate financing of 16 new refuse packers, and a
corresponding expense line item
- Continuation and implementation of the Community Renewable Energy Program, including $275,000
toward planning and coordination for the program
OTHER BACKGROUND
The Department proposes a budget that yields an operating deficit in each of its two Divisions, resulting in a
total estimated cash balance draw-down of $4,495,190 this year. Although the Waste & Recycling division
proposes to realize additional revenue because of a requested rate increase of 12% for its residential services,
operating expenses and expenses related to the purchase of new equipment offset the revenue increase. The
department’s other division, referred to as Environment & Energy, requests a general fund transfer of $440,000
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 25, 2021
Public Hearing: N/A
Potential Action: N/A
Page | 2
for a general operating subsidy and $275,000 for a payment in the context of the Community Renewable Energy
Program (see appendix 1). Environment & Energy also requests $655,000 for a number of projects. The other
portion of Environment & Energy revenue comes from an anticipated $515,000 dividend from landfill
operations for the fiscal year.
The Department’s sustainability efforts through its Environment & Energy Division are not directly funded from
rates collected for City trash & recycling service. This division has instead been funded through revenue obtained
via an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County relating to operation and management of the Salt Lake Valley
Solid Waste Management Facility (SLVSWMF, or the active Landfill). The revenue typically comes in the form of
an annual dividend, and then less frequently in the form of disbursements from the Landfill’s closure fund.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. There is currently not an adequate ongoing funding source for the Environment & Energy division. The
Department proposes gradual incorporation of this division into the general fund.
o Would the division’s existing landfill dividend revenue stream continue to augment a potential
general fund operation and projects appropriation each year?
o Organizationally, where would it be placed and would there be some additional overhead costs
to the shift?
o Council Members might wish to discuss more fundamental policy considerations around
relocation of Environment & Energy to the general fund.
2. The Community Renewable Energy Program is beginning to take shape in a more tangible way this year
(see appendix 2). Council Members might wish to discuss the program.
o Could the department provide regular updates as more cost-specific details become available,
e.g. what anticipated impacts could be to ratepayers in the community?
o Council Members might also wish to request an update from the department midway and at
completion of the low-income customer engagement plan that is part of this renewable energy
effort. The engagement strategy could bear significantly on the Council’s equity emphasis.
3. Council Members have both asked and fielded questions about sustainable or renewable energy
elements being incorporated into City requirements for public funding of construction projects (housing
developments or public works projects, among others). Is there an update on integrating these
requirements into City practice & code?
4. The department requests a $50,000 appropriation for legal and technical consultation on matters of
energy. Council Members might wish to discuss whether the resources being sought exist within Salt
Lake City Corporation.
5. The department proposes funding of a Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan, including funding of
a consultant to develop the plan.
o Would the department use a conventional request-for-proposals procurement process for the
plan?
o The Council might wish to discuss higher-level metrics or priorities for such a plan, and might
request further dialogue with the department to ensure incorporation of potential Council goals
and guidance as the process takes shape.
6. The department requests funding for building electrification support. These resources would be made
available to help local property owners convert existing buildings to more efficient energy use.
o Community and Neighborhoods proposes a Housing Stability division in its FY22 budget
request. Are there potential efficiencies between the building electrification support and housing
stability; if so, might the departments coordinate to bring this to be?
7. The department requests funding for an air quality monitoring network. Are there existing air quality
monitoring networks such as Purple Air or the one provided through the State that could be integrated
with this project?
o Will the City’s potential effort duplicate existing resources or capacity?
8. The department requests ongoing funding for community food assessments, dealing in part with access
to food in an equity context. Related efforts have been funded by the Council in previous years.
Page | 3
o Council Members might be interested in more information on these programs, such as
performance measures, anticipated outcomes and timelines. Perhaps the topic is broad enough
for a standalone briefing at some point.
9. Council Members may wish to inquire about community feedback to the Department as the Call 2 Haul
program has evolved.
Attachments:
1. Administration transmittal
2. Council questions & department answers for FY22 budget proposal
3. FY22 cash balance analysis for the department
4. Rate increase forecast and future year projections
5. Detail departmental budget request
6. Detail project request, FY21 & FY22
Appendix 1, discussion of the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP)
QUESTION: Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution
ANSWER: The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup
implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000.
Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population
and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program
development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-
participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt
Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project,
depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The
Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program
to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process
of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share,
anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request
additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated
cost-share.
Appendix 2, FY22 projects request for Environment & Energy
QUESTION: Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In
particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational
initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the
rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use; please detail the $655,000 request for new
projects FY22
ANSWER: The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing
sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus
on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access
to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.
1.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities
participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income
Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for
January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-
design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan.
The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or
grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who
are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase
climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing
participation. After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates
Page | 4
expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan,
which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected
to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path
for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most
impacted by climate disruption.
2.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy
policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable
electricity efforts.
3.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to
target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging
weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households
in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents
of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed
incomes. Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents,
property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit
projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-
retrofit scenarios.
4.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of
the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to
provide: cloud services, maintenance, and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year.
5.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000). The Sustainability Department, along with other
collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance
dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network
administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success.
The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change
understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include
recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other
learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah
Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced
through 2021-22.
6.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000). Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the
University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by
council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a
public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities
according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how
pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.
7.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended
by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods.
Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food
assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide
future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food
system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs,
existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food
system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on
community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency
food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food
waste, the food system’s climate impact, and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an
internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and
programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather
and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of
paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.
Appendix 3, discussion of fees and special events (included in the FY21 report)
The City receives regular requests and complaints about the special events fees. It appears that because the fees
are recommended by individual City Departments and considered one-at-a-time by the Council, a
comprehensive review of all fees and policies that govern special events would be necessary before the
Administration and Council could fully respond to the issues being raised. Issues raised have included equity,
Page | 5
consistency and clarity of City fees across City locations (Gallivan Center vs. Liberty Park or Washington Square,
for example); consistency among City Departments in expectations on whether a fee recovers 100 percent of the
City’s cost or is intended only to defray the cost to the City; clarity on when the City is covering the costs of an
event in order to ‘program’ or ‘activate’ a space versus when the City charges an event for City services. Clarity
has also been sought on to what degree events at the Gallivan Center would be under the same expectations as
other of the City’s public-access facilities.
Increased Special Event fees for Waste and Recycling’s services were adopted two years ago with an adjustment
to the Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). In authorizing the fee increase, the Council anticipated receiving more
information from the Administration on the City’s Special Event fee assessment process and its impact on local
non-profits before the increases took effect. The Administration has just started the anticipated fee review
process at the time of the FY20 budget briefing. The Administration has indicated that issues related to Special
Events fees have been explored by an Administration working group in the near future and information would
be made available to the Council.
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21
Response Requested by 5/19/21
Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for
$5,676,289
Capex?
Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to
12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed.
The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other
manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The
request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were
approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not
received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The
other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed
during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays
related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22
budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total
of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to
spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could
potentially come in during FY22.
Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenue
The landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The
dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to
the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would
fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is
based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-
operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil
regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split
50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of
the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue
to fluctuate based on landfill profitability.
Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and
information was provided that recycling operations could soon become
profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future?
The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling
commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021,
we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3
years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single
stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional
funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues
to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping
fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or
fully offset our processing
fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in
the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040,
and will be reflected in the cash balance.
Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in
key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or
expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique
to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the
rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.
Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •
The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new
and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment &
Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable
electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access
to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.
Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation
requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program
application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022.
Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG)
to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's
Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted
facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots
groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent
communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of
discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each
organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing
participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the
Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input
on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon
recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to
continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master
Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing
and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.
1.
Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating
impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other
analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.
2.
Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider,
pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-
efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility
incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households
in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially
burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to
prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to
contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property
owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute
appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further
minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios.
3.
Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will
support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services,
maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this
year.
4.
Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability
Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in
Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and
collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support
Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for
this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and
unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions
in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include
recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate
communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive
Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These
climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and
enhanced through 2021-22.
5.
Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air
quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality
monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on
current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a
public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan
outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also
give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from
different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.
6.
Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement
projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase
access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations
are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food
assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning
process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment
will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an
inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs,
existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable,
sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment
may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food
security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation,
emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and
workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate
impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal,
cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning
existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals.
Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and
to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of
paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy
Council.
7.
Are these projected to be capital expenditures?
No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs
•
Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line item
Tipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the
recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced
steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling
processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into
the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change
quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling
tipping cost in FY22.
Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation
Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget
presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the
community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial
Equity and Policing committee.
The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase
1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will
contribute funds according to a formula that considers population
and electricity consumption. State regulation
requires participating communities to pay for program development and
implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting
costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected
to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity
load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project,
depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over
the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing
agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue
to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in
process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the
governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial
obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request
additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be
dependent on the recalculated cost-share.
Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costs
I have included some of the major anticipated changes below
Object & Name Budget
Changes
Explanation
229501 SAFETY
PROG/SAFE
SHOES&GLASSES
$700 Need for additional safety equipment
2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs
2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense
2324 SPECIAL
CONSULTANT
$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor
maintenance & Increase strategic
staffing budget.
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU
233301 SEWER $2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU
233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU
239401 Education -
Tuition Reimburse't
$4,000 Three employees attending
school.One employee 50%
Split between E&E/W&R
2520 MEALS &
ENTERTAINMENT
$1,000 Increased based on actual costs
2521 EMP. MEAL
ALLOWANCE
$1,700 Increased based on actual costs
2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription,
monthly weather update subscription
2528 REWARDS &
RECOGNITIONS
$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives
and rewards
275002 Capital
Preparation Labor
$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for
capital equipment purchases
292101
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE FEE
$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City
Admin fees
2998
INTRADEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost &
annual Streets Response Team (SRT)
costs
2999
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated
increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget Questions
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability.
Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and
information was provided that recycling operations could soon become
profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future?
The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling
commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021,
we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3
years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single
stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional
funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues
to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping
fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or
fully offset our processing
fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in
the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040,
and will be reflected in the cash balance.
Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in
key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or
expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique
to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the
rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.
Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •
The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new
and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment &
Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable
electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access
to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.
Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation
requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program
application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022.
Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG)
to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's
Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted
facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots
groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent
communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of
discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each
organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing
participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the
Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input
on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon
recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to
continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master
Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing
and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.
1.
Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating
impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other
analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.
2.
Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider,
pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-
efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility
incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households
in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially
burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to
prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to
contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property
owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute
appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further
minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios.
3.
Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will
support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services,
maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this
year.
4.
Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability
Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in
Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and
collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support
Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for
this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and
unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions
in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include
recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate
communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive
Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These
climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and
enhanced through 2021-22.
5.
Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air
quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality
monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on
current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a
public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan
outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also
give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from
different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.
6.
Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement
projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase
access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations
are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food
assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning
process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment
will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an
inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs,
existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable,
sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment
may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food
security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation,
emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and
workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate
impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal,
cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning
existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals.
Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and
to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of
paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy
Council.
7.
Are these projected to be capital expenditures?
No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs
•
Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line item
Tipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the
recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced
steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling
processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into
the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change
quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling
tipping cost in FY22.
Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation
Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget
presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the
community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial
Equity and Policing committee.
The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase
1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will
contribute funds according to a formula that considers population
and electricity consumption. State regulation
requires participating communities to pay for program development and
implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting
costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected
to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity
load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project,
depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over
the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing
agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue
to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in
process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the
governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial
obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request
additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be
dependent on the recalculated cost-share.
Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costs
I have included some of the major anticipated changes below
Object & Name Budget
Changes
Explanation
229501 SAFETY
PROG/SAFE
SHOES&GLASSES
$700 Need for additional safety equipment
2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs
2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense
2324 SPECIAL
CONSULTANT
$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor
maintenance & Increase strategic
staffing budget.
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU
233301 SEWER $2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU
233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU
239401 Education -
Tuition Reimburse't
$4,000 Three employees attending
school.One employee 50%
Split between E&E/W&R
2520 MEALS &
ENTERTAINMENT
$1,000 Increased based on actual costs
2521 EMP. MEAL
ALLOWANCE
$1,700 Increased based on actual costs
2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription,
monthly weather update subscription
2528 REWARDS &
RECOGNITIONS
$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives
and rewards
275002 Capital
Preparation Labor
$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for
capital equipment purchases
292101
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE FEE
$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City
Admin fees
2998
INTRADEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost &
annual Streets Response Team (SRT)
costs
2999
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated
increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each
organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing
participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the
Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input
on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon
recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to
continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master
Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing
and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.
1.
Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating
impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other
analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.
2.
Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider,
pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-
efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility
incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households
in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially
burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to
prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to
contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property
owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute
appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further
minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios.
3.
Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will
support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services,
maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this
year.
4.
Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability
Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in
Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and
collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support
Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for
this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and
unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions
in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include
recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate
communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive
Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These
climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and
enhanced through 2021-22.
5.
Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air
quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality
monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on
current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a
public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan
outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also
give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from
different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.
6.
Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement
projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase
access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations
are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food
assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning
process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment
will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an
inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs,
existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable,
sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment
may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food
security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation,
emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and
workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate
impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal,
cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning
existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals.
Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and
to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of
paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy
Council.
7.
Are these projected to be capital expenditures?
No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs
•
Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line item
Tipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the
recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced
steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling
processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into
the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change
quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling
tipping cost in FY22.
Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation
Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget
presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the
community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial
Equity and Policing committee.
The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase
1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will
contribute funds according to a formula that considers population
and electricity consumption. State regulation
requires participating communities to pay for program development and
implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting
costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected
to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity
load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project,
depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over
the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing
agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue
to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in
process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the
governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial
obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request
additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be
dependent on the recalculated cost-share.
Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costs
I have included some of the major anticipated changes below
Object & Name Budget
Changes
Explanation
229501 SAFETY
PROG/SAFE
SHOES&GLASSES
$700 Need for additional safety equipment
2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs
2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense
2324 SPECIAL
CONSULTANT
$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor
maintenance & Increase strategic
staffing budget.
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU
233301 SEWER $2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU
233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU
239401 Education -
Tuition Reimburse't
$4,000 Three employees attending
school.One employee 50%
Split between E&E/W&R
2520 MEALS &
ENTERTAINMENT
$1,000 Increased based on actual costs
2521 EMP. MEAL
ALLOWANCE
$1,700 Increased based on actual costs
2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription,
monthly weather update subscription
2528 REWARDS &
RECOGNITIONS
$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives
and rewards
275002 Capital
Preparation Labor
$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for
capital equipment purchases
292101
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE FEE
$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City
Admin fees
2998
INTRADEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost &
annual Streets Response Team (SRT)
costs
2999
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated
increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These
climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and
enhanced through 2021-22.
5.
Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air
quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality
monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on
current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a
public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan
outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also
give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from
different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.
6.
Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement
projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase
access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations
are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food
assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning
process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment
will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an
inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs,
existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable,
sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment
may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food
security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation,
emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and
workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate
impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal,
cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning
existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals.
Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and
to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of
paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy
Council.
7.
Are these projected to be capital expenditures?
No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs
•
Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line item
Tipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the
recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced
steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling
processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into
the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change
quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling
tipping cost in FY22.
Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation
Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget
presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the
community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial
Equity and Policing committee.
The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase
1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will
contribute funds according to a formula that considers population
and electricity consumption. State regulation
requires participating communities to pay for program development and
implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting
costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected
to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity
load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project,
depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over
the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing
agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue
to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in
process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the
governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial
obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request
additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be
dependent on the recalculated cost-share.
Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costs
I have included some of the major anticipated changes below
Object & Name Budget
Changes
Explanation
229501 SAFETY
PROG/SAFE
SHOES&GLASSES
$700 Need for additional safety equipment
2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs
2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense
2324 SPECIAL
CONSULTANT
$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor
maintenance & Increase strategic
staffing budget.
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU
233301 SEWER $2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU
233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU
239401 Education -
Tuition Reimburse't
$4,000 Three employees attending
school.One employee 50%
Split between E&E/W&R
2520 MEALS &
ENTERTAINMENT
$1,000 Increased based on actual costs
2521 EMP. MEAL
ALLOWANCE
$1,700 Increased based on actual costs
2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription,
monthly weather update subscription
2528 REWARDS &
RECOGNITIONS
$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives
and rewards
275002 Capital
Preparation Labor
$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for
capital equipment purchases
292101
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE FEE
$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City
Admin fees
2998
INTRADEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost &
annual Streets Response Team (SRT)
costs
2999
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated
increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced
steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling
processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into
the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change
quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling
tipping cost in FY22.
Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation
Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget
presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the
community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial
Equity and Policing committee.
The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase
1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy
Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will
contribute funds according to a formula that considers population
and electricity consumption. State regulation
requires participating communities to pay for program development and
implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting
costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected
to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity
load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project,
depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over
the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing
agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue
to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in
process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the
governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial
obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request
additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be
dependent on the recalculated cost-share.
Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costs
I have included some of the major anticipated changes below
Object & Name Budget
Changes
Explanation
229501 SAFETY
PROG/SAFE
SHOES&GLASSES
$700 Need for additional safety equipment
2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs
2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense
2324 SPECIAL
CONSULTANT
$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor
maintenance & Increase strategic
staffing budget.
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU
233301 SEWER $2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU
233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU
239401 Education -
Tuition Reimburse't
$4,000 Three employees attending
school.One employee 50%
Split between E&E/W&R
2520 MEALS &
ENTERTAINMENT
$1,000 Increased based on actual costs
2521 EMP. MEAL
ALLOWANCE
$1,700 Increased based on actual costs
2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription,
monthly weather update subscription
2528 REWARDS &
RECOGNITIONS
$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives
and rewards
275002 Capital
Preparation Labor
$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for
capital equipment purchases
292101
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE FEE
$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City
Admin fees
2998
INTRADEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost &
annual Streets Response Team (SRT)
costs
2999
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated
increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE
SHOES&GLASSES
$700 Need for additional safety equipment
2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs
2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense
2324 SPECIAL
CONSULTANT
$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor
maintenance & Increase strategic
staffing budget.
2329 OTHER
PROFESSIONAL & TECH
SERV
$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract
curbside and drop off services
2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU
233301 SEWER $2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU
233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU
239401 Education -
Tuition Reimburse't
$4,000 Three employees attending
school.One employee 50%
Split between E&E/W&R
2520 MEALS &
ENTERTAINMENT
$1,000 Increased based on actual costs
2521 EMP. MEAL
ALLOWANCE
$1,700 Increased based on actual costs
2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription,
monthly weather update subscription
2528 REWARDS &
RECOGNITIONS
$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives
and rewards
275002 Capital
Preparation Labor
$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for
capital equipment purchases
292101
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE FEE
$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City
Admin fees
2998
INTRADEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost &
annual Streets Response Team (SRT)
costs
2999
INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated
increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES $700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT $31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU239401 Education -Tuition Reimburse't $4,000 Three employees attending school.One employee 50% Split between E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT $1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE $1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS $5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor $82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE $20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets Response Team (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL
CHARGES
$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increase
Please discuss the call 2 haul program enhancement
Waste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being
requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following
enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or
equipment.
Green Waste enhancements:
Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste
only.
1.
Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24”
diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or
branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for
setout).
2.
8.
General enhancements:
Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.
Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2
Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and
exchange events.
2.
9.
Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expense
The increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to
be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-
annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this
line-item.
Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed
$440,000 general fund subsidy to E&E
Since FY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the
Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to
legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to
find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through
recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that
the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the
public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The
philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations
is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three
years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES $700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT $31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU239401 Education -Tuition Reimburse't $4,000 Three employees attending school.One employee 50% Split between E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT $1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE $1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS $5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor $82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE $20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets Response Team (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increasePlease discuss the call 2 haul program enhancementWaste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or equipment.Green Waste enhancements:Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste only.1.Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24” diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for setout). 2.8.General enhancements:Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2 Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and exchange events.2.9.Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expenseThe increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this line-item.Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed $440,000 general fund subsidy to E&ESinceFY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition
process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash
balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the
intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.
Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to
subsidize e&e?
Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and
revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the
refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city
collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to
W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The
current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to
be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue
sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the
E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E
services provide benefit to the city as a whole.
•
Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department
feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000
contribution this year?
No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner.
Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund
then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.
Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wing
The W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund
reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing
waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.
You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division
has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable
Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed
by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the
agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal
agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent
for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another
municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the
program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES $700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT $31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU239401 Education -Tuition Reimburse't $4,000 Three employees attending school.One employee 50% Split between E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT $1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE $1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS $5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor $82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE $20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets Response Team (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increasePlease discuss the call 2 haul program enhancementWaste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or equipment.Green Waste enhancements:Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste only.1.Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24” diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for setout). 2.8.General enhancements:Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2 Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and exchange events.2.9.Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expenseThe increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this line-item.Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed $440,000 general fund subsidy to E&ESinceFY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to subsidize e&e?Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E services provide benefit to the city as a whole.•Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000 contribution this year? No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner. Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wingThe W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the program on behalf of the committee.
Charts & tables requested:
1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then together
Reminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at
a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to
the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.
1 - FY22
Budgeted…
2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate
increase (see attachment for example)
The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and
cash balance projection scenario.
2 - FY22
Waste &…
3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached)
As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several
budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and
other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.
3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES $700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT $31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU239401 Education -Tuition Reimburse't $4,000 Three employees attending school.One employee 50% Split between E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT $1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE $1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS $5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor $82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE $20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets Response Team (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increasePlease discuss the call 2 haul program enhancementWaste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or equipment.Green Waste enhancements:Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste only.1.Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24” diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for setout). 2.8.General enhancements:Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2 Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and exchange events.2.9.Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expenseThe increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this line-item.Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed $440,000 general fund subsidy to E&ESinceFY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to subsidize e&e?Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E services provide benefit to the city as a whole.•Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000 contribution this year? No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner. Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wingThe W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the program on behalf of the committee.Charts & tables requested:1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then togetherReminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.1 - FY22 Budgeted…2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate increase (see attachment for example) The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and cash balance projection scenario.2 - FY22 Waste &…3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached) As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.3 - FY22
Refuse Fu…
4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which
the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020
(see attachment, informational transmittal)
The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21
projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to
increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in
FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19.
Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with
Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy
efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104
neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures
that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-
person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for
communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light
bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by
the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University
Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban
Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District
Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round
table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and
outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This
contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a
Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program
in FY22.
1.
Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a
1-year extension to the Operations and
Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The
Department is requesting funds again in FY22.
2.
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for
third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable
Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with
representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a
Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will
make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of
signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES $700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT $31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU239401 Education -Tuition Reimburse't $4,000 Three employees attending school.One employee 50% Split between E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT $1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE $1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS $5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor $82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE $20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets Response Team (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increasePlease discuss the call 2 haul program enhancementWaste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or equipment.Green Waste enhancements:Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste only.1.Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24” diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for setout). 2.8.General enhancements:Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2 Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and exchange events.2.9.Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expenseThe increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this line-item.Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed $440,000 general fund subsidy to E&ESinceFY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to subsidize e&e?Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E services provide benefit to the city as a whole.•Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000 contribution this year? No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner. Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wingThe W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the program on behalf of the committee.Charts & tables requested:1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then togetherReminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.1 - FY22 Budgeted…2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate increase (see attachment for example) The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and cash balance projection scenario.2 - FY22 Waste &…3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached) As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.3 - FY22 Refuse Fu…4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020 (see attachment, informational transmittal)The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21 projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19. Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104 neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program in FY22.1.Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a 1-year extension to the Operations and Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The Department is requesting funds again in FY22.2.100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to
cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the
Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working
collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to
create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.
3.
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to
$60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky
Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be
constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large
electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in
2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering
power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual
electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city
operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this
project.
4.
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to
submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her
2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant
to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being
uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in
mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in
mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other
City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public
Utilities,and Transportation.
5.
Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11
Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received
training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to
prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake
City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies
Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have
been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June
2021.
6.
