06/01/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
June 1, 2021 Tuesday 3:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
3:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Special Limited Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times
and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated: 15:23:00
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, and that the City and County building has been ordered
closed to the public for health and safety reasons.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they
feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
•Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period, you may do so through the Webex platform. To learn how to
connect through Webex, or if you need call-in phone options, please visit our website or
call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an
email:
•24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council Members. All
agenda-related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the
Council Members and added to the public meeting record. View comments by visiting the
Council Virtual Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•COVID-19, the March 2020 Earthquake, and the September 2020 Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work, projects, and staffing, etc.; and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Informational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~ 4:00 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are
working on related to racial equity and policing in the City. The conversation may include
issues of community concern about race, equity, and justice in relation to law
enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and ordinances. Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 9 for Fiscal Year 2020-21
Follow-up ~ 4:15 p.m.
10 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No. 9 for the
Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to
reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for building office space to
accommodate expansion of the Emergency Management Division, technology upgrades
for the 911 Department, and reimbursements to the Fire Department, among other
changes.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 4, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 4, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
4.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Capital Improvement Program
Overview ~ 4:25 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or
other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or more years and
cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the
annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the
same year.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and Tuesday,
August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
5.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Fire Department ~ 4:55 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Fire Department budget for Fiscal
Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 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.Previous Years’ Legislative Intents and Interim Study Items ~ 5:25 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s progress on the Council’s
legislative intent statements for Fiscal Year 2021-22, as well as legislative intents from
previous years that have not yet been completed. Legislative intents are formal requests
the Council makes of the Administration. This briefing will include updates on a variety
of subjects, including the crossing guard program, funding for affordable housing, and
more.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 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
7.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Unresolved Issues ~ 5:55 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
8.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) –
Joshua Isbell ~ 6:25 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Joshua Isbell prior to considering appointment to the PCRB
for a term ending September 2, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
9.Board Appointment: Police Civilian Review Board (PCRB) –
Justin Rodriguez ~ 6:30 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Justin Rodriguez prior to considering appointment to the
PCRB for a term ending September 2, 2024.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 1, 2021
10.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Finance Department Written Briefing
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Finance Department
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 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
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
12.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.
13.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.
Sworn Staffing Levels
6-1-2021
Total Dept SLC Divisions Airport Division
Sworn Authorized 589 523 66
Less Unfunded Vacant -20 -20 0
Less Funded Vacant -46 -42 -4
Less Pending Vacancies -18 -16 -2
Less Active Military -12 -12 0
Training / Recruits not available -32 -32 0
Total Available for response 461 401 60
% Unavailable*22%23%9%
*This does not include leave time for Training, Court Time, SDI, Workers Compensation,
Administrative Leave, Unpaid Leave, Bereavement Leave, Personal Leave, Holiday,
Vacation, Parental Leave, etc.
Lateral Hire 2021
•15 Laterals Applied
•2 did not qualify as a lateral
one in state one out of state
•6 withdrew
•3 are being removed from the process
for background issues
•1 doesn’t qualify as a lateral but
may be moved into the new hire
process
•3 Are moving forward in the process
at this exact moment.
•1 has a deadline to complete
information today
•2 of these are new applications as of this
weekend
New Hire 2021
•84 applicants from the February
hiring group were invited to PT and
written test on May 22
•30 came to the testing
•24 passed the PT test
•20 passed the written test
Administrative Updates
June 1, 2021
COVID-19 update
•No SLC zip codes are above the 191/100,000 crude
positivity rate.
•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 11 May 18 May 25 June 1
84101 49.19% full
18.01%
partial
52.81% full
16.52%
partial
55.8%full
15.68% partial
58.73%full
13.99% partial
84104 24.09% full
9.83% partial
25.99% full
9.32% partial
28.37%full
9.03% partial
30.31%full
9.03% partial
84116 27.82% full
9.66% partial
29.72% full
9.08% partial
31.05%full
9.06% partial
33.74%full
8.39% partial
COVID-19 update
May 11 May 18 May 25 June 1
Asian 37.04%40.19%42.58%44.53%
White 35.97%38.39%40.55%42.19%
Black or
African
American
20.54%22.79%24.99%27.03%
American
Indian
23.72%25.84%27.96%29.86%
Native
American or
Pacific Islander
18.95%20.51%22.08%23.51%
Hispanic
ethnicity
19.55%21.84%24.21%26.14%
Non-Hispanic
ethnicity
37.28%37.48%39.46%40.99%
Fully vaccinated demographic totals countywide
Emergency Responder
Pandemic Leave
•ERPL usage has increased by 11 this past pay period, totaling
1,359 utilizations.
Federal Families First
Coronavirus Act / Emergency
Pandemic Leave (FFCRA/EPL)
•This week EPL usage has increased by 2, totaling 326
utilizations.
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
SLC Corps
Magnolia Apartments
service project
www.slc.gov/mayor/slc-corps/
Item G1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:June 1, 2021 UPDATED 4:31 PM
RE: Budget Amendment Number Nine FY21 - Adoption
MOTION 1 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date.
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action.
MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and ADOPT ORDINANCE
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the FY 2020-21 final
budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document as shown on the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference.
A-1: Pulled prior to submission.
A-2: Pulled prior to submission.
A-3: Pulled prior to submission.
A-4: Pulled prior to submission.
A-5: Budgeting for Inland Port Tax Revenue – ($ - 0 - )
A-6: Budgeting for Convention Hotel Tax Revenue – ($ - 0 - )
A-7: Presumption for CARES Act Funding – ($-293,067 – General Fund)
A-8: Fire Emergency Management Office Build-Out – ($293,067 – General Fund)
A-9: 911-ETM Security Platform – ($41,138 – E911 Fund)
D-1: Police Impact Fee Refund – ($510,828 – Police Impact Fees)
D-2: Moving Transportation CIP Projects to CIP Fund – ($8,695,770 – CIP Fund)
D-3: Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund – ($46,982 – CIP Fund)
D-4: Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost Center to Bond Contingency – ($917,854 – CIP Fund)
D-5: Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in Original Adopted Budget – ($78,291 – Debt
Service/General Fund)
D-6: Donation Fund Increase – ($200,000 – Donation Fund)
D-7: Fire Department – Wildland/Search & Rescue Deployments – ($230,683 – General Fund)
D-8: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements – ($59,126 – General Fund)
D-9: Fire Department COVID Costs – ($605,435 – General Fund)
E-1: Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure Gilmer Drive – ($55,365 – CIP Fund)
E-2: CARES ACT Third Tranche – ($150,000 – Grant Fund)
G-1: Utah State Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Program – ($19,500 – Grant Fund)
I-1: Council-added item ARPA Reimbursement to General Fund Balance – ($TBD from ARPA)
I-2: Council-added item Rescope Remaining Budget for the Salt Laker Card to Allow Second $500
Payments, $1,000 New Cards and Covering Nonprofit Program Administration Costs
MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:June 1, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Nine FY2021
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
Administration Request for Council-added Item: $1,193,000 Reimbursement to Fund Balance with
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Dollars for Some Employee Bonuses in Budget Amendment #7
The U.S. Treasury Department issued guidance on eligible uses of ARPA dollars after the Administration transmitted
Budget Amendment #9. The Department stated bonuses are an eligible use of ARPA dollars for non-teleworking duties
by “workers who have been and continue to be relied on to maintain continuity of operations of essential critical
infrastructure sectors, including those who are critical to protecting the health and wellbeing of their communities.”
In Budget Amendment #7 the Council approved a total of $4,943,048 from Fund Balance for one-time bonuses to all
City employees. After reviewing employee work statuses (remote vs in-person) with departments and legal and financial
review of Treasury’s ARPA guidance, the Administration determined that a total of $2,527,500 is eligible. However, the
Administration is recommending a lower amount of $1,193,000 to reimburse the General Fund’s Fund Balance because
that is the amount tied to general funded positions.
The Administration provided the below table showing a breakdown of the proposed reimbursement to Fund Balance
using ARPA dollars. Note that adding the two amounts highlighted in green yields the total General Fund
Reimbursement. The three other amounts under the “In Person” column for the Airport, Public Utilities and
Sustainability enterprise funds are eligible, however, the Administration is not recommending. It’s important to note
that the Airport received over $82 million directly from the Federal Aviation Administration from the CARES Act
Airport Grant Program, and additional funding is expected for the Airport from ARPA.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration why reimbursements to Public
Utilities and Sustainability enterprise funds are not being recommended. The Council may also wish
to discuss with the Administration pros and cons of preserving ARPA funding for General Fund
opportunities.
Row Labels In Person Remote Work Grand Total
Airport 624,000$ 624,000$
General Fund 1,185,000$ 348,500$ 1,533,500$
IMS 36,500$ 36,500$
Public Utilities 620,000$ 500$ 620,500$
RDA 8,000$ 11,000$ 19,000$
Sustainability 90,500$ 4,500$ 95,000$
Grand Total 2,527,500$ 401,000$ 2,928,500$
Total of General Fund reimbursement 1,193,000$
Project Timeline:
Set Date: May 4, 2021
1st Briefing: May 11, 2021
Public Hearing: May 18, 2021
2nd Briefing: June 1, 2021
Potential Action: June 1, 2021
Page | 2
The Administration determined that the $2.5 million approved in Budget Amendment #7 to replace the Central Plant
boilers is not an allowable use of ARPA dollars under existing Treasury guidance.
$680,284 Remaining Budget for the Salt Laker Card (Raise Up SLC Program)
At the May 11 briefing, Council Members discussed the importance of spending all the remaining CARES Act funds
before the September 2021 deadline. Two options were mentioned during the discussion to change the
eligibility criteria and/or provide a second round of $500 payments. The Administration recommends the full
remaining budget be used to provide a second round of $500 payments to existing debit card holders. Newly issued
debit cards would have a $1,000 balance. Reloading existing cards would spend approximately $600,000. The
remaining approximately $80,000 would be used on new cards and program administration costs.
Changing the eligibility criteria could require contracting with other nonprofits, reaching households that would qualify
and spending the full remaining budget within less than four months. The complexity of this approach would depend on
what population(s) the Council wants to target for new criteria. Another option would be a hybrid approach of expanded
criteria and reloading existing cards (could be less than $500). Changes to the program under any of these approaches
could be a Council-added item to this budget amendment to approve the new scope of how the funds may be used.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration which approach is
preferred for the remaining budget. If changing eligibility criteria, then the Council may also wish to
identify who would qualify given the upcoming deadline.
Three Pending Updates to the City’s Impact Fees Plan (Parks, Fire and Police sections)
At the May 11 briefing, Council Members asked about the status of updating the three remaining sections of the Impact
Fees Plan. The Administration reports the consultant completed updates to the fire and parks sections. After the
proposed updates are reviewed (and any adjustments requested by the Administration), they will be transmitted to the
Council for consideration.
An update to the police section is in development. A dataset has been gathered which will serve as the basis for
calculating new police impact fees by land use type. The Administration is determining future capital needs for the
Police Departments, how those relate to population growth and what percentage of the project would be eligible for
impact fee funding. A proposal is expected to be transmitted to the Council in the summer.
Note that the Council approved an update to the transportation section last year to allow impact fees to be leveraged
with the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction Bond. This allow combining the two funding sources to
reconstruct more streets with more amenities to advance the complete streets ordinance and helps avoid expiring
transportation impact fees.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to ask the Administration to include Fire vehicles as an
eligible cost in the forthcoming update to the fire section of the Impact Fee Plan based on discussions
during the Fleet Division budget briefing.
A-9: 911-ETM Security Platform – ($41,138 – E911 Fund)
At the May 11 briefing, the Administration provided an update that this item would have ongoing costs of $25,990
annually. This includes $25,200 for monitoring services and another $790 for an extended warranty.
Budget Amendment Number Nine includes requested changes to seven funds. Total expenditures are $10,039,223
including $390,659 from Fund Balance. If this budget amendment is approved as requested by the Administration, then
the amount available in Fund Balance above the 13% minimum target would be $6,754,062. There are a total of 17 items
in this amendment, including five in Section A (note that this doesn’t count four items removed prior to transmittal).
Revenues Update
The Administration has provided the following information regarding City revenues: “The City is currently projecting a
$1.9 million decrease in budgeted revenue. The largest portion of the decrease is attributed to a $1.7 million decrease in
Fines and Forfeitures, a $1.7 million decrease in Parking Meter Revenues and a $978 thousand decrease in
Miscellaneous Revenues. These decreases are offset by a projected net increase of $1.4 million in Licenses and
Page | 3
Permits as well as a $1.1 million over adopted budget increase in Sales Tax and a $750 thousand increase in sales tax
attributable to Funding Our Future revenues.
The increase in Licenses and Permits is in spite of airport parking/license tax showing a decrease due to decreased
travel as a result of COVID. The decrease in airport parking and licenses is $2,045,000. Innkeepers’ tax has also been
hit hard by COVID and is projecting a decrease of $1,717,500. According to the local news, hotels are experiencing 30%
occupancy compared to this time of year in previous years. Business license are also expected to be below budget due to
trends for apartment units, new business license and renew business licenses. These losses are offset by gains in permits
& zoning building permits (+$1.1M), plan check fees (+$1.5M), and street excavation (+$1.96M due to a temporary
boost from Google contract).
Fines and Forfeitures are projected below budget due to a decrease in parking ticket revenue of $750k. Justice Court
fines are down $185k, while moving violations are projected at a loss of $699k. The Justice Court is following the order
of the Administrative Office of the Courts which is resulting in fewer court cases and no orders to pay fines, which are
then subsequently not sent to collections and no warrants are being issued. Traffic school revenue is down $61k and
vehicle booting is projected to be down $19k.
Parking Meter Collection is slightly less than half of the previous fiscal year due to an overall decrease in traffic
downtown. This is driving the significant decrease of $1.7 million. Additionally, Miscellaneous Revenue has also
been affected by the pandemic with decreases in accounts receivable collections, special event revenue, fuel
reimbursement due to the Mayor’s emergency declaration and utility reimbursement.
Page | 4
Page | 5
Fund Balance Update
Fund Balance remains above fifteen percent, after projected use of fund balance in the current amendment and
the reduction in projected revenues.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
Salt Laker Card Raise Up SLC Program Update
See Attachment 2 for a budget update through March 2021
In budget amendments #2 and #4 the Council approved a total of $1,426,264 for this program. The program has
received $178,184 in donations from other organizations and individuals for a total budget of $1,604,448.
The Community Foundation of Utah provides $500 pre-paid debit cards to other community-based organizations
working with undocumented populations. The recipients are at or below the federal poverty line and mostly
undocumented or mixed-status households where one family member is undocumented. Funding is targeted to City
residents on a first come first served basis.
When the Council approved funding last year the program expected to provide $500 cards to approximately 2,700
households that were ineligible for federal stimulus payments. Since then the Federal Government under a new
administration changed the eligibility criteria for stimulus payments. The criteria were expanded to include mixed-
status households. As a result, the number of Salt Lake City households eligible for the Salt Laker Card was
significantly reduced; a household may only receive the federal stimulus or a Salt Laker Card. Approximately 1,000
households have received a pre-paid debit card under the program.
As of March 31, 2021, the program spent nearly $500,000 on the pre-paid debit cards, another $349,000 is
currently available but not distributed pre-paid debit cards and $75,164 was spent on administration and
promotion expenses. This leaves a remaining unused budget of $680,284.
Policy Questions:
➢Deadline to Use CARES Funds – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if unused funds will need
to be returned to the Federal Government at a certain date.
➢Alternative Uses for $680,284 Remaining Budget – The Council may wish to ask if the Administration has
a recommendation for how to use the remaining budget or may wish to discuss other CARES-eligible
Council priorities. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration if the City has expenses eligible
under the CARES Act which did not receive funding in earlier budget amendments and could use the
funding this fiscal year.
Amending Appointed Pay Plan
On April 20 the Council amended the Appointed Pay Plan. The Administration is requesting another amendment to
recognize an existing Deputy Chief of Staff in the Mayor’s Office. The position is already listed on the staffing
document and was funded in the Council-adopted FY21 annual budget. The position has been vacant this fiscal
year. Amending the Appointed Pay Plan to recognize the existing position is a housekeeping correction. If the
Council supports this amendment, then it could be scheduled for a vote as soon as May 18.
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of
unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of April 1, 2021. $1,718 of police impact
fees are scheduled to expire in April. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and
parks sections of the impact fee plan. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $930,142 More than a year away -
Parks $7,097,114 More than a year away -
Police $395,285 April 2021 $1,718
Transportation $5,013,594 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items)
Page | 7
A-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-2: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-5: Budgeting for Inland Port Tax Revenue ($ - 0 - Budget Neutral)
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax
revenue within the boundaries of the Inland Port. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the inland port,
the City does not receive the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a
corresponding expenditure account recognizing the pass-through, so City revenue is not overstated. A $500,000
portion of the Inland Port revenue was accounted for in Budget Amendment #7 of this fiscal year. This amendment
will account for the remaining $483,242 in anticipated revenue. At the time of writing Budget Amendment #7, the
City did not know when actual tax revenue would be determined. The final revenue allocation was received on
March 30.
A-6: Budgeting for Convention Hotel Tax Revenue ($ - 0 - Budget Neutral)
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax
revenue at the Convention Center Hotel. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the convention hotel, the
City does not receive the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a
corresponding expenditure account, so City revenue is not overstated. This amendment is for the $10,116 in
anticipated revenue.
The hotel is being built on County-owned property. This means the property was tax-exempt and became taxable
with the hotel construction. The GOED Development Board adopted a motion on November 6, 2018 which
approved the following incentive package under authority of Utah Code 63N-2-503.5. Approve Salt Lake City CH,
LLC for a post-performance, New Convention Facility Development, Incentive consisting of:
Up to 100% of the new incremental State Sales Tax not to exceed $75,000,000 over 20 years
Up to 100% of local (city and county) sales tax and property tax over 25 years
Including conveyance of land from Salt Lake County to Salt Lake City CH, LLC
State law includes language to hold the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) harmless for existing debt obligations
(bonds). Some hotel increment could be used to meet RDA bond payments if needed in the future. The County is
required to provide an annual report identifying tax increment generated by the hotel property. See Attachment 1
for a letter from the Salt Lake County Auditor that provides a breakdown of tax increment revenues being diverted
by taxing entity.
A-7: Presumption for CARES Act Funding – ($-293,067 – General Fund)
The Council approved the use of unspent CARES funds for Fire personnel expenses. This amendment removes
personnel expenses in Fire that were used for this method and passes the eligible budget from previously budgeted
line items to Fire. Note that this item is related to items A-8 and E-2 below. The Administration provided the
following accounting summary:
1. Salt Lake City received a 3rd bucket of federal money in December. This needed to be spent by the 21st of
December and reported to Salt Lake County. This amount was $150,000.
2. Once all the actuals had been expensed for both the internet allowance and the hazard pay there was
remaining budget. This amount needs to also be accounted for by December 21st, 2020 to Salt Lake County,
and those remaining dollars were accounted for through Fire personnel expenses.
3. The Fire personnel services were used for both totals above.
4. Since these the expenses were reduced in the Fire Department the General Fund budget needs to be
reduced as well
Page | 8
5. This funding then becomes available to use for a General Fund use. The administration is requesting to use
this funding to accommodate the Emergency Management Division relocating to the Fire Department.