5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff 5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been ordered but not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budget request includes both the FY21 and FY22 order/purchase of a total of 16 refuse packers that will potentially be purchase financed in FY22 to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceeds for all 16 units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividend is calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based on monthly tons taken to the landfill tipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuate based on economic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based on a budgeted revenue surplus that is provided by non-operating revenues such as methane gas sales, metal recycling revenues,soil regeneration royalties,and interest income. That budgeted surplus is split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 the City’s portion of the landfill dividend budget is $515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuate based on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information was provided that recycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenue in the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over the last several months.In April of 2021, we received a little over $5,000 in recycling rebates. This is the first time in 3 years that the City has received proceeds from our curbside single stream material. These proceeds will continue to provide some additional funding to the environment and energy fund as long as the market continues to improve and stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account for single stream commodity rebates that may partially or fully offset our processing fees for those materials.Any recycling revenues received will be placed in the E&E fund, in accordance with current city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, and will be reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community food initiative or the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Please detail the $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.After completion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus and gathering community input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan to provide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Through a partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to target and retrofit inefficient homes with highly-efficient heating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealing approximately 200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This funding will support ongoing operation of the City's 28 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, including a 3-year contract to provide:cloud services, maintenance,and minor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, public outreach and general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Working with air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. The Department will work with IMS to develop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it to valley-wide AQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical services costs•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steady increases in commodity rebates causing tipping recycling processing fees to decline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping cost in FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requires participating communities to pay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute to approximately half of the total project, depending on which communities commit to participate in the program over the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communities have committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23 and the amount will be dependent on the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changes belowObject & Name Budget Changes Explanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES $700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES $2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN $5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT $31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV $2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER $23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided by PU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided by PU233302 STORM WATER $191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided by PU239401 Education -Tuition Reimburse't $4,000 Three employees attending school.One employee 50% Split between E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT $1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE $1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS $5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS $5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor $82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE FEE $20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets Response Team (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES $52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increasePlease discuss the call 2 haul program enhancementWaste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow for the following enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or equipment.Green Waste enhancements:Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste only.1.Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24” diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for setout). 2.8.General enhancements:Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2 Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and exchange events.2.9.Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expenseThe increase is attributed to the new equipment (refuse packers)expected to be purchase financed during FY22.Adding those new semi-annual loan payments to the existing amortization schedules increases this line-item.Please discuss the philosophical and other considerations around a proposed $440,000 general fund subsidy to E&ESinceFY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussions with the Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to legally fund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to find a funding source sufficient to solve the ongoing funding issue.Through recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that the services provided by sustainability E&E fit under general services to the public and in that case should be funded with general fund revenue.The philosophy around using general fund to subsidize the sustainability operations is an approach to phase the E&E Division into general fund over the next three years.The idea proposed in the FY22 budget is step one of the transition process to continue using up the remaining Environment and Energy cash balance in conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy funds with the intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance from w&r to subsidize e&e?Current City ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the refuse and recycling operations fund [W&R]and shall be used for city collection service.”Some E&E administrative overhead is allocated to W&R according to estimated time spent supporting W&R activities. The current ordinance allows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to be placed in the E&E fund and further states that any of those revenue sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E services provide benefit to the city as a whole.•Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000 contribution this year? No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner. Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to the w&r wingThe W&R division has a small budgeted increase of $3,516 to the interfund reimbursements category due to annual inflationary costs related to providing waste and recycling collection services at City facilities.You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division has budgeted an increase of $275,000 related to the Community Renewable Energy Project (C-REP).A governance agreement is in process of being signed by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the agreement, the governing committee will elect officers and select a fiscal agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent for the intergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another municipality will be elected to manage the funds and payments to develop the program on behalf of the committee.Charts & tables requested:1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then togetherReminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at a specific point in time. The cash balances will change from one budget year to the next based on fiscal year end actual revenue and expenses.1 - FY22 Budgeted…2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate increase (see attachment for example) The Department has included the FY22 MRB proposed 12%rate increase and cash balance projection scenario.2 - FY22 Waste &…3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached) As a note the FY21 amended budget has increased significantly due to several budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and other major capital equipment requests related to impacts from COVID-19.3 - FY22 Refuse Fu…4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020 (see attachment, informational transmittal)The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated for FY21 projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to increase budget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in FY21 compared to previous years due to unknown impact of COVID-19. Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC ($55,000):Through a contract with Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104 neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round table discussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This contract will end in FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program in FY22.1.Electrified Transportation/EV Charging ($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a 1-year extension to the Operations and Maintenance contract necessary repairs of public-facing EV stations.The Department is requesting funds again in FY22.2.100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation ($25,000):Budget for third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working collaboratively with participating municipalities and Rocky Mountain Power to create and file a Program Application with the Public Service Commission.3.50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations ($15,000 increased to $60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiation with project partners and Rocky Mountain Power for the Elektron Solar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in 2020.Construction will begin this summer and is expected to start delivering power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this project.4.Sustainability Planning and Dashboard ($25,000): Convened departments to submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her 2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launch in mid-2021.A complimentary updated Sustainability Plan will be published in mid-2021 which encompasses the City’s clean energy and climate goals, other City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public Utilities,and Transportation. 5.Healthy Food Access ($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11 Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake City. The department leveraged $5,000 in grant funds from the Healthy Babies Bright Futures to offer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June 2021.6.5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 2021 5:35 PM
Questions Emailed by Sam Owen, Council Staff5/12/21Response Requested by 5/19/21Please discuss finance proceeds for equipment proceeds under key changes for $5,676,289Capex? Refuse body manufacturer lead times have increased from 6-9 months to 12-15 months. The replacement schedule for refuse packers has not changed. The receiving of equipment has been delayed due to COVID-19 and other manufacturing challenges. This has impacted how we budget for packers. The request includes financing proceeds for 7 of the refuse packers that were approved by council in FY21 BA#5 and have been orderedbut not received.Financing for these units will most likely be initiated in FY22.The other 9 refuse packers will be ordered in FY22 and could also be financed during the year depending on manufacturing lead times and potential delays related to COVID-19.The Department’s FY22 budgetrequestincludesboththeFY21and FY22order/purchaseofa total of16refuse packersthat willpotentiallybe purchase financedin FY22to spread costs over 4 years. The finance proceedsfor all 16units could potentially come in during FY22. Please discuss the decrease in landfill dividend revenueThe landfill has changed the way the monthly dividendis calculated.The dividend used to be calculated based onmonthlytons taken to thelandfilltipping face. With this process the monthly dividends would fluctuatebased oneconomic reasons and time of year. The new calculation is based onabudgetedrevenue surplus that is provided bynon-operatingrevenues such asmethane gas sales, metal recyclingrevenues,soil regeneration royalties,andinterest income. That budgetedsurplusis split 50/50 between the County and Salt Lake City.In FY22 theCity’s portion of thelandfill dividend budget is$515,000.These dividend revenues will continue to fluctuatebased on landfill profitability. Council members recently toured the waste management MRF, and information wasprovided thatrecycling operations could soon become profitable again. Will the city see any part of that revenuein the near future? The global recycling markets are starting to see improvements.Recycling commodity prices have increased over thelast severalmonths.InApril of 2021, wereceiveda little over $5,000in recyclingrebates. Thisis the first time in 3 years that the Cityhasreceivedproceedsfromourcurbsidesingle stream material. These proceedswill continue to providesome additional funding to the environment and energy fundas long asthe market continues to improveand stabilize.Adjustments have been made to the W&R tipping fees to account forsingle streamcommodityrebatesthatmaypartially or fullyoffsetourprocessing feesforthosematerials.Anyrecyclingrevenuesreceivedwillbeplaced in theE&E fund, in accordance withcurrent city ordinance chapter 9.08.040, andwillbe reflected in the cash balance.Please discuss any projects or initiatives that are not specifically identified in key changes. In particular, please disclose and discuss any source of revenue or expense having to do with an operational initiative or capital expense unique to either "wing" of the refuse fund, e.g. the community foodinitiativeor the rotating renewable energy projects fund for internal city use.Pleasedetailthe $655,000 request for new projects FY22 •The Environment & Energy Division is requesting budget of $655,000 for new and continuing sustainability projects, funded through the Environment & Energy fund balance. These projects focus on achieving the City’s renewable electricity and climate goals, energy efficiency, equity, and healthy food access to allow for more sustainable growth as the City continues to grow.Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan ($200,000). State regulation requires communities participating in the Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP) to submit a Low-Income Engagement Plan in the Program application to the Utah Public Service Commission, targeted for January 2022. Sustainability is proposing to establish a Climate Equity Working Group (CEWG) to co-design and co-lead a policy lab to develop recommendations for SLC's Low-Income Engagement Plan. The CEWG will be a team of a contracted facilitator and community experts from local organizations or grassroots groups with expertise related to equity or climate change or that represent communities who are vulnerable to climate change or subject to forms of discrimination or marginalization that increase climate vulnerability. Each organization will be compensated for their time and expertise for ongoing participation.Aftercompletion of the Low-Income Engagement Plan, the Department anticipates expanding the focus andgatheringcommunity input on a more holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan, which will also build upon recommendations from the City-Wide Equity Plan. The initiative is expected to continue into FY23 with the completion of a holistic Climate and Equity Master Plan toprovide a path for addressing the urgent climate issues we are facing and improve lives of residents who are most impacted by climate disruption.1.Energy Consulting $50,000. On-call legal and technical expertise for evaluating impacts of state energy policy on city energy costs, as well as any other analysis required to support community-wide renewable electricity efforts.2.Building Electrification $25,000.Througha partnership with a service provider, pilot a program to targetand retrofitinefficient homes withhighly-efficientheating and cooling technologies, leveraging weatherization and utility incentives. Builds upon a 2019 study revealingapproximately200 households in SLC rely on electric resistance heating, which is inefficient and financially burdensome for residents of those homes. Demographic data will be used to prioritize households with low or fixed incomes.Budget will be deployed to contract a service provider responsible for engaging residents, property owners, and utility/weatherization program staff to identify and execute appropriate retrofit projects. Additionally, budget may also be used to further minimize incremental costs for difficult-to-retrofit scenarios. 3.Electrified Transportation (EV Charging) $70,000.This fundingwill supportongoing operation of theCity's 28public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, includinga 3-year contract to provide:cloudservices, maintenance,andminor repairs. No new stations are being proposed this year. 4.Utah Climate Action Network Support ($15,000).The Sustainability Department, along with other collaborators working on climate change in Utah, created the Utah Climate Action Network to enhance dialogue and collaboration on climate issues locally. Ongoing funding is needed to support Network administrative duties, publicoutreachand general coordination for this effort to be a sustained success. The network represents an exciting and unique opportunity for advancing climate change understanding and solutions in Utah. Accomplishments and core deliverables of the Network include recurring All-Network meetings, technical sub-group exchanges, climate communications and other learning events, sustaining the Path to Positive Utah leadership platform and supporting an annual Utah Climate Week. These climate collaborations facilitated by the network will be sustained and enhanced through 2021-22. 5.Air Quality Monitoring ($85,000).Workingwith air quality partners and air quality scientists at the University of Utah to place additional air quality monitors in our city to provide more granular data, by council district, on current air quality conditions. TheDepartment will work with IMS todevelop a public facing dashboard and mobile application that residents can use to plan outdoor activities according to current air quality conditions. The data will also give researchers ability to analyze how pollution moves through our city from different sources and compare it tovalley-wideAQ forecasts.6.Healthy Food Access Initiatives ($210,000). Funding will be used to implement projects recommended by the 2021 Resident Food Equity Advisors to increase access to healthy food in priority neighborhoods. Recommendations are expected by the end of May. Funding will also be used to update SLC’s food assessment as part of a broader community-driven food system planning process that will help guide future policy and programming. The assessment will compile current data on the state of the food system and will utilize an inclusive engagement process to identify community priorities, unmet needs, existing assets, and key opportunities for building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient food system. The specific scope of the assessment may include: an evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on community food security, disparities in healthy food access, nutrition program participation, emergency food service gaps, a profile of the local food economy and workforce, supply chain vulnerabilities, food waste, the food system’s climate impact,and urban agriculture. The assessment may also include an internal, cross-departmental food policy audit to identify opportunities for aligning existing policies and programs with food equity and sustainability goals. Funding will be used to hire consultants to gather and analyze current data and to facilitate an inclusive engagement process with the support of a group of paid Resident Food Equity Advisors and the stakeholder-led Food Policy Council.7.Are these projected to be capital expenditures? No these are mostly for professional and technical servicescosts•Please discuss the reduced expense in the tipping fees line itemTipping fee costs are budgeted lower in FY22 due to the improvements in the recycling markets. The Waste and Recycling Division has experienced steadyincreases in commodity rebates causing tippingrecycling processingfees todecline during FY21 and expects that trend to continue into the new fiscal year. The recycling markets are still fragile and could change quickly so the department has included budget to cover a moderate recycling tipping costin FY22.Please discuss FY22 C-REP Multiple Anchor Community Participation Contribution Funds (I think Debbie has indicated this will be part of the budget presentation to Council as well). I think it will be helpful to clarify this is the community renewable energy project, and not related to the city's Racial Equity and Policing committee.The Department is requesting funds to make a payment in FY22 towards Phase 1 startup implementation costs for the 100% Community Renewable Energy Program (C-REP), not to exceed $275,000. Each participating community will contribute funds according to a formula that considers population and electricity consumption. State regulation requiresparticipatingcommunitiestopay for program development and implementation costs incurred by the utility and regulators to avoid shifting costs to non-participating customers. The total cost to communities is expected to be $700,000 over the next two years. Salt Lake City’s community electricity load is expected to contribute toapproximatelyhalf of the total project, depending onwhich communities commit to participate in the programover the next several months. The Administration expects to sign a governing agreement with anchor communities in May to enable the program to continue to move forward. So far, five other communitieshave committed, or are in process of approving anchor commitments. As additional communities sign the governance agreement and cost-share, anchor communities’ financial obligation will be recalculated downward. The Department expects to request additional payment toward the C-REP program in FY23andthe amount will be dependenton the recalculated cost-share.Please detail the anticipated changes in miscellaneous operational costsI have included some of the major anticipated changesbelowObject & NameBudget ChangesExplanation229501 SAFETY PROG/SAFE SHOES&GLASSES$700 Need for additional safety equipment2314 MEDICAL FEES$2,700 Increased based on actual costs2315 GRAPHIC DESIGN$5,000 FY22 Additional Truck Wrap expense2324 SPECIAL CONSULTANT$31,200 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV$25,000 FY22 Trillium CNG compressor maintenance & Increase strategic staffing budget.2329 OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH SERV$2,000 Increase to Momentum Glass contract curbside and drop off services2333 WATER$23 FY21 Increase 5%, provided byPU233301SEWER$2,140 FY22 Increase 18%, provided byPU233302 STORM WATER$191 FY22 Increase 10%, provided byPU239401 Education -TuitionReimburse't$4,000 Three employeesattending school.One employee50% Splitbetween E&E/W&R2520 MEALS & ENTERTAINMENT$1,000 Increased based on actual costs2521 EMP. MEAL ALLOWANCE$1,700 Increased based on actual costs2522 MEMBERSHIPS$5,000 FY22 added recycling subscription, monthly weather update subscription 2528 REWARDS & RECOGNITIONS$5,300 FY22 Department need for incentives and rewards275002 Capital Preparation Labor$82,000 FY22 Road Ready Part/Labor for capital equipment purchases292101 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICEFEE$20,209 FY22 4% estimated increase to City Admin fees2998 INTRADEPARTMENTAL CHARGES$5,000 $10,000 for radio maintenance cost & annual Streets ResponseTeam (SRT) costs2999 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES$52,124 FY22 PUBS billing 6% estimated increasePlease discuss the call 2 haul program enhancementWaste & Recycling Call 2 Haul Enhancements ($30,000). Funds are being requested to cover additional overtime costs to allow forthefollowing enhancements. The Department is not requesting any additional FTEs or equipment.Green Waste enhancements:Residents will be allowed one additional pick up that is Green Waste only.1.Additional allowed material: bushes, branches and stumps up to 24” diameter and 5’ in length. (Currently no stumps are allowed. Brush or branches that can fit in brown compost container are not allowed for setout). 2.8.General enhancements:Increased pile height from 2 feet to 4 feet high. 1.Allow for up to 20 homes in a neighborhood to schedule a group Call 2 Haul request to facilitate neighborhood organized reuse, recycle and exchange events.2.9.Please discuss the uptick in interest & bond expenseThe increaseis attributedtothe newequipment(refuse packers)expected to be purchasefinanced during FY22.Adding thosenewsemi-annualloanpaymentsto the existing amortization schedulesincreases this line-item.Please discuss thephilosophicaland other considerations around a proposed $440,000 general fund subsidy to E&ESinceFY19 the Sustainability Department has had several discussionswith the Finance Department and the Attorneys Office to discuss possible ways to legallyfund the Sustainability Program. The Department has not been able to find afunding sourcesufficientto solve the ongoing funding issue.Through recent discussions with the Attorneys Office it has become evident that theservices provided bysustainabilityE&Efit under general services to the public and in that caseshouldbe funded with general fund revenue.The philosophy around using general fundto subsidize the sustainability operations is an approach tophasetheE&E Divisioninto general fund over the next three years.The ideaproposed in the FY22 budget is step oneof the transition processtocontinue usingup the remaining Environment andEnergy cash balancein conjunction with increasing general fund subsidy fundswith the intent to fully incorporate the division into the general fund by FY25.Does the department have the legal flexibility to use cash balance fromw&rto subsidizee&e?CurrentCity ordinance chapter 9.08.040 states that “all fees, monies, and revenues received from city collection service shall be placed in the refuse and recycling operations fund[W&R]and shall be used for city collection service.”SomeE&Eadministrativeoverheadis allocated to W&Raccording to estimated time spent supportingW&R activities. The current ordinanceallows for landfill dividend and recycling revenues to be placed in the E&E fundand further statesthat anyofthose revenue sources shall be placed in the W&R operations fund if it not placed in the E&E fund.As stated above,we have been advised that E&E servicesprovide benefit to thecity as a whole.•Under funding sources on page E-93 of the budget book, does the department feel that the general fund should be listed separately for its proposed $440,000 contribution this year? No. Interdepartmental Transfers are not accounted for in that manner. Interdepartmental transfers are transferred to the receiving fund and the fund then recognizes those funds as part of their revenues.Please discuss the increase in interfund reimbursement to thew&rwingThe W&R division hasa smallbudgeted increase of $3,516 totheinterfund reimbursementscategorydue to annualinflationary costsrelated toproviding waste and recyclingcollection services atCity facilities.You may be inquiring about the E&E division? In that case, the E&E division hasbudgeted an increase of$275,000related to the Community Renewable Energy Project (C-REP).Agovernanceagreement isin process of being signed by “anchor” communities.After anchor communities have signed the agreement, the governing committee will electofficers and selecta fiscal agent. This increase has been budgeted to allow SLC to serve as the fiscal agent for theintergovernmental committee, however it is possible that another municipality will beelectedto manage the fundsandpayments to develop the programon behalf of the committee.Charts & tables requested:1. Cash balance analysis for each fund separately, then togetherReminder that this cash balance analysis is based on budget and is provided at aspecificpoint in time. Thecash balanceswillchangefrom one budget year to the nextbased onfiscal year endactualrevenue and expenses.1 - FY22 Budgeted…2. Cash flow and cash balance projects including the proposed 8% rate increase (see attachment for example) The Department has includedtheFY22 MRBproposed12%rate increase and cash balanceprojection scenario.2 - FY22 Waste &…3. Refuse fund budget request summary (see example attached) As a note the FY21 amended budgethas increasedsignificantlydue toseveral budget amendments approved during FY21 related to CARES Act funding and other major capital equipmentrequests related to impacts from COVID-19.3 - FY22 Refuse Fu…4. Short summary update information on any of the projects on which the Council was receiving status information during FY21, calendar 2020 (see attachment, informational transmittal)The Department is expecting to spend all funds allocated forFY21 projects. Initial budget allocation was $175,000 and amended in BA #5 to increasebudget to $220,000.Project funds were significantly reduced in FY21compared to previous yearsdue to unknown impact of COVID-19. Community Energy Efficiency/Empower SLC($55,000):Through a contract with Utah Clean Energy, continued “Empower SLC”, a neighborhood energy efficiency program targeting residents and businesses in the 84116 and 84104 neighborhoods to drive uptake of energy efficiency and conservation measures that reduce pollution and lower utility costs. The program shifted from in-person engagement to supporting partners who provide services for communities that have been most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Light bulbs and energy saving checklists were placed in care packages distributed by the International Rescue Committee, grab-bags distributed by University Neighborhood Partners, and food boxes distributed by Crossroads Urban Center, Utah Community Action and the Salt Lake City School District Community Learning Centers. Utah Clean Energy also hosted virtual round tablediscussions to solicit input and ideas for low-income programming and outreach for inclusion in the 100% Community Renewable Energy project.This contract will endin FY21 and department efforts will focus on developing a Low-Income Engagement Plan for the Community Renewable Energy Program in FY22.1.Electrified Transportation/EVCharging($20,000): Funds were used to pay for a 1-year extension to the Operations and Maintenancecontractnecessaryrepairsofpublic-facing EV stations.The Departmentis requesting fundsagainin FY22.2.100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation($25,000):Budget for third-party expertise to support implementation of the Community Renewable Energy Program.The department continued convening meetings with representatives of the 22 other participating Utah municipalities to establish a Governance Agreement that stipulates how all participating communities will make resource procurement decisions. Anchor communities are in process of signing the governance agreement and securing financial commitments to cover anticipated costs related to program development and approval by the Utah Public Service Commission.In FY22, the Department will be working collaboratively withparticipating municipalitiesand Rocky Mountain Power to create and file a Program Applicationwiththe Public Service Commission.3.50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations($15,000 increased to $60,000 in FY21 BA #5):Finalized negotiationwithproject partners andRocky Mountain Powerfor theElektronSolar project, an 80 MW solar farm to be constructed in Tooele County, Utah, on behalf of SLC and five other large electric customers.Rocky Mountain Power received final regulatory approval in 2020.Constructionwill begin this summerand isexpected to start delivering power at the end of 2022.The City expects to source almost 90% of its annual electric needs from the solar farm while seeing the electric bill for city operations increase by less than 2%.No further funding is anticipated for this project.4.Sustainability Planning and Dashboard($25,000): Convened departments to submit content for the Mayor’s Dashboard, which includes metrics from her 2021 Plan as well as the Sustainability Plan. Worked with IMS and a consultant to design an attractive and customizable dashboard website.Content is being uploaded to the dashboard and we expect to launchin mid-2021.Acomplimentaryupdated Sustainability Planwill be published in mid-2021which encompasses the City’sclean energy and climate goals, other City departmental goals on sustainability including Public Lands, Public Utilities,and Transportation. 5.Healthy Food Access($35,000): Completed convening the first cohort of 11 Resident Food Equity Advisors. Over a span of 10 months, advisors received training and participated in engaging dialogue on the food system, virtually,to prepare them to make recommendations on advancing food equity in Salt Lake City. The department leveraged$5,000 ingrant funds from the Healthy Babies Bright Futures tooffer more learning sessions for the advisors. Advisors have been invited to meet with the Mayor to present recommendations in June 2021.6.5. An updated copy of this report:
5 - FY21-
FY22…
Sustainability Budget QuestionsTuesday, May 4, 20215:35 PM
FY21 Budget-
Council Approved
FY21 Budget-
Amended
FY21 Budget
Projection
FY22 Budget
Request Change % Change
OPERATIONS FUND (00570)
W & R Division
Revenue 11,983,974 14,676,474 12,015,458 18,938,495 6,954,521 58.03%
Expense 15,214,470 18,956,688 15,222,907 22,572,560 7,358,090 48.36%
Net Cashflow (3,230,496) (4,280,214) (3,207,449) (3,634,065) (403,569)
Ending Cash Balance 4,306,916 3,257,198 4,226,905 592,840 (3,714,076)
ENVIRONMENTAL & ENERGY FUND (00577)
Enviro & Energy Division
Revenue 617,320 617,321 552,432 1,279,820 662,500 107.32%
Operating Expense 1,125,967 1,155,967 1,037,823 1,210,943 84,976 7.55%
Project Expense 175,000 220,000 200,652 930,000 755,000 431.43%
Net Cashflow (683,647) (758,646) (686,043) (861,124) (177,477)
Ending Cash Balance 3,057,504 2,982,505 2,441,169 1,580,045 (1,477,459)
COMBINED FUNDS (Refuse Fund Class)
Revenue 12,601,294 15,293,795 12,567,890 20,218,315 7,617,021 60.45%
Expense 16,515,437 20,332,655 16,461,382 24,713,504 8,198,067 49.64%
Net Cashflow (3,914,143) (5,038,860) (3,893,492) (4,495,189) (581,046)
Ending Cash Balance 7,364,420 6,239,703 6,668,075 2,172,885 (5,191,535)
Note:
FY22 Cash balances are based on FY21 beginning cash balances and FY21 projected revenues & expenses
Sustainability Department Refuse Fund Class
FY21 - FY22 Budgeted Cash Balance Analysis
Formulas are based on historical actuals 12% 15% 10% 3% 3% 3%
Can Rates Increase FY18 Actual FY19 Actual FY20 Actual FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27
90 Gallon Garbage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.50 $3.50 $2.70 $0.89 $0.92 $0.95
60 Gallon Garbage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $3.00 $2.28 $0.75 $0.77 $0.80
40 Gallon Garbage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.75 $2.30 $1.78 $0.59 $0.61 $0.62
90 Gallon MF Recycle $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.85 $1.20 $0.91 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32
35 Gallon Glass Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.50 $0.85 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30
Can Rates
90 Gallon Garbage $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $21.00 $23.50 $27.00 $29.70 $30.59 $31.51 $32.45
60 Gallon Garbage $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 $17.75 $19.75 $22.75 $25.03 $25.78 $26.55 $27.35
40 Gallon Garbage $13.75 $13.75 $13.75 $13.75 $15.50 $17.80 $19.58 $20.17 $20.77 $21.40
90 Gallon MF Recycle $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 $7.85 $9.05 $9.96 $10.25 $10.56 $10.88
35 Gallon Glass Fee $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 $7.00 $8.50 $9.35 $9.63 $9.92 $10.22
Average Monthly Cost/Can $20.94 $24.03 $24.03 $25.72 $28.31 $28.16 $29.37 $30.39 $30.41 $31.45
Weighted Avg Price/Can $19.22 $19.22 $19.22 $19.18 $21.47 $24.59 $27.01 $27.78 $28.56 $29.42
Can Counts (Annual Fully Billed)
90 Gallon Garbage 381,602 381,602 381,602 378,041 374,197 371,602 368,602 365,602 362,602 362,602
60 Gallon Garbage 67,441 67,441 67,441 66,994 66,809 71,441 72,641 73,841 75,041 75,041
40 Gallon Garbage 106,192 106,192 106,192 108,620 107,954 112,192 113,992 115,792 117,592 117,592
90 Gallon MF Recycle 13,995 13,995 13,995 14,230 13,973 13,995 13,995 13,995 13,995 13,995
35 Gallon Glass 68,432 68,432 68,432 71,246 73,094 71,646 71,846 72,046 72,246 72,246
Revenue Categories FY18 Actual FY19 Actual FY20 Actual FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27
01 90G Collection Fee $8,129,470 $8,158,607 $7,940,365 $7,938,857 $8,793,630 $10,033,254 $10,947,479 $11,184,131 $11,425,129 $11,767,882
02 60G Collection Fee $1,094,019 $1,176,503 $1,184,541 $1,189,148 $1,319,478 $1,625,290 $1,817,849 $1,903,316 $1,992,274 $2,052,042
03 40G Collection Fee $1,349,594 $1,469,054 $1,496,931 $1,493,519 $1,673,287 $1,997,010 $2,231,956 $2,335,216 $2,442,662 $2,515,942
04 90G MF Recycle Collection Fee $99,978 $103,385 $98,812 $99,609 $109,688 $126,655 $139,320 $143,500 $147,805 $152,239
05 35G Glass Collection Fee $445,699 $490,160 $502,751 $498,722 $511,658 $608,991 $671,760 $693,839 $716,638 $738,137
06 Financing Proceeds for Capital Purch $2,348,640 $2,091,666 $1,797,185 $0 $2,747,536 $3,673,849 $2,971,735 $2,649,090 $2,295,878 $2,422,500
08 Misc Revenue $570,024 $1,570,634 $1,068,529 $764,120 $764,120 $764,120 $764,120 $764,120 $764,120 $764,120
10 One-Time Transfer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Revenue Total $14,037,424 $15,060,007 $14,089,114 $11,983,974 $15,919,397 $18,829,169 $19,544,220 $19,673,211 $19,784,506 $20,412,863
Expense Categories
10 Personal Services $3,827,456 $4,168,108 $4,492,055 $4,671,738 $4,858,607 $5,052,951 $5,255,070 $5,465,272 $5,683,883 $5,911,239
12 Fleet Maintenance $1,433,337 $1,485,630 $1,471,064 $1,729,907 $2,049,103 $2,131,067 $2,216,310 $2,304,962 $2,397,161 $2,493,047
14 Fleet Fuel $288,198 $314,817 $267,525 $280,901 $294,946 $309,694 $325,178 $341,437 $358,509 $376,435
16 Tipping Fees $1,921,586 $2,322,599 $2,315,669 $2,385,139 $1,956,694 $2,015,394 $2,075,856 $2,138,132 $2,202,276 $2,268,344
17 Lease Payments $1,493,941 $2,294,206 $2,004,922 $1,952,293 $2,778,677 $2,650,513 $3,042,439 $3,163,000 $2,710,400 $2,810,400
19 Capital Purchases (Cash) $492,156 $296,474 $163,562 $241,833 $504,670 $314,763 $171,059 $174,480 $177,969 $181,529
19 Capital Purchases (Financed) $1,993,295 $2,378,246 $903,750 $974,040 $2,747,536 $3,673,849 $2,971,735 $2,649,090 $2,295,878 $2,422,500
20 Operating & Admin Exp $2,167,703 $2,461,813 $2,626,636 $2,979,169 $3,098,753 $3,160,728 $3,223,942 $3,288,421 $3,354,189 $3,421,273
21 Non-Operating Transfer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Expense Less One-Time Total $13,617,672 $15,721,895 $14,245,184 $15,215,021 $18,288,986 $19,308,959 $19,281,589 $19,524,794 $19,180,266 $19,884,766
Change in Net Assets - Profit/(Loss)$419,752 ($661,888) ($156,070) ($3,231,047) ($2,369,590) ($479,790)$262,631 $148,416 $604,240 $528,097
Beginning Cash Balance $8,379,170 $8,223,100 $7,590,425 $7,434,355 $4,203,308 $1,833,719 $1,353,929 $1,616,560 $1,764,976 $2,369,216
Ending Cash Balance $8,798,922 $7,561,212 $7,434,355 $4,203,308 $1,833,719 $1,353,929 $1,616,560 $1,764,976 $2,369,216 $2,897,313
Actual % of Operating Revenue 75% 58% 60% 35% 14% 9% 10% 10% 14% 16%
Preferred % of Operating Revenue 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Preferred $ Op Revenue Reserve $2,103,981 $2,334,301 $2,212,547 $2,157,115 $2,370,935 $2,727,958 $2,983,047 $3,064,342 $3,147,953 $3,238,265
Cash Reserve Difference $6,694,941 $5,226,911 $5,221,808 $2,046,193 ($537,216) ($1,374,029) ($1,366,488) ($1,299,366) ($778,737) ($340,953)
Difference between 90G & 60G 18.31% 18.31% 18.31% 18.31% 18.99% 18.68% 18.68% 18.68% 18.68% 18.68%
Difference between 60G & 40G 29.09% 29.09% 29.09% 29.09% 27.42% 27.81% 27.81% 27.81% 27.81% 27.81%
Difference between 90G & 40G 52.73% 52.73% 52.73% 52.73% 51.61% 51.69% 51.69% 51.69% 51.69% 51.69%
FY2022 Rate Increase Proposal Table
Container Type (Current Rate)
Current #
Accounts
Current Accts
(Abated)
Current FY21
Monthly Rate
New FY22
Monthly Rate
Monthly Rate
Increase
Annual %
Increase
Annual $
Increase
Projected
Monthly Billed
Cans
Projected
Annual Add'l
Can Revenue
Projected
Annual Total
Can Revenue
90 Gallon Garbage 27,618 610 $21.00 $23.50 $2.50 11.9% $30.00 31,183 $854,773 $8,793,630
60 Gallon Garbage 5,532 127 $17.75 $19.75 $2.00 11.3% $24.00 5,567 $130,330 $1,319,478
40 Gallon Garbage 9,024 263 $13.75 $15.50 $1.75 12.7% $21.00 8,996 $179,768 $1,673,287
90 Gallon MF Recycle 693 2 $7.00 $7.85 $0.85 12.1% $10.20 1,164 $10,079 $109,688
35 Gallon Glass 6,231 75 $7.00 $7.00 $0.00 0.0% $0.00 6,091 $12,936 $511,658
Total/Avg 49,098 1,077 12.01% 53,002 $1,187,886 $12,407,740
Billed cans are always higher than # of accounts because some residents have multiple garbage cans
Operations & Recycling Fund Profit and Loss Summary (5 Year) - Option 1 Annual % Fee Increase
1
5/13/2021
S:\Accounting\REFUSE\FY21\FY21 Projections\FY21 Refuse Cost Centers Projection & Budget (working file)
Option 1 - Annual % Fee Increase
12% 15% 10% 3% 3% 3%
Can Type FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27
90 Gallon Garbage $2.50 $3.50 $2.70 $0.89 $0.92 $0.95
60 Gallon Garbage $2.00 $3.00 $2.28 $0.75 $0.77 $0.80
40 Gallon Garbage $1.75 $2.30 $1.78 $0.59 $0.61 $0.62
90 Gallon Multi-Family Recycle $0.85 $1.20 $0.91 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32
35 Gallon Glass Fee $0.00 $1.50 $0.85 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30
Additional Revenue Generated $816,366 $2,743,288 $1,160,253 $614,598 $307,635 $337,240
Wasatch Front Waste & Recycling District A/R balance, info received on 7/31/19
$273,915
$616,467 $549,804
$408,500
$416,670 $425,003 $433,503 $442,174 $451,017 $460,037
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
2013 2014 2015 Rate
Inc
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Proj 2021 Proj 2022 Proj 2023 Proj 2024 Proj 2025 Proj 2026 Proj 2027 Proj
W&R Operating Revenue & Expense Summary (Annual % Fee Increase)
W&R Operating Revenues W&R Operating Expenses Recycling Tipping Expense
W&R Estimate Ending Cash Bal Recommended Cash Reserve Avg CPI 3.58% Water, Sewer, Trash
FY22 Refuse Fund Budget Request Summary Explanations by Fund & Category
2021 YTD
Actuals
2021 Total
Projection
FY 2021
Budget-Council
Approved
FY 2022 Dept
Requested
Budget
FY2021
Proposed
Change Budget Change Description
00570 REFUSE COLLECTION
RV
00570 Can Revenue 9,336,991 11,214,389 11,235,695 12,425,411 1,189,716 FY22 collection fee increase proposal 12%
00570 Financing Proceeds for Capital Purch 0 0 0 5,676,289 5,676,289 FY22 equip financing and FY21 re-budget for delayed equipment delivery (FY21 7 Packers & FY22 9 Packers)
00570 Misc Income 53,210 60,449 94,500 94,500 0 No change (special event can fees and interest)
00570 Vehicle/Equip Sales 4,370 360,000 360,000 445,000 85,000 FY22 Anticipated sale of equipment (7 packers, 2 pickups, & 1 Prius based on equip replacement schedule)
00570 Interfund Reimb/Trans/Other 264,168 380,619 293,779 297,295 3,516 FY22 Change in City Departments can collections
RV Total 9,658,739 12,015,458 11,983,974 18,938,495 6,954,521 O&R Fund Revenue Change
XP
00570 Personal Services Full-Time 3,735,967 4,508,770 4,642,842 4,779,209 136,367 Includes FY22 payroll increase assumptions, no new full time FTE's
00570 Personal Services Hrly-Seasonal 61,138 57,255 55,008 55,012 4 FY22 this is the seasonal/hrly .0765 tax portion not included in Object 2161
00570 Personal Services Over-Time 109,397 119,120 140,000 170,000 30,000 FY22 Increase for C2H program enhancements
00570 Capital Equipment 989,540 989,540 0 6,003,289 6,003,289 FY21 & FY22 capital equip (16 packers, 2 pickups, & 2 CNG flatbeds based on equip replacement schedule)
00570 Capital Other 250,639 280,639 357,569 622,570 265,001 No change in can purchases to meet expected needs, includes modular dock $210,000 and asphalt $85,000
00570 Computers & Telephones 36,335 307,638 321,902 552,572 230,670 FY22 IMS charges increased 63% based on estimates provided by IMS included new ERP system
00570 Fleet Fuel 215,845 285,257 372,500 367,500 (5,000)Decreased fuel consumption, mostly from less miles driven with new Recycling MRF in SLC
00570 Fleet Maintenance 1,560,665 1,910,725 1,684,900 1,930,900 246,000 Fleet maintenance costs increased over the previous year due to staffing issues related to COVID
00570 Lease Principal and Interest 1,672,819 1,952,294 1,952,294 2,778,677 826,383 Updated financing lease schedule including FY21 & FY22 purchases
00570 Operational Supplies 46,332 69,499 105,199 105,899 700 Misc. items changes
00570 Other Charges & Services 1,766,837 2,404,383 2,513,856 2,620,820 106,964 6% PUBS billing allocation, Admin Svcs Fee 4% & other inflationary costs
00570 Tipping Fees 1,723,024 2,063,203 2,791,500 2,309,212 (482,288)Recycling material processing fee decreased based global market improvements
00570 Transfers Out 273,405 273,405 273,900 273,900 0 FY22 Bond payment for W&R building in this category.
00570 Travel Expenses 1,180 1,180 3,000 3,000 0 No change
XP Total 12,443,124 15,222,907 15,214,470 22,572,560 7,358,090 O&R Fund Expense Change
00570 REFUSE COLLECTION Total 22,101,863 27,238,365 27,198,444 41,511,055 (403,569)O&R Fund Change in Net Position
00577 Environmental
RV
00577 Landfill Dividend 472,618 515,000 557,500 515,000 (42,500)FY22 Landfill dividend decreasing slightly the calculation is no longer based on tipping face tonnage
00577 Recycling Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 FY22 Recycling market conditions have improved but due to market stability no proceeds were budgeted
00577 Misc Income 24,603 32,009 53,820 43,820 (10,000)CIK loan principal & interest, Transfers In from GF
00577 Interfund Reimb/Trans/Other 5,232 5,423 6,000 721,000 715,000 $440,000 GF Transfer for (Rev shortfall), $275,000 C-REP Contributions, CO2 $6k
RV Total 502,453 552,432 617,320 1,279,820 662,500 E & E Fund Revenue Change
XP
00577 Personal Services Full-Time 470,775 587,477 564,080 611,666 47,586 Includes FY22 payroll increase assumptions, no new full time FTE's
00577 Personal Services Hrly-Seasonal 19,345 21,363 29,952 48,592 18,640 FY22 this is the seasonal/hrly .0765 tax portion not included in Object 2161 (.50 Hrly position requested)
00577 Personal Services Over-Time 98 115 0 0 0
00577 Operational Supplies (59)2,458 17,200 17,200 0
00577 Other Charges & Services 400,623 552,488 594,738 1,355,274 760,536 FY22 increased Sustainability projects by $655,000. Increased Admin Fees by $13k and other areas by $17,500
00577 Computers & Telephones 6,823 75,063 77,397 90,411 13,014 FY22 IMS charges increased 16% based on estimates provided by IMS included new ERP system
00577 Travel Expenses 304 310 15,600 15,600 0 No Change
00577 Fleet Maintenance 1,322 1,322 2,000 2,000 0 No Change
00577 Capital Equipment 0 0 0 0 0
00577 Transfers Out (2,147)(2,147)0 0 0
00577 Fleet Fuel 21 25 0 200 200 Slight increase to projected fuel usage
XP Total 897,106 1,238,475 1,300,967 2,140,943 839,976 E & E Fund Expense Change
00577 Environmental Total 1,399,559 1,790,907 1,918,287 3,420,763 (177,477)E&E Fund Rev & Exp Combined Change
Grand Total 23,501,422 29,029,272 29,116,731 44,931,818 (581,046)Fund Class 57 Change
Revenue Summary 10,161,192 12,567,890 12,601,294 20,218,315 7,617,021
Expense Summary 13,340,229 16,461,382 16,515,437 24,713,504 8,198,067
Total (3,179,037)(3,893,492)(3,914,143)(4,495,189)(581,046)
Last Updated: 5/15/2021
Used and Approved Projects to Date:Year Coding Project #
FY21
Approved
Project
Budget
FY21
Actual
Expense
FY21
Projected
Expense
FY21 Unspent
Project
Budget
FY22 Project
Re-Budget
Request
FY22 New
Project
Budgets
Request
FY22 Total
Project
Budget
Request
Community Energy Efficiency (Empower SLC)FY21 Requested 5711761-2329 57575007 55,000 46,582 55,000 0 0 0 0
Electrified Transportation (EV Charging)FY21 Requested 5711761-2329 57575018 20,000 14,944 20,000 0 0 0 0
100% Community Renewable Energy Implementation FY21 Requested 5711761-2329 57575019 25,000 22,917 25,000 0 0 0 0
50% Renewable Energy for Municipal Operations FY21 Requested 5711761-2329 57575020 15,000 24,533 15,000 0 0 0 0
Sustainability Planning and Dashboard FY21 Requested 5711761-2329 57575024 25,000 19,985 25,000 0 0 0 0
Healthy Food Access Initiatives FY21 Requested 5711764-2329 57575023 35,000 17,300 35,000 0 0 0 0
FY21 Total 175,000 146,262 175,000 0 0 0 0
Energy Legal & Technical Consulting FY22 Requested 5711761-2329 57575019 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000
C-REP Anchor Participation Cost FY22 Requested 5700577-2329 57575019 0 0 0 0 275,000 275,000
Building Electrification FY22 Requested 5711761-2329 Needed 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000
Electrified Transportation (EV Charging)FY22 Requested 5711761-2329 57575018 0 0 0 0 70,000 70,000
Utah Climate Action Network Support FY22 Requested 5711761-2329 57575010 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000
Renewable Eneryg & Climate Equity Plan FY22 Requested 5711761-2329 Needed 0 0 0 0 200,000 200,000
Air Quality Monitoring FY22 Requested 5711761-2329 Needed 0 0 0 0 85,000 85,000
Healthy Food Access Initiatives FY22 Requested 5711764-2329 57575023 0 0 0 0 210,000 210,000
Total FY22 Total 0 0 0 0 0 930,000 930,000
Total Budget 175,000 146,262 175,000 0 0 930,000 930,000
FY21 - FY22 Sustainability Project Accounting Summary Report
Page 1 S:\Accounting\REFUSE\GE 5.5M Tracking Analysis\$5.5M Tracking Analysis 2021_1_14
BUDGET PRESENTATION FY 2022SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability Mission
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Protect Natural Resources
Reduce Pollution
Slow Climate Change
Equity, Resilience, Empowerment and Inclusion
The Refuse Enterprise Fund consists of two funds:
Environmental & Energy Fund
Sustainability Division
Operations Fund
Waste & Recycling Division
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Budget Goals and Themes
Environmental & Energy Fund
Sustainability Division
•Sustainable Funding
•Energy: Efficiency + Renewable
•Engagement: Food and Energy
•Air Quality
Operations Fund
Waste & Recycling Division
•Financial Resilience
•High Quality Service
•Call 2 Haul Enhancements
•Delong Yard Improvements
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Recycling
Collection
Yard Waste
Collection Garbage
Collection
Call 2 Haul
Education and
Outreach
Special Event and
Construction Waste
Management
Business and
Multi-Family
Recycling
Waste & Recycling
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Managed collection and composting of over 5,400 tons of green waste
debris caused by the windstorm
Maintained on-time daily collections and scheduled C2H collections
during the week of the windstorm
Completed 10,300 C2H requests
Collected 343 lawn mowers to date from residents during spring lawn
mower exchange program
New recycling MRF opened in July 2020, reducing mileage driven by
over 16,000 miles, saving 6,600 gallons of fuel and 110,000 pounds of
greenhouse gas emissions
Waste & Recycling FY21 Accomplishments
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Goal: Continue current service levels, maintain financial resilience for
W&R fund, while minimizing fee increase impact on households
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Waste & Recycling Budget
Target cash balance: 18% of Operating Revenues
Projected end of year FY22 cash balance: 14%
Container
Proposed
Monthly Fee Increase Annual
90 gal garbage $23.50 $2.50 $30.00
60 gal garbage $19.75 $2.00 $24.00
40 gal garbage $15.50 $1.75 $21.00
MF 90-gal recycle $7.85 $0.85 $10.20
W&R Operating Revenue and Expense Summary
Assumes Increases: 12% in FY22; 15% in FY23; 10% in FY24; 3% FY25+
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
$273,915
$616,467 $549,804
$408,500
$416,670 $425,003 $433,503 $442,174 $451,017 $460,037
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
2014 2015 Rate
Inc
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Proj 2021 Proj 2022 Proj 2023 Proj 2024 Proj 2025 Proj 2026 Proj 2027 Proj
W&R Operating Revenues W&R Operating Expenses Recycling Tipping Expense
W&R Estimate Ending Cash Bal Recommended Cash Reserve Avg CPI 3.58% Water, Sewer, Trash
General:
Increase pile height allowed from 2 feet to 4 feet high
Group request for up to 20 homes
Green Waste:
One additional pick up for green waste
Expand materials allowed:
Bushes, branches and stumps
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Waste & Recycling: Call 2 Haul Enhancements$30,000
Annual Budget Impact: Less than ~$.06 per household per month
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Waste & Recycling: Delong Yard Improvements$295,000
Paving:Including grading, drainage upgrades to facilitate easier
maintenance of Call 2 Haul recyclable material staging area, at
same time as planned improvements to the areas used by Public
Services.
Modular Loading Dock:This modular platform loading dock is
a long-term asset that will greatly improve the safety and efficiency
of our container maintenance operation.Currently,W&R
containers are manually loaded and unloaded every day between
ground level and truck beds for container deliveries or exchanges.
Climate and
Energy Mobility and
Air Quality
Sustainable Business
Engagement
Community
Engagement
Building Energy
Efficiency
Healthy Food Access
and Equity
Sustainability (E&E) Division
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Goals:
Community-driven climate, energy and food
initiatives and projects
Sustainable funding source
Sustainability Division Budget (E&E Fund)
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Sustainability (E&E) Transition into General Fund
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
W&R fees support operations
Landfill fund disbursement, tipping fees, recycling have
funded E&E
City -wide benefits of climate, energy, air quality, food equity
Transition of E&E Division to General Fund,
beginning FY22
Sustainability (E&E) Cash Balance Projection (Current)
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
723,755 617,320
1,014,820
1,459,820
1,759,820
559,820
1,890,022
1,300,967
2,104,351
1,811,260 1,734,713 1,719,765
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
Total Revenue Sources Total Expenses Current Projected Ending Cash Balance
General Fund Support:
FY22: $440,000
FY23: $900,000
FY24:$1,200,000
FY25:
E&E Fully Supported
by GF
Sustainability (E&E) Projects and Initiatives
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Initiative Revenue Expense
1 Community Renewable Energy Program Payment $275,000
2 E & E Hourly Position (1040 hours)$ 17,672
3 GF Transfer to E & E Fund $440,000
Project Revenue Expense
4 Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan $200,000
5 Building Electrification/Energy Efficiency $ 25,000
6 EV Station O&M $ 70,000
7 Air Quality Monitoring and Dashboard $ 85,000
8 Healthy Food Access Initiatives $210,000
9 Utah Climate Action Network Support $ 15,000
10 Energy Consulting $ 50,000
•Program development and implementation
•Final community commitments
•Funding secured
•Community agreements with utility
•Customer bill impact estimated
•Low-Income Engagement Plan
•Joint Program Application filed with PSC
100% Community Renewable Energy Plan (C-REP)
$275,000
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Support SLC’s joint resolution goal of 100% renewable electricity by
2030 and 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2040
Climate and Equity Working Group
•Low Income Engagement Plan for
C-REP
•SLC Climate and Equity Plan
Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan
$200,000
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Building Electrification and Energy Efficiency
$25,000
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
•Energy retrofits
•Leverage utility and
weatherization incentives
•Direct improvements for HH
with “high energy burden”
•2019 Building Electrification
Study
•Evaluation, coordination,
execution
•3-year O & M contract
•Minor repairs
Electrified Transportation
$70,000
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
•Mobile app –Real time AQ
conditions by location
•Data on movement of
pollution from different
sources through SLC
Air Quality Dashboard
$85,000
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Healthy Food Access Initiatives
$210,000
•Implementation of
recommendation(s) from 2021
Resident Food Equity Advisor
Cohort
•Community-informed update of
Community Food Assessment
E&E Division
Initiative (Rev)/Exp
1 C-REP $275,000
2 E & E Hourly Position (1040 hours)$ 17,672
3 GF Transfer to E & E Fund ($440,000)
Project (Rev)/Exp
4 Renewable Energy and Climate Equity Plan $200,000
5 Building Electrification/Energy Efficiency $ 25,000
6 EV Station O&M $ 70,000
7 Air Quality Monitoring and Dashboard $ 85,000
8 Healthy Food Access Initiatives $210,000
9 Utah Climate Action Network Support $ 15,000
10 Energy Consulting $ 50,000
W&R Division
Initiative (Rev)/Exp
1 Fee Increase $(1,834,303)
2 Call 2 Haul Enhancements $ 30,000
3 Delong Yard Improvements $ 295,000
SUSTAINABILITY FY22 BUDGET PRESENTATION
Sustainability Projects and Initiatives
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
Public Policy Analyst
DATE:May 25, 2021
RE: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
NON-DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: B-15-B-16,
and B-27-B-31
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: May 25, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, June
12, 2021
Potential Action: June 15 target
date.
BUDGET OVERVIEW: E-95-E-101
The Non-Departmental Budget is one of the City’s largest in the General Fund. It is the place that
accounts for transfers to other funds, grants, and other special revenue funds that do not programmatically
belong to particular City departments. The total proposed Non-Departmental budget pertaining to the General
Fund is $98,299,196. The proposed figure is $6,893,399 more than the current year’s adopted budget of
$91,405,797 – a roughly 7.5 percent increase.1 The General Fund figure also includes $290,100 in a Legislative
Non-Departmental line item on Page B-19. This accounts for City-wide expenses that relate to the legislative role,
such as the City-wide comprehensive annual financial report.
It should be noted that the total proposed General Fund expenditures Page B-16 of the recommended
budget are $202,443,597. That figure includes accounting for revenue from and distribution of capital projects
funds, impact fees, debt service funds, miscellaneous grants operating funds, and a variety of other revenue
sources and allocations. The complete list can be found on Pages E-97 and E-98 of the Recommended Budget
Book.
Specific components of the Non-Departmental Budget such as the Capital Improvements Fund, the
Information Management Services Fund; Centralized Fleet Management Fund; the Fleet Replacement Fund, the
Insurance and Risk Management Fund, Governmental Immunity, and transfers and allocations related to the
Salt Lake City Arts Council, Funding Our Future, and the Golf Fund are addressed in separate Council staff
reports. The Non-Departmental Budget also is the location of the Intergovernmental Transfers, Governmental
Transactions, and the Municipal Contributions/Civic Support section. The last section indicates financial support
of items involving the City and other organizations.
Page | 2
Police Department, Racial Equity in Policing, and Transportation Items
The proposed budget returns $2.8 million ongoing from FY 22 dollars to the Police Department that
had been identified in a holding account during the FY 21 budget cycle, largely to address staffing shortages and
associated call response time. The budget does “carry forward” the one-time funds set aside in FY 21 for the
City’s Racial Equity in Policing effort including recommendations from the Council’s financial and operations
audit of the Police Department and the REP Commission, as the table below indicates:
Racial Equity in Policing Funding
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing $120,000
Police Training $205,400
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Staff $190,000
Racial Equity in Policing Commission Peer Court $ 20,000
Racial Equity in Policing Holding Account $1,970,0002
*Note: The Council adopted Budget Amendment #8 of FY21 on May 18 using Fund Balance instead of
this holding account for item A-1. As a result, the Council may decide to carry forward an additional $314,899
so the FY22 holding account would have a balance of $2,284,899.
In addition, the Non-Departmental Budget lists two line items for funding social workers to work with
police officers: $822,719 and $589,390 in Funding Our Future funds.3 The latter figure is a $450,000 increase
from the current year to allow for 6 additional social workers (3 to be hired in September and 3 in January).
According to the Recommended Budget, the funding is “recommended to increase the co-responder model” to
allow officers and social workers to work together.4 The program was discussed at the May 18 City Council work
session, and based on Council Member interest will continue to be a matter of discussion for the Unresolved
Issues work session on June 1.
Transit Funds
The Non-Departmental budget also is where Funding Our Future allocations for transit programs
related to implementing the Transit Master Plan are located. The Recommended Budget proposes allocating
about $6.8 million for Fiscal Year 2022. Allocations are: $4.5 million for the bus routes the City Council
prioritized when it adopted the Transit Master Plan; $1.1 million for a pilot on-demand ride service on the City’s
west side to get people to and from transit stations; $100,000 for public outreach for new routes; and about $1.1
million in startup costs for a bus route along 1000 North and South Temple streets.5 The transit programs were
discussed at the May 18 City Council work session. $1.8 million from Funding Our Future remains in the transit
holding account which the Council created when the cost for providing frequent bus service on Transit Master
Plan routes was less expensive than budgeted two years in a row.
It also should be noted that the Intergovernmental Transfers Section includes $1,260,000 as the City’s
share of subsidizing the Hive Pass program, which offers discounts to Salt Lake City residents to ride transit.
Another $61,000 related to the Hive Pass program also is in the section.
In the Inter-Governmental Transfers section, one can find:
o The annual transfer from the General Fund to the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency. The
Recommended Budget projects a $594,707 increase from the current fiscal year to $14,096,642.
The line item is based on projected revenue from property taxes on RDA managed property.
o A transfer to the Fleet Replacement Fund -- $10,269,716. The figure is a roughly $5.1 million
increase above the current fiscal year budget and is targeted to help buy Streets Division
equipment, concrete maintenance equipment, and replace Fire Department apparatus.6 This
Page | 3
restores the $4 million from Funding Our Future that was removed in the FY21 budget due to
the financial uncertainty facing the City in the early stages of the pandemic.
o A Housing Fund transfer -- $2,590,000. The money will be transferred to the RDA for land
discounts and financing purposes.7
o A variety of transfers totaling about $1.8 million to the Golf Fund including $370,100 in
recommended wage adjustments.
o A transfer to the Public Utilities Department -- $200,000. The item is a resumption of payments
that were postponed in the current fiscal year due to uncertainty over the effect of the pandemic.
Payments to the Public Utilities Department is the outcome of a 2016 land swap that resulted in
Salt Lake City obtaining full ownership of the City & County Building, the Raging Waters
recreational park, and property in Lamb’s Canyon. Salt Lake County assumed ownership of the
Mick Riley Golf Course, three senior citizen centers, and the Health Department Building. The
Public Utilities Department owned part of the Mick Riley Golf Course.
o The ninth of 10 reimbursement payments ordered by the Federal Aviation Administration --
$103,887. The FAA requires the City to reimburse the Department of Airports for the value of
620 acres it had exchanged for a smaller parcel of land needed to protect aircraft flight paths.
In the Governmental Transactions section one can find proposed allocations for:
o The Animal services contract with Salt Lake County -- $1,910,487. The $44,192 increase is based
on contract requirements.
o Police Department body cameras -- $1,293,000. The figure is a 24 percent increase over the
current year budget.
o The agreement with Salt Lake County for the operation of the Sorenson Center -- $1,014,800.
The figure is the same as the current fiscal year.
o Retirement payouts -- $696,000. The figure is a $61,000 (9 percent) increase.
o The Arts Council -- $612,500. The figure is the same as the current year.
o Employee tuition aid -- $300,000. The figure is the same as the current year.
o Municipal elections -- $275,000. Please see Policy Questions at the end of this report.
The Municipal Contributions/Civic Support section contains proposed allocations for City memberships
in public groups, financial support for non-profit organizations, and funding that, again, falls outside the realm
of City departments. Specific line items can be found on the Recommended Budget Pages B-29 and B-30 and E-
96 and E-97.)
Here are the proposed membership allocations. The allocations would be the same as the current fiscal
year.
City Memberships in Organizations
Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce -- $50,000 Utah League of Cities & Towns -- $160,684
National League of Cities & Towns -- $11,535 U.S Conference of Mayors -- $12,242
Jordan River Coalition -- $14,000 Regional Economic Development Funding --
$108,000. (Economic Development Corporation of
Utah.
World Trade Center -- $50,000. New membership:
The initial membership was included in an earlier
budget amendment for the current fiscal year.
Sugar House Park Authority -- $224,795. Salt Lake
City appoints a City representative to the Sugar
House Park Authority Board of Trustees. Salt Lake
County also appoints a representative. The remaining
seven Board Members are volunteers. The City and
County jointly subsidize maintenance and operations
of the park.
There are eleven City programs or programs the City supports with proposed allocations that would be
the same as the current fiscal year.