A-8: Fire Emergency Management Office Build Out – ($293,067 – General Fund)
The Administration is proposing to use the third round of CARES Act funding ($150,000) and the remaining
unspent amounts from the first two round ($143,067.36) to build office space for Emergency Management within
the Fire Department. Emergency Management is growing and is currently limited in office space. The current staff
reside on the 3rd floor of the PSB, many in spaces designed as common space or break-out rooms. Adjacent to this
area, is open floor space that can be converted to office space. This would include 2 new Division Chief offices, 2
new Captain offices, plus cubicle space and open space. Construction budget is estimated at $275,000 plus
furniture requirements of $42,000. Fire Department funds will be used to complete any additional costs not
covered in this amendment.
A-9: 911-ETM Security Platform – ($41,138 – E911 Fund)
SLC911 has seen an unprecedented surge of digital attacks on their 911 and administrative lines. The result has been
a telephone denial of service attack (TDoS) which means that a series of calls spoof incoming lines by merging other
public safety answering points together, or robo calling which overwhelms lines for service. While we have been
fortunate to date, we are seeing this behavior more frequently. Without this protection, our communities are at risk
and it would have a devastating impact on the ability of the center to answer emergency calls. SLC911 is requesting
emergency funding to purchase an enterprise voice network security platform. This platform includes hardware,
software, and monitoring services. The managed services will monitor 911's administrative systems for threats and
respond with specific recommendations to mitigate any attacks. This funding is requested to come from Fund 60,
the E911 Tax Fund, not the General Fund.
Hardware $9,685
Licensing $2,878
Installation/Training $3,375
Monitoring Services $25,200
Total Requested $41,138
Additional information such as whether or not there is an annual cost was forthcoming at the time of publishing
this staff report.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Police Impact Fee Refund – ($510,828 – Police Impact Fees)
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property for an East Side Precinct using Police Impact Fees.
The intended property did not work for an eastside police precinct and refunds of the impact fees are now required.
These refunds will be funded primarily with previous unclaimed refunds. The Council may wish to inquire if the
Administration is continuing to pursue an East Side Precinct given evolving conversations about the overall Public
Safety service delivery model.
D-2: Moving Transportation CIP Projects to CIP Fund – ($8,695,770 – CIP Fund)
Currently the Transportation CIP projects reside in the Transportation fund. Because the fund is a
governmental fund, assets will need to be carefully evaluated, capitalized, depreciated, and reported like the regular
CIP funds. This is a time intensive project and one of the biggest bottle necks for the financial audit. To relieve some
of this pressure, we request that the Transportation capital projects be moved to the CIP fund so they can be
processed like the other CIP funds. The funds will be easily identifiable as being funded by the Transportation sales
tax. No additional funding is required as this just moves the funds from the Transportation Fund to the CIP Fund.
Note that all these funds are from the County quarter cent sales tax for transportation.
Page | 9
D-3: Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund – ($46,982 – CIP Fund)
The Department of Sustainability is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $46,982 from CIP to the
Environment and Energy Fund, reflecting the closing out of a previously funded project. During FY19 the
Department of Sustainability transferred $240,000 to CIP to be used in conjunction with a Rocky Mountain Power
Bluesky grant toward installing rooftop solar on the Sorenson Unity Center building. The Sorenson Rooftop Solar
Project is now finished, and the department is requesting that the remaining unused funds of $46,982 be
transferred back into the Environment and Energy Fund (E&E).
Due to the shrinking E&E fund balance these funds are greatly needed and will be used to fund future sustainability
projects and operations.
D-4: Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost Center to Bond Contingency – ($917,854 – CIP
Fund)
The budgetary estimate of construction costs for the 700 West Road Re-Construction Bond project was
$2,000,000. 10% of these funds were assigned to an overall fund for bond contingencies. The 700 West Cost Center
was, therefore, $1,800,000. 700 West was also eligible for $155,000 of Impact Fees. The bids for 700 West came in
well below the budgeted amount. With the completion of construction and the application of Impact Fees, the 700
West project is $917,853.80 below the budgeted amount. This includes the hard and soft costs.
These funds are being requested to be moved to one of the 2020 or 2021 contingency funds so the bond funds can
be expended on upcoming bond road projects.
D-5: Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in Original Adopted Budget – ($78,291 – Fund Balance
for Debt Service)
During the chaos of the COVID pandemic, the estimated savings from existing cash in the debt service fund of
$22,892 (see CIP book page A6) were subtracted twice. It is necessary to add additional budget to cover sales tax
bonds. Additionally, the City also expected to realize savings from refunding the ESCO debt of $55,399 (see Budget
Book page B21). As the bonds were evaluated in preparation for the refunding, there was not the estimated savings
that were expected. The total amount needed is $78,291.
D-6: Donation Fund Increase – ($200,000 – Donation Fund)
There is a strong possibility that before the year-end the City will receive several large donations that will exceed the
amount approved in the annual budget. It is necessary to have enough budget to accommodate all the donations
and be underbudget by the end of the fiscal year and be in compliance for the audit. As of December 30th, 2020,
there were approximately $80,000 in donations. If the expected donations are received, the City will need
approximately $200,000 in budget. All donations are processed as required through the donation ordinance and
will be reported in detail to Council after the end of the year.
D-7: Fire Department – Reimbursement for Wildland/Search & Rescue Deployments – ($230,683 –
General Fund)
Personnel were deployed several times during Fall 2020. A team was mobilized to Hurricane Laura in August, a
Search & Rescue team assisted in Oregon in September while simultaneously another team volunteered to fight
their Wildfires. The department helped fight the California Wildfires in October. Finally, crews assisted in Utah
County on the Ridge Fire. All costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City. We are
asking the City Council to approve this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill.
This proposal will make the fire department whole as well as the General Fund with offsetting revenues. The request
is only for the amount of revenues we have received.
Expenses
Hurricane Laura - August 2020 $87,572.01
Oregon Wildfire Search & Rescue - September 2020 $234,201.93
Oregon Wildfire - September 2020 $243,468.67
California Wildfire - October 2020 $176,218.51
Utah County Ridge Fire - October 2020 $3,666.00
Total Expense Incurred $745,127.12
Revenues/Reimbursements Received
Page | 10
Hurricane Laura 2/24/2021 $59,328.56
Oregon Search & Rescue 2/24/2021 $167,688.39
Utah County Ridge Fire 3/2/2021 $3,666.00
Reimbursement Rec'd $230,682.95
Remainder of Reimbursement will likely be received in FY22 and will be included in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget as a one-time revenue and expense line item.
D-8: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements – ($59,126 – General Fund)
The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: Fire
Inspector overtime on behalf of the SLC Airport Redevelopment contractor, backfill costs caused by Utah Search
and Rescue training at their request, Fire Watch services for the Vice Presidential Debate at the University of Utah,
and finally cost recovery efforts from negligent accidents/incidents.
Airport Redevelopment Inspector OT $7,671.50
Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $19,006.05
Cost Recovery $28,811.15
Vice Presidential Debate Fire Watch/Standby $3,637.45
Budget Amendment Total $59,126.15
D-9: Fire Department COVID Costs – ($605,435 – General Fund)
COVID19 ERPL and Worker's Compensation claims caused by COVID19 have had a detrimental effect to the Fire
Department's budget. While ERPL was very much appreciated by Fire personnel, it caused a dramatic rise in the
cost of backfilling open shifts. The Fire Department has a 4-handed staffing mandate, meaning each apparatus will
have 4 personnel and the department will "buy back" off duty personnel to fill any gaps. Many times, this cost is
paid out at overtime. When Emergency Responders tested positive for COVID19, it was a presumptive positive,
meaning it was assumed the infection was obtained while working on the job in their role for Salt Lake City. It is
anticipated that some of these costs will eventually be reimbursed by FEMA.
This request is for Worker's Compensation claims directly caused by COVID19, and ERPL associated backfill costs
(Buybacks, Fullstaffs, OT, MRT OT).
WC Claims $155,295
ERPL Backfill $450,140
Total $605,435
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure Gilmer Drive – ($55,365 – CIP Fund)
The Transportation Division received a follow up grant award from Salt Lake County for $55,365 to finish up
the original 9 Line / 900 South Trail. The Gilmer Drive Intersection was not completed during the original
contract period so the funds were unspent.
The County issued a new Interlocal Agreement with the City to finish the project funding from the original
Agreement. This funding is to reconfigure the Gilmer Drive Intersection; move and curb, add a landscaped
separation between bikeway and roadway and install wayfinding signage.
In FY18 The Transportation Division applied for and received a grant from Salt Lake County for $500,000
under the Countywide Active Transportation Network Improvement Program 2017. This grant is to be used for
design and construction of the segment of the 9 Line / 900 South Trail between 900 East and 1300 East.
Construction of the trail segment would occur in conjunction with road reconstruction from Lincoln (950 East)
to 1300 East and the installation of wayfinding signs on 900 South and Gilmer Drive.
This grant has a no match requirement.
A public hearing was held on 12/12/17 on the original grant application for this award.
Page | 11
E-2: CARES ACT Third Tranche – ($150,000 – Grant Fund)
Salt Lake City received $150,000 from the third tranche of CARES Act funding. In BA#4 the Council authorized
the Administration to use the presumption that any amount received in this tranche would cover costs associated
with expenses within the Fire Department. This amendment formalizes that assumption, with the City recognizing
the revenue and an expense associated with the award.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3 – Grant Awards
G-1: Utah State Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY20 Paul Coverdell
Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program ($19,500 – Grant Fund)
The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic
Services (UBFS) application for the FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s
Application includes $19,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain initial accreditation in 2021
through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO 17020 for Inspection Agencies.
The Police Department received a subaward from UBFS’s FY19 Coverdell application to fund the application fee.
The anticipated remaining accreditation costs, which will be funded through this FY20 award, include the
assessment fee and the annual accreditation fee based on the laboratory’s scope of operations.
A match is not required for this award.
Section I: Council Added Items
(None)
ATTACHMENTS
1. County Auditor Letter on Convention Hotel 2020 Tax Increment Diversion
2. Salt Laker Card Budget Update through March 2021
ACRONYMS
CARES Act – Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CATNIP Fund – (formerly) County Active Transportation Fund
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CIT – Crisis Intervention Team
ERPL – Emergency Response Pandemic Leave
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency
FOF – Funding Our Future
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
MRT – Medical Response Team
OT – Overtime
PSB – Public Safety Building
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
UBFS – Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
USAR – Utah Search and Rescue
SCOTT TINGLEY
CIA, CGAP
Salt Lake County Auditor
STingley@slco.org
CHERYLANN JOHNSON
MBA, CIA, CFE
Chief Deputy Auditor
CAJohnson@slco.org
ROSWELL ROGERS
Senior Advisor
RRogers@slco.org
STUART TSAI
JD, MPA
Property Tax
Division Administrator
STsai@slco.org
SHAWNA AHLBORN
Audit Services
Division Administrator
SAhlborn@slco.org
OFFICE OF THE
SALT LAKE COUNTY
AUDITOR
2001 S State Street, N3-300
PO Box 144575
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4575
(385) 468-7200; TTY 711
1-866-498-4955 / fax
March 29, 2021
Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City
Danny Walz
Chief Operating Officer
451 South State St, Room 418
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Danny Walz,
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 63N-2-508 of the “New Convention Facility Development
Incentives,” Salt Lake County shall retain incremental property tax revenue (IPTR) for tax
year 2020. This reduces any tax increment financing that otherwise would have been
paid to the host agency. Incremental value and revenue from an increase in the taxable
value of hotel property are used as adjustments in the certified tax rate calculation
pursuant to UCA § 59-2-924.
For transparency of the use of taxpayer monies and to assist you with your budget
preparation, our office is providing you with IPTR information.
If you have questions on IPTR, please contact Greg Folta in the Salt Lake County Mayor’s
Office of Financial Administration at (385) 468-7076, or gfolta@slco.org.
Sincerely,
Scott Tingley, CIA, CGAP
Salt Lake County Auditor
Enclosures
INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE - CONVENTION HOTEL TAX YEAR 2020
ENTITY
Incremental
Property Tax
Revenue
Central Utah Water Conservancy 1,143
County Assessing & Collecting Levy 600
Metropolitan Water District Of Salt Lake & Sandy (Slc) 757
Multi County Assessing & Collecting Levy 34
Salt Lake City 10,116
Salt Lake City Library 1,952
Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement 349
Salt Lake City School 9,538
Salt Lake County Bond Interest & Sinking Fund 660
Salt Lake County Capital Improvement 206
Salt Lake County Clark Planetarium 74
Salt Lake County Flood Control 166
Salt Lake County General Fund 4,021
Salt Lake County Government Immunity 43
Salt Lake County Health Department 397
State Basic School Levy - Salt Lake City 4,652
Utah Charter School - Salt Lake City 231
Grand Total 34,939
Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor 3/25/2021
Income Statement 8/1/2020-3/31/2021
Fund: Salt Lake City Equity Fund
Type Account Total Notes
Revenue
Support
Donation from Salt Lake City Corporation (CARES) 1,401,264.00
Donation from Salt Lake City Corporation 25,000.00
Donation from Salt Lake City Corporation (Muslim League) 50,000.00
Donation from Salt Lake County 25,000.00
Individual/Foundation contributions (checks, Stripe) 103,184.68
Total Revenue $1,604,448.68
Expenses
Expense
Raise UP SLC Distribution 849,000.00
Utah Community Action 283,000.00 Card funds
Comunidades Unidas 283,000.00 Card funds
University Neighborhood Partners 283,000.00 Card funds
Raise Up SLC Admin Grant 14,865.00
Utah Community Action 5,000.00
Comunidades Unidas 9,865.00
Accounts Payable 17,064.31
Love Communication 15,006.00 Initiative promotion
Goodworld 1,148.31 Donation portal management
Inlingua Utah 910.00 Translation services
Bank/CC Fees 272.03
Community Foundation of Utah Admin Fee Expense 42,962.85
Total Expenses $924,164.19
Change in Net Assets $680,284.49
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 20, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment # 9
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2020 – 21 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 439,809.00 $ 830,467.64
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 8,751,135.00 8,798,117.37
DEBT SERVICE FUND 78,291.00 0.00
DONATION FUND 200,000.00 200,000.00
REFUSE FUND 46,982.37 0.00
E911 FUND 0.00 41,138.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 169,500.00 169,500.00
TOTAL $ 9,685,717.37 $ 10,039,223.01
Lisa Shaffer (Apr 20, 2021 17:34 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2019-20 Budget Adjustments
The Fiscal Year 2021 projections are coming in below budgeted revenues. The following chart
shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2021.
FY20-21 Variance
Annual Revised Favorable
Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 111,418,455 111,418,455 -
Sales and Use Tax 67,999,593 69,146,260 1,146,667
Franchise Tax 26,812,125 26,702,018 (110,107)
PILOT Taxes 1,508,894 1,508,894 -
TOTAL TAXES 207,739,067 208,775,627 1,036,560
License and Permits 28,601,482 30,071,777 1,470,295
Intergovernmental 4,444,400 4,146,157 (298,243)
Interest Income 1,900,682 1,700,000 (200,682)
Fines & Forfeiture 3,938,848 2,210,747 (1,728,101)
Parking Meter Collection 3,432,962 1,705,187 (1,727,775)
Charges and Services 4,428,069 4,219,771 (208,298)
Miscellaneous Revenue 4,014,037 3,036,282 (977,755)
Interfund Reimbursement 20,281,706 20,268,706 (13,000)
Transfers 9,507,812 9,507,812 -
TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 288,289,065 285,642,067 (2,646,998)
Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 32,797,506 33,547,506 750,000
Sales and Use Tax - County
Option - - -
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 321,086,571 319,189,573 (1,896,998)
The City is currently projecting a $1.9 million decrease in budgeted revenue. The largest portion
of the decrease is attributed to a $1.7 million decrease in Fines and Forfeitures, a $1.7 million
decrease in Parking Meter Revenues and a $978 thousand decrease in Miscellaneous
Revenues. These decreases are offset by a projected net increase of $1.4 million in Licenses and
Permits as well as a $1.1 million increase in Sales Tax and a $750 thousand increase in sales tax
attributable to Funding Our Future revenues.
The increase in Licenses and Permits is in spite of airport parking/license tax showing a
decrease due to decreased travel as a result of COVID. The decrease in airport parking and
licenses is $2,045,000. Innkeepers tax has also been hit hard by COVID and is projecting a
decrease of $1,717,500. According to the local news, hotels are experiencing 30% occupancy
compared to this time of year in previous years. Business license are also expected to be below
budget due to trends for apartment units, new business license and renew business licenses.
These losses are offset by gains in permits & zoning building permits (+$1.1M), plan check fees
(+$1.5M), and street excavation (+$1.96M due to a temporary boost from Google contract).
Fines and Forfeitures are projected below budget due to a decrease in parking ticket revenue of
$750k. Justice Court fines are down $185k, while moving violations are projected wat a loss of
$699k. The Justice Court is following the order of the Administrative Office of the Courts which
is resulting in fewer court cases and no orders to pay fines, which are then subsequently not sent
to collections and no warrants are being issued. Traffic school revenue is down $61k and vehicle
booting is projected to be down $19k.
Parking Meter Collection is slightly less than half of the previous fiscal year due to an overall
decrease in traffic downtown. This is driving the significant decrease of $1.7 million.
Additionally, Miscellaneous Revenue has also been affected by the pandemic with decreases in
accounts receivable collections, special event revenue, fuel reimbursement due to the Mayor’s
emergency declaration and utility reimbursement.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With the current use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance drops to 15.09%.
2019 Actual FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 56,104,269 10,372,054 69,441,955 79,814,009 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (380,025) - (1,510,094) (1,510,094) 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620)
Prior Year Encumbrances (8,731,774) (3,105,004) (6,566,830) (9,671,834) (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 46,992,470 7,267,050 61,365,031 68,632,081 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.57%18.17%20.64%20.35%17.34%23.66%23.00%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (3,701,982) - (4,127,838) (4,127,838) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 43,290,488 7,267,050 57,237,193 64,504,243 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777
Final Fund Balance Percent 13.42%18.17%19.26%19.13%17.34%21.70%21.25%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,858,647) (2,300,000) (13,070,734) (15,370,734)
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - -
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788)
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673)
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824)
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - (830,468) (830,468)
Change in Revenue 3,149,980 758,000 6,069,370 6,827,370 750,000 (2,646,998) (1,896,998)
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase 2,500,000 900,000 - 900,000 - - -
- Adjusted Fund Balance 47,081,821 6,625,050 50,235,829 56,860,879 5,565,989 43,266,477 48,832,466
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 14.60%16.56%16.90%16.86%16.59%14.91%15.09%
Projected Revenue 322,562,293 40,000,000 297,251,407 337,251,407 33,547,506 290,132,520 323,680,026
2021 Projection2020 Projection
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $9,685,717.37 of revenue and
expense of $10,039,223.01. The amendment proposes changes in the seven funds, with
$390,658.64 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-one initiatives
for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Ninth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2020-2021)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2020 and Ending
June 30, 2021.
In June of 2020, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 27 of 2020.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
2
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2020 and ending June 30, 2021, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
_________________________
Jaysen Oldroyd
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
1 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
2 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
3 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
4 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
5 Inland Port Property Tax Revenue GF 483,242.00 - One-time -
5 Inland Port Property Tax Revenue GF (483,242.00) - One-time -
6 Convention Hotel Property Tax Revenue GF 10,116.00 - One-time -
6 Convention Hotel Property Tax Revenue GF (10,116.00) - One-time -
7 Presumption for CARES GF - (293,067.36)One-time -
7 Presumption for CARES Non-Departmental GF (143,067.36)One-time
7 Presumption fo CARES Fire Change from
Non-Departmental
GF 143,067.36
8 Fire Emergency Management Office
Buildout
GF 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
9 911-ETM Security Platform E911 - 41,138.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
1 Police Impact Fee Refund CIP - (510,828.00)One-time -
1 Police Impact Fee Refund CIP - 438,897.00 One-time -
1 Police Impact Fee Refund CIP - 71,931.00 One-time -
2 Move Transportation CIP Projects to CIP
Fund
Transportation - (8,695,770.00)One-time -
2 Move Transportation CIP Projects to CIP
Fund
Transportation - 8,695,770.00 One-time -
2 Move Transportation CIP Projects to CIP
Fund
CIP 8,695,770.00 8,695,770.00 One-time -
3 Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund CIP - 46,982.37 One-time -
3 Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund Refuse 46,982.37 - One-time -
4 Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost
Center to Bond Contingency
CIP - (917,854.00)One-time -
4 Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost
Center to Bond Contingency
CIP - 917,854.00 One-time -
5 Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in
Original Adopted Budget
GF - 78,291.00 One-time -
5 Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in
Original Adopted Budget
Debt Service 78,291.00 - One-time -
6 Donation Fund Increase Donation 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time -
7 Fire Department - Wildland/Search &
Rescue Deployments
GF 230,683.00 230,683.00 One-time -
8 Fire Department - Other Reimbursements GF 59,126.00 59,126.00 One-time -
9 Fire Department - COVID Costs GF - 605,435.00 One-time -
1 Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure
Gilmer Drive
CIP 55,365.00 55,365.00 One-time -
2 CARES Act, third tranche Misc Grants 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time
-
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Administration Proposed
2
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or
One-time FTEs
Consent Agenda #5
1 Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services, FY 20 Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Program
Misc Grants 19,500.00 19,500.00 One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 9,685,717.37 10,039,223.01 - - -
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #9:
General Fund GF 439,809.00 830,467.64 - - -
Capital Improvement Program Fund CIP 8,751,135.00 8,798,117.37 - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 78,291.00 - - - -
Donation Fund Donation 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - -
Refuse Fund Refuse 46,982.37 - - - -
E 911 Fund E911 - 41,138.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 169,500.00 169,500.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 9,685,717.37 10,039,223.01 - - -
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
3
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2020-21 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2020-21
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)326,130,003 288,487.58 6,184,940.00 2,783,685.00 335,387,115.58
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,763,746 1,763,746.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,379,697 1,500.00 5,381,197.00
Water Fund (FC 51)126,333,193 296,750.00 126,629,943.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)212,638,399 108,500.00 212,746,899.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)17,961,860 32,650.00 17,994,510.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,311,600 - 520,000.00 38,956,452.00 341,788,052.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)16,515,438 53,200.00 2,742,500.00 19,311,138.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)8,484,897 8,484,897.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,789,270 3,789,270.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)19,209,271 93,000.00 19,302,271.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)18,289,687 237,000.00 18,526,687.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
7,571,945 7,571,945.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)3,509,164 3,063,849.00 6,573,013.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,261,044 716,764.00 5,925,738.42 5,925,738.00 7,818,505.00 28,647,789.42
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)- -
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,380,172 2,380,172.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)23,248,016 23,248,016.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)37,519,401 (3,858,955.00) 33,660,446.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)24,420,242 36,435,000.00 60,855,242.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,855,203 2,855,203.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)51,409,025 14,350.00 51,423,375.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,221,534,273 716,764.00 7,463,826.00 45,141,392.00 5,925,738.00 49,091,934.00 1,329,873,927.00
4
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2020-21 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
^^ FY 2020-21
Adopted Budget
through BA#5
^^ BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total Total To-Date
General Fund (FC 10)335,387,116 63,673.00 6,582,824.00 2,000,000.00 830,467.64 344,864,080
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,763,746 1,763,746
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,381,197 5,038.00 5,386,235
Water Fund (FC 51)126,629,943 1,543,238.00 128,173,181
Sewer Fund (FC 52)212,746,899 241,206.00 212,988,105
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)17,994,510 67,282.00 18,061,792
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)341,788,052 859,674.00 342,647,726
Refuse Fund (FC 57)19,311,138 128,084.00 19,439,222
Golf Fund (FC 59)8,484,897 23,667.00 8,508,564
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,789,270 41,138.00 3,830,408
Fleet Fund (FC 61)19,302,271 97,612.00 19,399,883
IMS Fund (FC 65)18,526,687 453,399.00 93,766.00 19,073,852
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
7,571,945 1,876.00 7,573,821
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)6,573,013 6,573,013
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)28,647,789 750,000.00 11,223,292.00 169,500.00 40,790,581
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)- 520,150.00 520,150
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,380,172 200,000.00 2,580,172
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)23,248,016 - 23,248,016
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,660,446 33,660,446
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)60,855,242 1,293,732.00 1,361,866.14 8,798,117.37 72,308,958
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,855,203 5,296.00 2,860,499
Risk Fund (FC 87)51,423,375 3,836.00 51,427,211
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,329,873,927 2,560,804.00 22,758,707.14 2,000,000.00 10,039,223.01 - 1,367,232,661
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
5
Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Contingent Appropriation
6
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-2: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-4: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal
A-5: Inland Port Tax Revenue GF $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax revenue withi n
the boundaries of the Inland Port. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the inland port, the City does not receive
the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a corresponding contra account so City
revenue is not overstated. A $500,000 portion of the Inland Port revenue was accounted for in budget amendment #7 of
this fiscal year. This amendment will account for the remaining $483,242 in anticipated revenue.
A-6: Convention Hotel Tax Revenue GF $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
As part of the City's annual financial audit, the City was informed it needs to budget and account for City tax revenue at the
Convention Center Hotel. Because the tax revenue is dispersed directly to the convention hotel, the City does not receive
the tax revenue. The City will budget a line item to recognize the tax revenue and a corresponding contra account so City
revenue is not overstated. This amendment is for the $10,116 in anticipated revenue.
A-7: Presumption for CARES GF -$293,067.36
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
The Council approved the use of the assumption for any unspent funds from CARES. This amendment recognizes the
removes personnel expenses in Fire that were used for the assumption and passes the eligible budget from previously
budgeted line items to Fire.
A-8: Fire Emergency Management Office Buildout
GF $293,067.36
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson/
Clint Rasmussen
The Administration is proposing to use the third traunche of CARES Act funding ($150,000) and the remaining unspent
amounts from the first two traunches ($143,067.36) to build office space for Emergency Management within the Fire
Department. Emergency Management is growing and is currently limited in office space. The current staff reside on the
3rd floor of the PSB, many in spaces designed as common space or break-out rooms. Adjacent to this area, is open floor
space that can be converted to office space. This would include 2 new Division Chief offices, 2 new Captain offices, plus
cubicle space and open space. Construction budget is estimated at $275,000 plus furniture requirements of $42,000. Fire
Department funds will be used to complete any additional costs not covered in this amendment.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
A-9: 911-ETM Security Platform E911 $41,138.00
Department: E911 Communications Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
SLC911 has seen an unprecedented surge of digital attacks on their 911 and administrative lines. The result has been a
telephone denial of service attack (TDoS) which means that a series of calls spoof incoming lines by merging other public
safety answering points together, or robo calling which overwhelms lines for service. While we have been fortunate to date,
we are seeing this behavior more frequently. Without this protection, our communities are at risk and it would have a
devastating impact on the ability of the center to answer emergency calls. SLC911 is requesting emergency funding to
purchase an enterprise voice network security platform. This platform includes hardware, software, and monitoring
services. The managed services will monitor 911's administrative systems for threats and respond with specific
recommendations to mitigate any attacks. This funding is requested to come from Fund 60, the E911 Tax Fund, not the
General Fund.
Hardware $9,685
Licensing $2,878
Installation/Training $3,375
Monitoring Services $25,200
Total Requested $41,138
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Police Impact Fee Refund Impact Fees -$510,828.00
Impact Fees $510,828.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk / Mike Atkinson
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not
work for the police precinct and refunds of the impact fees are now required. These refunds will be funded with proceeds
from unclaimed refunds from Cost Center 8417006. The remaining funds in 8417006 will be returned to 8484001.
D-2: Moving Transportation CIP Projects to CIP Fund Trans -$8,695,770.00
Trans $8,695,770.00
CIP $8,695,770.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
Currently the Transportation CIP projects reside in the Transportation fund. Because the fund is a governmental fund,
assets will need to be carefully evaluated, capitalized, depreciated and reported like the regular CIP funds. This is a time
intensive project and one of the biggest bottle necks for the financial audit. To relieve some of this pressure, we request
that the Transportation capital projects be moved to the CIP fund so they can be processed like the other CIP funds. The
funds will be easily identifiable as being funded by the Transportation sales tax. No additional funding is required as this
just moves the funds from the Transportation Fund to the CIP Fund.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
D-3: Transfer CIP Funds to Refuse Fund CIP $46,982.37
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Gregg Evans
The Department of Sustainability is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $46,982 from CIP to the Envi ronment and
Energy Fund 00577 within the Refuse Fund Class 57. During FY19 the Department of Sustainability transferred $240,000
to CIP (CC 8320715) to be used in conjunction with an RMP Bluesky grant toward installing rooftop solar on the Sorenson
Unity Center building. The Sorenson Rooftop Solar Project is now finished, and the department is requesting that the
remaining unused funds of $46,982 be transferred back into the Environment and Energy Fund (E&E) within the Refuse
Fund Class 57.
Due to the shrinking E&E fund balance these funds are greatly needed and will be used to fund future sustainability
projects and operations.
D-4: Transfer Bond Funds from 700 West Cost Center to Bond
Contingency
CIP -$917,854.00
CIP $917,854.00
Department: Community & Neighborhoods Prepared By: John Vuyk
The budgetary estimate of construction costs for the 700 West Road Re-Construction Bond project was $2,000,000. 10%
of these funds were assigned to the 2020 Bond Contingency Fund. The 700 West Cost Center was, therefore, $1,800,000.
700 West was also eligible for $155,000 of Impact Fees. The bids for 700 West came in well below the budgeted amount.
With the completion of construction and the application of Impact Fees, the 700 West project is $917,853.80 below the
budgeted amount. This includes the hard and soft costs.
These funds are being requested to be moved to one of the 2020 or 2021 contingency fu nds so the bond funds can be
expended on upcoming bond road projects.
D-5: Corrections for Debt Transfer Errors in Original Adopted
Budget
GF $78,291.00
Debt Service $78,291.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Russ Sundquist
During the chaos of the COVID pandemic, the estimated savings from existing cash in the debt service fund of $22,892
(see CIP book page A6) were subtracted twice. It is necessary to add additional budget to cover sales tax bonds.
Additionally, the City also expected to realize savings from refunding the ESCO debt of $55,399 (see Budget Book page
B21). As the bonds were evaluated in preparation for the refunding, there was not the estimated savings that were
expected. The total amount needed is $78,291.
D-6: Donation Fund Increase Donation $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Teresa Beckstrand
There is a strong possibility that before the year-end we will receive several large donations that will exceed the amount
approved in the annual budget. It is necessary to have enough budget to accommodate all the donations and be under
budget by the end of the fiscal year and be in compliance for the audit. As of December 30th, 2020 there were
approximately $80,000 in donations. If the expected donations are received, we will need approximately $200,000 in
budget. All donations are processed as required through the donation ordinance and will be reported in detail to Council
after the end of the year.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
D-7: Fire Department – Wildland/Search & Rescue Deployments GF $230,683.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
Personnel were deployed several times during Fall 2020. A team was mobilized to Hurricane Laura in August, a Search &
Rescue team assisted in Oregon in September while simultaneously another team volunteered to fight their Wildfires. The
department helped fight the California Wildfires in October. Finally, crews assisted in Utah County on the Ridge Fire. All
costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City. We are asking the City Council to approve
this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill. This proposal will make the fire
department whole as well as the General Fund with offsetting revenues. The request is only for the amount of revenues we
have received.
Expense
Hurricane Laura - August 2020 $ 87,572.01
Oregon Wildfire Search & Rescue - September 2020 $234,201.93
Oregon Wildfire - September 2020 $243,468.67
California Wildfire - October 2020 $ 176,218.51
Utah County Ridge Fire - October 2020 $ 3,666.00
Total Expense Incurred $745,127.12
Revenue/Reimbursement Received
Hurricane Laura $ 59,328.56 2/24/2021
Oregon Search & Rescue $167,688.39 2/24/2021
Utah County Ridge Fire $ 3,666.00 3/2/2021
Reimbursement Rec'd $230,682.95
Remainder of Reimbursement will likely be received in FY22 and will be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget as
a one-time revenue and expense line item.
D-8: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements GF $59,126.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: Fire Inspector
overtime on behalf of the SLC Airport Redevelopment contractor, backfill costs caused by Utah Search and Rescue training
at their request, Fire Watch services for the Vice Presidential Debate at the University of Utah, and finally cost recovery
efforts from negligent accidents/incidents.
Airport Redevelopment Inspector OT $ 7,671.50
Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $19,006.05
Cost Recovery $28,811.15
Vice Presidential Debate Fire Watch/Standby $ 3,637.45
Budget Amendment Total $59,126.15
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
D-9: Fire Department COVID Costs GF $605,435.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
COVID19 ERPL and Worker's Compensation claims caused by COVID19 have had a detrimental effect to the Fire
Department's budget. While ERPL was very much appreciated by Fire personnel, it caused a dramatic rise in the cost of
backfilling open shifts. The Fire Department has a 4-handed staffing mandate, meaning each apparatus will have 4
personnel and the department will "buy back" off duty personnel to fill any gaps. Many times, this cost is paid out at
overtime. When Emergency Responders tested positive for COVID19, it was a presumptive positive, meaning it was
assumed the infection was obtained while working on the job in their role for Salt Lake City. It is anticipated that some of
these costs will eventually be reimbursed by FEMA.
This request is for Worker's Compensation claims directly caused by COVID19, and ERPL associated backfill costs
(Buybacks, Fullstaffs, OT, MRT OT).
WC Claims $155,295
ERPL Backfill $450,140
Total $605,435
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: Salt Lake County, CATNIP, Reconfigure Gilmer Drive CIP $55,365.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
The Transportation Division received a follow up grant award from Salt Lake County for $55,365 to finish up
the original 9 Line / 900 South Trail. The Gilmer Drive Intersection was not completed during the original
contract period so the funds were unspent.
The County issued a new Interlocal Agreement with the City to finish the project funding from the original
Agreement. This funding is to reconfigure the Gilmer Drive Intersection; move and curb, add a landscaped
separation between bikeway and roadway and install wayfinding signage.
In FY18 The Transportation Division applied for and received a grant from Salt Lake County for $500,000
under the Countywide Active Transportation Network Improvement Program 2017. This grant is to be used for
design and construction of the segment of the 9 Line / 900 South Trail between 900 East and 1300 East.
Construction of the trail segment would occur in conjunction with road reconstruction from Lincoln (950 East)
to 1300 East and the installation of wayfinding signs on 900 South and Gilmer Drive.
This grant has a no match requirement.
A public hearing was held on 12/12/17 on the original grant application for this award.
E-2: CARES Act, third tranche Grant $150,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond
Salt Lake City received $150,000 from the third tranche of CARES Act funding. In BA#4 the Council authorized
the Administration to use the presumption that any amount received in this tranche would cover costs
associated with expenses within the Fire Department. This amendment formalizes that assumption, with the
City recognizing the revenue and an expense associated with the award.
Salt Lake City FY 2020-21 Budget Amendment #9
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
The County issued a new Interlocal Agreement with the City to finish the project funding from the original
Agreement. This funding is to reconfigure the Gilmer Drive Intersection; move and curb, add a landscaped
separation between bikeway and roadway and install wayfinding signage.
In FY18 The Transportation Division applied for and received a grant from Salt Lake County for $500,000
under the Countywide Active Transportation Network Improvement Program 2017. This grant is to be used for
design and construction of the segment of the 9 Line / 900 South Trail between 900 East and 1300 East.
Construction of the trail segment would occur in conjunction with road reconstruction from Lincoln (950 East)
to 1300 East and the installation of wayfinding signs on 900 South and Gilmer Drive.
This grant has a no match requirement.
A public hearing was held on 12/12/17 on the original grant application for this award.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #5
G-1: Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services,
FY 20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant
Program
Misc Grants $19,500.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services
(UBFS) application for the FY20 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application
includes $19,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain initial accreditation in 2021 through ANAB (ANSI
National Accreditation Board) under ISO 17020 for Inspection Agencies.
The Police Department received a subaward from UBFS’s FY19 Coverdell application to fund the application fee. The
anticipated remaining accreditation costs, which will be funded through this FY20 award, include the assessment fee and
the annual accreditation fee based on the laboratory’s scope of operations.
A match is not required for this award.
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 4/01/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 395,285$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 930,142$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 7,097,114$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,013,594$ D
13,436,135$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$
Notes
^1
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expenditures
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 4/01/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Crime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 20,952$ 63,114$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 49,104$ 59,956$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ -$ 102,256$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 571,809$ 4,080$ 151,111$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 12,980$ 54,332$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ -$ -$ 400,000$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,504,094$ 786,943$ 9,124,831$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ D
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ -$ -$ 13,000$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 21,799$ 3,319$ 15,909$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ -$ 607,870$ 2,250,220$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 443,752$ 3,377,127$ 5,471,368$
Total 24,384,609$ 2,250,490$ 5,185,080$ 16,949,039$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
7,097,114$
5,013,594$
13,436,135$
8484002
8484003
8484005
395,285$
$930,142
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:June 1, 2021
RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews
individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and
competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the
applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor
provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific
funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include
outside applications.
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP
project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical
structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved by September 1.
Page | 2
Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget
The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the
ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less
than last year.
•$5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source
County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees.
•$456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding
Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund
budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed.
The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue
increases.
•$5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below.
$5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new
projects (the most flexible funding available).
•$10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund
transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it
should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the
Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22
project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall,
debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt
load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include:
FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts.
Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan).
C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed
2 0 19 -2 0
A do p t ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
Pro p o sed
2 0 2 1-2 2
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
$ C h an ge
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 %
Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 %
I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 %
CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW
Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s
Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 %
SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 %
Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 %
*I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing
b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re
**Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le
ab o v e
***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to
tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc tu re use s
Page | 3
Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities
Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending.
An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt
payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See
Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing
the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects.
No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process,
rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds
Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
(See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book)
Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget
Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is
recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding
recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident
advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below.