Page | 4
City Programs or Program Support
Legal Defenders -- $1,292,774 Diversity Outreach (City Program) -- $3,000
Sister Cities (City Program) -- $10,000 ACE Fund (City Program) -- $200,000.
Dignitary Gifts/Receptions/Employee Appreciation
(City Program) -- $20,00
Housing Authority Transitional Housing -- $85,000
Utah Foundation -- $10,000 Tracy Aviary – $674,922
Rape Recovery Center -- $30,000 YWCA Family Justice Center Wraparound Services --
$45,000
Local Business Marketing Program -- $40,000.
o The Diversity Outreach allocation is to support minority communities’ chambers of commerce
in the City.
o The Arts, Culture, and Events, or ACE Fund originally was called the Signature Events Fund.8
The fund is used to help organizations stage events often involving art and performance in Salt
Lake City. Groups apply for money for the fund.9
New allocations in the Municipal Contributions and Civic Support include:
•$3,000 for the Salt Lake City Foundation to pay overhead expenses for the Foundation.
•$26,000 to provide a stipend for people who serve on the City’s Boards and Commissions.
•$1 million to set aside to support the Fair Park International Market. The funds were taken from one-
time holding account to support underserved neighborhoods and communities of color.10 The funds
had originally been set aside to fund debt service on the North Temple Viaduct, but the tax
increment from that district exceeded the debt service needs.11 If the Council approves this funding,
then the holding account will have a remaining balance of $669,138.
•$1,613,986 set aside in a salary contingency holding account to address potential future salary changes
as determined by the Council.12
Policy Questions
Budget and Policy Analyst Ben Luedtke has pointed out two things related to the Non-Departmental
budget:
o The cost to run the City’s election using ranked choice voting probably will be less than is
anticipated in the proposed budget. The estimated cost from the County for a RCV election in
five Council Districts without a primary is $81,673 plus a potential $10,000 licensing charge.
This is $183,327 less than proposed in the FY22 budget.
o There may be one-time savings of $93,000 related to automatic body worn camera activation
hardware upgrades to police vehicles, although Council Members have indicated an interest in
enhancing funding for other body-camera related software.
1 Mayor’s Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 2021-22, Page B-15; Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Overview, Jennifer Bruno
and others; May 11, 2021, Page 6.
2 FY 2022 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-97.
3 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-97.
4 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-100.
5 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-101.
6 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-99.
7 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page B-31.
8 Email, Felicia Baca, May 26, 2020.
9 City Council staff report, Russell Weeks, May 10, 2015, Page 3.
10 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-99.
11 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Page E-99.
12 Mayor’s Recommended Budget, Pages B-29, E-97, E-100.
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland
Public Policy & Budget Analyst
DATE:May 25, 2020
RE: FY2022 BUDGET – PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
- Key Changes, B-25 to B-26
- Department Overview, E-73 to E-81
- Staffing, F-29 to F-39
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Public Services Department is one of the City’s largest and most complex units, charged with managing and
administering a wide variety of public-facing services, as well as providing support services to virtually every
other City function. For Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22), the Mayor’s Recommended Budget (MRB) would split Public
Services into two, forming a new Public Lands Department with five existing divisions, including the Golf
Enterprise Fund. In addition, the Youth and Families Division would shift to the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods (CAN) and CAN’s Engineering Division would move to Public Services. The Fleet Enterprise
Fund would remain in Public Services, along with five other divisions.
This staff report covers the Public Services Department as in now stands, which includes the divisions proposed
to be moved to Public Lands, as well as Engineering. (Youth and Families was touched on in the CAN staff report
of May 18.) The proposed FY22 budget for these divisions, along with the Fleet and Golf Funds, would reach
$91.0 million in FY22, which is 18.0% ($13.6 million) higher than in FY21. The sharp increase would be due
primarily to a proposed $8.9 million rise in Fleet Fund revenue, as well as $1.2 million more in Golf, and $1.1
million in Public Lands Administration. Because of the size and complexity of the Public Services Department,
the Fleet Fund and the Golf Fund are each briefed separately. The remaining Public Services Department
Divisions, including those that would be transferred to a new Public Lands Department, are supported by the
general fund and detailed in this report. Specific budget implications of the proposed creation of a Public Lands
Department, are covered in Key Issues and Policy Questions, below.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 25, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, June 1
Potential Action: June 15 (TBD)
Department of Public Services
2
A.General Fund Budget. Together, the nine divisions of Public Services that are supported by the general
fund would have a proposed FY22 budget of $53,170,625, which is 7.0% ($3,462,298) higher than the same
divisions in FY21. The recommended increase would be spread over each of the divisions, but these
increases range from 2%-3% all the way up to 51% for Public Lands Administration (see figure below). It
also includes $6.1 million of anticipated Funding Our Future (FOF) revenue for the Streets Division for
ongoing funding, an increase of 25% over FY21.
As in other City departments, restoration of funds from FY21’s hiring freeze (6 months vacancy savings) would
result in a higher Personal Services budget. Due to the size of Public Services, this amount is large: over
$800,000. Other Department-wide adjustments are similarly large, with merit changes, salary, and insurance
rate changes totaling over $610,000. Budgets for Utilities Charges, Contractual Charges, and proposed ongoing
maintenance funding for new properties and amenities are discussed at some length in section A, below.
The total number of Public Services FTEs would rise to 367, including 43 FTEs from the transfer of the
Engineering Division to the Public Services Department, and 18 fewer FTEs from the shift of Youth and Families
to CAN. It also includes 20 FTEs with ongoing funding from FOF for Streets. New proposed employees for FY22
would include two additional Engineering positions, two landscape architects, and a licensed architect. These
position would be funded for only for nine months, which means a larger amount would be needed for their
annual salaries in FY23. In addition, one new FTE may be funded through Federal ARPA grants.
The Department points out that “While cost savings in FY21 were significant, they were almost entirely related to
COVID and natural disasters. Work operations were suspended for portions of the year as resources were
diverted. There is not a net benefit to such savings because there was essential work that was simply not
performed, which ends up creating a larger amount of work down the road and amplifies the impact of deferred
maintenance.”
In its budgetary role, the Council has the authority to consider and modify these proposals as it navigates these
policy choices. Council staff has attempted to identify some of the relevant policy questions and tradeoffs
throughout this staff report, and continues to work with the Administration to clarify proposals and options.
Based on this collaboration, staff may provide a number of additional information updates on May 25.
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
Street
s Parks
Facilit
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Engin
e
e
r
i
n
g
Comp
l
i
a
n
c
e
Public
L
a
n
d
s
A
d
m
i
n
Urban
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
Admin
.
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Trails
&
N
a
t
l
L
a
n
d
s
FY20 Actuals
FY21 Adopted
FY22 Recommended
Trends in Public Services Funding
The Fleet and Golf Funds are briefed separately
Note: Engineering is proposed to be transferred to CAN in FY22, and
Youth & Family would move to CAN
Department of Public Services
3
Goal of the briefing: Review the Public Services Department’s General Fund budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
KEY BUDGET AND POLICY QUESTIONS
A.Funding for Ongoing Expenses.
1.Public Utilities and Contractual Charges. Unlike many other City departments, Public
Services has long been responsible for paying expenses whose ultimate size is largely determined by
other departments. The primary example are utilities bills for the departments that are housed in
the City County Building and Plaza 349. In contrast, several other departments—Fire, Police, and
the Public Lands divisions located at the Parks Building—along with enterprise funds, pay their own
utilities. (Golf could be considered an exception to this rule for enterprise funds. See the Golf
Enterprise Fund Staff Report for May 25, 2021.) Public Lands pays utilities on infrastructure it
maintains, such as watering and lights in parks, some park strip irrigation, irrigation on
roundabouts and on traffic islands. Facilities pays for public EV charging. Streets pays street
signal electricity costs. Budgeting in the face of this variety, is further complicated by year-to-year
fluctuations that depend on weather conditions, the City’s new asset purchases, contractual changes,
and more. For example, in 2020, one impact of COVID-19 was to reduce costs for some, but not all,
utilities.
Several years ago, at the Department’s request, the Council adopted an approach that funds Utilities
and Contractual Increases for Public Services on an annual basis. By explicitly placing anticipated
amounts for these items in the annual budget, the Department avoids the mid-year need to shift
funding from approved areas into what are essentially predictable but unfunded expenses. Now, the
annual Utilities and Contractual budget request is based on CPI plus proposed rate increases for
public utilities.
To accommodate the proposed establishment of Public Lands as a new department in the FY22
MRB (more on that in section B, below), the Public Services Department allocated the contractual
and inflationary increases across both Public Services and Public Lands based on a
three-year analysis of charges at their applicable proposed rate increase by charge type. For
example, Storm Water at 10%; Sewer at 18%; Water at 5%; Garbage at 2%; CPI at 1.4%. The results,
both separately and together can be seen in the chart below.
FY22 MRB Estimates for Utilities and
Contractual Increases
Utilities
Increases
Contractual
Increases
Public Services 128,500 115,100
Public Lands 162,500 79,000
Total $291,000 $194,100
The Department offers the following caveat on these estimates:
Department of Public Services
4
“Both Public Lands and Public Services monitor utility, and all other
operational expenses, on a monthly basis and shift budgets as
necessary across the Department to cover utilities, which are for the
most part non-discretionary expenses. And at times in the past, we
have requested budget amendments. For FY22, contractual budgets are
being watched very closely due to the effects of COVID in the market for
many items, especially contracted services and construction materials.”
➢Would the Council like to request a review of how closely the estimates of Utilities
and Contractual Increases for the Public Services Department has matched actual
annual costs? Or to inquire about the uses of any leftover funding from this practice?
2.Proposed Maintenance Funding for New Properties. The FY22 MRB proposes a similar
approach for funding ongoing maintenance for newly-acquired properties, including new CIP- and
impact fee-funded projects that will be completed and delivered to Parks for stewardship in FY22.
See Attachment C1 for a complete list of the new properties included.
FY22 MRB Estimates for New Property
Maintenance
Amount FTE
FY21 Beginning Balance
Public Lands New Properties/
Amenities [Ongoing]338,413 1
New Recreational Trail System
[Ongoing]304,167 2
Total Public Lands $642,580 3
➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration which parkland amenities it plans
to include on this annual list, and how it determines necessary versus optional costs.
B.Administrative Reorganization – Proposed Public Lands Department. The proposed creation of
a new Public Lands Department would be one of the most significant organizational changes in several
years, with effects on budgets, personnel and more. The vision statement in the FY22 MRB states that it
would be “tasked with planning, construction coordination, and public land acquisition with a community-
based approach.” Its scope would include all City parks, the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and the Regional
Athletic Complex, as well as trails, some street medians and other public green spaces.
In response to a Council staff question, the Administration mentioned certain advantages to creating a
stand-alone Public Lands Department:
“The new structure [along with four new administrative positions, see below]
brings capacity to Public Lands to go beyond focusing on maintenance, and to
address parks and natural lands as essential elements to improve our
environment across all four divisions. The four divisions function very differently
than the other Public Services divisions: they have access to donations, impact
fees, and grants and manage assets that have very localized values to residents.
They function cohesively, share resources and have
unique fund-raising opportunities and community support. Additionally, the
Department of Public Services
5
departure from Public Services elevates Public Lands in a way that makes Public
Lands more integral to the overall function of SLC Government.”
1.Public Lands Department Budget. The total proposed FY22 Public Lands Department budget
would reach nearly $28.5 million dollars, including the Golf Enterprise Fund. Without the Golf
Fund (see Issue at a Glance section above), the total would come to $18.8 million. Either way, this
amount would be about 13% higher than the FY21 budget. As noted above, part of the overall
increase would be the result of shifting maintenance funding for new properties explicitly and on an
ongoing basis in the annual budget.
The Parks Division would continue to receive the lion’s share of the budget, with nearly 61% (again,
excluding Golf). However, in dollar terms, Public Lands Administration would receive more new
revenue in FY22, at $1,051,054 versus $958,336 for Parks (see figure below).
Similarly, the net 8.35 new FTEs in the proposed Public Lands Department would be concentrated
in Public Lands Administration, and Parks would actually lose two of its FTEs relative to FY21. The
total number of FTEs for the proposed Public Lands Department would be 118, and the number
remaining in the Public Services Department would drop to 249. Additional information on the
purposes of the proposed increases in budget and staffing for Public Lands Administration can be
found in Section 2, below.
Public Lands Division Comparisons
FY21 Adopted Budget (within Department of Public Services) and
FY22 Mayor’s Recommended Budget (as Department of Public Lands)
FY21
Adopted FY22 MRB
Change
FY21-FY22
FY21
FTEs
FY22
MRB
FTEs
Public Lands
Administration 2,047,556 3,098,610 1,051,054 10.00 17.35
Parks 10,571,311 11,529,647 958,336 80.00 78.00
Urban Forestry 2,793,437 2,846,418 52,981 15.00 15.00
Trails & Natural Lands 1,263,874 1,354,022 90,148 5.00 8.00
Total $16,676,178 $18,828,697 $2,152,519 110.00 118.35
Trails & Natural Lands and Urban Forestry would receive far less of the proposed additional FY22
budget, but its role is proposed to shift, and the amount budgeted includes ongoing general fund
revenue for an item called New Recreational Trail System (see section 6, below). Trails & Natural
Lands would grow by 3 FTEs; Urban Forestry would remain the same, with 15. Additional
information on proposed FY22 changes in the divisions that are proposed to be moved to the Public
Lands Department are below.
➢In past Administrative reorganizations, Council Members have asked how the changes
will benefit the City’s operations and the public. For example, will the change create
operational efficiencies, reduce “silo” effects, place divisions that work closely together
in the same department, reduce administrative overhead?
➢Would the Council like to consider options to ensure they receive information when
“public-facing” services are significantly changed?
Department of Public Services
6
2.Staffing. Note that these positions are funded for less than one full year, which means additional
funds would be needed for them in FY23.
a.New Positions. The FY22 budget recommendations are based on the premise that even
without a new department designation, the Public Lands area needs these new
administrative positions to build the capacity for planning, expansion, and restoration of
parklands throughout the City. According to the Administration, “The public, policy, and
growth demands placed on Public Lands administration are very high, and combined with
intensive planning efforts, will overwhelm the very small administrative team without
additional staffing.”
The new Deputy Directors, Finance Manager, additional Park Planner and Community
Partnership Coordinator would be charged with adapting to increased demand for public
engagement, new funding sources (grants, donations and bonds), and planning for growth
(property acquisition and impact fee planning), while striving for equity throughout the
park system. For details, see Attachment C2.
The FY22 MRB also proposes a new finance and accounting area for Public Lands, as well
two new Recreational Trail System FTEs: a Recreational Trail Manager and a Recreational
Signage Coordinator (more information in Attachment C2).
b.Vacancies. Staff vacancies are an ongoing difficulty for Public Lands divisions, which
regularly experience turnover with vacancies remaining unfilled for more than 3 months
due to the time involved in the hiring process and market competition for skilled labor.
Seasonal positions, too, have been increasingly difficult to fill and the seasonal nature of
some maintenance work also often delays in filling positions. Across the divisions, Public
Lands is creating more training positions for succession planning because of the tight labor
market. Currently there are no redundancies in some critical positions.
3.Public Lands Administration ($3,098,610, 17.35 FTEs). Aside from the changes anticipated if new
staffing is approved, the role of the Public Lands Administration would be similar whether it
remains in the Public Services Department or leads the new Public Lands Department. The key
goals of Public Lands are the following:
1.Stewardship: Preserve, protect, maintain, improve, and enhance
natural areas, park lands and our urban forest.
2.Equity: Equitably accessed public spaces, shaped by the character
and diverse community.
3.Livability: Our communities, public and private partners and staff
work together to create safe, active, and inclusive public green
spaces.
4.Parks ($11,529,647, 78 FTEs). A large proposed infusion of FY22 funds would raise the Parks
Division budget to $11,529,647 (9%), just $2.2 million less than Streets, though Parks FTEs would
drop by two to 78. The Division plans to continue the implementation of Cartegraph and expects to
see efficiencies throughout the division. The key goals of the division are the following:
•Preserve, protect, maintain, improve, and enhance park lands.
Department of Public Services
7
•Anticipate the needs of our changing community and structure staffing and available
public parks accordingly.
•Enhance volunteer opportunities
a.Vacancies. The Parks Division experiences the same difficulties with hiring as other divisions
in Public Lands. In general, applications for openings were low in 2020, and not only skilled
trades such as plumbers and welders, but also general labor positions are difficult to fill. This is
true for full-time, seasonal, and part-time positions alike. The Division currently has eight full-
time openings (Property Maintenance Supervisor, Property Maintenance GM III, 3 Senior
Groundskeepers, Graffiti Tech, Equipment Operator, and Plumber II). The Division fears it may
not offer competitive pay rates to attract staff, and is working on ways to generate greater
interest, such as changing the job announcement making it more appealing, emphasizing the
free bus pass, safety shoes, staff shirts, and safety equipment as part of the position as well as
the working outdoors in the city’s parks.
b.Unsheltered Camp Abatements. Public Services reports that the Streets and Parks
Divisions typically alternate working on camp abatements so that neither division is too heavily
impacted. Abatements typically take 2-6 employees (plus equipment) away from routine work,
and often require overtime. In addition, Streets supports the Community Commitment Program
(CCP) and the Police Department (SLCPD) by providing No Camping and other
signs, and installing other features to deter encampments. Each Division
performs unfunded camp abatements with the CCP team about twice per month. Per
encampment, the average cost of personnel is $890 and the average cost of equipment
is $1,280. Total costs can be as high as $11,200 for a large encampment.
c.Park Safety. Park safety continues to be greatly affected by the activities of people
experiencing homelessness. Since SLCPD established it Park Patrol, the Division has benefited
from their visible presence in the parks, visitor education, enforcement of park
rules, and assisting the unsheltered in parks. They add,
“We have quickly learned that there are not enough officers to cover
all of the parks and would welcome a discussion on how the
program can be expanded. The Park rangers work
Wednesday through Saturday, 4:00 pm to 2:00 am, leaving days
and hours without ranger service. Often rangers are pulled away
from the park duties to manage other police business.”
Public Lands also reports that with budget from the CCP, it has entered into a contract with Pal
American to perform Park Ambassador duties to augment the SLCPD Ranger Program. This
service will be spread across parks, and include the following:
•providing services during league play at Pioneer Park;
•opening and closing park restrooms;
•sweeping parks for needles and other drug paraphernalia;
•performing homeless outreach regarding resources, shelters and
job opportunities; and
•providing customer-oriented support to make City
parks, trails, and natural lands more inviting.
➢The Council may wish to request additional information about the new Park
Ambassador program, including cost and extent of services. The Council may
Department of Public Services
8
also wish to request a more in-depth conversation with the Administration to
consider longer-term funding and other considerations for both the
Ambassador and SLCPD Park Patrol services
d.Weed Abatement. The Parks Division reports that in general, the public will observe lack of
weed maintenance on City-owned property outside of parks. Residents may also see delayed
response to park repairs and park amenities, as well as reduced park, island, and median
maintenance due to staff vacancies. Funding for complaint-based weed abatement on City-
owned properties was available until recent years through a Community and Neighborhoods
Department fund, but this has run out, and no funding exists within Parks to
backfill. Reinitiating a Citywide “semi-proactive” weed abatement program would require two
full time positions and seven seasonal positions, as well as equipment and supplies. For FY22,
this was estimated to require $404,038.
➢Would the Council like to consider adding funding to provide weed
abatement?
e.Regional Athletic Complex (RAC). The RAC reports the following:
“The Regional Athletic Complex was closed for the majority of the 2020
calendar year and has been significantly affected in the first half of FY21
reservation revenue because of the pandemic and the economic impact from
the out of state events that were cancelled. We were able to open the
complex on September 12th 2020, and stretched the season as long as we
could closing on November 7th. During that time we scheduled and played
over 1,600 reservation hours and brought in $115K in reservation revenue.
It was great to salvage somewhat of a season but we ended up cancelling 35
events in 2020.
Our 2021 Season started April 9th and will run through October 23rd. We’re
at about 85-90% finished with scheduling for the season and only have the
youth fall leagues and a few scattered field reservations throughout the
season remaining. Despite having several events already cancel this year, we
still have 40 events scheduled for the season and projecting to have a record
revenue year for the 2021 season. FY22 Is projected to be a busy season and
a bounce back year.”
Note: Council staff will request updated revenue and expenses for FY21 and proposed figures
for FY22, and try to make them available in time for the May 25 briefing.
Department of Public Services
9
Past-Year Budgets for Regional Athletic Complex
Actuals
FY17 Actuals FY18
Actuals
FY19
FY20
Adopted FY21 MRB
Revenue $536,428 $635,933 $510,088 $613,457 $497,719
Expenses -$1,099,788 -$1,082,445 -$1,113,916 -$1,057,085 -$1,095,385
General
Fund
Subsidy
$563,360 $446,512 $603,828 $443,628 $597,666
f.Irrigation Efficiency Improvements. The Parks Division reported the following change
during 2020:
“Tremendous strides have been made in recent years to improve
irrigation system efficiency through the use of technology. Parks
installed a new computerized control system that will
automatically change station runtimes daily depending on current
weather conditions. As a result, we anticipate more water efficiency. In
addition, it allows us to better map and document irrigation equipment
locations and log maintenance. The new system also allows better use of
new and existing master valves and flow sensors that monitor water
usage by zone by measuring each of the valve's flow values so that the
controller can report high or low flows. Combined with good
manufacturer and local support, this system has proven very beneficial
thus far. Funding from 2020 critical asset renewal CIP allowed Parks to
install these upgraded controllers in smaller parks only.”
➢The Council may wish to inquire about the estimated costs
and savings to install this system at the larger parks.
5.Urban Forestry Division ($2,846,418, 15 FTEs). Urban Forestry would maintain FY21 service
levels for tree planting, pruning, removal, emergency response, permitting, plan review, and
inspections. In FY21, the Division greatly expanded its relationship with the local
nonprofit, TreeUtah. This increased its ability to mobilize and coordinate volunteers resulted in the
planting of more than 300 trees in City parks and neighborhoods that otherwise would have had to
be planted in-house or by contracted crews. The MRB proposes one new Arborist FTE with Federal
ARPA funding, but at the time of this writing the eligibility requirements had not yet been clarified.
6.Changes in the Trails & Natural Lands Division ($1,354,022, 8 FTEs). As part of the changes
in the proposed FY22 budget, the Trails & Natural Lands Division would be become Planning and
Ecological Services, and its functions and responsibilities would be incorporated more widely into
the structure of the proposed Public Lands Department. The new Planning & Ecological Services
work group will focus on strategic initiatives and projects related to Public Lands assets in the
community, and provide leadership in park planning and acquisition, master plan development,
preparation of grant applications, capital development and deferred maintenance projects, and park
Department of Public Services
10
and trail design. Trails & Natural Lands Division would staff remain in this work group and other
administrative staff, including projects and planning staff would complement the team.
The Division’s goals would include:
1. Increase the capacity & expertise of the Trails & Natural Lands team
2. Make progress toward clearly defined restoration and enhancement objectives
3. Improve the quality and impact of signature planning & capital projects
4. Build lasting connections with nature through diverse and impactful community
engagement
a.Planning and Ecological Services Division Scope. The Administration reports:
“While the scope and focus of the ecological services team will become
broader to include parks, golf courses, the urban forest, and other
Public Lands assets to meet ecological objectives, the team will retain
oversight of restoration and improvement projects for Salt Lake City’s
natural open spaces, as well as trail planning and project delivery. The
restructure is not anticipated to reduce the level of service provided by
the former Trails & Natural Lands Division and should elevate the role
of ecological health and biodiversity while also improving the delivery
of other core Public Lands functions.
For many years, investments in restoration and maintenance of Salt
Lake City’s urban nature parks and natural areas have been minimal,
and many of these spaces have been on a trend of prolonged ecological
degradation. The proposed budget helps to remedy this shortfall in
restoration and maintenance resources by providing dedicated
funding for several new and existing properties, which is expected to
help Trails & Natural Lands begin to reverse the process of
degradation. However, this process will take time and removal of
noxious weeds, trash and waste clean-up, erosion control, signage and
amenity replacement, and a variety of other maintenance items
expected by the public and partner agencies like the Salt Lake County
Noxious Weeds Program will take several years to address.”
b.New Fees. Historically, Trails & Natural Lands has not charged or collected fees. Several
additions to the Consolidated Fee Schedule this year would allow the Division to charge
modest fees for participation in educational and recreational programs offered by the
Division, including boat rental through the Jordan River Paddle Share program (currently
in development). Finance staffs are working to ensure that the Consolidated Fee Schedule
being presented has been fully screened and vetted, including coordinating cost analyses
and adjusting charges as appropriate.
c.New FTEs. There are three proposed new FTEs for this Division, Recreational Trails
Manager; Recreational Signage Specialist; and Senior Natural Resources Technician.
Information on these can be found in Attachment C2.
d.New Properties. As explained in section A2, Proposed Maintenance Funding for New
Properties, above the FY22 MRB proposes a new approach to funding ongoing maintenance
for newly-acquired properties, including new CIP- and impact fee-funded projects that will
be completed and delivered to Parks for stewardship in FY22. See Attachment C1 for
relevant new properties.
Department of Public Services
11
7.FY21 Legislative Intent. The Council adopted the following Legislative Intent in FY21:
Communicating Impact of Budget Reductions. It is the intent of the Council that
the Administration return with a communication strategy to inform the public
about the likelihood of reduced service levels in City parks and public lands due to
budget reductions.
In response, Public Lands reported the following:
“[T]he City’s Parks and Public Lands division created a communication
plan that entailed several means of outreach to the public. These include:
•A newsletter: The division will include/has included the Key
Messaging in monthly newsletters. These newsletters are sent to
approximately 2,500 people during the last week of each month.
•Social Media: Social media posts with the Key Messaging have
been and will continue to be made on Public Lands’ account. As
of November 2020, Public Lands had 1,878 followers on
Facebook, 2,434 followers in Instagram, and 1,024 followers on
Twitter.
•Website: Since the coronavirus pandemic began, Public Lands
has been regularly updating a COVID-19 webpage with
information specific to our operations and the use of related
properties: bit.ly/slcpplcovid19
•Community Councils: Emails have been and will continue to be
sent to all Salt Lake City community councils that includes our
Key Messaging.
•Stakeholders: Public Lands has been and will continue to send
out Key Messaging by email to a list of approximately 150
stakeholders.
•Public Lands Staff: The Key Messaging has been and will
continue to be shared in an email and printed memo to all Public
Lands staff members. This messaging has been tailored to both
the Summer/Fall 2020 and the Winter 2020/Spring 2021 time
periods.
Note: A more comprehensive document detailing the efforts Parks and
Public Lands has made in response to this Legislative intent and can be
provided as backup documentation accompanying this response.”
Department of Public Services
12
C.Proposed Public Services Department. Regardless of the status of the divisions discussed previously,
the work of the other Public Services Divisions will continue. In addition, the entire Engineering Division
would be transferred to the Public Services Department from CAN (a few employees would be transferred
elsewhere). The goal of this move, as stated in the MRB, is to “bring general fund asset development and
management together under one leadership structure.” The Youth and Families Division would move the
other direction, from Public Services CAN, to be closer to other divisions whose primary function is
community services. The Department-wide annual strategic goals include:
•create a life-cycle picture of capital assets from conception to renewal;
•improve emergency capabilities;
•continue critical workforce evolution planning;
•optimize technology tools for asset management and forecasting; and
•invest in diversity, inclusion, and equity work to support both employees and the public
they serve.