- The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to
Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names
on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from
Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not
recommended for funding or less than full funding.
- Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with
slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for
transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to
use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets.
- Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor
proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board
proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores)
The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined
scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The
combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board
members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not
at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide.
Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal
(See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects)
Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue
bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid
using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to
prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital
needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6
million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while
others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than
the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58
million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include:
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
- $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade
- $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization
- $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions
- $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements
- $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration
- $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark
Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs
Page | 4
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
- $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation
- $1 Million for cemetery road repairs
- $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings)
Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond.
More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone.
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
- $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage
- $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South
- $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures
- $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks
- $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project
- $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park
- $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project
Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade
Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best
management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs
may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and
may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point.
Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities
Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a
long-term horizon.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging
fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet
zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the
9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc.
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index
of the City's street network from poor to fair
$50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s
Fleet needs
$47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 9)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed
projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be
recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP
projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2
million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses,
however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to
identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential
funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
Council Member Rogers’ Proposal
During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using
some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street
Page | 5
transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted
and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation
Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with
recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent
years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a
safety study of the 600 North corridor.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may
wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new
assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also
reviewing individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy
document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow
constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the
worst first based on a data-driven process, etc.
4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some
projects get more support from departments than others.
5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
Page | 6
reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The
State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals,
metrics, and requests.
9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes
to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are
only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7)
The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City
policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the
Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget
proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses
such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense.
Cost Overrun Account
The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula
determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total
Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration
to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to
the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying
projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7)
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the
most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021.
Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.
The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets
/ transportation impact fees.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away -
Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away -
Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017
Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Impact Fee Eligibility
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of
providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth
should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service
provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s
Page | 7
common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other
funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six
years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if
those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing
bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for
parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget
Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer
into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21.
The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is
recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of
almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded
through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks)
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
0%
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
1 00%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitme nts Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts
Page | 8
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This
section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance
fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require
maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and
maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to
continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of
$200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to
determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8)
Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The
document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to
date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project
cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost
estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August.
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to
transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused
perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and
ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for
this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active
transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for
maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax
Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and
0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between
this funding source and Class C funds (next section).
Class C Funds (gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C
funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee
selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses
between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous
section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter,
safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the
highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be
constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
Page | 9
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible)
Roadway Selection Committee
The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose
appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and
revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by
Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND,
Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection
process includes:
Public requests for individual road repair
On-going costs to keep a road safely passable
Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood
or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor
Safety improvement goals and crash data
Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities
replacements, repairs, or upgrades
Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power
Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations
Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street
In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads
are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other
City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources.
CIP Planning Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City
currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here:
http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff
report for the June 1 Council meeting
4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B
5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021)
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019)
9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition-The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan-The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor 's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts-The Council requests that the Administration :
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b . Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition , debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c . Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal-Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue . The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard-The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6 . Capital Project Prioritization-The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings , or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships -All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies ,
establish a public/ private partnership, or secure grant funding .
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding-The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations-The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board . The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor ,
and shall be included along with the Mayor 's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal , as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan-The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process -The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/ or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $100,001 and $250,000;
iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of $1oo,ooo.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects-The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects-Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance -Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15 . Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects-Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity /utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects -Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds-Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name, balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details -For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d . Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
1. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
m . Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations .
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10 -Year Capital Facilities Plan -The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios , the City 's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority , and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt-The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund-The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City 's operating budget, debt capacity limits , or rating
implications).
6. A void Use of Financial Derivative Instruments -The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7 . Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios-The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry .
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings-The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred -The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
10. Sustainable Debt Burden-The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
11. Lowest Cost Options-The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options .
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits-The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines-Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
Recommended
Recommended FY21/22
CDCIP Board Recommended Funds ##4,425,720$ 2,046,329$ 7,291,970$ 4,900,000$ 2,300,000$ 1,280,000$ -$
Requested Funding
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Requested General
Funds Requested Class C Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Street Requested Other FOF Requested FOF
Transit
Bon
d
Resc
ope
Fund
s
Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF Recommended FOF
Transit
Art New $66,386 $34,500 $19,200
Cost Overrun New $88,514 $46,000 $25,600
CARES / Engineering New Y Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation
Founded in 1971, Odyssey House has become the leading substance use disorder treatment
provider in the Intermountain West. Through integrated programming, Odyssey House serves
adults, adolescents, and families. Currently, the agency operates twenty-seven different programs
and facilities, including residential treatment, day treatment, intensive outpatient, general
outpatient, community-based counseling, medical services, and sober transitional housing.
Odyssey House administers care at any level of need. Odyssey House's mission is empowering
people to heal and build better lives.
Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the
Annex building rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102.
Currently, the Annex has a multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the
residential clients who inhabit the facility at this time.
The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a
multitude of different leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully
replace the roof and gutters, it will cost about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the
rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be repaired, treated, and braced, which will ultimately
cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be restored to complete all other necessary
renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building. Following the roof and
foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural skeleton
need to be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All
exterior walls need to be cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and
doors within the facility have to be wholly replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems,
all interior doors and windows cannot shut or lock because their frames are warped
and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it will cost about $19,500.
Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring, hardware,
plumbing, etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500.
Lastly, exterior site work, such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous
$500,000 $300,000
Engineering Renewal N Street Improvements 2021/2022
Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program.
This will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage
improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way
and pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the
Complete Streets ordinance.
$3,500,000 $2,046,329
Engineering New N Pavement Conditions Survey
Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is
accomplished by a third
party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and
costs. The data collected is
used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network
condition, provide street
rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed maintenance
activities.
$175,000 $3,571 $171,429
Engineering Renewal N Public Way Concrete 2021/2022
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking,
and removal and
replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter,
retaining walls, etc.
$750,000 $75,000 $675,000
Engineering Renewal N Bridge Preservation 2021/2022
There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal.
UDOT inspects these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report.
The city is responsible for performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in
the UDOT report. City Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the
objective of extending the functional life of these structures, and extending the time between
major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed repairs and routine
maintenance.
$300,000 $21,429 $278,571
Engineering Renewal N Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements
2021/2022
This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs
pavement improvements and
contracts the construction.
$70,000 $70,000
Facilities Renewal N Capital Asset Replacement Program
The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based
on the criticality of
projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity,
Property Loss, and Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital
renewal, Facilities proposes an annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP
funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount
requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which a 3% annual inflationary rate
has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is very heated;
with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.)
$5,860,449 $1,252,230
CDCIP Recommended Funding
Page 1
Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Requested General
Funds Requested Class C Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Street Requested Other FOF Requested FOF
Transit
Bon
d
Resc
ope
Fund
s
Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF Recommended FOF
Transit
Fire New N Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade
The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire
props within the Fire Training Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5
(need to define PLC5) to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system, and the bedroom, storage,
desk, and car fire props.
Fuel control station:
Replace existing fuel control station assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The
upgrade will replace the
existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically
controlled main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure
switches.
PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC:
*New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix
* New Allen Bradley input modules
* New Allen Bradley output modules
* New Allen Bradley analog modules
* New Allen Bradley Ethernet adapter modules
* Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery
* Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10)
* KFT Fire Trainer software
* Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems
* Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC.
Fire prop upgrade:
KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more
realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more
challenging flames that cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water,
used to disperse the propane or natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up.
$318,279 $6,223 $312,056
Fire New N Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop
Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include:
One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules
NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system
Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required
Burn baffles
High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s)
Standard windows
Standard doors
One (1) sliding door
Hallway
Vents with pull cable
Cleanout cargo doors
Freight to customer site
On-site installation & set up to include:
Full Project management support from Drager staff
Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site
Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures that the fire prop system is
installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption
Insured and bonded installation and crane service
Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors
Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance
$374,864 $374,864
Parks & Public Lands New Y Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations
Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of
this CIP request. The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The
CSB needs a new roof. This will require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-
installing the solar panels. The East Gate was identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation
inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient perimeter barrier. The solution is to
re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick work to repair damaged
areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included.
$156,078 $51,700 $104,378
Parks & Public Lands New Y Three Creeks West Bank Trailway Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300
South and 1000 West.$490,074 $484,146
Parks & Public Lands Phased Y Three Creeks West Bank New Park
This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South,
along the Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be
determined as the project moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale
Community Council.
$150,736 $150,736
Parks & Public Lands New Y Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove
and Replace
Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus
to review, analyze and
recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in
December of 2015.
Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020.
$183,834 $183,834
Parks & Public Lands New Y Liberty Park Basketball Court This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the
replacement of two new basketball hoops.$99,680 $99,680
Parks & Public Lands Phased N Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape
Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component
This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to
provide a new active recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build
on the results of a City sponsored community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will
determine the program and character for development. Funds from this request will be allocated
for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the Glendale water park was built
using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded sites in
perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water
slides and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with
another public outdoor, active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot
solely be open fields of grass or natural area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a
community directed, active recreation amenity on site within the three-year time limit. The scope
of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources allocated and
alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one
project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely
require several phases and funding cycles.
$3,200,000 $3,200,000
Parks & Public Lands New N A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan
The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the
Jordan River corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four
Salt Lake City neighborhoods. The final deliverable will include block-by-block maps and
renderings, preliminary designs and cost estimates for the implementation of improvements and
modifications that will, once completed, transform the Jordan River Parkway into SLC's Emerald
Ribbon - the most desirable green space asset in Salt Lake City.
Building on the success of the community engagement approach used for Reimagine Nature (the
SLC Public Lands Master Plan), the Public Lands Division will employ multi-faceted, multi-lingual
engagement targeting a clear vision for each block of the Jordan River Parkway through SLC.
Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional
connections that are important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river. The
planning effort will further map out recommendations for implementation of specific and
measurable projects and activities that will produce tangible improvements to the appearance,
unique character, safety, accessibility and frequency of use of each discreet segment. As a whole,
the Emerald Ribbon Master Plan will be the springboard for a contiguous corridor that reflects and
celebrates the diversity of the neighborhoods it connects.
The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced
consulting firm, and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the
neighborhoods where engagement will occur. This approach will build on the connections made
with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative relationship in the west side
communities for this placemaking effort and future implementation projects, and will ensure that
creative and diverse engagement tactics produce public feedback that captures the voices and
opinions of groups and community members that have been traditionally underrepresented but
which are critical to effective placemaking. Placemaking is most effective when the community
brings their intimate knowledge of the place to the vision, based on comfort and image; uses and
activities; access and linkages; and sociability.
$420,000 $416,667
Page 2
Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Requested General
Funds Requested Class C Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Street Requested Other FOF Requested FOF
Transit
Bon
d
Resc
ope
Fund
s
Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF Recommended FOF
Transit
Parks & Public Lands Phased N Downtown Green Loop Implementation: Design
for 200 East linear Park
Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already
under consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including
improvements for active transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund
the collaborative visioning, public engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation
elements of the Green Loop. The design of public green space, park elements, and stormwater rain
gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public way, facilitated by a significant
reallocation of space from pavement to park.
Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that
this funding will go
primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of
this phase of the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-
significant project; a conceptual and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for
seeking construction funds; and strategies for short and long term maintenance approaches and
costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include:
• Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green
Loop corridor
• Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the
Green Loop.
• Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and
infrastructure that may impact above ground improvements.
• Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full
construction cost estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates.
$610,000 $610,000
Parks & Public Lands New N Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and
Master Plan
Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one
million visitors each year. It is easy to take for granted that Liberty Park has been and will remain a
successful, thriving centerpiece to Salt Lake City’s park system, but the features that draw visitors
to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park its unique
atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. Historic features such as the
greenhouse, stone fireplaces and arbors are crumbling and lack a plan for funding for repair. The
formal tree plantings framing the central walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss
due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic character is desperately needed. It is critical
to the continued success of Liberty Park that the City begin now to plan for the restoration,
preservation and renewal of the assets that make Liberty Park so desirable.
The Liberty Park Cultural Landscape Report and Master Plan project has three integral
components for Salt Lake City’s
beloved historic park.
1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document for the management of cultural
landscapes and is based on standards established by the National Park Services. The report
documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic significance
and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build
on previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including
information on underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital
improvements, deferred maintence projects and everyday maintence practices.
2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR
recommendations and
provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the
park for the next twenty years. Planning consultants will evaluate the existing site features,
recreation resources, programs, and level of use. The planning process will engage stakeholders,
community partners and collect public input to understand the recreation needs of the community
$475,000 $354,167
Parks & Public Lands New N Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at
Allen Park
In May 2020, Salt Lake City acquired the historic artist community known as Allen Park from the
family of Dr. George Allen, saving this unique and storied property in Sugarhouse from being
demolished for redevelopment. The property contains an extensive collection of folk art and
environmental assets including a mature riparian forest, a resident population of peafowl, and one
of the longest uninterrupted above-ground sections of Emigration Creek in urban Salt Lake City. It
is also home to fourteen historic residential structures (including 28 separate living spaces), some
of which date back to the 1850s, and which were primarily used as rental residences between the
1930s and 2019. Many Salt Lakers have stories of living for a time at Allen Park, or visiting a friend
or family member who did. Dr. George Allen was especially fond of renting living quarters to
writers, thinkers, and artists who connected with his vision for a bohemian sanctuary within the
City, and who used some of their time on the property to make or practice their art.
Since May 2020, SLC Public Lands has conducted public surveys and property visits with
stakeholder organizations, working to better define a public vision for this one-of-a-kind ‘art-park’.
While engagement is still ongoing, it is becoming clear that almost all survey respondents and
stakeholders share a vision for re-activation of the space, and in particular the historic structures,
as a home for the ongoing creation of artwork, in a form that is available for the public to enjoy
and appreciate. The scope of the Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen
Park CIP Project includes development of plan sets, construction documents and cost estimates
for improvements that further this public vision, including components such as the following:
• Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
• Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural,
safety and functional
improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate
art studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure
to serve as a restroom/supplies washroom.
• Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the
$420,000 $420,000
Parks & Public Lands New N Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt
Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by
the community. This
project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, in Poplar Grove
Park and construct either two new tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing
footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to
determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the
site ideal for tournament
play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed
concessions stand, currently
underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project
includes:
• Engagement with the community on project preference
• Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement
• Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction
• Construction of post-tension court facility
• Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches
• Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks
• Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas
$440,000 $349,026 $84,307
Parks & Public Lands Phased N SLC Foothills Trailhead Development
This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The
Foothill Trails Master Plan
adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended
improvements to better accommodate the growing trail network within Salt Lake City's Foothills.
Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The
SLC Public Lands team has
been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead
locations including: Emigration
Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road.
Concepts are attached.
Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now
requesting funding to
implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated
with all five locations the
remaining locations will be included in FY23
Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and
Emigration Canyon.
Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability,
accessibility, and functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC
Foothills Trail System Plan and these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of
the master plan recommendations.
$1,304,682 $1,304,682
Page 3
Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Requested General
Funds Requested Class C Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Street Requested Other FOF Requested FOF
Transit
Bon
d
Resc
ope
Fund
s
Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF Recommended FOF
Transit
Parks & Public Lands New N SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions
The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped
natural open space in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275
acres, which will allow SLC to consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the
City in a position to protect the parcels from future development, and to guide property
management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational access.
For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two
parcels, the proposed
acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership
interest; an in one case,
would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional
ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage
them for foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use.
$425,000 $425,000
Parks & Public Lands New N Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways
This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in
Jordan Park. New trail segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired
pedestrian connections and a looped network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a
previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi-use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be
used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and construction of the new pathways.
Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed.
$510,000 $510,000
Parks & Public Lands New N RAC Playground with Shade Sails
Cost Estimates
$300,000- Playground materials and construction
$150,000- Design, engineering and contingency
This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open
for 5 years and currently
doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex.
The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground for ages 5-12
• Development of technical drawings
• Grading and surfacing preparations
• Playground Construction
• Walkway and fencing
$450,000 $180,032
Transportation New Y 700 South Westside Road Configuration
Overview –
My family and I bought our sweet bungalow and moved into my neighborhood 2 and a half years
ago. It has been a remarkable
place to grow our family. Our front and backyard, our neighbors, the Jordan river parkway, the
chapman library, the post street
tot lot, the little ice cream place around the corner, poplar grove park, a smith’s marketplace
within walking distance, the
international peace garden, Jordan park, Sorenson unity center, and so much more has stolen our
hearts.
My husband and I strive to imagine and create what our neighborhood will look like and how we
can contribute to ensuring it
maintains its charm, ambience, and friendliness. Since we have moved in and since our kids are
growing and getting more
mobile, we have become increasingly concerned with the speeds of cars down 10th west. It is not
a main thoroughfare,
though many treat it as such. The road is wide and there are little to no markings. A particular area
of concern is the
intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects with 700 S
(another, even more massively
wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic circle with a pocket park in the
center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture these medians
planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality,
speed controlling traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a
simple playground. This vision benefits the community in more ways than we could count.
Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our
$514,450 $223,450 $291,000
Transportation New Y Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements
The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing
Beacons (RRFB) as well as
enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of
the intersection and a
raised median)
$85,000 $85,000
Transportation New N 200 South Transit Complete Street Supplement
As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400
West to 900 East beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000
inclusive of construction and professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting
$3,261,900 in Funding our Future Transit Sales Tax and 4th Quarter Transportation Sales Tax funds
to supplement the reconstruction funds in
order to build high-quality infrastructure that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South
Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown Transit Hub Study.
The preliminary design includes:
• Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus
lanes but still provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions.
• In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel
time and minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops.
• Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades,
landscaping, sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle
lanes.
The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority
of the expense is going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on
the corridor. Without supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the
elements that make this a transformative multi-modal project.
It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases, specifically the East
Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional
Transportation Plan. When it comes to phasing, certain things are modular (e.g. the Transit Hub)
and can be added later. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the
initial construction phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb
extensions that affect flow lines and drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the
supplemental funds will
$284,691 $415,800 $2,561,409 $37,422 $415,800
Transportation New N 900 South 9Line RR Crossing
The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and
budgeting approaches. It
recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and
the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-
separate either just the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and
shorter-term option is an improved at-grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails for people
walking and bicycling on the 9-Line Trail, and routing the trail under the interstate.
The latter is the focus of this application for funding. More information about the overall project’s
timeline (2021-2023),
approach, benefits, and robust past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com.
The aforementioned project’s design process (2019-2021) revealed that previous cost estimates
and existing funding were
insufficient to design, coordinate, and construct as safe and comfortable an at-grade railroad
crossing as possible. In addition, very recent experiences coordinating and estimating construction
costs with UPRR and UTA, related to the at-grade rail crossings for the Folsom Trail and the 300
North Pedestrian Bridge projects, have led the project team to believe that additional funding will
be required. This funding request seeks additional monies that would be used to:
• Fund a nominal increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design
and engineering
consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah
Department of Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), likely around
$10,000.
• Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000.
• Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to
accommodate a 9-Line Trail
crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically
$28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000
Transportation Renewal N Trails Maintenance
This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be
moved from the capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division.