1.Public Services Budget. Leaving aside the divisions discussed in the Public Lands section above,
the proposed Public Services budget is recommended to rise to $34.3 million dollars in FY22, an
increase of 4% ($1.3 million) over FY21. Streets would receive the largest share of this revenue,
mostly because of the availability and allocation of FOF funds (see Streets section below). FOF funds
dedicated to Streets would grow by 25% ($1.2 million) over the FY21 budget, and are proposed to be
used for increasing the asphalt budget by half, as well as beginning a concrete road maintenance
initiative and adding a new FTE to the Streets Response Team. In spite of the shifts of Engineering
in and Youth & Families out, the net number of Department FTEs would be virtually the same in
FY22 as it was in FY21. No Public Services staff is anticipated to be funded by Federal ARPA dollars.
➢Would the Council like to consider options to ensure they receive information when
“public-facing” services are significantly changed?
Public Services Division Comparisons
FY21
Adopted
FY22
MRB
Change
FY21-FY22
FY21
FTEs
FY22
MRB
FTEs
Streets 13,152,368 13,759,381 607,013 109 110
Facilities Services 8,888,664 9,132,553 243,889 47 47
Engineering*5,049,187 5,316,996 267,809 46 48
Compliance 3,677,533 3,801,531 123,998 30 29
Administrative Services 2,264,397 2,331,467 67,070 15.35 15
Total 33,032,149 34,341,928 1,309,779 247 249
* Note: Engineering information before FY22 comes from CAN.
2.Engineering ($5,316,996, 48 FTEs). The addition of the Engineering Division would bring 48 new
FTEs to Public Services, but without a specialized financial analyst (who was transferred elsewhere).
The MRB proposes adding $52,800 to the existing Public Services Budget and Management team to
integrate Engineering’s work and improve their capacity to track capital funds. It would adjust their
wages commensurate with these new responsibilities and with finance teams across the City.
According to the Department, “The team already performs complex fiscal and operational analysis,
including projecting expenditures, capital projects, and vacancies on a month-by-month basis for all
Department of Public Services
13
divisions, nearly none of which are captured in City’s finance systems. The team also manages
contracts, payroll, and revenue responsibilities.”
The other new FTE would manage the pre-permit validation of outreach for all projects where a
right-of-way (ROW) permit is issued. This program comes at the request of the Council and will be
followed up with an ordinance to be presented to the Council by the Attorney’s Office.
The Department also would work to help Engineering manage the expected increase in workload
from ARPA funding, CIP, and a new bond that is expected to be proposed by the Administration,
implementing new accountability and efficiency standards. The objective is “to avoid the expensive
unforeseen costs that may result from a gap between asset development and asset management.”
3.Streets Division ($13,759,381, 110 FTEs). The infusion of Funding our Future revenue beginning
in FY19, transformed the Streets Division, which typically carries out small-scale, maintenance
activities like pothole patching and chip seal projects, as well as snow plowing and painting
crosswalks. With the ongoing FOF funding, Streets has become the largest division in the Public
Services Department. Under the FY22 MRB, the Division would remain the largest, with
$13,759,381, or 40% of the total Department general funds, a 5% increase over FY21. (Note: Streets
is separate from the Transportation Division located in the Community and Neighborhoods
Department.) It would house 110 employees, of which 20 would be funded through FOF.
a.Funding Our Future. FOF revenue is reserved for spending on four issues—Housing,
Transportation, Street Infrastructure and Public Safety—and more than one City department is
involved in some of these categories. The only Public Services division to receive FOF allocations
is Streets, whose total amount would increase by 25% for FY22, and whose share of total FOF
spending would remain the same as in FY21. The proposed uses of FOF Streets funding are
listed in the chart below. Note: This information is based on the amount of these allocations as
corrected by the Finance Department on May 12, 2021; unfortunately, the data presented in
previous week’s Budget Overview staff report included an accounting error.
Proposed FY22 Uses of FOF Streets Funding
FY2021
Adopted
FY22
MRB Change
Streets Crew (includes reclass)1,550,937 1,550,937 -
Streets Crew Supplies (including
inflationary adjustment)785,348 785,348 -
Fuel 16,746 16,746 -
Fleet Maintenance 138,500 138,500 -
New Infrastructure Projects 2,400,000 2,300,000 (100,000)
Streets Fleet Equipment -950,916 950,916
Concrete maintenance Equipment -58,000 58,000
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative
[Ongoing]-80,000 80,000
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative
[One Time]-69,500 69,500
Streets Response Team FTE [Ongoing]-53,300 53,300
Increase 1/2 Asphalt Budget [Ongoing]-120,000 120,000
TOTAL $4,891,531 $6,123,247 $1,231,716
Department of Public Services
14
➢The Council may wish to consider whether it agrees with the broader policy
decision of keeping share of FOF Streets funding the same as in FY21 and adding
the new items above, or if it would prefer to shift amounts among FOF categories.
➢The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration a contingency plan in
case actual sales tax revenue does not match budgeted amounts.
b.Streets Division Management and Goals. Streets has created a schedule of all surface
maintenance activities from crack seal through inlays for each section of road. Activities are
stacked to optimize time spent and reduce overlap, redundancies, and out-of-sequence
activities, which saves staff time and reduces equipment expenses. The division has opted for
rental of certain equipment rather than purchasing to minimize the upfront cost financial
burden. To shift into long-term savings, Streets is expecting to procure some pieces of
equipment that are currently rented.
Through Cartegraph, Streets tracks the following goals:
•Signal repair tech onsite within 30 minutes of a reported malfunction during business
hours
•All roads plowed within 30 hours of the end of a snow storm for at least 90% of storms
•All city crosswalks painted annually
•Complete 155 lane miles of asphalt road surface treatments (chip and slurry seals)
c.Streets Vacancies. In late April, the Division had 13 vacant positions:
•1 Senior Asphalt Equipment Operator,
•3 Asphalt Equipment Operator II,
•2 Concrete Finishers,
•7 seasonal employees, and
•3 apprentices.
a.Concrete Road Maintenance. Streets reports the following with regard to its
new concrete roads program:
“There are 186 lane miles of concrete roads with more in
the planning stage. Concrete roads are more expensive
than asphalt roads to build but last longer and do not
need the same types of surface treatments to keep them
in good condition. Repairs to them, however, are not as
easy as with asphalt roads and are very expensive. The
proposed program is designed to prevent those repairs
by providing preventive maintenance (cleaning and
sealing joints) and limited slab repair to eleven lane
miles annually. Not all of the 186 lane miles need
treatment every year. The program anticipates a
12-18 year maintenance cycle, so the plan is to address
older roads first based on OCI information
in Cartegraph. It is important to note that the program is
only available because Streets was able to find
efficiencies in their asphalt road program to free up
employees during the winter season to perform the work.
The request is for $80,000 in ongoing materials and
$127,500 in one-time equipment ($69,500 for smaller
equipment in the Streets budget; $58,000
for larger equipment is in the Fleet budget). It is
Department of Public Services
15
important to clarify that this is not the ideal concrete
road maintenance program, but it is one that can be
done with existing FTEs, thanks to efficiencies found and
available labor hours because of milder winters.”
The Streets Division can perform preventive maintenance on concrete streets, as
well as limited slab repair, but large slab removal and replacement must be done by
a contractor managed by the Engineering Division. Streets does not fund sidewalk,
curb, and gutter replacement, other than through the 50/50 program, and the
completion of 25 to 30 ADA ramps each year. Sidewalk, curb, and gutter
replacement projects are funded in the Capital Investment Program (CIP).
b. Unsheltered Camp Abatements. (Note: This is the same information as in the
Parks section of the same name, above.) Public Services reports that the Streets
and Parks Divisions typically alternate working on camp abatements so that neither
division is too heavily impacted. Abatements typically take 2-6 employees (plus
equipment) away from routine work, and often require overtime. In addition,
Streets supports the Community Commitment Program (CCP) and the Police
Department (SLCPD) by providing No Camping and other signs, and installing
other features to deter encampments. Each Division performs unfunded camp
abatements with the CCP team about twice per month. Per encampment,
the average cost of personnel is $890 and the average cost of equipment
is $1,280. Total costs can be as high as $11,200 for a large encampment.
4.Facilities Services Division ($9,132,553, 47 FTEs). The Facilities Division mentions that
ongoing energy efficiency efforts are being made in each building, including upgrading systems to
operate more efficiently and staying on top of preventive maintenance to catch issues early. It is
supporting these activities through methods built out in Cartegraph. The FY22 goals of the Facilities
Division include the following:
•Improve work order completion rate from 65% to 90%. Completion rate is the number
of work orders each employee completes per month.
•Reduce Facility Condition Index (FCI) from 12.5 to 12. FCI quantifies the condition and
value of the asset, while also quantifying (in a direct correlation) how capital investment
impacts the condition of the facility.
•Reduce Energy Use Intensity (EUI) from 102.6 to 95. EUI quantifies the amount of
energy used in comparison to other facilities in the region and provides data to measure
the condition and efficiency of the building shell, HVAC, and other systems.
a.New Unfunded Responsibilities. Facilities will assume management of the following vacant
buildings from CAN with no additional budget at present: the former Public Safety Building;
Fleet Block; Warm Springs; Glendale Water Park; Fisher Mansion. The Division estimates
$500,000 would be needed for contractors to stabilize buildings, and hopes to receive this
amount either through ARPA funds or the Administration’s proposed bond. Until then,
Facilities is developing a management plan for each building to mitigate costs and preserve the
assets. Also, Facilities is hand-watering trees along the S Line to save water.
b.Facilities Staffing Needs. The Division states that it will need additional staff in future
Budgets:
Department of Public Services
16
“Each new square foot of public plaza, business district, or building
requires staffing. Currently, Facilities is not able to fully meet its work
order completion goals because staff are spread thin. After-hours response
to vacant buildings is expensive both in time and actual OT and call-out
pay. We did not request new FTE’s in the FY22 budget but anticipate
needing them soon. The proposed addition of Engineering in Public
Services, management of additional vacant buildings, and the proposed
requests for bond and ARP funding will require Facilities to add more
project support staff in future years.”
5.Compliance ($3,801,531, 29 FTEs). The Compliance Division faced significant challenges in both
2019 and 2020, related to misconduct by a number of former compliance officers, and then with the
COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, staffing for the crossing guard program has been a persistent
problem in recent years. The Division’s goals for FY22 are the following:
•School crossing coverage
•Parking pay station and parking garage downtime
•Community outreach
•Response time to safety-related calls for service
a.Staffing. The Division reports that two vacancies remained open throughout FY21. As the
pandemic recedes, Compliance will determine the best time to recruit and deploy these new
staff members.
b.Parking Enforcement. Enforcement of metered parking, and subsequently the expectation of
payment, was reinstated in the second week of August 2020. FY21 revenue dropped because on-
street parking usage is noticeably lower than to pre-pandemic months. Enforcement of metered
stalls is higher in 2020 than it was in the same period in 2019, with 25% more citations
issued for expired or non-paid meters. As capacities in restaurants and other venues are being
increased, the Division reports seeing a steady increase in meter usage and revenue.
c.Parking Pay Stations. The Division reports that parking pay stations are due to be replaced
in FY22. Updating them will provide more reliable and cost-efficient service to the City as well
as to users of metered parking spaces. Compliance will work with the Transportation Division
on new curb management strategies to optimize the placement of stations
d.Crossing Guards. Although the Compliance Division will cover eligible school
crossings as schools return to in-person learning, crossing guard recruitment and
retaining has posed a challenge year after year. This puts the Division in a
vulnerable position if staffing levels fall below the minimum. In 2019 and 2020
the Division attempted to use a contractor to provide this service, and also
increased wages by $1 per hour, but this proved unsuccessful in the region’s tight
pre-pandemic labor market. Retaining the crossing guard program will cause
inconsistencies in enforcement activities and a decrease in expected revenue
because Compliance officers must to fulfill the City’s obligation to cover 26 school
crossings. If the Crossing Guard program is operating as intended and fully
staffed, the Enforcement team would be able to focus on their mission to promote
safe access to the public right of way.
Department of Public Services
17
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Proposed New Public Lands FTEs
Attachment C2. New Properties and Amenities in Parks and Trails
Attachment C2. New Properties and Amenities in Parks and Trails
Public Lands has assumed maintenance responsibilities for several new and redeveloped public properties in
FY21 and will take on more in FY22 (see list below). The FY22 MRB item titled New Properties and
Amenities ($338,413, 1 FTE) aims to cover the costs of new properties and expanded parkland services as
they change every year.
•Three Creeks Confluence | Seasonal/Part-time Contractual Services/Supplies & Materials
•Allen Park | Seasonal/Part-time, Contractual Services/Supplies & Materials
•Parleys Pointe Open Space | Seasonal/Part-time, Contractual Services/Supplies & Materials
•9 Line Corridor Landscape Improvements | Seasonal, Mulch, Chemical, Water, Irrigation, Salt
•Jordan River Water Trail Boat Access | Contractual Services
•Rosecrest Trailhead (Wasatch Hollow) | Seasonal labor, Contractual Services, Supplies, &
Materials
•Jordan River Par 3 Multi-use Trail Network | Seasonal, Mulch, Chemical
•2000 East Reconstruction Project | Seasonal, Sand & Gravel, Chemical, Water, Irrigation
•Fairmont Park Lighting Project | Electrical Power, Sand & Gravel, Electrical Supplies
•900 South 1100 East Roundabout | Seasonal, Water, Chemicals, Mulch
•Redwood Meadows Playground | Seasonal, Mulch
•Artesian Well | Seasonal, Chemicals, Mulch
The FY22 MRB item titled New Recreational Trail System ($304,167, 2 FTEs) would cover the costs
associated with recreational trail system management for the Foothills Trail System and Jordan River
Parkway/Water Trail, including:
•project development and coordination services, which will increase the pace and quality of
improvement projects, community engagement, and related initiatives.
•new maintenance services for these, including trail maintenance & noxious weed management
for Foothills Trail System and Jordan River Parkway Trail, and debris removal for Jordan River
Water Trail.
Attachment C2. Proposed New FY22 Public Lands FTEs
Deputy Director, Operations: Would oversee the day-to-day management of Public Lands amenities
and public spaces. This includes landscaping and maintenance teams for urban parkland, managed
natural lands, urban forestry services, golf course operations, and the special events permit team.
Community Partnership Coordinator: Would support accessibility and equity efforts, visitor
experience, and volunteers and boards.
Public Lands Planner: Would conduct park planning and acquisition studies; oversee master plan
development, perform professional landscape design work, construction, and contract administration
for the development of parks, trails, natural lands, urban plazas, streetscapes and other Public Lands.
Finance Manager II: For the past several years, Public Lands split a Financial Analyst with Golf and
received significant contract and other fiscal support from Public Services Budget and Management
Analysts. The Golf Enterprise Fund has a complex budget with difficult revenue to expenditure
balancing, and Public Lands has three additional robust divisions. Now Public Lands is seeking more
grant funding, will have bond opportunities and is receiving more donations than ever before. These
new funding opportunities require administrative level management to track expenses and revenues. A
Finance Manager will create a strong financial group to track revenues and manage expenditures.
Recreational Trail Manager: The Recreational Trail Manager position is necessary to manage trail
construction, improvement and maintenance projects; manage jurisdictional partnerships and
environmental requirements; manage improvements in trail accessibility and recreationist experiences;
leverage external funds for trail system construction and maintenance. Manages both Foothills
Recreational Trails & Jordan River Water Trail.
Recreational Signage Coordinator: The Recreational Signage Coordinator position is necessary to
coordinate the branding and design, fabrication, maintenance and ongoing improvement of recreational
trail system signage for the Foothills Recreational Trails & Jordan River Water Trail. Oversight of
signage program focused on creating trail systems that are welcoming, user-friendly, and accessible for
diverse users.
Grade Increase - Deputy Director Planning and Ecological Services: This person (currently the
Director of the Trails & Natural Lands Division) will focus on strategic initiatives and projects related to
Public Lands assets in the community to provide leadership in park planning and acquisition, master
plan development, preparation of grant applications, capital development and deferred maintenance
projects, and park and trail design.
Department of Public Services
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
Our Mission
Statement
Public Services is a team of
professionals who value integrity,
diversity, and equity. We are
committed to providing essential
municipal services and vibrant green
spaces for Salt Lake City while
implementing efficiencies and
environmentally conscious practices,
which strive to make life better
throughout the community.
FY22 Strategic Goals
Lifecycle Costing
Create a lifecycle picture of capital
assets from conception to renewal
Emergency Preparedness
Improve emergency
capabilities & resiliency
Workforce Evolution Planning
Work to recruit, train, &grow the
workforce we will need
Technology
Optimize technology tools for
asset management,
transparency, & forecasting
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
Invest in DEI work to support our
employees & the public.
Compliance Facilities Fleet Engineering Streets
Organizational Structure
Department Director
Lorna Vogt
Compliance
Damian Choi
Fleet
Nancy Bean
Facilities
Jim Cleland
Streets
Cabot Jennings
Deputy Director;
Operations
Jorge Chamorro
Engineering
Matthew Cassel
Finance & Accounting
Dawn Valente
Budget | FY 2022
Business Systems
Todd Loveday
Strategic Services
Corey Rushton
FY22 Budget
Proposed -$62,432,503
Key Implementations
•Transfer Engineering to Public Services -
$5,445,845 + 5 FTE's
•Public Lands Division to Department –
($17,372,425)
•Transfer Youth & Family to CAN –
($2,063,498)
•Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative –
Ongoing: $80,000; One-time: $69,500
•Increase ½ Asphalt [Ongoing] -$120,000
Personal Services,
27,942,824
O & M,
10,904,779
Capital
Expenditures,
10,897,439
Charges &
Services,
8,593,176
Interest & Bond
Expense, 3,798,924
Transfers Out,
295,361
Budget Adjustments Overview
Initiative Amount FTE Funding Source
Personal Services Base to Base Changes (57,548)General Fund
Insurance Rate Changes 124,784 General Fund
Merit Changes 260,156 General Fund
Restore 6 Months Vacancy Savings 808,235 General Fund
Salary Proposal 228,013 General Fund
Living Wage Adjustment 1,290 General Fund
BA#6: Transfer Innovations Team to IMS Fund (307,350)(2.0)General Fund
Transfer Public Lands Division to Department (17,372,425)(110.35)General Fund
Transfer Y&F Division to CAN (2,063,498)(18.0)General Fund
Transfer Engineering to Public Services 5,043,312 44.00 General Fund
New Engineering Positions [9 months]402,533 5.0 General Fund
Contractual and Utilities Increases 243,600 General Fund
Budget and Management Analysis [Ongoing]52,800 General Fund
Concrete Road Maintenance Initiative [Ongoing]80,000 Funding Our Future
Concreate Road Maintenance Initiative [One Time]69,500 Funding Our Future
Streets Response Team FTE [Ongoing]53,300 1.0 Funding Our Future
Increase ½ Asphalt Budget [Ongoing]120,000 Funding Our Future
Engineering Transfer to PS
Asset
Developers
Engineering
Division
Asset
Managers
Public
Services
Department
Increased
collaboration
Greater
transparency
Reduced lifecycle
costs
More sustainable
investments
Brings capital development closer to capital asset management; ensures capital investments are built to sustainable
standards that can be managed for the asset’s entire life; creates a more unified approach to project delivery
Lifecycle Costing
Give policymakers the full asset picture prior to funding for transparency and more informed decision-making
Asset
Management
Funding included in capital funding process
Design
Funding NOT included in CIP process
BuildConcept
Operation
Costs
Maintenance
Costs
Repair
Costs
Energy
Costs
Concept Phase:
Planners, asset
developers, &
managers involved
Design Phase:
Asset developers
Build Phase:
Asset developers
Increased collaboration with
asset managers would
decrease lifecycle costs
Road Maintenance
Initiative Details
•Extend life of City’s concrete roads by
doing preventive maintenance
•Perpetual pavement planning to reduce
lifecycle costs and carbon emissions
•Create strategy for widening
repair/maintenance options for more
lane miles
Y&F Transfer to CAN
Transfer Benefits
•Core function-community development
•Enhance HAND’s work
•Grant writing and management skills
•Continues building strong community
relationships
Public Lands Department
Division to Department Benefits
•Recognizes scope, scale, and complexity
of demands on the four divisions
•Needs have changed dramatically
•Stewardship, long-term planning,
community engagement, events, etc.
•More responsive to Council, Mayor, and
residents
•Funding opportunities
•Sets the stage for new opportunities
Questions & Comments
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
Department of Public Lands
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
Stewardship | Livability | Equity
Our Mission
Salt Lake City Public Lands shall
enhance the livability of the urban
environment to ensure that the
resources under our management
are carefully stewarded and
equitably accessible for future
generations.
Key Values
Public Lands' divisions strive to weave the following three values into every project, decision, and solution:
Stewardship
Preserve, protect,
maintain, improve
and enhance natural
areas, parks, and our
urban forest.
Livability
Work with communities and our public and private partners to create safe, active, and inclusive public green spaces
Equity
Provide equitably
accessed public
spaces, shaped by the
character of our
diverse community
Present
Maintenance
Acquisition
Planning
Ecological
Services
Long-Term &
Strategic
Planning
Public
Outreach &
Education
Historic
Preservation
Special Events
&
Programming
Emergency
Response
Past
Maintenance
Acquisition Planning
From open & green space maintenance……to open & green space stewardship
Expansion of SLC Public Lands’ Responsibilities
Engagement Environment
FundingGrowth
Increased community and stakeholder expectations have led to increased operations, services and responsibilities
Master Plans
Salt Lake City
Foothills MP
2020 Adoption
Salt Lake City
Cemetery MP
2020 Adoption
2021
Comprehensive
MP
Fall ‘21 Adoption
2022 Glendale
Waterpark
MP
Est. Spring ‘21
Adoption
2022 Allen
Park MP
Est. Summer
‘21 Adoption
Proposed
Liberty Park
MP
FY22 CIP
Application
Proposed
Jordan River
Trail MP
FY22 CIP
Application
Projects: Underway, Contemplated & Needed
Master
Planning &
Public
Engagement
Asset
Renewal &
Ongoing
Maintenance
Urban
Resilience &
Biological
Diversity
Park Safety &
Activation CIP & Impact
Fees
Master Plan Projects
•Jordan River Parkway
•Connect Our Trails
•Wayfinding Signage
•Alternative & Appropriate Use
of Golf Courses
•Increase & Activate Downtown
Green Spaces
•Activities & Events in our Parks
Large & Small
•Public Awareness to Support
New Tree Stewardship
•Share Our Park History
•Reimagine Neighborhood
Parks
•Biological Diversity in Parks
and Natural Areas
FY22 Budget
Proposed -$28,526,135
Key Initiatives
Contractual, Living Wage, Utilities:
•Contractual: $79,000
•Utilities: $162,500
•Living Wage Adjustment: $21,230
New Properties/Amenities:
•$338,413 & 1 FTE
New Recreational Trail Systems [Ongoing]:
•$304,167 & 2 FTE
Public Lands Department:
•$550,983 & 4 FTE
Personal Services,
16,064,438
Charges &
Services, 7,495,384
O & M, 3,011,172
Capital
Expenditures,
1,459,011
Bonding/Debt/Interest,
496,130
Budget Adjustments Overview
Initiative Amount FTE Funding Source
Living Wage Adjustment 21,230 0.0 General Fund
Contractual Increases 79,000 0.0 General Fund
Utilities Increases 162,500 0.0 General Fund
Public Lands New Properties/Amenities 338,413 1.0 General Fund
New Recreational Trail System [Ongoing]304,167 2.0 General Fund
Transfer of Public Lands Division from Public Services 17,372,425 0.35 General Fund
Public Lands Department Creation & Development 550,983 4.0 General Fund
Proposed Organizational Structure
Department Director
Kristin Riker
(Pending advice and consent)
Parks
Lee Bollwinkel
Golf
Matt Kammeyer
Urban Forestry
Tony Gliot
Deputy Director; Planning
& Ecological Services
Lewis Kogan
Projects & Planning Team
Ecological Services Team
Cemetery
Parks Maintenance
Regional Athletic Complex
Graffiti Removal
Finance & Accounting
Vacant/New
Communications
Technology
Special Events Permitting
Ryen SchlegelBudget | FY 2022
Deputy Director;
Operations
Vacant/New
Key Transfer Questions
•Optimizing chain of command
•Elevates Public Lands as integral
function of SLC Government
•Better respond to Mayor & Council
Why transfer
from Public
Services?
•Increased capacities
•More responsive to community
demands
•Foundational admin positions
What are the
benefits &
losses?
•Yes, however, new positions
necessary despite department
status
Will it cost
more?
•Shared resources
•Positioned Public Lands to be ready
for a transfer
How will this
impact your
budget moving
forward?
•New relationship will enhance close
ties
What about
Engineering
moving to PS?
•Greater restoration of native species
& wildlife habitats
•Deeper public engagement
•Maximized external funding sources
How does this
better serve
SLC residents &
visitors?
Questions & Comments
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 25, 2021
RE: Fleet Fund Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: B-9, B-40 to B-41, F-33 and Attachment 2 for detailed budget comparison
table that was inadvertently missing from the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Fleet Fund provides repair, preventative maintenance, replacement and fueling services for Salt Lake City’s
approximately 1,500 vehicles. The Airport vehicle fleet and funding are managed separately. See Additional Info
section for a breakdown of vehicles by department and replacement values. The Fleet Fund also maintains
approximately 2,400 pieces of equipment, operates 16 fueling sites and a car wash facility. As an internal service
fund, the Fleet Fund operates with money that is paid out of other funds (including the General Fund) for the
several offered fleet services. While overall traffic levels in the City decreased during the pandemic most of the
City’s vehicles and major equipment continued to be used in operations. The Fleet shops modified operations
and remained working throughout the pandemic.
The FY22 proposed budget for the Fleet Fund is $28 million which is $8.8 million (46%) more than last year. It’s
important to note that the Fleet Fund experienced a large funding reduction of almost $7 million last year
because of the financial uncertainty facing the City at the time. The reduction was mostly incurred by a 49% cut
to the vehicle replacement budget. The FY22 budget would restore the Fleet Fund to the same funding level as
the FY20 budget.
The $28 million budget for FY22 is broken into the $13.4 million maintenance budget which is nearly $1 million
(7%) more than last year and the $14.6 million replacement budget which is $8 million (122%) more than last
year. The proposed budget for FY22 includes:
Continue 45 FTEs of which 29 are Mechanics
The FY22 budget proposes no change in the current 45 FTE staffing level. The last staffing change was in FY18
when three mechanic FTEs were added to the Fleet Fund. 29 of the positions are mechanics. The FY22 budget
includes reclassifying a trainee mechanic to a full mechanic.
Restore $4 Million for Public Safety Vehicles from Funding Our Future Dollars
The FY21 budget removed the $4 million added in the FY20 budget for Police Department vehicle replacements.
It was the first new ongoing revenue for the Fleet Fund in over a decade. The FY22 proposed budget would
restore the $4 million ongoing and use the FY22 amount for Fire Department vehicle replacements. The $4
million purchase the following vehicles for the Fire Department: two fire engines, one quint fire truck (combines
five functions into one vehicle), one water tanker, one hazmat truck and three emergency medical response
ATVs. The Fleet Fund uses a standardized industry scoring standard to rank vehicle replacements. The higher
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 25, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18 and June 1
Potential Action: June 8 or June 15
Page | 2
funding level for vehicle replacements in the FY22 budget will allow 28 more vehicles to be replaced in the Parks
Division (9), Streets Division (11), Community and Neighborhoods Department (2) and Police Department (6).
Note that fire trucks are very expensive vehicles often costing over $1 million each so absent the $4 million from
Funding Out Future few or none of the other 28 vehicle replacements might be possible in FY22.
$950,916 for Street Maintenance Equipment from Funding Our Future
The $950,916 from Funding Our Future would purchase the following equipment for the Streets Division: two
street sweepers, one paver, one air compressor, one enclosed trailer and walk-behind concrete saw.
Debt Load from Leasing Agreements
The Fleet Fund operates below a $4 million cap for financed services (vehicle leases). The table below forecasts
debt load (committed and assumed future lease payments). At current funding levels the table shows the
replacement fund will experience relatively high levels of debt payments every year being close to the $4 million
maximum. FY25 is projected to have only $750,000 available for new leases meaning fewer vehicle
replacements will be possible that year absent new funding being available. The Fleet Fund currently leases
light-duty vehicles for four years and heavy-duty vehicles for five years. These are shorter lease times than
previously used and better aligns resale values with paying off vehicle leases. An additional cost to vehicle
leasing is the employee time and resources to track the dozens of individual repayment schedules and
administer debt payments.
Projected Remaining Funds under $4 Million Cap after Debt Payments
$2.8 Million Funding Gap for Ideal Vehicle Replacement Schedule and Financial Sustainability
(See Attachment 4 for the 10-year Business Plan spreadsheet and Additional Info Section for larger picture)
The schedule on which vehicles are replaced is a significant factor in the evaluation of the fiscal health of any
fleet budget. Delaying replacement drives up repair and maintenance costs, increases down time, and reduces
resale values. Down time can sometimes mean delays in service delivery. Adequate replacement funding is
necessary to strike the most cost-effective balance. The City has not funded the Fleet replacement budget
adequately in the past decade. The FY20 budget made significant improvement but did not rectify this long-
standing issue. The proposed FY21 budget removed the $4 million ongoing for public safety vehicles using
Funding Our Future sales tax revenues. The FY22 budget restores the $4 million ongoing for public safety
vehicles. As a result, the FY22 budget is $2,780,284 less than the ideal funding level identified in the 10-year
Plan (Attachment 4). See Additional Info section for more on the ideal vehicle replacement schedule based on
the 10-year plan requested by the Council.
Nearly 22% of General Fund Vehicles are Beyond Recommended Life
The Division reports 245 vehicles in the General Fund are beyond industry recommended useful life but are
continuing to be used because current funding levels do not allow replacement vehicles to be purchase. This
represents almost 22% of the General Fund’s entire vehicle fleet. The total estimated replacement cost for the
245 vehicles is $21.6 million. Note that this doesn’t include enterprise fund or internal service fund vehicles such
as IMS, Public Utilities and Refuse.
$179,600 for Vehicle Telematics
The FY22 proposed budget includes $179,600 to purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware for
General Fund vehicles. A few hundred vehicles in the City’s fleet have onboard sensors that allow the collection
of data such as speed, engine idling time, location, intensity of braking, fuel consumption and more. The data
provides insight into a vehicle’s health and driver’s behavior. The Division stated vehicle telematics can improve
safety, “minimize long-term equipment damage, reduce operational costs, such as fuel consumption, and extend
the maintenance intervals of heavy-wear parts like brakes and tires.”
$280,470 Revenue from Vehicle Sale Auctions
The FY22 proposed budget includes a $212,975 increase in projected revenue from vehicle sales. This is a result
of more vehicles expected to be sold. Only 24 vehicles were sold in FY21. The FY22 figure is still significantly
below typical vehicle sale revenues in recent years like FY 19 ($368,500) and FY20 ($615,269). Proceeds from
FY 2 2 FY 2 3 FY 2 4 FY 2 5 FY 2 6 FY 2 7 FY 2 8 FY 2 9
De b t Se r v ic e fo r
Le ase Pay m e nts $3 ,7 4 8,87 7 $3 ,87 0 ,3 5 4 $3 ,9 9 8,7 1 8 $3 ,85 9,84 2 $3 ,84 3 ,6 9 9 $3 ,9 9 0 ,881 $3 ,7 2 2 ,6 81 $3 ,93 0 ,87 3
A v a ilab le fo r Ne w
Le ase s $3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $7 5 0 ,0 0 0 $4 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 $3 ,2 0 0 ,0 0 0 $3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 $4 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 $2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
Page | 3
vehicle sales helps to pay for replacement vehicles. Resale value can be maximized, and maintenance expenses
minimized when available funding allows Fleet to meet industry best practices for replacement schedules. The
City’s current vehicle sales are longer than the recommended life per class of vehicle (sedans, light trucks, and
heavy-duty trucks).
$152,568 Minimize Use of Fleet’s Fund Balance (rainy day fund/savings account)
The Finance Department recommends a funding target for Fleet’s Fund Balance equivalent to 5% of ongoing
revenues. This will allow the Division to have cash reserves in case of an emergency, drop in revenues to cover
debt obligations or urgent vehicle replacement need. The FY22 budget meets this target with a 5% estimated
Fund Balance. $152,568 is proposed to be used from cash reserves. This was a reduction from the previous
target of 10%. The change allowed the Fleet Fund to use $4.48 million of one-time funds in FY19 to purchase 68
vehicle replacements.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Restoring $4 million Funding Our Future Sales Tax Revenue for Public Safety Vehicles –
The Council may wish to discuss with the Fleet Division how the $4 million for public safety vehicle
replacements benefits all General Fund Departments and if the funding will be ongoing. The Council may
also wish to schedule a separate briefing to discuss the long-term issue of reaching financial sustainability
and the Fleet Fund’s updated 10-year plan. At current funding levels it would take over 20 years to fully
replace the City’s vehicle fleet.
2.Ideal Staffing of Mechanics and Space Limitations – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how the fleet facility will accommodate growing demand for repairs and maintenance of
vehicles and major equipment. The industry standard is one mechanic per 48 vehicles. 12 additional
mechanics would be needed to meet the 1:48 mechanic ratio for all equipment and vehicles maintained by
Fleet. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if they are evaluating space options in addition to
staffing options. The fleet facility has no available room for additional mechanics.
3.Vehicle Telematics – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the benefits of timing of
rolling out GPS to all General Fund vehicles.
4.Decreasing Accidents – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the Accident, Abuse,
Neglect Incident (AANI) Protocol helped reduce accidents and what else could be done. There were over
500 accidents over the last four years of which a majority were at-fault.
5.Fleet’s Role in Meeting City Sustainability Goals – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
how the Fleet Fund will help the City meet the 2016 sustainability goals. Clean vehicles typically cost more
to purchase but have lower lifetime fuel and maintenance costs. See Additional Info section for the four
goals jointly adopted by the Council and Mayor in July 2016.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
10-Year Plan to Reach Ideal Vehicle Replacement Schedule and Financial Sustainability
(See Attachment 4 for the 10-year Business Plan spreadsheet)
In FY17, the Council requested via legislative intent that the Administration report back on a plan to achieve
financial sustainability of the Fleet Fund. In FY18 Fleet presented to the Council a 10-year plan to improve
replacement schedules and move to a cash-based purchasing plan. The cost estimates are adjusted to account for
inflation and advances in technology and sustainability features. Over the next decade, purchasing power
decreases given these annual expected cost increases. Additional ongoing funding will be necessary to reach a
cash-based vehicle replacement schedule and realize the resulting benefits of reduced repair and maintenance
costs, less down time, and greater resale value. The FY22 budget is $2.8 million below the recommended
General Fund transfer into the replacement fund identified in the 10-year plan (first revenue row in Attachment
4). The recommended annual funding increases under the plan to $17.8 million in FY31.
Page | 4
Virtuous (Positive) vs. Vicious (Negative) Cycles
The Fleet Fund has operated in a
negative self-reinforcing cycle since
the Great Recession of 2008.
The adjacent graphic shows a
simplified model of this cycle: (1) a
flat General Fund transfer to the
Fleet Fund for vehicle replacements
loses purchasing power to inflation,
(2) as a result fewer vehicles are
replaced, (3) maintenance costs
increase as vehicles get older and are
used beyond the recommended life,
(4) older vehicles depreciate in value
even when well maintained, (5)
revenues from resales decrease as
the City’s vehicles age which further
decreases purchasing power and
replacement values. Absent new ongoing revenues this dynamic is likely to continue. The additional $4 million
from Funding Our Future was intended to be ongoing for public safety vehicles but was removed in the FY21
budget and proposed to be restored in the FY22 budget. Restoration of higher funding levels will be necessary to
change the Fleet Fund’s dynamics and performance. Even if the $4 million was restored as ongoing additional
funding additional increases would still be needed over the next decade otherwise the Fleet Fund could return to
the same underfunded “vicious cycle” due to inflation and decreasing purchasing power.
This simplified model of the Fleet Fund’s experience over the past decade is a negative cycle. However, a positive
self-reinforcing cycle is also possible if new ongoing revenues are approved: new revenues increase purchasing
power which allow more vehicle replacements, maintenance costs decrease with younger vehicles which increase
vehicle values, and revenue from resales increase with a younger fleet creating more revenues that increase
purchasing power. Predictability in ongoing revenue and the ability to send vehicles to auction at industry
recommended times for greater resale revenue is a key factor to realize positive performance. The 10-year plan
presented to the Council in 2018 and updated annually since in large part sought to shift to this positive
reinforcement cycle, although identifying sources for this new revenue is a consistent challenge.
Fleet Management Advisory Committee (see Attachment 3 for 2019 Recommendations Report)
Two years ago, the Administration formed a Fleet Management Advisory Committee as an internal group with
representatives of the Mayor’s Office, Attorney’s Office, Council Office, Finance, Police, Fire, Public Services,
Sustainability, Public Utilities, and the Fleet Director. The Committee provides input on funding decisions,
policies, and vehicle purchases. The 2019 report includes seven recommendations and the summary is copied
below for reference. (Page 1)
In FY22, the Division stated plans for the committee include “building a comprehensive Fleet Use Police and
maintenance goals to address the use of City owned equipment, fleet services, and sustainability
goals/electrifying the fleet.” Right sizing the fleet is also expected to be an ongoing conversation as validating the
need for existing vehicles is reviewed. Another development is collaboration between the Sustainability
Department, Transportation Division and Fleet for zero emission vehicle infrastructure planning.
1. Recharge Purchasing Power – The Fleet Management Division’s budget has been flat for over a decade.
Increased demands for public safety services along inflation and at-fault accidents have added increased
pressure at current funding levels.
2. Resilient Purchasing – Departments will methodically consider economic and environmental factors
when evaluating appropriate vehicle purchases that meet the demands of the job.
3. Vehicle Utilization Reports – Departments will annually track and report vehicle utilization and be
subject to fleet adjustments based on the results of these reports.
4. Loaner Pool Modifications – Gain cost efficiencies by utilizing contractual ride share services and by
billing all General Fund departments for loaner pool use.
1. Decreasing
Purchasing
Power
(Inflation &
Flat Budget)
2. Fewer
Vehicle
Replacements
3. Increasing
Maintenance
Costs
4. Decreasing
Vehicle Value
5. Decreasing
Revenue from
Resale
Page | 5
5. Reevaluate Take-home Policies – These department-level policies are generally due for a mileage and fee
adjustment but should also address appropriately allocating these funds to offset fuel and maintenance
costs.
6. Sustainability Plans – Departments will be required to meet annually with the Department of
Sustainability to update and develop emission reduction plans and monitor yearly progress in reducing
carbon emissions.
7. Cash Purchases Goal – Continue to make strides in overall Fleet Management to eliminate restrictive
vehicle financing and make all purchases in cash by the year 2029. This will provide greater flexibility
and a reduced impact on budgets and the bottom-line cost of service.
Salt Lake City’s Fleet by the Numbers
The table below summarizes the City’s fleet (vehicles and major pieces of equipment like forklifts and trailers) by
department and estimated replacement value from largest to smallest. Note that the Airport (not listed)
separately operates and funds its fleet, and Enterprise Funds like Public Utilities, Golf, IMS, and Refuse and the
Gallivan Center fund their vehicle replacements and reimburse the Fleet Fund for fuel and maintenance. The
total number of General Fund vehicles is 1,141 plus an additional 312 major pieces of equipment.
Enterprise Funds have the following vehicles (not counting major equipment or the Airport): 347 Public
Utilities, 50 Refuse, 17 Golf, 5 IMS, and 2 at Gallivan Center.
Alternative Fuel and Electric Vehicles
Of all City vehicles except those at the Airport, 35% or 548 vehicles are alternative fuel or electric powered. The
Administration provided the below breakdown by vehicle type. The Division’s ability to advance the City’s
sustainability goals is generally dependent upon available funding levels for vehicle replacements, technology
available in the market for purchase and the rollout of electric infrastructure.
200 clean diesel vehicles
60 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles
33 electric vehicles
255 hybrid vehicles
SLC Renewable Sustainability Goals from July 2016 Joint Council-Mayor Resolution
1. 50% renewable energy for municipal facility operations by 2020 (2 years in the future)
2. 100% renewable energy for municipal facility operations by 2032 (14 years in the future)
De p art m e n t # o f Un it s Est i m at e d Re p lac e m e n t V al u e % o f T o t al
Po lic e 6 1 8 $2 8,4 4 3 ,0 0 7 4 2 .5 %
Par ks 3 0 7 $1 4 ,3 3 1 ,86 7 2 1 .1 %
St r e e t s 2 0 0 $2 6 ,0 0 4 ,9 9 1 1 3 .8%
Fir e 1 1 3 $3 3 ,3 3 9 ,5 4 4 7 .8%
Fac ilit ie s 7 5 $3 ,1 7 9 ,80 6 5 .2 %
CA N 6 8 $2 ,0 2 0 ,5 2 7 4 .7 %
Fle e t 3 9 $1 ,9 7 7 ,9 1 6 2 .7 %
Co m p lianc e 1 4 $5 89 ,3 82 1 .0 %
Y o ut h & Fa m ily 1 2 $4 5 3 ,6 7 2 0 .8%
9 1 1 De p ar tm e nt 4 $6 5 ,2 0 3 0 .3 %
Busine ss Lic e nsing 2 $5 6 ,1 9 0 0 .1 %
Engine e r ing 1 $3 ,0 6 4 0 .1 %
T OT A L 1,4 5 3 $110 ,4 6 5 ,16 9 10 0 .0 %
No t e : d o e sn't inc lud e Ent e rprise Funds A irp o rt , Go lf, I MS, Pub lic Ut ilitie s and Re fu s e
Page | 6
3. 100% renewable energy for community wide electricity supply by 2032 (14 years in the future)
4. 80% reduction in Salt Lake City’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 (22 years in the future)
a. Collaborating with Rocky Mountain Power could significantly move the City toward this energy
goal; however, it is insufficient alone to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
$453,704 Reduced Revenue from Take Home Fees Suspension in FY21
The Fleet Fund estimates the emergency proclamation suspending take home fees for City vehicles is estimated
to have reduced revenue for fuel reimbursements by $453,704 in FY21. This represents 16% of the fuel revenue
in the FY21 adopted budget. Note that take home vehicle fees go to the General Fund and not the Fleet Fund.
Leasing vs. Purchasing Vehicles
Leasing vehicles increases the Fleet Funds annual debt service payments. The Administration reports the
replacement budget has been basically flat at $5 million since 2005. Assuming a 3% rate of annual inflation
suggests the FY21 budget would need to be $7.8 million to have the same purchasing power as the 2005 budget.
In some recent years, the Fleet Fund spent approximately 80% of replacement budget funding on lease
payments. The other 20% was available for vehicle replacement.
Recent One-time Budget Amendment Funding for Police Vehicles
In Budget Amendment #4 of FY20 the Council appropriated $2.3 million to replace three large fire vehicles. In
Budget Amendment #1 of FY18 the Council authorized $2 million for the purchase of 50 new police vehicles. The
Administration reports all vehicles were purchased in bulk which saved $75,000. The FY19 budget included
$100,000 in expected maintenance on the 50 new vehicles. In Budget Amendment #2 of FY17 the Council
appropriated $1.5 million to purchase approximately 37 new police vehicles. The cost of a police vehicle is
approximately $54,000 which includes all modification costs to make ready (lights, sirens, logos, etc.) with GPS
and camera integration. Hybrid sedans are no longer available in the current market.
Budget Amendment #6 of FY20 includes $1,554,615 from the Volkswagen Eligible Mitigation Action Funding
Agreement. The City applied for and received this grant from the State of Utah, Department of Environmental
Quality for the Volkswagen Eligible Mitigation Action funding. Grant monies will be used to retire and replace
eleven current fleet diesel freight trucks with clean diesel freight trucks in the following departments/divisions:
Airport 2 vehicles
Public Utilities 2 vehicles
Public Services (Parks)3 vehicles
Pubic Services (Streets)1 vehicle
Fire Department 3 vehicles
Grant monies will fund up to 50% of the cost of the purchase price. The City is providing the matching funding
as follows: Fleet Internal Service Fund $2,058,734, Public Utilities $95,621, Airport $215,000
Tactics to Decrease Costs and Increase Efficiencies and Operational Challenges (See Attachment 5)
Over the past few years, the Fleet Division has pursued a variety of policies and practices to do more with a flat
budget. Examples include charging Enterprise Funds closer to the actual cost of service, right-sizing the fleet,
and implementing a web-based management platform to help departments better monitor and understand how
employees are using vehicles. Challenges remain to operations such as space limitation at the Fleet facility and
an aging fleet. See Attachment 5 for more on these tactics and challenges.
Performance Metrics
The Fleet Division provided the below metrics for recent fiscal years which are not shown in the Budget Book. In
addition, the Division has a target of overdue preventive maintenance inspections to stay below 20% of the City’s
vehicle fleet. Overdue preventive maintenance is at 14% for FY21 YTD.
Metric FY 2018
Actual
FY 2019
Actual
FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Target
Maintain Fleet mechanic productivity rate of
90% or more 92%92%95%90%
Achieve one-day turnaround for 70% or more
of vehicles 73%72%76%70%
Maintain 70+ vehicles per technician per year 88 86 82 70
Page | 7
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. Detailed Budget Comparison Chart
3. Fleet Management Committee’s 2019 Recommendations Report
4. 10-year Business Plan for Fleet Fund to Reach Ideal Vehicle Replacement Schedules
5. Tactics to Decrease Costs and Increase Efficiencies and Operational Challenges
ACRONYMS
AANI – Accident, Abuse, Neglect Incident protocol
ATV – All Terrain Vehicle
CNG – Compressed Natural Gas
FTE – Full Time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
GPS – Global Positioning System
TBD – To Be Determined
YTD – Year to Date
Page | 8
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY COMPARISON BUDGET CHARTS
Note: the FY22 Budget Book shows a different version of the above table on page B-9. This is an error that will
be corrected in the online version and final Council-adopted versions of the Budget Book.
Depart m en t
Bu dge t
FY 2 0 18-19
A c t u als
FY 2 0 19 -2 0
A c t u als
FY 2 0 2 0 -2 1
A do pt e d
FY 2 0 2 1-2 2
Pro po sed $ C h an ge %
C h an ge
Char ge s fo r Se r v ic e s 1 2 ,3 5 5 ,1 9 3$ 1 2 ,2 4 0 ,4 3 7$ 1 2 ,81 6,0 5 3$ 1 3 ,2 4 2 ,4 1 8$ 42 6 ,3 6 5$ 3 %
Ot he r Re v e nue 3 ,7 6 0 ,63 2$ 3 ,9 4 3 ,0 7 0$ 1 ,2 6 1 ,9 4 0$ 4 ,4 2 5 ,87 3$ 3 ,1 6 3 ,93 3$ 25 1 %
I nte r fund Tr ansfer s I n 5 ,9 1 4 ,3 6 2$ 1 1 ,89 3 ,1 0 0$ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 0 ,2 6 9,7 1 6$ 5 ,2 6 9 ,7 1 6$ 1 0 5 %
TOTA L Rev e nu e s 2 2 ,0 3 0 ,1 87$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 0 7$ 1 9 ,0 7 7 ,9 9 3$ 2 7 ,93 8,0 0 7$ 8,86 0 ,0 1 4$ 4 6 %
Fund Balanc e / Cash
Re se r v e s Use d 3 ,87 7 ,84 5$ -$ 1 3 1 ,2 7 8$ 1 5 2 ,5 6 8$ 2 1 ,2 9 0$ 1 6 %
T OT A L SOURC E S 2 5 ,9 0 8,0 3 2$2 8,0 7 6,60 7$19 ,2 0 9,2 7 1$ 2 8,0 9 0 ,5 7 5$8,881,3 0 4$ 4 6 %
Salt Lake Cit y Fleet Mana gement Fund
Capital a nd Op erat ing Budget Comparison
Page | 9
ATTACHMENT 2
DETAILED BUDGET COMPARISON CHART
Note: the FY22 Budget Book inadvertently left out the above table from page E-81 which will be updated in the
online version and final Council-adopted versions.
L in e I t e m FY 2 0 18-19
A c t u al s
FY 2 0 19 -2 0
A c t u al s
FY 2 0 2 0 -2 1
A do pt ed
FY 2 0 2 1-2 2
Pro po sed $ Ch an ge %
C h an g e
Mainte nanc e Billings 9 ,0 3 8,3 7 3$ 9 ,0 0 4 ,1 6 4$ 9 ,7 9 8,7 99$ 1 0 ,2 9 9 ,9 84$ 5 0 1 ,1 85$ 5 %
Fu e l Billings 2 ,85 2 ,7 7 5$ 2 ,6 6 7 ,3 3 4$ 2 ,84 2 ,0 5 4$ 2 ,9 4 2 ,4 3 7$ 1 0 0 ,3 83$ 4 %
Sale o f V e hic le s 3 68,5 0 0$ 6 1 5 ,2 6 9$ 6 7 ,4 95$ 2 80 ,47 0$ 2 1 2 ,97 5$ 3 1 6%
Ge ne r a l Fund
Trnasfe r fo r
Re p la c e m e nt
5 ,91 4 ,3 62$ 7 ,84 3 ,1 0 0$ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,3 1 8,80 0$ 3 1 8,80 0$ 6 %
Fu nding Our Fu tu r e
Transfe r fo r
Re p la c e m e nt
4 ,0 5 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 4 ,95 0 ,9 1 6$ 4 ,95 0 ,9 1 6$ -
Oth e r Re v e nue 5 1 2 ,5 1 1$ 5 83 ,45 5$ 3 6 9 ,6 45$ 1 ,1 4 5 ,4 0 3$ 7 7 5 ,7 5 8$ 2 1 0 %
De b t Pr o c e e d s
(financ e d e q uip m e nt
p u r c ha se s)
3 ,3 4 3 ,66 7$ 3 ,2 84 ,5 2 4$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 %
T OT A L Rev e n u e 2 2 ,0 3 0 ,188$2 8,0 4 7 ,84 6$19,0 7 7 ,9 9 3$ 2 7 ,9 3 8,0 10$ 8,86 0 ,0 17$ 46%
Pe r so nal Se r v ic e s 3 ,9 3 9 ,99 7$ 3 ,9 4 6,3 7 4$ 4 ,3 0 9,0 9 0$ 4 ,2 9 5 ,5 2 8$ (1 3 ,5 6 2 )$ 0 %
Par t s and Supp lie s
(e x c lu d ing fue l)4,6 89 ,1 6 0$ 3 ,82 7 ,5 5 9$ 4 ,3 1 1 ,7 1 8$ 4 ,4 4 7 ,87 5$ 1 3 6 ,1 5 7$ 3 %
Fu e l Pur c ha se s 2 ,5 4 0 ,1 7 8$ 2 ,0 3 4 ,5 9 5$ 2 ,2 4 0 ,1 3 7$ 2 ,5 9 4 ,9 9 9$ 3 5 4 ,86 2$ 1 6 %
Char ge s fo r Se r v ic e s 1 ,1 6 9 ,95 0$ 9 7 9 ,3 2 6$ 1 ,7 64,2 1 1$ 2 ,2 6 9 ,7 5 9$ 5 0 5 ,5 4 8$ 2 9 %
De b t Se r v ic e and
I nte r e st 3 ,4 5 0 ,0 3 9$ 3 ,3 7 6,3 4 7$ 4,1 2 5 ,87 2$ 3 ,7 9 8,9 2 4$ (3 2 6 ,9 4 8)$ -8%
Capita l Outla y
(financ e d)4,0 3 2 ,5 1 6$ 3 ,7 3 3 ,5 2 9$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 %
Capita l Outla y (no n-
financ e d)5 ,4 4 7 ,7 1 7$ 5 ,85 8,2 5 8$ 1 ,1 6 4 ,9 2 8$ 7 ,3 88,1 2 9$ 6 ,2 2 3 ,2 0 1$ 5 3 4 %
Transfe r s Ou t 91 4 ,7 1 6$ 2 9 2 ,0 3 3$ 2 9 3 ,3 1 5$ 2 95 ,3 6 1$ 2 ,0 4 6$ 1 %
T OT A L Ex pen se s 2 6,184 ,2 7 3$ 2 4 ,0 4 8,0 2 1$19,2 0 9,2 7 1$ 2 8,0 9 0 ,5 7 5$8,881,3 0 4$ 46%
C h an ge in Net
A sse t s (re v e n u es
le ss e x pe n ses)
(4 ,15 4,0 85 )$ 3 ,99 9 ,82 5$ (13 1,2 7 8)$ (15 2 ,5 6 5 )$ (2 1,2 87 )$
Sal t Lake Cit y Fl eet Ma na gement Fund
Det a iled Budget Comparison
Rev e n u e & Ot h e r So u rc e s
Ex pen se s & Ot h er Uses
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO
KEEP SALT LAKE CITY MOVING
FLEET MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
A STRATEGY FOR EFFICIENCY
APRIL 2019
To Whom It May Concern:
Since its establishment, the Fleet Management Committee has focused on setting sustainable goals
and strategies to increase the efficiency of Salt Lake City’s vehicle fleet. Our fleet includes vehicles
that keep the entire city running: public safety vehicles such as fire engines and police cars, snow
plows, multi-passenger vans for transportation at Youth & Family programs, employee loaner vehicles,
and more. The following seven recommendations aim to continue our city government’s fleet
management with optimal cost effectiveness, lessened environmental impact, and overall efficiency.
We thank you for taking the time to consider these recommendations. Please contact Isaac Astill, Fleet
Division Director and Fleet Committee Chair, with any questions about the content of this report at
(801) 535-6914.
RECHARGE PURCHASING POWER1.
The Fleet Management Division’s budget has been flat for over a decade. Increased demands for public safety services along inflation and
at-fault accidents have added increased pressure at current funding levels.
RESILIENT PURCHASING2.
Departments will methodically consider economic and environmental factors when evaluating appropriate vehicle purchases that meet the
demands of the job.
VEHICLE UTILIZATION REPORTS3.
Departments will annually track and report vehicle utilization and be subject to fleet adjustments based on the results of these reports.
LOANER POOL MODIFICATIONS4.
Gain cost efficiencies by utilizing contractual ride share services and by billing all General Fund departments for loaner pool use.
REEVALUATE TAKE-HOME POLICIES5.
These department-level policies are generally due for a mileage and fee adjustment, but should also address appropriately allocating these
funds to offset fuel and maintenance costs.
CASH PURCHASES GOAL7.
Continue to make strides in overall Fleet Management to eliminate restrictive vehicle financing and make all purchases in cash by the year
2029. This will provide greater flexibility and a reduced impact on budgets and the bottom line cost of service.
SUSTAINABILITY PLANS6.