Maintenance is an eligible expense of the state-authorizing
legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material to
maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and
the Jordan River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the
course of the fiscal year. The maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all
that use them and also so they can be used year round.
$200,000 $200,000
Page 4
Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Requested General
Funds Requested Class C Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Street Requested Other FOF Requested FOF
Transit
Bon
d
Resc
ope
Fund
s
Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF Recommended FOF
Transit
Transportation Renewal N Local Link Construction
The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to
the 2013 Sugar House
Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling,
and transit in Sugar House.
This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the
recommendations of the Local Link
circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be
reconstructed as part of the Funding
our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these budgets
had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure
curbs or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort
facilities for walking and biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be
constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East
and 2100 South; 1300 East
will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking
connections between Sugar
House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar
House Park, intersection
enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening
crossing distances).
$50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000
Transportation Renewal N Corridor Transformations
This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure
additions to corridors NOT
currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to
signing, striping and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with
shelters, benches, trash cans, and other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections
for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the context of a corridor study; and consideration of
business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include 600/700 North, 2100 South, and
corridors on the Downtown Green Loop.
$75,604 $780,438 $25,398 $282,200
Transportation Phased N Area Studies
These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the
rapidly-developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in
the area, as well as an understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of
this study is estimated at $120,000, and the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and
Land Use Connection funding. The study will be complemented by a study work being conducted
by UTA in the area.
These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar
House area, following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study.
This study (adoption process anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013
Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking,
bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this funding would be to allow us to design
higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key area, above and beyond
what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include Highland
Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East
will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking
connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of
bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around
Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances).
$14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000
Transportation Phased N 400 South Viaduct Trail
This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-
use trail on the south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood
with Downtown Salt Lake City for those walking or
bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping
removal and replacement, and
minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing sidewalks on the
east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes.
$310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000
Transportation Phased N Neighborhood Byways
These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to
create a neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference
material in the development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood
byway development more streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000.
Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) --
will receive construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose
Park West -- will enter community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per
byway).
$104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500
Transportation New N 900 South Signal Improvements
The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East).
From 700 East to 200
West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes
to three, improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a
separated path (the 9-Line Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of
900 South. The narrowing and other project elements will largely be achieved by moving the
southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully funded and are currently in design,
and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the robust past
engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com.
During the design process, more detailed costs for essential project elements, such as signals, have
also been developed.
The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most
intersections along the
corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of
signal poles required to be
moved in order to keep project costs as low as possible.
1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened,
or the entire pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north.
2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened.
3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration.
4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or
adding new or relocated
pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations.
5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would
also be upgraded with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East
intersections, the only four intersections where such
$430,000 $70,000 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500
Transportation Phased N Urban Trails
This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations
between Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These
funds will enable conceptual development, design, and construction of selected urban trails,
including:
• design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West
• design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County
• design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan
• design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets
included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan.
Quick-build designs will be linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be
temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent.
• initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA
drain
• neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail
• rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail
$6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500
Transportation Renewal N Multimodal Street Maintenance
This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for
which current in-house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include
enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike
lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc.
$200,000 $200,000
Page 5
Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Requested General
Funds Requested Class C Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Street Requested Other FOF Requested FOF
Transit
Bon
d
Resc
ope
Fund
s
Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF Recommended FOF
Transit
Transportation Renewal N Transportation Safety Improvements
Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or
other traffic control devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address
safety issues. Salt Lake City's program places a strong
emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit.
This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists
citywide and to improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This
funding will be used for the installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in
the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are
completed.
Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or
intersections, refuge islands,
bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples
of the safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to
analyze crash history, roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified
projects to improve traffic safety involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to
those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed a high priority for implementation.
$450,000 $50,000 $44,400 $400,000
Transportation New N 1700 South Corridor Transformation
Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park,
1700 River Park, support a
possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west
walking and bicycling
corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s Trail.
Improvements will also
include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park) and south
(Glendale Water Park and
Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public engagement, and
construction of curb changes to
improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi-permanent quick build linear
elements, striping changes, and
signage.
$326,835 $36,315 $35,300 $317,792
Transportation New Y Kensington Byway Ballpark
The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds
for development of a
neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master
Plan (December 2015).
“Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing
improvements (for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps,
signage, street markings, and other traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and
connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian routes.” (source:
https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ )
$500,000 $500,000
Totals by Funding Source $$13,229,543 $3,500,000 $7,880,028 $4,898,238 $0 $0 $2,561,409 $0 $4,425,720 $2,046,329 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,280,000 $0
Page 6
Not Recommended
27,016,868$ -$ 1,498,600$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Engineering New Y 3000 South Sidewalk and
Curb
Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South
from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will
require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls.C
449,315$
Engineering New N Logan Ave Reconstruction
This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain
project. This will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage
improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and
pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete
Streets ordinance.C
1,405,000$
Engineering New N Bridge Replacement (200
South over Jordan River)
This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200
South over the Jordan
River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River
Trail, and the historic
nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or around the
new bridge.C
3,500,000$
Engineering New N
Bridge Rehabilitation (400
South and 650 North over
Jordan River)
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the
Jordan River. A bridge
inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58,
respectively, out of 100.
Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation
work for both bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying
deck will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing
membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under
surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier
caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit heavier than typical corrosion. The
piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged parapet wall will be removed
and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route. Additionally,
aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings
mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized
experience will be used for this project.
C
3,000,000$
Engineering New N Wingpointe Levee Design
The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed
by Engineering
consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and
modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop
construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This
design effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance.
C
800,000$
Engineering New Y Three Creeks West Bank
Roadways
This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West
and installing storm
sewers.C
1,158,422$
Facilities New N Delong Salt Storage
This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of
salt the rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows
for an overall, more efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate.
C
1,504,427$
Facilities New N Steam Bay
When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to
clean asphalt and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate
oil from water runoff, and capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements.
A single Streets crew could alternate equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the
second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously, and the steam bay’s capacity has been
exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating a storm water pollution
risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds will go toward a
larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4 foot
pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system.
C
363,495$
Page 7
Not Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Fire New N Mixed-Use Three Story Prop
Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include:
Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training
modules
Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required)
Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers
Burn room baffles
Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each
floor
Exterior stairs to single container roof
Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories
Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers
Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof
Two bailout windows
Vent/enter/search windows
Eleven (11) exterior doors
Two (2) interior doors
Emergency fire escape stairs
Four (4) training deck containers
Freight to customer site
On-site installation & set up to include:
Full project management support from Drager staff
Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site
Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures that the fire prop system is installed
properly, safely, and with minimal disruption
Insured and bonded installation and crane service
C
815,895$
Fire New N Training Ground Site
Improvements
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas
surrounding fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this
training ground would simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the
site improvement would resemble streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is
approximately 45,000 square feet of underutilized training ground.
Key components of this project include:
Training ground site design
Site excavation
Drainage and retention system
Site back fill and compaction
Various paved access roads
Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training
Technical and confined rescue training props
Curb and gutter along Wallace St.
Perimeter landscaping and fencing
C
694,785$
Parks & Public LandsNew Y Sunnyside Park Sidewalk
Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to
intersecting sidewalk inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft
wide. Federal funding was explored but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal
property. Costs could include wider surface or other improvements to meet the minimum spending
requirement.
C
72,740$
Parks & Public LandsNew Y
Winner on Wasatch Dee
Glan Tennis Court
Construction
A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen
(Wasatch Hills Tennis
Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be
post-tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new
privately funded year-round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation
(a 501 c3 non-profit whose mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting
Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers).
M
500,000$
Parks & Public LandsNew Y Lighting Upgrade at Liberty
Park Tennis Center
LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis
Center.
M
202,100$
Parks & Public LandsNew Y Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills
Tennis Court Resurfacing
26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center M
300,000$
Page 8
Not Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Parks & Public LandsNew Y Harrison Ave and 700 E
Community Garden
This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership
between Wasatch
Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community
gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local
produce and reduce barriers to urban food production.
The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members
for 12 to 18 months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build
the community support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of
gardeners, garden leaders, volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden
design process, provide the materials for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil,
amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and
oversee services that are contracted out.
The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the
9-Line Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community
Garden. The scope of work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design,
landscape design, site demolition and preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and
pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil, amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and
supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches, and common area plantings.
C
103,500$
Parks & Public LandsNew Y 1300 South Camping
Reisitant Landscaping
The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park
strips on 1300 South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and
grass that currently exist on these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas
with new low- to no-water options such as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes.
These new park strip designs would have the dual effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing
nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter and camping-resistant landscapes.
C
100,000$
Parks & Public LandsNew Y Wingate Walkway
The constituents estimated $100,000 as a ballpark estimate.
The considerably greater project budget was developed above by Parks and
Transportation Divisions.
• This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by
constituents. This is quite expensive at estimated $5000 per tree, and would include
using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a landscaping company
to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree
removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15
mature trees for this project, but at a construction cost savings of $67,500.
• This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the
power drop to the traffic signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated,
an additional approximate $30,000 would be added to the project construction costs,
along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW
acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires.
• This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by
Wingate Condo Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of
$2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers would be needed to protect the fence
from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is suggested
that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo
Association be responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the
parking headers in place.
• A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought
iron fencing at $48 per linear foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost.
• This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the
constituents included. This also recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle C
286,750$
Parks & Public LandsPhased Y 1200 East Median
The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project
seeks to install new
curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be
raised to match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system
and a significant amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting
portion of the project is in support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt
Lake City’s air quality.
The cost estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction.M
500,000$
Page 9
Not Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Parks & Public LandsNew N Parleys Historic Nature Park
Structure Preservation
The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP):
1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed
rehabilitation/protection
recommendations for each;
2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural
rehabilitation;
3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural
features, per the
recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan.
4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve
public
awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended
interpretive signage.M
765,325$
Parks & Public LandsNew N
Enhancement of the
Cemetery for Visitor
Research and Knowledge
Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000
Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000
Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000
Plat Markers- $100,000
Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000 C
790,000$
Parks & Public LandsPhased N Cemetery Roadway
Improvements, Phase 1
Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. These roads were
identified as being the
first priority for repair/replacement. Maintenance and repair of the Cemetery roadways is one the
largest challenges currently facing the Cemetery. With 7.9 miles of roads and an estimated $12.5
million dollars in repairs, it is unlikely
that the roadways can be repaired as a single project. Two strategies were identified to address
these challenges:
1. Develop roadway and drainage repair plans to identify and prioritize repairs into smaller projects
2. Restrict vehicle access on low priority roadways to minimize the intensity of the use, extend the
life of the roadways, reduce the necessity of needed repairs, and reduce maintenance
Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair based on the following
characteristics:
-Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular circulation were prioritized
over secondary or tertiary roads.
-Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Plan were given higher priority
-Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix
E for detailed Cemetery Roadway Condition Analysis)
-Road width was given some consideration but only to the extent that wider roads tend to be
primary circulation routes with narrow roads generally being tertiary circulation routes.
-Total roadway length within a priority category was considered in an effort to separate roadways
into projects that would be of a more manageable size from a funding standpoint.
-Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and
gutter and storm
drainage improvements M
3,838,000$
Parks & Public LandsPhased N 9Line and Rose Park
Asphalt Pump Tracks
The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at
the existing 9Line
Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North
Cornell Avenue.
The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the
9Line Bike Park. While
the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will
improve the pump track
and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the construction of the
9Line Bike Park in 2016
it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This improvement will provide a safe more
durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to the Day Riverside Library
will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In 2020 SLC
Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required
the removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the
asphalt pump track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark
neighborhood.C
1,393,600$
Page 10
Not Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Parks & Public LandsNew N Richmond Park Playground
and Park improvements
This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more
than twenty years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent
success of the new community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground
and pavilion so that it can respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three
uses and increase visibility into and out of the site. The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground and pavilion
• Engagement with the community on project character and site development
• Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation
• Demolition of existing playground and pavilion
• Construction of a playground and pavilion
• Construction of new sidewalk connections
• Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings
• Installation of new site furnishings and park signage M
690,000$
Parks & Public LandsNew N
Library Square Feasibility,
Civic Engagement and
Design Development
The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community,
that is safe, well used
and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall
and paving system
(uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard. The
square is surrounded by a rapidly increasing downtown population that could bring more positive
activity to the space. This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving
and wall systems; facilitate outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop
comprehensive design solutions with phasing strategies for implementation.
Summary of work:
1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the
parking structure. A
compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing
conditions analysis
and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose appropriate
solutions.
2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major
events that occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs
places to be outside. A civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be
incorporated on the Square that would increase positive activity throughout the day and week.
3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions
for the wall and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to
implement as well as design moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for
large events, this would include shade, access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a
phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs and implementation strategies for a multi-year P
225,000$
Parks & Public LandsPhased N
Donner & Rotary Glen Park
Community Park Irrigation
& Landscape Design and
Construction
2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary
restrictions on water use,
resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires
carefully designed and
managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of climate
adaption and a top
priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a water efficient
irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally appropriate
water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone
while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these
landscapes require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to
creating a more climate resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify
desired new amenities such as fitness equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and
design will also focus on improving the parks circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops
and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes:
1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park;
2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation;
and
3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two
future funding requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site.
Design standards and best practices developed in this project will be used as a tool for future site
redevelopment.M
650,000$
Page 11
Not Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Transportation New Y Capitol Hill Traffic Calming
Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of
vertical speed-reduction
elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge
islands, partial barriers
and 'road diet' measures C
595,194$
Transportation New Y
Harvard Heights Residential
Concrete Street
Reconstruction
This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement
replacement, drive
approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially
constructed in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary
fixes have been employed continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The
key flaw with this approach--and the main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the
concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year-round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a
real safety concern to residents.
Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps,
speed tables, and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to
reduce traffic speed. There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved
design C
1,311,920$
Transportation New Y Liberty Wells Traffic
Calming
The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the
school and near homes,
encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City
master plans. These
goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington, Bryan, and
Milton Avenues,
surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the project team and
the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to benefit
students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets.
The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially
funded, proposed
Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood
byways is a unique and
cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and walking-oriented
streets with low traffic
volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for physical street design elements
that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands, signage, improved lighting,
bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will depend on further
community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School
administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District.
The project scope will include the following elements:
1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s
streets (Kensington, Bryan,
and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and effective
traffic calming interventions.P
400,000$
Transportation New Y Stratford Bike Crossing
This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the
city. There is an
understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a
modification to the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would
include removing the current stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from
Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go
straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E
and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight through N/S traffic on 1700 E would
yield to bikers as they cross.C
200,000$
Page 12
Not Recommended
Department Category Constituent
Y/N Application Title Scope of Work Capital/Maintenan
ce
Requested General
Funds
Requested
Class C
Requested
Impact Fees
Requested
Qcent Tax
Requested FOF
Streets
Requested
Other FOF
Requested
FOF Transit
Transportation New Y Sugar House Safe Side
Streets
This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar
House. It is made up of two basic parts:
1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing
traffic calming measures
on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations,
including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving
neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations.
2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s
six local streets:
Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street.
Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing,
raised crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments.
The project area was determined by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing
negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to speak.P
500,000$
Transportation New N Sunnyside 9Line Trail
Missing Piece
Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive
in 2016-2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to
acquire the property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue
property owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-
foot wide sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill
this gap, connecting to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to
the east (University of Utah property) and the west (City property).
The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and
constraints, complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund
property acquisition or easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset.
Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees
and landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front
door of the chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage,
ADA compliance, and trail user comfort.C
350,000$
Transportation Renewal N Multimodal Intersections &
Signals
• Upgrade five aging traffic signals
• Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes
• Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors
This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life,
including steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections
with mast arm poles, new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved
detection, and left turn phasing, as needed.
Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor
costs, and overall
construction costs all affecting price.M
945,000$ 105,000$
Page 13
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114
TEL 801-535-6403
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_________________________ Date Received: __________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ______________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 20, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer ________________________________
SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer
801-535-6565
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion on June 15, 2021 in anticipation of
adopting a Bond Resolution for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That the City Council consider
adopting a Bond Resolution on July 13, 2021 approving the issuance and sale of up to $58,000,000
principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B (the “Bonds”), and
give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of
the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Tax- Exempt Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021A – $22,490,000:
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the cost of the various capital improvement
projects. The list of the capital improvement projects to be financed by this bond issue is attached.
The City’s Bond Counsel has reviewed the attached list of projects and provided their
recommendations to the tax status of the bonds. The list is color-coded to reflect their responses.
Responses highlighted in green are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Responses highlighted in yellow are for projects that are eligible for tax-exempt financing but have
potential private business use.
rachel otto (May 21, 2021 13:58 MDT)
05/21/2021
05/21/2021
Salt Lake City Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A and 2021B
Transmittal to City Council
May 11, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Responses highlighted in red are projects that either have or are likely to have private business use.
The Administration proposes to issue tax-exempt bonds for the projects highlighted in green for the
total of $22,490,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $1,307,595 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
Taxable Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bond, Series 2021B - $34,600,000:
The Administration proposes to issue taxable bonds for the projects highlighted in yellow and red for
the total of $34,600,000.
Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate environment, annual debt service costs
would average $2,111,765 per year for 21 years. Attached are preliminary numbers including
estimated sources and uses of funds as well as debt amortization schedules.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The table below summarizes the proposed bond issue:
NEW MONEY
New Money Project List $57,090,000
Tax-Exempt (green highlight) $22,490,000
Taxable (red & yellow
highlights) $34,600,000
The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on August 25, 2021.
An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the authorizing resolution of the City are included for your
review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change.
The Certificate of Determination will need to be signed by the Mayor and Council Chair or their
respective designees on the afternoon of the date of pricing and sale of the bonds, which is currently
scheduled for August 25, 2021.
Attachments
cc: Mary Beth Thompson, Boyd Ferguson, Steven Bagley, Lisa Shaffer, Mathew Cassel, Lorna Vogt,
Cory Rushton, Blake Thomas.
Department Project Dollar Amount Description
Facilities CCB Transformer 2,500,000$ CCB Transformer Need square footage of all buildings served by the transformer. May have
private business use of the portion serving the Leonardo. Depending on private
payments and other private business use, consider financing portion relating to
Leonardo on a taxable basis.
CAN Warm Springs historic
structure stabilization
3,000,000$ Full roof, flashing, drain replacement. Chimney stabilization. Lateral force tier 3 seismic
upgrade. Stucco and window treatment.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Urban Wood Reutilization
Equipment and Storage
Additions
1,700,000$ Storage Building, Equipment Awning, Fencing, Lighting, Utilities to develop a fully
functional Urban Wood Reutilization facility $1,700,000. Horizontal Grinder: Primary
piece of equipment, will produce landscape mulch and EWF playground surface
$1,100,000. Wood Mill: Mill will produce lumber products from urban trees $200,000.
Base on project as described, including usage of wood, entire project is eligible
for tax-exempt financing. Wood sales, if any, should be to general public.