Departments will be required to meet annually with the Department of Sustainability to update and develop emission reduction plans and
monitor yearly progress in reducing carbon emissions.
1 RECHARGE PURCHASING
POWER
Despite rising demand for public safety services in a growing city,
inflation, annual at-fault accidents, and rising vehicle prices, the Fleet
Management Division’s budget has been stagnant for over a decade.
Every fiscal year, the budget needed to maintain and update the Salt
Lake City Fleet far outpaces actual budget funds allocated to the Fleet
Management Division:
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 2
KEY VEHICLE
PRICE TRENDS
10-WHEEL DUMP TRUCK50% Price Jump,
2008-2020
POLICE VEHICLE45% Price Jump,
2008-2020
FIRE PUMPER TRUCK 72% Price Jump,
2008-2020
Given these constraints, the replacement schedule for all Salt Lake City
fleet vehicles is significantly protracted from the industry best practice of
a ten-year replacement timeframe. Ten years is regarded as the optimal
vehicle replacement time because after this point, maintenance costs
typically exceed a vehicle’s worth.
22 YEARS TO FULLY REPLACE
THE SALT LAKE CITY FLEET
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000
Needed Budget
Actual Budget
FY06-07
FY07-08
FY08-09
FY09-10
FY10-11
FY11-12
FY12-13
FY13-14
FY14-15
FY15-16
FY16-17
FY17-18
FY18-19
FY19-20
All departments are advised to make thoroughly informed decisions for their fleet purchases, weighing the
benefits and trade-offs of vehicle prices, carbon emissions, fuel economy, and employee preferences and
needs.
2 RESILIENT PURCHASING
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 3
2019 FORD FUSION HYBRID
FWD
2019 FORD EXPLORER AWD
FLEXIBLE FUEL VEHICLE (FFV)
Vehicle Cost*$37,600 $48,000
EPA Fuel Economy 42 MPG Combined City/Highway (43
MPG City, 41 MPG Highway)
18 MPG Combined City/Highway (16
MPG City, 22 MPG Highway)
Idle Time Potential Fuel Savings 483 Gallons/Year 466 Gallons/Year
Potential Fuel Savings (at $2.75/gallon)*$2,937/Year $2,225/Year
Overall Safety Rating
Green House Gas Emissions 212 Grams/Mile 481 Grams/Mile
Carbon Dioxide Potential Savings 27,421 Pounds 25,560 Pounds
IN PRACTICE: VEHICLE COST COMPARISON
**Note: Because each department is billed for their fuel consumption, fuel economy savings are observed in depart-
ments’ budgets, but not the Fleet Division budget.
*Vehicle costs include the base vehicle price plus additional make-ready costs, including safety equipment.
All Salt Lake City departments using fleet vehicles should track their vehicle usage and report usage per
vehicle to the Fleet Committee annually.
Currently, 202 of 1085 Salt Lake City fleet vehicles - or 19% of the city’s fleet - accrue fewer than 3,000
miles per year.
3 VEHICLE UTILIZATION
REPORTS
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 4
Departments with vehicles that accrue low annual mileage will be subject to additional review by the Fleet
Committee. In some cases, low mileage may not indicate low or unnecessary use of a vehicle, and low annual
mileage does not mean the Fleet Committee will automatically decrease a department’s fleet. Currently,
department vehicle usage under 3,000 miles per year, as a proportion of a department’s entire fleet, is as
follows:
Salt Lake City To tal Fleet Ve hicles
Fleet Ve hicles Under 3,000 Miles/Ye ar
Business Licensing
CED
Compliance Division
Facilities Division
Fire Department
Parks Division
Police Department
Streets Division
Youth & Family Division
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
43%
50%
8%
26%
22%
38%
10%
24%
71%
The Fleet Committee recommends that all General Fund Departments be billed for loaner pool use. Rates
will be:
4 LOANER POOL
MODIFICATIONS
$22 $41HALF DAY LOANER
VEHICLE RENTAL
FULL DAY LOANER
VEHICLE RENTAL
Additionally, the Fleet Committee recommends that Salt Lake City Corporation
establish a contract with a ride sharing company, i.e. Uber or Lyft. The
Sustainability Department has begun discussions to this end. Once
contracted rates for ride share services are established, each department
can determine whether or not paying for loaner pool vehicle usage or
opting for the contract-rate ride share service (i.e. Uber or Lyft) is a
better value for their department’s transportation needs.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 5
Several Salt Lake City departments have take-home policies for fleet vehicles. Currently, there is no policy
in place mandating frequent assessment of these policies. For example, the take-home policy for public
safety vehicles has not been evaluated for ten years. The Fleet Committee recommends a reevaluation of
all departments’ take-home policies, with fees collected from employees clearly marked and compared
to the maintenance and fuel costs for these vehicles.
5 REEVALUATE TAKE-HOME
POLICIES
The Police Department take-home policy offers a useful example. Currently, the Police Department take-
home vehicle policy allows vehicles to travel up to 35 miles away from Salt Lake City limits after work
hours. Officers travelling 35 miles one-way are charged $52.50/week to take their vehicle home with
them. However, the cost in fuel and maintenance for round-trip travel at that distance is $105/week. The
approximately 50% difference in expenses results in $50/week cost to the City, or $2,399/vehicle/year.
Fuel costs come out of the employees’ division, but additional costs in maintenance from increased wear
and tear in such long-distance travel go to the Fleet Division.
SALT LAKE
CITY
One-way distance: 15 miles
Fuel + maintenance = $44/week
Employees currently pay $22.50/week
CITY PAYS $21.50/WEEK = $1,032/YEAR
One-way distance: 25 miles
Fuel + maintenance = $73/week
Employees currently pay $37.50/week
CITY PAYS $35.50/WEEK = $1,704/YEAR
One-way distance: 35 miles
Fuel + maintenance = $102/week
Employees currently pay $52.50/week
CITY PAYS $50/WEEK = $2,399/YEAR
TAKE-HOME VEHICLE COST COMPARISON
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 6
Per the City’s Comprehensive Sustainability Policy, Departments are required to follow a variety of best
practices related to efficient fleet procurement, use, and management. A partial list of requirements are
included below and complete details are available in Executive Order 6.01.02.
6 SUSTAINABILITY PLANS
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 7
» Departments, and certain divisions, must complete and periodically update a
comprehensive Tailpipe Emissions Reduction Plan
» Vehicle procurement decisions must comply with the Tailpipe Emissions Reduction
Plan, including right-sizing vehicles and purchasing electric and/or hybrid vehicles,
where available
» Operators should not unnecessarily idle City vehicles, except for operational and
temperature exceptions detailed in the Executive Order
» Non-road equipment purchases should comply with 2-stroke engine restrictions and
portable fuel container equipment rules detailed in the Executive Order
The Fleet Management Division aims to eliminate restrictive vehicle financing and make all purchases in cash
by the year 2029. This will provide greater flexibility and a reduced impact on budgets and the bottom line
cost of service. Achieving this long term goal and shift in practice will be multi-faceted and require innovative
approaches, but is necessary to avoid budget years where fleet replacement budgets are committed
primarily to debt service as seen in the below forecast.
7 CASH PURCHASES GOAL
7 RECOMMENDATIONS TO KEEP SLC MOVINGPAGE 8
7 AT-FAULT ACCIDENTS
14 SUBROGATIONS
$233,595
COST TO THE CITY FY18-19
Currently, annual accidents (both at-fault and subrogations) decrease the Fleet Management Division’s ability
to move towards the goal of cash purchases. The fiscal impact of these accidents is depicted below:
0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000 Lease Payments Assumed
Lease Payments Commie d
FY24-25FY23-24FY22-23FY21-22FY20-21FY19-20FY18-19
Purchasing Power
Replacement Fund
Vehicle and Equipment replacement only (Excluding trailers, small mowers, etc)
All General Fund vehicles $13M funding
FY22-FY31
Budgeted Budgeted
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 % of Fleet
Revenue Purchased in 10 yrs
General Fund Adopted budget Transfer to Replacement Fund (Assumed 3.5% increase)9,050,000 5,000,000 13,050,000 13,507,000 13,980,000 14,469,000 14,975,000 15,499,000 16,041,000 16,602,000 17,183,000 17,784,000
Grant & Other Revenue (Including budget amendments)6,533,000 394,314
Sale of Vehicles 446,672 67,495 861,275 874,781 675,439 968,054 815,858 822,446 819,489 695,463 689,024 768,673
Financing Proceeds Replace - Lease Purchase agreement (Note 3)3,300,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 750,000 4,500,000 3,200,000 3,000,000 4,100,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 3,500,000
Total Revenue 19,329,672 6,461,809 16,911,275 17,381,781 15,405,439 19,937,054 18,990,858 19,321,446 20,960,489 19,797,463 20,372,024 22,052,673
Expense
New Vehicle parts and outsourced labor 99,499 38,679 795,187 602,090 460,277 521,170 612,224 436,487 706,654 705,466 703,649 573,072
NEP labor, allocated labor and expenses from Maintenance 514,950 528,385 555,000 583,000 612,000 643,000 675,000 709,000 744,000 781,000 820,000 861,000
Debt service (lease-purchase) - prior years (Note 1)3,048,999 3,855,406 3,362,614 3,479,742 3,867,811 3,228,581 3,404,079 3,445,283 3,117,776 3,572,421 3,456,547 3,027,534
Debt service (lease-purchase) - current year (Note 1) 548,673 186,126 386,264 390,612 130,907 631,261 439,321 545,598 604,905 358,452 394,480 551,148
Loaner Pool - Fuel & Maintenance 27,069 27,069 FY22 Proposing to move to Fleet Maintenance fund
Cash purchases for Undercover cars 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,001
Capital - Replace Fund cash purchases 5,311,030 876,612 8,712,211 9,226,337 9,484,444 10,313,042 10,560,234 11,085,078 11,587,154 11,780,124 12,397,348 13,439,918
Capital - Replace Fund financed purchases - current year (Note 3)3,300,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 750,000 4,500,000 3,200,000 3,000,000 4,100,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 3,500,000
Transfer to Refuse
Total Expense 12,950,220 6,612,277 16,911,275 17,381,781 15,405,439 19,937,054 18,990,858 19,321,446 20,960,489 19,797,463 20,372,024 22,052,673
Net 6,379,452 (150,468) (0) (0) 0 0 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) (0)
# vehicles purchased Total (approximately)25 106 133 111 116 142 109 159 136 120 123 86%
Notes
1 Financed lease schedules were assumed to stay below the $4Mil debt service cap
2 This projection assumes no additional vehicles or upgrades to vehicles
3 For accounting purposes, the lease schedules are accounted for as a revenue and an expense
4 A conservative 4% was used to increase the value each year for light vehicles and 7.5% increase for heavy vehicles.
5 This projection assumes no additional vehicles or upgrades to vehicles
6 After 10 years the percentage of Non Police inventory purchased is
7 In 2028 100% of Police inventory is complete
DRAFT published 11/20/2020 Page 1 of 1 Bus Plan 10 yr FY22 FY31 $13M ALL GF OPTIMAL UPDATED .xlsx FY22 FY $9M+$4M
ATTACHMENT 5
Tactics to Decrease Costs and Increase Efficiencies
Several changes were implemented or are planned to improve the Fleet Fund’s financial sustainability.
Staff noted the below tactics from recent years:
1. Web-based Fleet Management Platform – The system is active and additional features are
planned to be implemented. All departments have access to better monitor usage, vehicle
telematics, maintenance needs and expenses for their fleet and by individual vehicles. Another
benefit is the ability to automatically email maintenance reminders to vehicle owners. This allows
departments to better make data-driven decisions and monitor vehicle utilization reports.
2. Accident, Abuse, Neglect Incident (AANI) Protocol – The Fleet Fund charges back to departments
costs from avoidable/at fault incidents. The policy was implemented four years ago. This policy
was expanded in FY19 to include remaining lease payments if the vehicle is totaled. Currently, the
Fleet Fund continues to make lease payments on wrecked vehicles in addition to purchasing a
replacement vehicle which may delay regularly scheduled replacements. The Fleet Fund also
pursues subrogation (substitution of another person/entity for a debt claim) when a third-party is
found to be at fault.
3. Standardized Vehicle Orders – The Fleet Fund identified vehicles with best resale values,
safety/operational features and associated accessories. This is intended to simplify vehicle orders,
provide consistent levels of service across departments, and decrease long-term costs. Requests
for custom vehicle orders such as larger vehicles and upgraded interiors are declined;
departments are asked to select orders from the standard vehicle list.
4. Researching More Affordable Alternatives – The Fleet Fund evaluates vehicle options each year as
available makes and models change. Evaluations consider upfront and lifecycle costs to determine
which vehicles are the most cost effective long-term. For example, the Administration reports an
alternative chassis type for fire engines was purchased that saved the City nearly $40,000 per
unit.
5. Charging Enterprise Funds – In FY19 enterprise funds started to be charged for fleet vehicle use
and other service costs that were previously absorbed by the Fleet Fund such as motor pool use
and car washes.
6. Bulk Purchasing – The Fleet Fund purchases vehicles in bulk orders to receive discounts when
opportunities allow. The recent bulk purchase of 50 new police vehicles yielded a savings of
$1,500/vehicle or $75,000. Another example is bulk fuel purchases which saves approximately
24¢ per gallon compared to using State Fueling Cards.
7. Oil Sampling – This program was implemented five years ago and allows the Fleet Fund to reduce
oil change expenses. The estimated savings on materials and labor is $71,500 annually.
8. Right-size Fleet – A joint effort among Fleet, Public Services and Finance meets with each
department within the City. Departments were asked to justify vehicle needs. As a result, of these
discussions, Fleet identified 38 units that will not have to be replaced. Efforts to “right-size” the
fleet are ongoing, and the Fleet Advisory Committee participates in the process.
Operational Challenges
Recent changes in the City are creating new operational challenges for the Fleet Fund including:
1. Second Streets Maintenance Crew – Creation of a second Streets Crew using optional sales tax
revenues increased the number of vehicles and equipment maintained by the Fleet Fund.
2. Space Limitations – The Fleet Facility was built in 2009 and is nearly at capacity. The
Administration reports space remains for one more mechanic and storage space is limited for the
growing number of vehicles and equipment. Decreasing the maintenance workload is an
alternative approach to investing in more space for additional mechanics.
3. Fewer Mechanics per Vehicle – The industry standard is one mechanic per 48 vehicles (1:48). The
greater number of vehicles per mechanic means it will take longer to get through preventative
maintenance rotation and deal with major breakdowns. The Fleet Fund also services 2,400 pieces
of equipment such as lawn mowers, backhoes and asphalt machines. 12 additional mechanics
would be needed to meet the 1:48 mechanic ratio for all equipment and vehicles maintained by
Fleet.
4. Aging Fleet – 245 (22%) of General Fund vehicles are beyond the industry expected life and
recommended for replacement. Additional vehicles are beyond the industry expected life but not
recommended for replacement due to various circumstances such as recently repaired or
relatively low mileage compared to age. A comparison of vehicle ages across 13 classes concluded
the average vehicle age in each class significantly increased from 2008 to 2017. Over the same
time, maintenance billings to the General Fund increased 170%. The Administration reports
heavy duty and police vehicles are most of these obsolete units. The routine maintenance
necessary to keep older vehicles running is more expensive in the long-term than scheduled
replacement, have lower miles per gallon and emit higher greenhouse gas emissions
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
Fleet Services
Fleet Services Fund | Public Services Dept.
Maintenance Customer
Service
Parts
Warehouse Admin
Driving Towards Our Future
Fleet By the Numbers
1,580
Vehicles
2,400+
Pieces of
Machinery
20
Motor Pool
Vehicles
16
Fuel Stations
Fuel totals
FY20: 1,123,500
FY21 (projected):
1,112,13*
*Fuel usage impacted by
COVID
45 FTE
29 are mechanics; 1.48 hourly
10,607
FY20 Work Orders
Completed
FY21 Work Orders (to
date): 7,350
Organizational Structure
Division Director
Nancy Bean
Office Facilitator
Gina Robertson
Supervisor
Ronnie Ogden
Daily Ops Manager
Jay Spencer
Supervisor
Max Burr
Supervisor
Vacant
Asset Manager
Brandon Houghton
Financial Analyst
Denise Sorenson
Budget | FY 2022
FY22 Budget
Total Fleet maintenance expense is
proposed to increase $821,896 (FY21
unfunded needs plus FY22 needs)
Key Changes
•FY21 unfunded -$246,580
•Fuel -$108,282
•Parts -$133,467
•GPS expenses -$179,600
•Misc. -$153,967
FY21 Unfunded,
246,580
GPS Expenses,
179,600
Misc, 153,967
Parts, 133,467
Fuel, 108,282
Key FY22 Changes
Funding Our Future
Public Safety
$4m to replace Fire apparatus (two
engines, one Quint, one water tanker,
one hazmat truck, and three ATV for
emergency medical response)
•Investing now builds reserve capacity to
better address wildfires and other public
health emergencies
•A single piece of fire equipment may take 18-
24 months from purchase to delivery
•All electric engines are on the market to test
Funding Our Future
Streets
$950,916 to replace two sweepers, one
paver, and miscellaneous equipment to
improve road maintenance
•Over the last two years, Streets FOF funding
has decreased $998,553
•Hybrid street sweepers are under review but
are $400,000 more per sweeper
•Exciting new ZEV technology in the mid-duty
vehicle class
Fleet Replacement Funding
4,750,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,260,800
200,000
1,786,201 1,945,000
-130,600 -
4,050,000
4,950,916
4,950,000 5,123,250 5,302,564 5,488,153 5,680,239 5,879,047 6,084,814
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Proposed
Replacement Funding vs. 3.5% Estimated Inflation Increase
Budgeted Budget amendment Funding our Future 3.5% Inflation increase (est.)
Fleet 10-Year Plan
This plan’s goal is to sustain a healthy replacement plan to capitalize on resale value and decrease
maintenance costs. This trajectory would have 86% of our fleet replaced by 2033.
The higher the
maintenance &
repair costs
Inflation
continues to rise
Resale values
decrease
The longer vehicles operate past their optimal replacement date…
3,050,000 3,507,000 3,980,000 4,469,000 4,975,000 5,499,000 6,041,000 6,602,000
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
FY20 FY21 FY22 Proposed FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30
Budgeted Budget amendment Funding our Future Needed (funding gap)3.5% Inflation increase (est.)
Fleet Replacement –Ten Year Projection
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
Questions & Comments
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Jennifer Bruno, Allison Rowland
DATE:May 25, 2021
RE: FY2022 BUDGET – GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
- Key Changes, B-38 to B-39
- Department Overview, C-8 to C-9
- Staffing, F-38 to F-39
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Golf Enterprise fund collects the revenue generated and pays most of its expenses associated with the
activities of SLC Golf, currently a division of the Public Services Department, although the Mayor’s
recommended budget proposes to shift this division to a new Department of Public Lands. SLC Golf operates
six golf courses, providing greens maintenance; golf clinics, camps, lessons, and events; and management of
retail pro shops, cafés, and cart rentals.
The recommended budget for the Golf Fund would increase by $1.36 million (15%) for Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22),
for a total of $10.4 million. In recent years, the Golf Fund has relied increasingly on subsidies from the general
fund to remain financially solvent. The FY22 recommended budget would raise the total subsidy to the Golf
Fund to $1.8 million from $1.7 million in FY 21. (see summary chart on page 4 for detail).
Key elements of the budget proposal include:
•Proposing an additional $1 per round CIP fee (bringing the CIP fee to $2 per 9 hole round) to help
the Golf Fund catch up on years of deferred maintenance. Note: this fee is not included in the
proposed Consolidated Fee Schedule, as the Golf Division is proposing that this fee be introduced
for the 2022 calendar year. If the Council is supportive of the fee, the Administration will forward
an amendment to the CFS and the Golf Ordinance.
•Continuing general fund transfers for various Golf fund expenses, to free up resources so that Golf
can begin investing in deferred capital projects (more on this on page 4)
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 25, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, June 1
Potential Action: June 15 (TBD)
Page | 2
•Continuing the centralized call center model for course reservations (started in 2020 as a pilot)
with savings realized from staffing restructuring within the department. The Administration notes
this has improved customer data collection and distributed workload more efficiently.
Typically, Golf Fund revenue is generated by user fees, including green fees, cart rental fees, range ball fees,
merchandise purchases, lessons, concessions and rental fees. The 2020 season showed a turnaround in rounds
played trends, as SLC Courses were re-opened before County courses, and local residents were not traveling as
often, and looking for ways to safely recreate outside.
KEY BUDGET ISSUES & POLICY QUESTIONS
A. Golf Fund Revenue and Rounds Trends. Golf revenue appears to have improved slightly in recent
years, since reaching a low in FY17. The slight increases in earned revenue in recent years are significant to
the extent they indicate the potential of the Golf Fund to improve its financial position. However, the Golf
Fund has continued to experience difficulties in fully covering operating expenses at the City’s six golf
courses as well as capital expenditures. This is why the Administration is proposing to continue the
previous years of general fund transfers for FY 22 (detailed in the next section).
•In 2020 there was an uptick in rounds at all courses except for Rose Park. Revenue was slightly
up at all courses from the previous year except at Rose Park, Nibley and Forest Dale.
•In general greens fees provide about 40% of annual revenue. Cart rentals provide nearly 15% of
annual revenue; Retail sales and Driving ranges combined add another 10.5%.
•Personnel costs are typically around 48% of the total, including part-time, seasonal workers.
Water and upkeep costs are also difficult to reduce while preserving the City asset and
maintaining playability.
Note: This chart does not reflect transfers from the General Fund.
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 Actual FY 20 Budget FY 21 FY 22
Golf Revenue Sources and Trends
Green Fees
Golf Cart Rental
Driving Range Fees
Retail Merchandise Sales
CIP Fee on rounds, passes
Page | 3
Note: Rounds at Mountain Dell reflect two 18 hole courses.
B. General Fund transfers/subsidy – The Administration is proposing to continue the practice started in
FY 17 of transferring funds from the General Fund to cover various expenses in the Golf Fund. The
Administration indicates that all of these transfers are necessary in order enable the Golf fund to use it’s
“CIP Fee” dollars (which is proposed to increase from $1 to $2) for capital expenditures instead of helping
balance out operational expenses. See background section on page 8 for more on this concept, including
research indicating other municipal courses following similar paths. The recommendations are as follows,
and are reflected in the Non-Departmental budget:
Mayor’s Recommended Budget FY21 Subsidy and FY20 Comparison
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
FY
1
9
BO
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
FY
2
0
FY
1
9
GL
E
N
D
A
L
E
FY
2
0
FY
1
9
FO
R
E
S
T
D
A
L
E
FY
2
0
FY
1
9
MO
U
N
T
A
I
N
D
E
L
L
FY
2
0
FY
1
9
NIB
L
E
Y
P
A
R
K
FY
2
0
FY
1
9
RO
S
E
P
A
R
K
FY
2
0
Revenue Green Fees Driving Range Golf Cart Rental Pass Sales Concessions Retail Sales Other
Actual Revenues by Course
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Bonneville Forest Dale Glendale Mountain Dell All Nibley Park Rose Park
Trends in Rounds Played, by Course
Page | 4
C. Golf CIP. The proposed budget includes a $1 per 9 hole increase to the Golf CIP Fee (raising it to $2 for 9
holes). Note: this fee is not included in the proposed Consolidated Fee Schedule, as the Golf Division is
proposing that this fee be introduced for the 2022 calendar year. If the Council is supportive of the fee, the
Administration will forward an amendment to the CFS and the Golf Ordinance.
•The proposed increase, along with the General Fund transfers, will allow the Golf Division to begin
some of the much needed, deferred capital projects. Attachment 1 includes a list of capital projects
by course, estimated costs, and priority, totaling $31.4 million. The Division acknowledges that the
revenue generated from these fees are not sufficient to catch up on all of these projects and is
investigating longer-term solutions.
•FY21 Legislative Intent. In a FY21 legislative intent, the Council asked the Administration to
clarify the long-term plan for the Golf Fund’s CIP. The Administration indicates that given revenue
uncertainty, there is only a short term plan at this point.
• No Golf CIP projects were included in the recently-transmitted $50m bond proposal from the
Administration, although staff has confirmed they would be eligible if the Council wished to add.
•The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the financing plan to address needed
irrigation improvements, as those could help lower operational expenses (staffing, water).
•Background – The Golf CIP fund was established as the repository for a Council-initiated surcharge
of $1 per round for the purpose of catching up on deferred maintenance and critical capital projects
at all City courses. At the time it was established the Council’s intent was that these funds not be used
to cover operational deficits. However, in years with an operations deficit, the Golf CIP fund had
been used to “balance” short-term transfers from the general fund so that operations can continue,
from an accounting perspective. Transfers/subsidies from the General Fund have helped alleviate
this situation.
D. Water/Drought Planning – Water costs affect the operational budgets of the Golf Fund as well as the
overall water usage in the valley. Although each year the water budgets are fixed, weather conditions
determine actual expenditures. Staff inquired with the Golf division given the drought conditions this year.
The Administration provided the following response (emphasis added by staff given public interface):
The 2020 golf season experienced drought conditions requiring more irrigation to tees and
greens which resulted in increased costs over budget. In cooperation with Public Utilities and in
support of eventual Stage II drought preparation, Golf is already planning on a 5% reduction in
water usage in FY22. While this should keep Golf within the budgeted cost amount, if
drought conditions continue, public golfers will notice a dramatic decrease in playing
FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 MRB
Reimburse fees paid by the
Golf Fund to IMS $138,880 $200,000 $200,000 Ongoing
Reimburse other
Administrative Fees paid to
the general fund
$220,000 306,582 315,779 Ongoing
General fund su bsidy to the
Golf Fund (limited to two
years)
$500,000 500,000 500,000 Intended to be
one-time
Living wage/CCAC
Adjustments $181,000 246,000 370,100 ongoing
General fund transfer to
the Golf Fu nd to su pport
the payments for Golf
ESCOs (structured as a
loan)
$445,078 460,585 484,000
Ongoing until
2032; amount
increases
annually to
$677,044
Total $1,484,958 $1,713,167 $1,869,879
Golf Fu nd Effect on
Gen eral Fu nd
Page | 5
conditions and turf appearance as some turf areas, including out-of-play areas, may
go dormant from a lack of water. We will again focus on the health of tees and greens with other
areas seeing more impact from lack of water.
The following chart details actual water expenditures by course.
E. Fund Balance. The recommended budget shows a $503,732 increase in Golf’s fund balance (page B-38),
and a $198,964 increase in the Golf CIP fund balance. Because the General Fund is subsidizing in the
amount of $1.8 million, effectively this means the General Fund is facilitating the growth of Golf’s fund
balance. It does allow Golf to do longer-term planning with regard to budget strategy. The Council may
wish to evaluate this strategy in light of other General Fund needs.
F. Indirect and Non-Financial Benefits of Golf’s Green Space. The Golf Fund owns over 1,000 acres
of property across six courses—a substantial amount of publicly-owned green space. Over a third of this
area (381 acres) sits outside the urban area, at Mountain Dell in Parley’s Canyon, and serves as City
watershed protection.