PL Public Lands Multilingual
Wayfinding Signage
1,200,000$ This proposal is for Wayfinding signage throughout the City for the Parks, trails and
natural lands system.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Jordan River Paddle Share
improvements at Exchange
Club Marina 1700 S 7 JR
440,000$
Bond-funded infrastructure includes paddle share lockers (2 locations) with functional life
of 20+ years, reconstruction of Paddle Share/River Access parking with improved
entryway, signage & crosswalk/RRFB pedestrian crossing to existing restroom at 17th
South River Park. Funding for additional paddle-share stations that would compliment
this project is currently being requested from other sources (grants).
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
CAN Fisher Mansion
improvements and
1,500,000$
Concrete, masonry and seismic, thermal and moisture protection.
Since the City is treating the direct and indirect costs of the improvements as a
capital expenditure, entire project is eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Allen Park Activation Historic
Structures
1,300,000$ Adaptive re-use/restoration of historic residences in Allen Park to allow them to serve as
artist studio spaces similar to Balboa Park Spanish Village model, with more frequent
rotation of artists & art residencies. Improvements to Allen Park site to accommodate
frequent gallery strolls, art & music festivals, etc. Will it include power source to allow
food trucks, events, etc.? Will full utility upgrades be needed as the structures are now on
septic systems.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and potentially management contracts (see prior email
and memo).
Trans 600 North Complete Street
Transformation
4,000,000$ A low-cost phase 1 is already funded. Our latest cost estimate shows that we only need
$8.7M, but construction prices keep going up, so that doesn't give much wiggle room. Any
construction that impacts PU? Yes. We have been and will continue to coordinate with
them.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL West Side Neighborhood
Parks
3,400,000$ Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, repairs could count against 5% working capital limit and there could be
private business use. The City will likely need to actively monitor to ensure
compliance with short term exceptions.
CAN Fisher Mansion restoration 7,500,000$
The full restoration would allow for end uses including community gathering space, venue
for music/art & special events, and potentially a commercial kitchen for food & beverage
service and/or leasable office space.
Leasable office space would create private business use and private payments.
Consider financing office space portion with taxable financing. Other portions of
the project could be financed on a tax-exempt basis since the City will treat the
direct and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures. The City
would need to monitored to ensure compliance with short term exceptions.
PL Cemetery Road Repairs 1,000,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Foothills Trails System, Phase
II, III, Trailheads & Signage
5,250,000$ See Foothills Trails System Plan for Trails Plan Phase II Scope. Major trailhead project
locations = Victory Road: 670 North Victory Road, Popperton Park: 1375 East Popperton
Park Way, Bonneville Blvd: 675 North Bonneville Boulevard, I Street: 925 Hilltop Road
Emigration: 2755 East Sunnyside. Bathrooms included at Bonneville Blvd, Popperton Park
and Victory Road. No Bathrooms included at Emigration or I Street. Phase III Trails
probably not feasible for construction within 3-year window so are excluded from this
budget and planned for future phase, and very possibly funded through external sources
including grants and private donations.
Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
Ballpark 3,000,000$ 1M-Security & Fencing 1M-Stadium Seating/Stairs Railings 1M Interiors Restrooms &
Elevator Still under evaluation and need additional information, but private business use
is probable as are private payments. Depending on determinations made with
other projects may want to consider taxable financing to provide flexibility.
Quiet Zones 6,100,000$ Eligible for tax-exempt financing.
PL Pioneer Park 5,200,000$ Pioneer Park has impact fee funding to develop new components in the park. This funding
would be utilized to rebuild comfort stations (restrooms), take out existing and build new
playground, tennis/pickleball reconstruction and to rebuild the event power for farmers
market and larger scale events. PL has a consultant preparing to start public engagement
in summer of 2021. This project can easily fit in the 3 year time line.
Based on currently described project and the City's intention to treat the direct
and indirect costs of the improvements as capital expenditures, the project is
eligible for tax-exempt financing; however, there could be private business use
and payments. The City will need to actively monitor to ensure compliance with
short term exceptions and any management contract for the concession stand
would need to be reviewed for compliance. May want to consider taxable
financing for the concession stand portion to provide flexibility.
PL Glendale Water Park 10,000,000$ The community's initial requests include a water feature (splash pad, indoor/outdoor pool
etc.) as well as options for open space use including increasing tree canopy, create natural
buffer zones for the river, community open spaces using the site's hills for viewing sheds
and outdoor classrooms. nostalgia-related public art installations to reflect the site’s
original water park use, a food truck court with eating areas, water sports rentals (in
coordination with the Jordan River), and a variety of meeting and seating areas around
the park. The community also has suggested nostalgia-related public art installations to
reflect the sites original water park use, foot truck court, water sports rentals and meeting
/ seating areas around the park, sports courts, recreation fields, perimeter
walking/running trails and an ADA-accessible playground. Lastly the community sees a
connected regional park, similar in scope to Liberty Park or Sugarhouse, connecting the
existing Glendale Park, 1700 South Park, Glendale Golf Course and the former Raging
waters site.
Early stages of planning. Should be able to finance with tax-exempt financing;
however, there could be private business use. The City needs to actively monitor
to ensure compliance with short term exceptions and management contract
guidelines, if applicable.
Total 57,090,000$
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 09/16/2021 | Delivered 09/16/2021
2021A TAX-
EXEMPT
2021B
TAXABLE
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $18,840,000.00 $34,800,000.00 $53,640,000.00
Reoffering Premium 3,759,835.65 -3,759,835.65
Total Sources $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.275%)51,810.00 95,700.00 147,510.00
Costs of Issuance 56,520.00 104,400.00 160,920.00
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 22,490,000.00 34,600,000.00 57,090,000.00
Rounding Amount 1,505.65 (100.00)1,405.65
Total Uses $22,599,835.65 $34,800,000.00 $57,399,835.65
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 1
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$53,640,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES 2021 A&B
(September 16, 2021 )
($57.09M Projects)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --803,666.50 803,666.50 -
06/30/2022 ----803,666.50
10/01/2022 2,080,000.00 1.593%741,846.00 2,821,846.00 -
04/01/2023 --725,277.50 725,277.50 -
06/30/2023 ----3,547,123.50
10/01/2023 2,115,000.00 1.674%725,277.50 2,840,277.50 -
04/01/2024 --707,577.50 707,577.50 -
06/30/2024 ----3,547,855.00
10/01/2024 2,155,000.00 1.899%707,577.50 2,862,577.50 -
04/01/2025 --687,113.50 687,113.50 -
06/30/2025 ----3,549,691.00
10/01/2025 2,200,000.00 2.202%687,113.50 2,887,113.50 -
04/01/2026 --662,893.50 662,893.50 -
06/30/2026 ----3,550,007.00
10/01/2026 2,250,000.00 2.408%662,893.50 2,912,893.50 -
04/01/2027 --635,808.50 635,808.50 -
06/30/2027 ----3,548,702.00
10/01/2027 2,310,000.00 2.644%635,808.50 2,945,808.50 -
04/01/2028 --605,271.00 605,271.00 -
06/30/2028 ----3,551,079.50
10/01/2028 2,370,000.00 2.800%605,271.00 2,975,271.00 -
04/01/2029 --572,091.00 572,091.00 -
06/30/2029 ----3,547,362.00
10/01/2029 2,445,000.00 2.939%572,091.00 3,017,091.00 -
04/01/2030 --536,162.50 536,162.50 -
06/30/2030 ----3,553,253.50
10/01/2030 2,515,000.00 3.024%536,162.50 3,051,162.50 -
04/01/2031 --498,133.50 498,133.50 -
06/30/2031 ----3,549,296.00
10/01/2031 2,590,000.00 2.752%498,133.50 3,088,133.50 -
04/01/2032 --462,497.25 462,497.25 -
06/30/2032 ----3,550,630.75
10/01/2032 2,665,000.00 2.826%462,497.25 3,127,497.25 -
04/01/2033 --424,843.75 424,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----3,552,341.00
10/01/2033 2,740,000.00 2.895%424,843.75 3,164,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --385,181.25 385,181.25 -
06/30/2034 ----3,550,025.00
10/01/2034 2,820,000.00 2.965%385,181.25 3,205,181.25 -
04/01/2035 --343,369.75 343,369.75 -
06/30/2035 ----3,548,551.00
10/01/2035 2,910,000.00 3.035%343,369.75 3,253,369.75 -
04/01/2036 --299,207.50 299,207.50 -
06/30/2036 ----3,552,577.25
10/01/2036 3,000,000.00 3.104%299,207.50 3,299,207.50 -
04/01/2037 --252,649.50 252,649.50 -
06/30/2037 ----3,551,857.00
10/01/2037 3,095,000.00 3.171%252,649.50 3,347,649.50 -
04/01/2038 --203,584.00 203,584.00 -
06/30/2038 ----3,551,233.50
10/01/2038 3,195,000.00 3.236%203,584.00 3,398,584.00 -
04/01/2039 --151,891.75 151,891.75 -
06/30/2039 ----3,550,475.75
10/01/2039 3,295,000.00 2.920%151,891.75 3,446,891.75 -
04/01/2040 --103,792.75 103,792.75 -
06/30/2040 ----3,550,684.50
10/01/2040 3,395,000.00 2.981%103,792.75 3,498,792.75 -
04/01/2041 --53,182.75 53,182.75 -
06/30/2041 ----3,551,975.50
10/01/2041 3,495,000.00 3.043%53,182.75 3,548,182.75 -
06/30/2042 ----3,548,182.75
Total $53,640,000.00 -$18,166,570.00 $71,806,570.00 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $615,750.00
Average Life 11.479 Years
Average Coupon 2.9503159%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.3636613%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.2524970%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.1028374%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.2817455%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.1873941%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.474 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | Issue Summary | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 2
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$18,840,000 SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
SERIES 2021A (September 16, 2021 )
($22.49M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --422,391.67 422,391.67 -
06/30/2022 ----422,391.67
10/01/2022 585,000.00 5.000%389,900.00 974,900.00 -
04/01/2023 --375,275.00 375,275.00 -
06/30/2023 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2023 615,000.00 5.000%375,275.00 990,275.00 -
04/01/2024 --359,900.00 359,900.00 -
06/30/2024 ----1,350,175.00
10/01/2024 650,000.00 5.000%359,900.00 1,009,900.00 -
04/01/2025 --343,650.00 343,650.00 -
06/30/2025 ----1,353,550.00
10/01/2025 680,000.00 5.000%343,650.00 1,023,650.00 -
04/01/2026 --326,650.00 326,650.00 -
06/30/2026 ----1,350,300.00
10/01/2026 715,000.00 5.000%326,650.00 1,041,650.00 -
04/01/2027 --308,775.00 308,775.00 -
06/30/2027 ----1,350,425.00
10/01/2027 755,000.00 5.000%308,775.00 1,063,775.00 -
04/01/2028 --289,900.00 289,900.00 -
06/30/2028 ----1,353,675.00
10/01/2028 790,000.00 5.000%289,900.00 1,079,900.00 -
04/01/2029 --270,150.00 270,150.00 -
06/30/2029 ----1,350,050.00
10/01/2029 835,000.00 5.000%270,150.00 1,105,150.00 -
04/01/2030 --249,275.00 249,275.00 -
06/30/2030 ----1,354,425.00
10/01/2030 875,000.00 5.000%249,275.00 1,124,275.00 -
04/01/2031 --227,400.00 227,400.00 -
06/30/2031 ----1,351,675.00
10/01/2031 915,000.00 4.000%227,400.00 1,142,400.00 -
04/01/2032 --209,100.00 209,100.00 -
06/30/2032 ----1,351,500.00
10/01/2032 955,000.00 4.000%209,100.00 1,164,100.00 -
04/01/2033 --190,000.00 190,000.00 -
06/30/2033 ----1,354,100.00
10/01/2033 990,000.00 4.000%190,000.00 1,180,000.00 -
04/01/2034 --170,200.00 170,200.00 -
06/30/2034 ----1,350,200.00
10/01/2034 1,030,000.00 4.000%170,200.00 1,200,200.00 -
04/01/2035 --149,600.00 149,600.00 -
06/30/2035 ----1,349,800.00
10/01/2035 1,075,000.00 4.000%149,600.00 1,224,600.00 -
04/01/2036 --128,100.00 128,100.00 -
06/30/2036 ----1,352,700.00
10/01/2036 1,120,000.00 4.000%128,100.00 1,248,100.00 -
04/01/2037 --105,700.00 105,700.00 -
06/30/2037 ----1,353,800.00
10/01/2037 1,165,000.00 4.000%105,700.00 1,270,700.00 -
04/01/2038 --82,400.00 82,400.00 -
06/30/2038 ----1,353,100.00
10/01/2038 1,210,000.00 4.000%82,400.00 1,292,400.00 -
04/01/2039 --58,200.00 58,200.00 -
06/30/2039 ----1,350,600.00
10/01/2039 1,255,000.00 3.000%58,200.00 1,313,200.00 -
04/01/2040 --39,375.00 39,375.00 -
06/30/2040 ----1,352,575.00
10/01/2040 1,295,000.00 3.000%39,375.00 1,334,375.00 -
04/01/2041 --19,950.00 19,950.00 -
06/30/2041 ----1,354,325.00
10/01/2041 1,330,000.00 3.000%19,950.00 1,349,950.00 -
06/30/2042 ----1,349,950.00
Total $18,840,000.00 -$8,619,491.67 $27,459,491.67 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $225,240.00
Average Life 11.955 Years
Average Coupon 3.8268033%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.1805479%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.9544659%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.4430546%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.9803279%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.8125237%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.864 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021A TAX-EXEMPT | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 4
Preliminary; subject to change.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
$34,800,000 TAXABLE SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS SERIES
2021B (September 16, 2021 )
($34.6M New Money, 20-Years Level)
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
09/16/2021 -----
04/01/2022 --381,274.83 381,274.83 -
06/30/2022 ----381,274.83
10/01/2022 1,495,000.00 0.260%351,946.00 1,846,946.00 -
04/01/2023 --350,002.50 350,002.50 -
06/30/2023 ----2,196,948.50
10/01/2023 1,500,000.00 0.310%350,002.50 1,850,002.50 -
04/01/2024 --347,677.50 347,677.50 -
06/30/2024 ----2,197,680.00
10/01/2024 1,505,000.00 0.560%347,677.50 1,852,677.50 -
04/01/2025 --343,463.50 343,463.50 -
06/30/2025 ----2,196,141.00
10/01/2025 1,520,000.00 0.950%343,463.50 1,863,463.50 -
04/01/2026 --336,243.50 336,243.50 -
06/30/2026 ----2,199,707.00
10/01/2026 1,535,000.00 1.200%336,243.50 1,871,243.50 -
04/01/2027 --327,033.50 327,033.50 -
06/30/2027 ----2,198,277.00
10/01/2027 1,555,000.00 1.500%327,033.50 1,882,033.50 -
04/01/2028 --315,371.00 315,371.00 -
06/30/2028 ----2,197,404.50
10/01/2028 1,580,000.00 1.700%315,371.00 1,895,371.00 -
04/01/2029 --301,941.00 301,941.00 -
06/30/2029 ----2,197,312.00
10/01/2029 1,610,000.00 1.870%301,941.00 1,911,941.00 -
04/01/2030 --286,887.50 286,887.50 -
06/30/2030 ----2,198,828.50
10/01/2030 1,640,000.00 1.970%286,887.50 1,926,887.50 -
04/01/2031 --270,733.50 270,733.50 -
06/30/2031 ----2,197,621.00
10/01/2031 1,675,000.00 2.070%270,733.50 1,945,733.50 -
04/01/2032 --253,397.25 253,397.25 -
06/30/2032 ----2,199,130.75
10/01/2032 1,710,000.00 2.170%253,397.25 1,963,397.25 -
04/01/2033 --234,843.75 234,843.75 -
06/30/2033 ----2,198,241.00
10/01/2033 1,750,000.00 2.270%234,843.75 1,984,843.75 -
04/01/2034 --214,981.25 214,981.25 -
06/30/2034 ----2,199,825.00
10/01/2034 1,790,000.00 2.370%214,981.25 2,004,981.25 -
04/01/2035 --193,769.75 193,769.75 -
06/30/2035 ----2,198,751.00
10/01/2035 1,835,000.00 2.470%193,769.75 2,028,769.75 -
04/01/2036 --171,107.50 171,107.50 -
06/30/2036 ----2,199,877.25
10/01/2036 1,880,000.00 2.570%171,107.50 2,051,107.50 -
04/01/2037 --146,949.50 146,949.50 -
06/30/2037 ----2,198,057.00
10/01/2037 1,930,000.00 2.670%146,949.50 2,076,949.50 -
04/01/2038 --121,184.00 121,184.00 -
06/30/2038 ----2,198,133.50
10/01/2038 1,985,000.00 2.770%121,184.00 2,106,184.00 -
04/01/2039 --93,691.75 93,691.75 -
06/30/2039 ----2,199,875.75
10/01/2039 2,040,000.00 2.870%93,691.75 2,133,691.75 -
04/01/2040 --64,417.75 64,417.75 -
06/30/2040 ----2,198,109.50
10/01/2040 2,100,000.00 2.970%64,417.75 2,164,417.75 -
04/01/2041 --33,232.75 33,232.75 -
06/30/2041 ----2,197,650.50
10/01/2041 2,165,000.00 3.070%33,232.75 2,198,232.75 -
06/30/2042 ----2,198,232.75
Total $34,800,000.00 -$9,547,078.33 $44,347,078.33 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $390,510.00
Average Life 11.222 Years
Average Coupon 2.4447718%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)2.4692782%
True Interest Cost (TIC)2.4424344%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 2.4136979%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)2.4739105%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.4447718%
Weighted Average Maturity 11.222 Years
2021AB Comb New Money | 2021B TAXABLE | 5/20/2021 | 10:12 AM
Stifel
Prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (EJR)Page 7
Draft of
5/20/21
Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects) v3
8709966/RDB/mo
RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2021
A Resolution authorizing the issuance and the sale of not to exceed
$58,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, for the purpose of financing various City capital improvement
projects; authorizing the execution and delivery of one or more
supplemental trust indentures to secure said bonds; giving authority to
certain officials and officers to approve the final terms and provisions
of the bonds within the parameters set forth herein; authorizing the
taking of all other actions necessary for the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.