GOLF PROPERTY
Course Maintained acres Other acres Total acres
Bonneville 125 55 180
Forest Dale 55 6 61
Glendale 160 16 176
Mountain Dell 260 121 381
Nibley 46 6 52
Rose Park 140 16 156
Total 786 220 1,006
Former Golf properties
Jordan River Par 3 22 - 22
Wingpointe 172 194
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
Bonneville Glendale Forest Dale Mountain Dell Nibley Park Rose Park
FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Page | 6
The Administration has indicated that there are Citywide benefits to maintaining golf courses as partially-
funded green open space, though they acknowledge that the non-golf benefits are experienced by most
taxpayers in a passive manner. In response to a question from FY 21, the Division noted:
“Much of the non-golf use is passive in nature, and the access and
preservation of the open public spaces provide many opportunities and
benefits to the public such as:
•Trees and Open Space. Contributes benefits to air quality, urban
heat islands, urban wildlife interfaces and
•Other activities include winter time access, walking, snowshoe,
dogs, and trails.
•Public access to clubhouse and cafe’s
•Public meeting space at Forest Dale
•Jordan River Trail Glendale and Rose Park
•Disc Golf and Footgolf at Rose Park”
G. Parks and Golf Expenses Comparison. In 2017, at the request of the Council, the Public Services
Division provided a comparison of annual maintenance and operations costs-per-acre for Liberty Park
($10,682 per acre) versus the average for golf courses ($7,288 per acre). These were offered as only rough
figures, since at that time data collection was not as systematic. There were also a number of important
limitations to the data, including that Liberty Park has especially high costs because of special features and
events, as well as year-around use. In addition, most golf courses were not on secondary water at the time,
though Liberty Park was already. The Department offered to provide more detailed figures for comparison
once the Accela program was operable. An update to this comparison would be useful, specifically, for
parks of different classes (regional, community, neighborhood) and each of the golf courses. Data on
average daily users would also be of interest, since most parks are used much more intensively than golf
courses. The Public Services Department is hopeful that the cartegraph sytem will help them provide more
site-specific data.
H.Fees and Market Comparison – Given the proposed increase in CIP fees, staff inquired about
competitiveness in the market area. The Administration indicates they are comfortable with this proposed
increase, and has provided the following information for context:
The average weekend 9-hole rate (without cart rental) for 12 courses within
our competitive market zone is $17.09. With the $1 per 9-hole round CIP
increase (implemented in January 2022, the six City courses will have an
average weekend 9-hole rate (without cart rental) of $18.17. This is without
knowing what increases the competing courses would undertake. Beyond the
increase in the CIP fee, the Golf Division does not proposed increasing other
green fee rates in 2022.
Page | 7
I. FY 20 Legislative Intent - The Council asked the Administration to examine the open space zone
ordinance to remove barriers to providing flexible food and beverage options at golf courses. To the extent
that barriers exist in State law the Council requested an analysis of those, and that changing them be
identified as a future legislative priority. The response from the Division was the following for the FY 21
budget cycle, staff is providing it again for reference as it may still be of interest to the Council to discuss:
“Golf Food and Beverage Options. Golf recently completed an RFP process to
secure a concessionaire for the café operations at Bonneville, Forest Dale,
Glendale, Nibley Park, and Rose Park locations and are in the final contract
negotiations with the selected vendor with anticipated operations beginning
by the end of March. We are coordinating with the selected vendor to establish
expanded operational hours at select locations to provide year-round
breakfast and lunch options to the general public. We will continue to work
with the selected vendor to explore improvements to the existing facilities that
will make them more appealing and conducive to the new offerings. The
selected vendor has indicated a willingness to invest their capital in necessary
facility improvements up to a maximum of $15,000 per location. We
recommend that the City provide a matching investment in helping to fund
these needed improvements so that they become a draw for the public, not
just golfers.”
J. Council Policy Principles. A number of Golf Fund policy issues come up with regularity over the years.
The Council adopted Guiding Policy Principles for Changes to the Golf Enterprise Fund (Attachment 2) in
2014. The Council may wish to discuss whether it would be helpful to review and update these to determine
relevance to the FY22 budget and policy goals of the Council at this point.
1. The City has a longstanding general policy of not subsidizing enterprise funds with general tax
dollars, and the Council’s Policy Principles discourage general fund subsidies to the Golf Fund
specifically, although in recent years there have been limited exceptions made to this rule. As part
of these guiding policy statements, the Council also agreed that City-owned open space should be
protected.
Page | 8
2.The traditional rationale for charging recreation fees for some amenities is related to the need for
“exclusive” use of recreation facilities, like baseball diamonds and soccer fields during league play,
or park pavilions for parties. Golf has been considered more similar to these exclusive uses than to
“non-exclusive” uses like walking on a trail or playing catch on a grassy area, but there may be
reasons to re-examine this view given the passive and/or indirect benefits identified above.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Golf Advisory Board. The terms of all current board members have expired. Names were submitted to
the previous Administration but no additional appointments have been recommended. City policy allows
appointees to continue serving until a new appointment is made. The Council may wish to ask for
the status of this board.
B. Comparative Research in 2019. The Finance Department conducted a review of many municipally-
owned golf course systems around the country, as well as a more in-depth review of the accounting laws
governing enterprise funds in the State of Utah.
Key takeaways from the Administration following their review:
•Cities of Salt Lake City’s population size do not typically have such extensive public golf
systems. Most of the comparisons are with larger cities in the West.
•No other system studied charges administrative fees—although the same municipalities do
charge fees to other enterprise funds.
•All but one municipal system operated with a structural and persistent deficit. All those
deficits were supplemented with ongoing support of the municipal general fund.
•The State of Utah has legal and accounting barriers that the Finance Department has
interpreted to prohibit simply “absorbing” the Golf Fund into the City general fund. They
appear to mean that SLC Golf must remain a separate enterprise fund. To confirm this
interpretation, the Attorney’s Office has been asked to provide an opinion on the matter.
•Similarly, there are legal and accounting barriers to the general fund “assuming” the Golf
Fund’s ESCO (existing secondary water-system debt). However, the general fund is
permitted to provide funds to the Golf Fund to pay these debts.
•The Administration does not indicate any interest in selling or developing Golf property
for a different use.
Given the proposed elimination of Administrative Fees currently paid to the general fund by other
Enterprise funds (such as the Airport), the Council may wish to request the Administration’s key
public policy findings that support the notion of not charging Administrative fees and
supporting the debt of an enterprise fund. There is close scrutiny on the topic of Administrative
fees, which is the allocation of expenses to departments and entities. To preserve the integrity of the City’s
cost allocation system, the Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a more formal
assessment of the public benefit and reasoning for this change to be included in the public record.
C. Nibley “Golf Entertainment Facility” RFI. In February 2019, the previous Administration published
a Request for Information (RFI) on February 11, 2019 designed to improve services at Nibley Golf Course.
It was described as an opportunity to develop “a neighborhood scale Golf Entertainment Facility” that
Page | 9
would improve the course and public access at Nibley Park. Lease and other revenues were to be used to
support improvements to clubhouse facilities and golf course conditions at other Salt Lake City public golf
course locations. (A more complete description can be found in Attachment C1.) When it closed on April
10, 2019, no responses had been submitted. In response to a request, the Golf Division’s listed the following
as their understanding of the reasons for this result:
It is not known for certain as to why no one responded but based upon
conversations with others who have approached the City in an effort to form a
“PPP” we have heard a few things which may include the lack of response.
•Our experience with private entities wanting access to our public land often
results in a considerable ask from us for capital investments. In the RFP we
were placing that burden on the bidder.
•We find in our conversations with folks wanting to form a “Partnership” that
they are largely interested in maintaining full control of the property and we
would simply receive a check if there were profits or for an agreed to lease
rate. We are anxious about entering into an agreement where we “turn over
the keys” or privatize the public spaces.
•We have discussed limited exposure to other efforts within the valley. But, I
understand that with one project there was a barrier to completing the
agreement due to LEED development requirements and the expense that
placed upon the developer.
•We continue to meet with parties who may be interested in making
investments in the public spaces and are always willing to listen to their sales
pitch.
➢Given the lack of responses to the RFP, the Council may wish to ask the
Administration how they will use this experience to inform future RFPs for
Nibley and other courses, including the “Rose Park Golf Course and Jordan Par 3 Park
Area Improvement Concept,” discussed in the next section.
D. Wingpointe Golf Course. The previous Administration was working with a private group that was
exploring partnerships to reopen Wingpointe.
➢Would the Council like to request an update on this project from the Administration?
E. General Background. As an enterprise fund, the Golf Fund is charged with managing and maintaining
the courses within the revenues that it can generate through its operations. The Council has been
concerned about the financial sustainability of the Golf Fund since at least 2007. As early as 2004, deficits
began to appear in the Golf Fund, though these problems typically were described as temporary anomalies,
rather than longer-term structural issues, and were covered with the Golf Fund’s then-substantial fund
balance, that was built up in the late 90s and early 2000s when Golf was significantly more profitable.
In 2014, after then-Mayor Ralph Becker indicated that he would close courses to address these budget
issues, the Council adopted a series of policy statements to define their shared view of how the system
should serve golfers, as well as the limits of what could be done to change the system (Attachment 2). Later
that year, the Council embarked on a process of information gathering and pursued an extensive process to
gather ideas from the public. The Council also hired a municipal finance consultant to identify options that
could help the Golf Fund maintain financial solvency over the long term. In late 2014 and early 2015, a
Council-appointed citizen task force reviewed all the information assembled, including the consultant’s
report and all of the public’s ideas for Council consideration, and provided their recommendations to the
Council. The process culminated in the Council’s own recommendations to the Administration in February,
2015 (Attachment 3).
Page | 10
Then-Mayor Biskupski’s Administration was optimistic about potential for Golf’s turnaround, and
proposed a more incremental approach to change along with more general fund financial support. The
guiding policy ultimately articulated was that City golf courses should be subsidized because they are
“public open spaces” that nearly pay for themselves—unlike traditional parks, which do not raise
significant revenue to offset their own maintenance costs. Another initiative was to plan for more trail uses
at Jordan Par 3 and around Rosepark, which would require substantial capital investment (a formal plan
has not been transmitted, and funds for these plans have not been identified). As noted above, an RFI was
published for a “TopGolf”-like experience at Nibley (2019), but did not attract any proposals.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – List of Golf Capital Improvement Projects
Attachment 2. 2014 Guiding Policy Principles for Changes to the Golf Enterprise Fund
Attachment 3. 2015 Council Motion - Recommendations to the Administration Options to Address Long-
Term Golf Fund Issues
Page | 11
Attachment 2. Guiding Policy Principles for Changes to the Golf Enterprise Fund
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
GUIDING POLICY PRINCIPLES FOR CHANGES TO
THE GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
(adopted August 1, 2014)
1.Make decisions based on the best interest of Salt Lake City residents.
2.The status quo is not financially sustainable.
3.The Golf Fund should be self-sustaining and without general fund subsidy.
4.Making changes to the status quo operation plan improves the Golf Fund’s financial position, but does not
position it well enough for long-term financial independence, nor would it allow any Capital Improvement
needs to be met. This includes measures like:
•reducing water usage,
•converting course irrigation systems to secondary water sources,
•increasing rounds of golf played,
•raising fees nominally and tweaking other operation expense budgets.
5.All City courses are valuable and serve a distinct clientele and niche in the market. All have the potential to
draw more customers as there are no courses that are 100% utilized.
6.The increase in the number of golf courses in the past 25 years relative to the number of golfers makes it
difficult to significantly improve the financial position of the Golf Fund.
7.Oversupply puts downward pressure on pricing for all golf courses in the market.
8.It is possible that reducing the number of golf courses may improve the overall financial sustainability of
the region’s golf market.
9.Neighborhood quality of life is enhanced by adjacent open space, regardless of use, and therefore should be
protected.
10.Commercial development on open space should be avoided wherever possible.
11.It is the fiduciary responsibility of the City Council to provide guidance to solve the Golf Fund’s long term
financial problems.
12.Any re-purposing of golf courses should add value for the neighborhood and its residents, and benefit
residents through high quality amenities.
13.All solutions for the Golf Fund’s financial issues will be evaluated on a 10-year basis.
14.Individual courses will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
•rate of change of rounds (growth or decline)
•revenue per round.
15.Investigate innovative financing and zoning to support economic development and revenue generation
adjacent to golf courses.
16.Funds generated through the $1 per round CIP Fee, shall be dedicated to CIP purposes, and not used to
balance the operational deficit.
Page | 12
Attachment 3. Salt Lake City Council Recommendations to the Administration:
Options to Address Long-Term Golf Fund Issues
Motion adopted by the Council on February 23, 2015
1. Transfer Wingpointe Golf Course operations to the Airport immediately and encourage the
Airport to continue to operate it as a golf course, an attractive entry way and a potential revenue
producer for the Airport’s otherwise vacant property.
2. Close Glendale Golf Course and repurpose for other open space uses.
3. Consider legal options to repurpose Nibley Golf Course.
4. Initiate a bond proposal this fall to ask voters to fund comprehensive improvements to regional
trails and open space, including transitioning closed golf courses and the former Jordan Par-3
course. Ideally, the bond would be comprehensive enough to provide resources to address a
variety of uses, incorporating foothills and integrating trail systems to create a unique park
connection system. The Council encourages the Administration to determine uses through a
public engagement process throughout the summer.
5. Incorporate secondary water as part of bond for all golf courses and potentially all parks. If a
bond is not successful, the general fund would cover the installation costs of secondary water.
6. Allow Glendale and Nibley, if applicable, to remain open for golf until new uses are shovel ready.
General Fund would provide any needed subsidy in the interim.
7. Forward two Request for Proposal (RFP) recommendations that the Council look at either/or:
a. an RFP to manage the entire golf system;
b. an RFP to hire a game-changer to oversee the Golf Fund;
c. not issuing an RFP.
Attachment - Golf CIP Needs by Course 5/20/2021
Course City Asset Deferred
Maintenance Project Priority Estimated
Year Estimated Cost
Bonneville Cart Path Construction High 2023 $ 750,000
Forest Dale Cart Path Construction High 2023 $ 130,000
Forest Dale Clubhouse Exterior
Painting High 2022 $ 20,000
Forest Dale Irrigation Controllers High 2022 $ 40,000
Forest Dale Resurface Parking Lot High 2022 $ 100,000
Glendale Cart Path Construction High 2023 $ 250,000
Glendale Resurface Parking Lot High 2023 $ 200,000
Mountain Dell Cart Path Construction High 2023 $ 1,000,000
Mountain Dell New Maintenance
Building High 2023 $ 500,000
Mountain Dell Resurface Parking Lot High 2022 $ 350,000
Nibley Park Irrigation System High 2025 $ 1,750,000
Rose Park New Irrigation System High 2022 $ 3,100,000
Rose Park Clubhouse Landscaping High 2021 $ 20,000
Rose Park Cart Path Construction High 2022 $ 200,000
Rose Park Maintenance Building High 2023 $ 500,000
Bonneville New Clubhouse Low 2030 $ 3,000,000
Bonneville Range Netting Repair Low 2028 $ 50,000
Mountain Dell New Clubhouse Low 2030 $ 5,000,000
Nibley Park New Clubhouse Low 2030 $ 1,500,000
Rose Park New Clubhouse Low 2035 $ 2,000,000
Glendale Clubhouse Roof
Replacement Medium 2026 $ 80,000
Mountain Dell Irrigation System Medium 2028 $ 4,500,000
Nibley Park Maintenance Building Medium 2025 $ 500,000
Nibley Park Debris Management Area Medium 2025 $ 30,000
Nibley Park Perimeter Fencing Medium 2024 $ 40,000
Rose Park Resurface Parking Lot Medium 2024 $ 200,000
Bonneville New Maintenance
Building Moderate 2026 $ 1,000,000
Bonneville Parking Lot Resurfacing Moderate 2022 $ 350,000
Bonneville Clubhouse Cart Staging
Area Resurfacing Moderate 2022 $ 15,000
Nibley Park Cart Path Construction High 2024 $ 100,000
Bonneville
New Driving Range
Dispenser/Range Tee
Pads
High 2021 $ 40,000
Bonneville Tee Box Leveling High 2022 $ 80,000
Glendale Tee Box Leveling High 2022 $ 80,000
Glendale Driving Range
Improvements High 2022 $ 80,000
Mountain Dell Tee Box Leveling High 2022 $ 160,000
Attachment - Golf CIP Needs by Course 5/20/2021
Mountain Dell
Driving Range
Dispenser/Shelter/Hitting
Pads
High 2022 $ 40,000
Nibley Park Driving Range
Improvements High 2022 $ 80,000
Nibley Park Tee Box Leveling High 2022 $ 42,000
Rose Park Driving Range
Improvements High 2022 $ 40,000
Rose Park Tee Box Leveling High 2022 $ 70,000
Bonneville Footbridge Repair Low 2028 $ 1,500,000
Possible matching
donation project
Glendale Banquet Pavilion Low 2030 $ 200,000
Forest Dale Walking Bridge
Repair/Restoration Medium 2025 $ 10,000
Possible donation
project
Mountain Dell Deck Extension Medium 2023 $ 250,000
Rose Park Bunker Renovation Medium 2024 $ 60,000
Bonneville New On-Course Snack
House/Restroom Medium 2024 $ 500,000
Bonneville Second On-Course
Restroom Medium 2026 $ 150,000
Bonneville New Bunker/ Short Game
Practice Area Medium 2023 $ 15,000
Bonneville Extended Deck on
Clubhouse Medium 2024 $ 250,000
Possible matching
funds from
concessionaire
Forest Dale On-Course Restroom Medium 2025 $ 150,000
Forest Dale Short Range Practice Area
Improvements Medium 2024 $ 30,000
Possible donation
project
Glendale On-Course Restroom Medium 2024 $ 150,000
Glendale Café Renovations -
Extended Deck Medium 2026 $ 30,000
Possible matching
funds from
concessionaire
Nibley Park Free 3-hole Practice Area Medium 2026 $ 150,000
Total 31,432,000$
Golf Division
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
Golf Enterprise Fund | Public Lands Dept.
Organizational Structure
Budget | FY 2022
Golf Director
Matt Kammeyer
Associate Golf Director
Kelsey Chugg
Bonneville GC
Golf Professional
Carl Sarahs
Course
Superintendent
Bryan Witzel
Forest Dale GC
Golf Professional
Steve Elliott
Course
Superintendent
Bill Echternkamp
Glendale GC
Golf Professional
Dave Carter
Course
Superintendent
Tyler Oldham
Mtn. Dell GC
Golf Professional
Jeremy Green
Course
Superintendent
Jampe Martinsson
Nibley Park GC
Golf Professional
Phillip King
Course
Superintendent
Brett Fornelius
Rose Park GC
Golf Professional
Ronnie Newren
Course
Superintendent
Mike Price
Financial Analyst
Bryce Lindeman
Key Division Goals
Division decisions and opportunities are guided by the four following goals:
Grow the Game
Develop programs that
introduce new segments
of players to the sport and
foster a love and respect
for the traditions and
values of the game.
Develop Our Talent
Provide improved employee training and leadership opportunities, resulting in increased efficiencies and customer service.
Improve the Assets
Find ways to improve the appearance, playability, functionality, and efficiency of City-owned courses and clubhouses.
Be a Community Partner
Seek opportunities to responsibly integrate golf assets and programs into the community, providing increased value to both golfers and non-golfers.
Golf Division By the Numbers
Acres of Maintained Open Space
Free Practice Areas
Annual Golf Rounds (5-year avg.)
LoyalTee Discount Card Members
% of Reservations Made Online
Social Media Followers
Play SLC Golf App Downloads
Customer Email Database
1,012
15
357,937
1,338
54%
28,560
18,771
52,828
Events
Men's League Participants
Women's League Participants
Junior League Participants
Corporate and Group Events
Women's Clinic Participants
Junior Clinic Participants
968
520
142
96
66
958
Operations
Course Benefits
In addition to providing quality recreation
amenities to the community, the golf course
ecosystem:
•Captures and cleanses runoff in urban areas
•Provides wildlife habitat
•Protects topsoil from water and wind erosion
•Improves community aesthetics
•Absorbs and filters rain
•Improves air quality via trees, turf, and other
plants
•Discourages pests and reduces weed incursions
and negative pollen releases
•Makes substantial contributions to the
community's economy
461,655
421,035 423,432 415,831
365,671
343,670 355,655 350,550
374,139
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
9
-
H
o
l
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
R
o
u
n
d
s
TOTAL SLC GOLF ROUNDS | FY12-FY20
Closure of Wingpointe
& Jordan River Par-3
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Bonneville Glendale Forest Dale Mtn Dell Nibley Rose Park Wingpointe JRP3
9
-
H
o
l
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
R
o
u
n
d
s
COURSE ROUNDS OF GOLF BY FISCAL YEAR | FY12-FY20
FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
July August September October November December January February March April
COVID-19 IMPACT
FY21 MONTHLY ROUNDS VS. 5-YEAR AVERAGE
5-Year Avg FY21
9
-
H
o
l
e
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
R
o
u
n
d
s
Golf FY22 Budget
Personal Services,
4,250,470
Non-Operating
Expenses, 1,568,248
Charges & Services,
957,316
Operating Supplies,
774,936
Water, 714,900
CIP, 714,469
Retail
Merchandise,
551,088
Utilities, 165,990
Proposed -$9,697,417
Key Changes
General Fund Transfers -$1,869,909
•Living Wage and CCAC Salary Adjustments Transfer -$370,100
•ESCO Payment Transfer -$476,633
•City-Related Administration Fee Transfer -$323,176
•IMS Fee Transfer -$200,000
•Golf Fund Balance Deficit Transfer -$500,000
Golf CIP Fund FY22 Initiatives -$237,836
•Range Improvements -$177,836
•Tee Box Leveling -$60,000
New Call Center
•Call Center FY22 cost -$40,173
•8 part time employees covering 18-20
shifts per week
•Open daily from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Online
Reservations,
54%At Course
(Includes Walk-
Ups), 31%
Call Center,
15%
% of Booked Reservation Sources During Call Center Operation
Questions & Comments
Budget | FY 2022 Council Budget Presentation
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland and Sylvia Richards
Public Policy & Budget Analysts
DATE:May 25, 2021
RE: FY2022 BUDGET – DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
- Key Changes, B-22
- Department Overview, E-30 to E-34
- Staffing, F-17 to F-18
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Economic Development (DED), which was created in July, 2016, leads Salt Lake City’s
efforts to promote local economic opportunities and business expansion by developing partnerships with
communities and businesses, organizing events, and advocating for small and medium-sized businesses. DED
includes the Business Support Division and the Arts Council. The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was separated
administratively from DED in Fiscal Year 2021, and the Mayor’s Recommended Budget and staffing document
reflects this change
The recommended FY22 budget for the Department of Economic Development is $2,514,915, which is $126,353
higher (5.3%) than FY21. The change primarily reflects increases in personal service costs, including restoring
the vacancy savings from the FY21 hiring freeze, insurance rates, salaries, and merit increases. All funding for
both divisions comes from the general fund, with the exception of revenue that is received by the Arts Council
Foundation and remains separate from the Department’s general fund allocation.
The total number of FTEs is 18, with 12 in Economic Development and 6 in the Arts Council. The FY22 Mayor’s
Recommended Budget lists six potential new FTEs to be funded through Federal ARPA funds: three Economic
Development Managers, a Project Manager and two Arts Council Program Coordinators. As ARPA guidelines
become clearer in coming days and weeks, the Administration will be able to provide additional information on
whether these proposed FTEs are eligible for federal grant dollars, and if not, whether they will be addressed in a
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 25, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, June 1
Potential Action: June 15 (TBD)
2
different way.
Business Support Division. Many direct business support activities had to be suspended or significantly
scaled back because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the Department focused on informing and assisting
local businesses in the various relief measures that were put in place by different levels of government, including
Salt Lake City itself. In FY22, the plan is to begin to resume sites visits to local business and travel for out-of-
state recruiting as soon as it is safe to do so. The proposed budget also includes the restructuring of the
Economic Development Loan Program, which was shifted from the Community and Neighborhoods Department
in FY21. Additional initiatives are listed in Attachment C1.
The Arts Council’s recommended FY22 budget shows an increase of $31,386 or (5.0%) as compared to FY21
primarily due to health insurance, which increased by 4.5% over last year.
Goal of the briefing: Review the Department of Economic Development’s general fund budget for FY22.
KEY BUDGET ISSUES & POLICY QUESTIONS
A.ARPA Funds. The Council may wish to consider the implications of hiring full-time staff with one-time
Federal ARPA funds, since new funding sources would be needed to cover their costs once the grant money
is used. A potential alternative for some or all of these positions might be to hire staff for periods that
correspond to the length of the projects to which they are assigned.
B.Department Goals. The Department of Economic Development has listed a number of goals for FY22
(see Attachment C1). The Council could consider reviewing these goals in more depth with the department
in a future work session.
C.Reduction in ZAP Funding (Zoo Arts and Parks Tier I Grant Funding (Arts Council)
The Administration indicates that since 2016, the Arts Council’s award from Salt Lake County Zoo, Arts,
and Parks Tier I grant funding has averaged $360,000 annually, based on qualifying programming and
operating expenses. Since the Arts Council no longer incurs the $1.5 to 2 million dollars in expenses from
the Twilight Concert Series, the organization’s qualifying expenditures have significantly decreased. The
annual ZAP award is based on three years of qualifying expenditures so the Arts Council’s grant award is
decreasing with compounding effects. The Department projects a $176,000 loss by 2022. The
Administration indicates that the additional staffing costs (assuming the ARPA grant-funded positions are
eligible and awarded) will begin to help mitigate this as qualifying expenditures, but the reduction in the
Non-Departmental contribution this year will impact program breadth.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Department of Economic Development Goals
Attachment C2. Job Descriptions – Proposed ARPA-funded Positions in Arts Council
3
Attachment C1. Department of Economic Development Goals
In response to a Council staff question, the Department of Economic Development listed the following related to
its FY22 goals.
“The Economic Development Department through its team continues to work to bring about economic
growth to the Salt Lake City businesses and residents. Our work is executed with a commitment to
equity in everything we create to achieve success for all residents in Salt Lake City.
•Pursue next steps with the Social Impact Bond to improve prosperity for all of our Salt Lake City
residents.
•Work with Healthcare Innovation Companies in Salt Lake City to create apprenticeships and
training opportunities for our residents.
•Drive forward Tech Lake City and BioHive initiatives, and pursue additional partnership
opportunities to further grow and expand the life sciences industry.
•Clarify the purpose of the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) and allocate funds to a Small
Business Revolving Loan Fund to further support Salt Lake City businesses.
•Update the Department of Economic Development’s policy agenda and strategic plan to ensure
that initiatives are geographically and socially equitable in perpetuity to support all residents in
Salt Lake City.
•Continue to support small businesses struggling with COVID-19 adjustments and through the
recovery phase which will be extensive.
•Streamline City art initiatives and improve the structure and funding of the Arts Council.
•Drive forward the CIP 1.5% for art ordinance change and the Citywide Public Art Policy.”
4
Attachment C2. Job Descriptions – Proposed ARPA-funded Positions in Arts Council
Arts Council Program Coordinators: The incumbents would coordinate, organize and implement Arts
Council & Economic Development-related programs and services; marketing efforts, collaboration on grant
writing and reporting; providing information and technical assistance as needed to artists, arts organizations,
and the general public; and tracking of income and expenses.
Arts Council Program Manager: The incumbent would direct one or more major program and initiatives
within the City’s Department of Economic Development, including arts and culture programming, small
business and entrepreneurship support, and recruitment and retention activities. Activities would include being
responsible for the department programs, working with community members, advisory boards, and project
management with the end goal to support the City’s arts, economic and equity master plan goals.