*** *** ***
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), is a duly organized and existing city of the
first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the “State”);
WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City to
issue its sales and excise tax revenue bonds, in one or more series, on a taxable or tax-exempt
basis, as hereinafter provided for the purpose of (a) financing all or a portion of the cost of (i)
acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets,
intersections and electrical facilities], as further described in the below defined Supplemental
Indenture, and (ii) acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Series 2021 Project”); (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Series 2021 Bonds (defined below)
and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law pursuant to authority contained in the the Local
Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the “Act”), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended (the “Utah Code”), and other applicable provisions of law;
WHEREAS, for the purposes set forth above, the City has determined (a) to issue its Sales
and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $58,000,000 (the “Series 2021 Bonds”) (subject to the further limitations outlined herein)
pursuant to the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and
supplemented to the date hereof (the “Master Indenture”), a copy of which is attached here as
Exhibit A and one or more Supplemental Trust Indentures (the “Supplemental Indenture”),
between the City and Zions Bancorporation, National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”) (the
Master Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture are sometimes collectively referred to
hereinafter as the “Indenture”), and (b) to cause the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds
to be applied in accordance with the Indenture;
WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to finance the Series 2021 Project, to enter into
the Supplemental Indenture, and to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to finance all or a portion of the
costs of financing the Series 2021 Project, to fund any necessary reserves, and to pay all related
costs authorized by law;
- 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of
Bonds to be Issued (the “Notice of Bonds”) and the running of a 30-day contest period, and the
City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds at this time in compliance with said
section with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Utah Code requires that a public hearing be held to
receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds and the
potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private sector and that
notice of such public hearing be given as provided by law and, in satisfaction of such requirement,
the City desires to publish a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Issue Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Notice of Public Hearing”) pursuant to such Section;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-307(7) of the Utah Code requires the City to submit the question
of whether or not to issue the Series 2021 Bonds to voters for their approval or rejection if, within
30 calendar days after the publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, a written petition requesting
an election and signed by at least 20% of the registered voters in the City is filed with the City;
and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of the City, it is in the best interests of the City that (a) the
Designated Officers (defined below) be authorized to approve the final terms and provisions
relating to the Series 2021 Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination (defined below)
containing such terms and provisions and to accept the offer of the underwriter for the Series 2021
Bonds (the “Underwriter”) for the purchase of the Series 2021 Bonds; and (b) the Mayor, the
Deputy Mayor or the Mayor’s designee (the “Mayor”), be authorized to execute the Official
Statement with respect to the Series 2021 Bonds, all as provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows:
Section 1. Issuance of Bonds. (a) For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby
authorized and directed the execution, issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds in one
or more series (with such adjustments to the series designation as are necessary), on a taxable or
tax-exempt basis, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $58,000,000. The Series 2021
Bonds shall be dated as of the date of the initial delivery thereof. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be
in authorized denominations, shall be payable, and shall be executed and delivered all as provided
in the Indenture. The Series 2021 Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity as
provided in the Indenture.
(b) The form of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the form Supplemental Indenture,
subject to appropriate insertions and revisions in order to comply with the provisions of the
Indenture, is hereby approved.
(c) The Series 2021 Bonds shall be special obligations of the City, payable from and
secured by a pledge and assignment of the Revenues (as defined in the Indenture) received by the
City and of certain other moneys held under the Indenture on a parity with any other Bonds (as
defined in the Indenture) issued from time to time under the Master Indenture, including but not
limited to the City’s (i) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, (ii) Sales Tax Revenue Bonds,
- 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Series 2013B, (iii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2014A, (iv) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B, (v) Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, (vi) Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds,
Series 2019A and (vii) Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series
2019B. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not be obligations of the State or any other political
subdivision thereof, other than the City, and neither the faith and credit nor the ad valorem taxing
or appropriation power of the State or any political subdivision thereof, including the City, is
pledged to the payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. The Series 2021 Bonds shall not constitute
general obligations of the City or any other entity or body, municipal, state or otherwise.
Section 2. Series 2021 Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Series 2021
Bonds shall mature on October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the
basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable
semiannually on April 1 and October 1 (or such other dates as specified in the Certificate of
Determination) of each year, and at the rates per annum and commencing on the dates, all as
provided in that certain Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
C, of the Designated Officers (defined below) delivered pursuant to this Section 2, setting forth
certain terms and provisions of the Series 2021 Bonds (the “Certificate of Determination”).
(b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations
contained in this resolution, the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to
the Series 2021 Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such
determinations and effectuations:
(i) the principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds necessary to
accomplish the purpose of the Series 2021 Bonds set forth in the recitals hereto and the
aggregate principal amount of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds to be executed and
delivered pursuant to the Indenture; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the
Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed Fifty-eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000);
(ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the
Series 2021 Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the Series 2021 Bonds mature
over a period of not to exceed twenty-two (22) years from their date or dates;
(iii) the interest rate or rates, which may be taxable or tax-exempt rates, of the
Series 2021 Bonds and the date on which payment of such interest commences, provided,
however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Series 2021 Bond shall not exceed
__________ percent (____%) per annum;
(iv) the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds and the purchase price to be paid by the
Underwriter of such Series 2021 Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of
each series of the Series 2021 Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a
percentage of the principal amount);
- 4 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
(v) the Series 2021 Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund
redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof;
(vi) the time and redemption price, if any, at which the Series 2021 Bonds may
be called for redemption prior to their maturity at the option of the City; provided, however,
the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the date
of delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds;
(vii) the amount of reserves necessary to be maintained in connection with each
series of the Series 2021 Bonds, if any;
(viii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Series 2021 Bonds; and
(ix) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not
materially in conflict with the provisions of this resolution.
For purposes of this resolution and the Series 2021 Bonds, “Designated Officers” means
(a) the (i) Mayor of the City; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor, the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff; or (iii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the
Mayor’s Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the
Mayor, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the City and
(b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair
of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii) in the event of the absence or
incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City
Council.
Following the sale of the Series 2021 Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such
information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and shall make
such determinations as provided above and shall execute the Certificate of Determination
containing such terms and provisions of such series of the Series 2021 Bonds, which execution
shall be conclusive evidence of the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the
matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be
incorporated into this Section 2.
Section 3. Approval and Execution of the Supplemental Indenture. One or more
Supplemental Indentures, in substantially the form of the Thirteenth Supplemental Trust Indenture
attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby authorized and approved, and the Mayor is hereby
authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver each Supplemental Indenture on behalf
of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered
and directed to affix to each Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and
countersign each such Supplemental Indenture, with such changes to each Supplemental Indenture
from the form attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute
conclusive evidence of such approval. The provisions of each Supplemental Indenture, as
executed and delivered, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. The Master
Indenture and the Supplemental Indenture shall constitute a “system of registration” for all
purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act of Utah.
- 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 4. Final Official Statement. A final Official Statement of the City in
substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized with such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the
information established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds by the Designated Officers
and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver a final Official
Statement for distribution to prospective purchasers of each series of the Series 2021 Bonds and
other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions, insertions
and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor’s execution of such final Official
Statement.
Section 5. Preliminary Official Statement to be Deemed Final. The use and distribution
of a Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the
form attached hereto as Exhibit D, is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes,
omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor and the City Treasurer, or the Deputy Treasurer
of the City (the “City Treasurer”), shall deem advisable. The Mayor and the City Treasurer are,
and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such
certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the
issuance, sale and delivery of any Series 2021 Bonds and to deem final each Preliminary Official
Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information
established at the time of the sale of any Series 2021 Bonds.
Section 6. Other Certificates and Documents Required to Evidence Compliance with
Federal Tax and Securities Laws. Each of the Mayor, the City Recorder or any Deputy City
Recorder and the City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to execute (a) such certificates
and documents as are required to evidence compliance with the federal laws relating to the tax-
exempt status of interest on any Series 2021 Bonds and (b) a Continuing Disclosure Agreement,
in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E, and such other certificates and documents
as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other applicable federal securities laws.
Section 7. Other Actions With Respect to the Series 2021 Bonds. The officers and
employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect
to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in
conformity with the Act to carry out the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds, including, without
limitation, the execution and delivery of any closing and other documents required to be delivered
in connection with the sale and delivery of the Series 2021 Bonds. If (a) the Mayor, (b) the City
Recorder or (c) the City Treasurer shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and
countersign, respectively, the Series 2021 Bonds or the other documents that they are hereby
authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed, or attested and
countersigned, respectively, (i) by the Chief of Staff, (ii) by any Deputy City Recorder or (iii) by
the Deputy Treasurer of the City. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers
and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and
appropriate to issue the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 8. Notice of Bonds to be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder
shall cause the Notice of Bonds, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit F, to be
published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper published and of general circulation
within the City.
For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds, any
person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this resolution (including the
Supplemental Indenture attached hereto) or the Series 2021 Bonds hereby authorized or any
provisions made for the security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds. After such time, no one
shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this resolution
(including the Supplemental Indenture) or the Series 2021 Bonds or any provisions made for the
security and payment of the Series 2021 Bonds for any cause.
Section 9. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of
the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the Council on Tuesday, August 17, 2021, during the
Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., which, as determined by the Council Chair, shall be
held either virtually, at the regular meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room
315 in the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any
combination thereof, to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance by the City of
the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Series 2021 Project will have on the private
sector.
Section 10. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. The City Recorder or any Deputy
City Recorder (the “City Recorder”) shall publish or cause to be published the Notice of Public
Hearing on the Utah Public Notice Website, created under Section 63F-1-701 of the Utah Code,
no less than 14 days before the public hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing shall be in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit H.
Section 11. Form of Petition. The form of the petition to be used by registered voters in
requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds shall be in substantially
the form attached hereto as Exhibit I.
Section 12. Issuance of Bonds After Thirty-Day Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7) of the Act, if within thirty days after the publication of the
Notice of Public Hearing by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, a petition or petitions, in
the form specified by Section 11 hereof, are filed with the City Recorder, signed by not less than
twenty percent (20%) of the registered voters of the City (as certified by the County Clerk of Salt
Lake County) requesting that an election be called to authorize the Series 2021 Bonds, then the
Council shall proceed to call and hold an election on the Series 2021 Bonds. If such election is
held and a majority of the registered voters of the City voting thereon approve the Series 2021
Bonds, then, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the City shall thereupon be authorized
to issue the Series 2021 Bonds. If no petition is filed within the thirty-day period after the date of
the final publication of such notice, or if it is determined that the number of signatures on the
petitions filed within the thirty-day period after the date of the final publication of such notice is
less than the required number, the City shall proceed to issue the the Series 2021 Bonds.
- 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
Section 13. Sale of the Series 2021 Bonds; Purchase Contract. The Series 2021 Bonds
authorized to be issued herein are hereby authorized to be sold and delivered to the Underwriter,
upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Purchase Contract. The Mayor is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Contract on behalf of the City in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit G, with such changes therein from the form
attached hereto as are approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval. The City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized,
empowered and directed to affix to the Purchase Contract the seal of the City and to attest such
seal and countersign the Purchase Contract.
Section 14. City Recorder to Perform Certain Acts. The City Recorder is hereby directed
to maintain a copy of this Resolution (together with all exhibits hereto), a copy of the Master
Indenture and the form of the Supplemental Indenture on file in the City Recorder’s office (or the
City Recorder’s temporary office, as applicable) during regular business hours 1 for public
examination by registered voters of the City and other interested persons until at least thirty (30)
days from and after the date of publication of the Notice of Bonds and upon request to supply
copies of the form of petition specified in Section 11 hereof.
Section 15. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and
employees of the City in connection with the issuance of the Series 2021 Bonds are hereby ratified,
approved and confirmed.
Section 16. Resolution Irrepealable. Following the execution and delivery of a
Supplemental Indenture, this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all of the Series 2021
Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged.
Section 17. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution
shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of
such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of
this resolution.
Section 18. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its
approval and adoption.
(Signature page follows.)
1 Appointments are encouraged as the temporary office is not occupied during business hours due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
- 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 13th day of July
2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
_______________________________________
Chair
Salt Lake City Council
ATTEST:
____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
APPROVED:
By ____________________________________
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By ____________________________________
Senior City Attorney
A-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT A
[ATTACH COPY OF MASTER TRUST INDENTURE]
B-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT B
[ATTACH FORM OF THIRTEENTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE]
C-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT C
[ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION]
D-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT D
[ATTACH FORM OF PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT]
E-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT E
[ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT]
F-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT F
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”) of Salt Lake
City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”) in which it authorized and
approved the issuance of its sales and excise tax revenue bonds in one or more series, on a taxable
or tax-exempt basis (collectively, the “Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed
$58,000,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed ____% per annum and to mature
not later than 22 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par not to exceed
2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other
provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, described below, and the final form of
the Bonds and a Supplemental Trust Indenture, described below.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of paying all or part
of the cost of (a) (i) acquiring, constructing and improving [various City parks, trails, historic
structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical facilities] and (ii) acquiring, constructing,
improving and remodeling various other capital improvement program projects; (b) funding any
necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the Bonds and (c) paying all related costs
authorized by law. The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution,
including as part of the Resolution a draft, in substantially final form, of a Supplemental Trust
Indenture, and a copy of the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as heretofor
amended and supplemented (the “Master Indenture”), between the City and Zions
Bancorporation, National Association, a trustee, that were before the Council and attached to the
Resolution at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. The City will cause one or more
Supplemental Trust Indentures to be executed and delivered in such form and with such changes
thereto as certain designated officers of the City shall approve, provided that the principal amount,
interest rate or rates, maturity and discount, if any, will not exceed the respective maximums
described above.
The repayment of the Bonds will be secured by a pledge of the legally available revenues
from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2,
Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake City Code);
(b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1,
Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt Lake City
Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of Salt Lake
City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City
pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to
Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities received
by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected
pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees associated with
cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively,
the “Pledged Taxes”).
F-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
The City currently has $102,490,000 par amount of bonds or notes currently outstanding
that are secured by the Pledged Taxes. More detailed information relating to the City’s outstanding
bonds can be found in the City’s most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report that is
available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor’s website (www.sao.state.ut.us).
Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 21 years from the date hereof
and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of $__________ and are held until
maturity, based on the City’s currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect
around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed
Bonds is $__________.
A copy of the Resolution (including the draft of the Supplemental Trust Indenture and a
copy of the Master Indenture attached to the Resolution) may be examined by appointment at the
temporary office of the City Recorder located at Plaza 349, 349 South 200 East in Salt Lake City,
Utah, during regular business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. To schedule an appointment
please call (801) 535-7671. Additionally, a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution may be requested
by sending an email to the City Recorder at SLCRecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be
so available for inspection for a period of at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of the
publication of this notice.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of thirty (30) days from and
after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest
the legality of the Resolution (including the Supplemental Trust Indenture attached thereto) of the
City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the
Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality
or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any
cause.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
[SEAL]
G-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT G
[ATTACH FORM OF PURCHASE CONTRACT]
H-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT H
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE
SALES AND EXCISE TAX REVENUE BONDS
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 13, 2021, the City Council (the “Council”)
of Salt Lake City, Utah (the “City”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”), calling for a public
hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its Sales and Excise Tax
Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing and
improving [various City parks, trails, historic structures, roads, streets, intersections and electrical
facilities] and acquiring, constructing, improving and remodeling various other capital
improvement program projects (collectively, the “Project”) and the potential economic impact
that the Project will have on the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the “Act”).
PURPOSE FOR ISSUING BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of (1) financing all or a portion of the
costs of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and contingencies in connection with the
Bonds, and (3) paying the costs incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds.
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding Fifty-
eight Million Dollars ($58,000,000) to finance the Project. The Bonds may be issued with other
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds being issued for other purposes so the principal amount may
exceed the amount listed above to finance the costs of the Project.
SALES TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED
The City proposes to pledge to the payment of the Bonds all of the legally available
revenues from: (a) Local Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter
12, Part 2, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.04 of the Salt Lake
City Code); (b) Municipal Energy Sales and Use Taxes received by the City pursuant to Title 10,
Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of the Salt
Lake City Code); (c) the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to
Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.06 of
Salt Lake City Code); (d) the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by
the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4, Utah Code (currently levied and collected pursuant
to Chapter 3.10 of Salt Lake City Code); (e) the franchise fees associated with public utilities
received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code (currently levied and
collected pursuant to Chapter 17.16.070 of Salt Lake City Code); and (f) the franchise fees
associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20.
H-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City will hold a public hearing during its City Council meeting which begins at
7:00 p.m. on August 17, 2021. The public hearing will be held either virtually, at the regular
meeting place of the Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building,
451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, or any combination thereof, as determined by the
Chair of the City Council. All members of the public are invited to attend and participate in the
public hearing in the manner that will be described in the agenda for the meeting. Written
comments may be submitted to the City, to the attention of the City Recorder, prior to the public
hearing.
PURPOSE FOR HEARING
The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance
of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE PETITION TO HOLD AN ELECTION
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code, if within 30
calendar days of the publication of this notice on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public
Notice Website, a written petition requesting an election and signed by at least twenty percent
(20%) of the registered voters of the City is filed with the City, then the City shall submit the
question of whether or not to issue the Bonds to the voters of the City for their approval or rejection.
If no written petition is filed or if fewer than 20% of the registered voters of the City sign
a written petition, in either case, within 30 calendar days of the posting of this notice on July __,
2021, the City may proceed to issue the Bonds without an election.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
By ____________________________________
City Recorder
I-1 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
EXHIBIT I
PETITION
To: City Recorder
Salt Lake City, Utah
We, the undersigned citizens and registered voters of Salt Lake City, Utah, respectfully
request that an election be called by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 11-14-307(7), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, to authorize the
issuance by Salt Lake City, Utah, of its Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, in a maximum
principal amount not exceeding $58,000,000, as to which notice of intention to issue was published
on July __, 2021, by posting on the Utah Public Notice Website, pursuant to the provisions of a
resolution passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on July 13, 2021, and each for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this
petition; I am a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Utah; my residence and post office address are
correctly written after my name:
I-2 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
WARNING
It is a felony for any one to sign any initiative or referendum petition with any other name
than one’s own, or knowingly to sign one’s name more than once for the same measure, or to sign
such petition when one knows that he or she is not a registered voter.
REGISTERED VOTER’S PRINTED
NAME (MUST BE LEGIBLE TO BE
COUNTED)
SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED
VOTER
STREET ADDRESS, CITY, STATE,
ZIP CODE
[The following certification shall appear on the reverse side of each page
[attached to the Petition containing the signature of voters]
I-3 Delegating Bond Resolution (new money multiple projects)
STATE OF UTAH )
: ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, _________________________, of _____________________, hereby certify that I am a
registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, that all the names which appear on this
sheet were signed by persons who professed to be the persons whose names appear thereon, and
each of them signed his or her name thereto in my presence, I believe that each has printed and
signed his or her name, and written his or her post office address and residence correctly, and that
each signer is a registered voter of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of __________, 2021.
Notary Public (or other official title)
Signature:
Email:Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com
2021‐22 Capital Improvement Program [Grand Totals Only (anonymous)]
Division (Priority) / App Ref Organization Name / Application Title Requested Amount Votes Committee Score
72 displayed 2 not included (Duplicates)60,584,684.35
T7 Division of Transportation / 400 South Viaduct Trail (1/4 Cent)900,000.00 6 to 0 18.17
T13 Division of Transportation / 1700 South Corridor Transformation (Redwood to 300 W)363,150.00 7 to 0 18.14
P2 Public Lands / A Place For Everyone: The Emerald Ribbon Master Plan 420,000.00 6 to 0 17.57
P1 Public Lands / Glendale Water Park Development Phase 1 3,200,000.00 7 to 0 17.07
E5 Engineering / Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 300,000.00 7 to 017
T12 Division of Transportation / Transportation Safety Improvements 500,000.00 7 to 017
E3 Engineering / Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 750,000.00 6 to 0 16.8
C20 Sugar House Community Council / Highland High Crosswalk Enhancements 85,000.00 6 to 0 16.31
T11 Division of Transportation / Street Multi‐Modal Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 16.29
F1 Fire / Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade 318,278.75 7 to 0 16.26
C5 Public Lands / Three Creeks West Park Planning and Design 150,736.00 7 to 0 16.2
T2 Division of Transportation / 900 South & 9‐Line Trail Railroad Crossing (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 016
E2 Engineering / Pavement Condition Survey 175,000.00 7 to 0 15.85
T3 Division of Transportation / Trail Maintenance (1/4 Cent)200,000.00 6 to 0 15.83
F4 Fire / Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 694,784.80 6 to 0 15.79
P10 Public Lands / Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt 440,000.00 6 to 0 15.79
T10 Division of Transportation / Urban Trails & Connections (1/4 Cent)1,045,000.00 6 to 0 15.74
C4 Public Lands / Three Creeks West (Jordan River Trail and Bank Stabilization)490,074.00 5 to 0 15.7
T6 Division of Transportation / Area Circulation Studies / Design (1/4 Cent)215,000.00 6 to 0 15.67
F2 Fire / Single‐Family/Fire‐Behavior Prop 374,863.94 6 to 0 15.57
T1 Division of Transportation / 200 South Transit Transformation (Funding Our Future Transit, 1/4 Cent)3,261,900.00 6 to 0 15.33
T4 Division of Transportation / Local Link Construction Fund / Sugar House (1/4 Cent) 500,000.00 6 to 0 15.33
C6 Sugar House Park Authority / Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion ‐ Remove and Replace 183,834.00 6 to 0 15.31
P5 Public Lands / Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 475,000.00 6 to 0 15.29
F3 Fire / Mixed‐Use Three‐Story Fire Training Prop 815,894.86 5 to 0 15.29
C12 Public Lands / SOS Liberty Park Basketball Courts 99,680.00 6 to 0 15.21
T8 Division of Transportation / Neighborhood Byway Design & Construction (1/4 Cent) 1,045,000.00 5 to 0 15.17
E6 Engineering / Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2021/2022 70,000.00 5 to 1 14.8
T9 Division of Transportation / 900 South Signal Improvements (900 South Reconstruction & 9‐Line Trail Project, 2021‐2023 500,000.00 6 to 0 14.67
C17 Poplar Grove Community Member / 700 S Westside Road Reconfiguration 514,450.00 5 to 0 14.67
T14 Division of Transportation / Multi‐Modal Intersection / Traffic Signal Upgrades 1,050,000.00 6 to 0 14.33
T5 Division of Transportation / Corridor Transformations (1/4 Cent) 856,042.00 5 to 1 14.29
P13 Public Lands / Jordan Park Looped Pathways 510,000.00 7 to 0 14.14
P12 Public Lands / Foothills Natural Area ‐ Open Space Acquisition 425,000.00 6 to 1 14.14
P11 Public Lands / Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682.00 7 to 0 14.07
C14 Odyssey House ‐ Inc, Utah / Odyssey House’s Annex Facility Renovation 500,000.00 4 to 2 14.03
E8 Engineering / Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River) 3,000,000.00 6 to 014
C22 Ballpark Community Council / Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway Capital Improvement Program Constituent Requ 500,000.00 4 to 114
E7 Engineering / Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.87
FA3 Public Services Facilities Division / Streets Steam Bay 363,495.00 6 to 0 13.87
P3 Public Lands / Downtown Green Loop, Phase 1 610,000.00 6 to 1 13.86
C15 Engineering / CR ‐ 3000 South Sidewalk and Curb 449,315.00 5 to 1 13.85
T15 Division of Transportation / Sunnyside / 9‐Line Trail Missing Piece (1850 East)350,000.00 5 to 1 13.6
E1 Engineering / Street Improvements 2021/2022 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 13.4
C1 Tracy Aviary / Renovations to Historic Structures: east gate and bath house.156,078.00 5 to 1 13.31
C21 Public / Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 400,000.00 3 to 2 13.2
P6 Public Lands / Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at Allen Park 420,000.00 5 to 1 13.07
C18 Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council / Capitol Hill Traffic Calming 595,194.00 4 to 2 12.9
P14 Public Lands / Richmond Park Playground and Pavilion Replacement 690,000.00 6 to 0 12.86
C11 Wingate Village Townhomes / Wingate Walkway 286,750.00 5 to 1 12.86
C7 Liberty Hills Tennis / Outdoor Lighting Upgrade at Liberty Park Tennis Center 202,100.00 3 to 3 12.83
P9 Public Lands / 9Line and Rosepark Asphalt Pump tracks 1,393,600.00 6 to 0 12.79
C23 N/A / Stratford Bike Crossing ‐ 17th E and Stratford 200,000.00 4 to 2 12.71
C9 Wasatch Community Gardens / Harrison Ave & 700 E. Community Garden 103,500.00 4 to 2 12.43
C24 Citizen / Sugar House Safe Side Streets 500,000.00 5 to 1 12.31
P15 Public Lands / Library Square feasibility study, civic engagement, and design development 225,000.00 3 to 2 12.29
C16 David B. Troester / Three Creeks West 1 – Roadways 1,158,422.00 4 to 1 12.17
C8 Liberty Hills Tennis / Re‐surfacing of all existing tennis courts at Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis Centers 300,000.00 4 to 2 12.14
C13 Public Lands / 1200 East Median, Raise Curb, New Irrigation, New Tree Planting 500,000.00 4 to 1 12.1
FA1 Public Services Facilities Division / Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program (6M investment) (Deferred Capital Repla 5,860,449.00 4 to 1 11.83
C3 Liberty Hills Tennis / "Winner on Wasatch" A Four‐Court Total Re‐Construction Project Preparatory to a New Tennis Air D 500,000.00 2 to 3 11.77
P8 Public Lands / Cemetery Multi‐Use Roadway Repair (Phase 1) 3,838,000.00 5 to 1 11.62
C2 Dept of Veterans Affairs / Sunnyside Park Sidewalk 72,739.00 4 to 1 11.43
P17 Public Lands / Donner and Rotary Glen Park Landscape Improvements 650,000.00 4 to 2 11.29
P16 Public Lands / Regional Athletic Complex Playground 450,000.00 5 to 1 11.17
E4 Engineering / Logan Avenue Reconstruction 1,405,000.00 4 to 211
E9 Engineering / Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 5 to 1 10.55
FA2 Public Services Facilities Division / Delong Salt Storage Facility 1,504,427.00 5 to 1 9.43
C19 Streets and Sanitation / Harvard Heights Residential Concrete Street Reconstruction 1,311,920.00 2 to 4 8.43
C10 Ballpark Community Council / 1300 South Camping Resistant Landscaping 100,000.00 1 to 5 7.67
P7 Public Lands / Cemetery Enhancement for Visitor Research and Knowledge 790,000.00 4 to 2 7.43
P4 Public Lands / Parleys Historic Nature Park Structure Preservation 765,325.00 3 to 3 6.86
ATTACHMENT 6 – Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
1.Policy Goals and Metrics – Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City
to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics. The Administration was invited to
recommend policy goals to the Council. Three cost estimates are included based on prior
discussions but may not represent the best currently available information. The table is intended
for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council
consideration.
Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost
Estimate
Bring all facilities out of
deferred maintenance
Appropriations vs. funding
need identified in Public
Services’ Facilities Dashboard
that tracks each asset
$6.8 million
annually or $68
million over ten
years
Expand the City's urban trail
network with an emphasis on
East-West connections
Total paved/unpaved network
miles; number and funding
for improved trail features;
percentage of 9-Line
completed
$21 million for 9-
Line
implementation
Increase the overall condition
index of the City's street
network from poor to fair
Overall Condition Index
(OCI); pavement condition
survey every five years
$133 million cost
estimate (in addition
to existing funding
level)
Implement the Foothill Trails
Master Plan
Distance of improved trails
completed; number and
funding for improved
trailheads
$TBD
Advance the City's
sustainability goals through
building energy efficiency
upgrades
Energy savings; carbon
emission reductions $TBD
Focus on renewal and
maintenance projects over
creating new assets
Number, funding level and
ratio of renewed assets vs.
new assets
$TBD
2.Project Location Mapping – Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects. The idea
of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as $50,000 - $999,999, $1 million - $5
million, and over $5 million.
3.Measure CFP to CIP Alignment – Council Members expressed support for annually
measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP
and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP. A high
alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City’s capital needs.
4.Council Adoption of CFP – The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year
with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding.
Does the Administration have a preference?
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 421,062$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,002,114$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,435,142$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,125,188$ D
14,983,506$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 16,105$ Current Month
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,718$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 1,718$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 30,017$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,656$ -$ -$ -$ 78,656$
Notes
^1
FY
2
0
2
3
Calendar
Month
1/26/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $104k in the next 9 months without offsetting expenditures
Fi
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 4/20/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
ValuespSum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation
p Sum of Police AllocationCrime lab rent 8417001 -$ 118$ -$ (118)$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ A
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$
Police impact fee refunds 8417006 510,828$ -$ -$ 510,828$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,512,316$ 289,499$ 71,246$ 2,151,572$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 6,966$ 3,941$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 13,145$ 949,764$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ 39,697$ 133,320$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 6,388$ 1,213$ 42$
337 Community Garden, 337 S 40 8416002 277$ -$ -$ 277$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 470$ 296$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 270$ 786$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ -$ 6,589$ 20,411$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 16,546$ 50,034$ 59,025$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 407,516$ 37,648$ 70,081$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ -$ 257,265$ 92,736$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 35,506$ 51,934$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ -$ 225,000$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 57,026$ 282,939$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ 979$ -$ 326,699$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 9,165$ 2,088$ 388,747$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ -$ 490,830$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ -$ -$ 540,732$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 46,474$ 33,569$ 1,065,351$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 274,321$ 46,898$ 3,120,981$
Grand Total 11,415,868$ 1,512,215$ 794,781$ 9,108,873$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$ D
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,821$ 1,539$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 142,326$ 69,591$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ 6,020$ 61,182$ 57,798$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 69,002$ 56,815$ 84,935$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ 1,264$ 8,990$ 137,658$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ -$ -$ 152,500$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ 72,947$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 15,688$ 235,628$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 213,551$ 607,870$ 2,036,669$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 681,222$ 3,382,117$ 5,228,908$
Total 24,384,609$ 2,496,081$ 5,197,908$ 16,690,620$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,435,142$
5,125,188$
14,983,506$
8484002
8484003
8484005
421,062$
$1,002,114
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000
Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000
4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000
8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $550K - $600K
Site Master Plan $50K - $75K
City-wide Comprehensive Study $150K - $250K
Installed with sewer connection $15K - $30,000
Playground Improvements $150K - $250K
Native soil field $150,000
Sand-based field $400,000
Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field)$200,000
Patch, repair and paint $150,000
New post tension court $250,000
Hand-built natural surface single track trail (18"-30"
wide)$6-12/LF
Machine-built natural-surface trail (4-6’ width)$20-25/LF
Asphalt Trail $3.50/SF
Concrete Trail $4.50/SF
Soft Surface - Crushed stone $2.50/SF
Off-leash Dog Parks $250K - $350K
Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+
Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper)$350
Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $100K - $200K
Bike - One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile (3 lane miles =
1.5 actual miles)500,000+
Bike - One Lane Mile (2 lane miles = 1 mile actual
mile) 2,000+
Bike - Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015)$400,000
Traffic Signals - New 250,000$
Traffic Signals - Upgrades 250,000$
HAWK Signals 130,000$
Crosswalk - Flashing 60,000$
Crosswalk - School Crossing Lights 25,000$
Crosswalk - Colored/Stamped varies based on width of
road $15K - $25K
Driver Feedback Sign 8,000$
Asphalt Overlay (Lane Mile)280,000$
Crack Seal (Lane Mile)5,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt (Lane Mile)500,000$
Road Reconstruction - Asphalt to Concrete (Lane Mile)$700k - $1.2 M
Sidewalk slab jacking (per square foot)4$
Sidewalk replacement (per square foot)$ 7 - $10
Streets
Drinking Fountains
Multi-purpose Field Improvements
Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts)
Path/ Trail Improvements
Transportation
Regular CIP Project Costs
General Rules of Thumb
NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available (which may be
out of date), vary by project, and do not include on-going maintenance.
Parks
Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work)
Studies
Funding
Source
Cost
Center Description Remaining
Appropriation Complete?If Not Complete, Status?
8317057 Deteriorated Sidewalk 2,237.00$
8318061 900 West Neighborhood nodes an 46,728.00$
8318062 Deteriorated or Missing Concre 5,987.00$
8318063 Jordan River Parkway 181,571.00$
8317359 Gladiola to Indiana 900S Seq C 112,658.00$
8317361 Street Reconstruction Improv 49.00$
8314031 Driver Feedback Signs 86,320.00$
8314033 SugarHouse Circulation 96,736.00$
8317030 Sugar House Park Roadway Maint 24,836.00$
8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program 20,841.00$
8317033 Paver Crosswalks Reconstructio 33,392.00$
8317036 Street Improvements: Reconstru 14,522.00$
8318023 Gladiola 900 S Imp 38,047.00$
8318154 1300 E Class C 443,879.00$
8310077 Regional Sports Complex Donati 3,154.00$
8314094 West Salt Lake Master Plan Imp 8,598.00$
8314100 900 S Oxbow 619.00$
8314103 Warm Springs Park Master Plan 223.00$
8314104 Genesee Trailhead Acquistion 229,927.00$
8314105 Fisher Mansion Carriage House 102,751.00$
8315083 Wakara Way/Arapeen Dr Donation 35,566.00$
8317064 Jordan River Trail - Union P 500,000.00$
8315027 Bikeway - Close the gap 6,989.00$
8315073 City Cemetery Master Plan 25,740.00$
8316026 Six Traffic Signal Upgrades, 9 1,452.00$
8316031 Fairmont Park Pond Restoration 3,097.00$
8316041 PPL Deferred Maintenance, City 2,309.00$
8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 104,210.00$
8316070 Warm Springs Park, 840 N 300 W 13,195.00$
8316085 Contingency 100,000.00$
8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond (16,584.00)$ Why is this negative?
8317024 Sorenson Multicultural Center 27,452.00$
8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction 455,159.00$
8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements 17,269.00$
8317043 Parks and Public Lands Compreh 128,823.00$
8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH 79,995.00$
8317055 Capital Facilities Plan 4,928.00$
8317096 Fire Station #3 2,200.00$ General Fund
Dontions
Class C
CDBG
8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio 40,413.00$
8318028 Bridge Maintenance 77,132.00$
8318033 Concrete Rehab 3,431.00$
8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails 109,235.00$
8318046 Warm Springs Restrooms 12,993.00$
8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway 272,091.00$
8318048 Miller Park ADA access 371,369.00$
8318049 Jordan R. Flood Control 7,023.00$
8318050 Artesian Well Park Redevelopme 1,332.00$
8318054 Fairmond Salt Storage 7,111.00$
8318055 9 Line Central Ninth 152,500.00$
8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT - CIP 110,104.00$
8318085 Computer Rm Cooling Units 40,787.00$
8318087 Ball Field Lights 2,979.00$
8318097 Percent for Art 98,161.00$
4,251,536.00$
General Fund
TOTAL of ALL SOURCES
10 13 19 14
0
24
67
37 35 40
19
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY)
Constituent Departmental
S A L T L A K E C I T Y
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FY 21-22 Annual CIP
October 2020 -Constituent Applications Open
November 2020 -Constituent Applications Forwarded to Divisions for Collaboration
January 2021 -CIP Application Deadline
Feb 2021 -CDCIP Meetings Begin
April 2021 -CDCIP Meetings Concluded
FY21/22 CIP Process
FY21/22 R e q u e s t s f o r F unding
72 APPLICATIONS
$42,807,820
Requested General Fund
$3,500,000
Requested Class C
$9,378,628
Requested Impact Fees
$4,898,238
Requested ¼ Cent Tax
$60 ,584,686.00
IN TOTAL REQUESTS
$8,005,720 (w/FOF)
Available General Fund
$2,046,329
Available Class C
$7,291,970
Available Impact Fees
$4,900,000
Available ¼ Cent Tax
24 Constituent . 9 Engineering . 3 Facilities . 4 Fire .
17 Parks & Public Lands . 15 Transportation
FY21-22 CIP Application Breakdown:
CDCIP Board & Mayor Recommendations
Total Applications 72
Internal Applications 48
Constituent Applications 24
Total Projects Recommended 40 56% of Apps Submitted
Total Requested Funding $ 60,584,686
Total Funding Recommended $ 22,244,019 37% of Total Ask
Constituent Projects Recommended 9 37% of Constituent Apps
Total Constituent $ of Recommended $ 1,973,924 9% of Recommended Funding
Applicant
% of Requested
Funding
% of Total
Recommended % of GF Ask
% of FoF Streets
Recommended
% of FoF Other
Recommended
% of GF
Recommended
(w/FoF)
Engineering 22%15%23%52%-16%
Facilities 13%6%18%--16%
Fire 4%3%5%-24%9%
Parks 27%35%19%-39%15%
Transportation 18%33%13%32%25%18%
Constituent 15%9%22%13%8%23%
Art ---2%2%1.5%
Cost Overrun ---2%2%2%
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
Deputy Director
DATE:June 1, 2021
RE: FY22 BUDGET – FIRE DEPARTMENT
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Salt Lake City Fire Department provides fire and medical services to residents of and visitors to Salt Lake
City. The Department currently has 366 full time positions (10 of which are unfunded FTEs to account for
turnover and training delays), and the proposed budget increases that amount to 372, reflecting the move of
Emergency Management from Police to Fire in Budget Amendment #7, and the proposed expansion of that
function. Fire fighters are stationed at 14 fire stations around the City, including the Salt Lake City International
Airport. The proposed budget increases the Fire Department budget by $2.8 million (6.7%), largely due to that
shift in Emergency Management function. The Mission and Vision Statements for the Department, as
well as a more detailed Department overview, can be found on page E-41 & E-42 of the budget
book.
Major budget changes proposed for FY22 includes the shift of the Emergency Management program as noted
above, the restoration of vacancy savings budgeted for FY 21 due to the pandemic, and the proposed additional
of another Medical Response Team (MRT) in the ballpark or Poplar Grove area (funded with American Rescue
Plan dollars). The budget also reflects a significant increase in reimbursement for Fire services at the airport. It
also reflects a one-time reimbursement for Fire Department deployments to nationwide emergencies (these
dollars are one-time in nature). a budget reduction of $272,562 for vacancy savings, and budget increases of
$355,476 for pension/insurance changes (due to recent state legislation) and $370,615 for contractually agreed-
upon merit steps.
The Fire Department manages and administers the following services:
•Fire Prevention, including
construction review
•Fire Response, including
to the SLC Airport •Emergency Management
- planning & response
•CPR Training •Medical Services •Mobile Response Team
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 1
Budget Hearings: May 18, June 1
Potential Action: June 8 or 15
(TBD)
Page | 2
Goal of the briefing: Review the Fire Department’s General Fund budget for FY21 and identify
any follow-up issues.
KEY BUDGET ISSUES & POLICY QUESTIONS
A.Transfer of Emergency Management from Police Department to Fire Department – consistent
with the practice in other large cities, the City moved the Emergency Management function from the Police
Department to the Fire Department (this moved was approved as part of Budget Amendment #7 of FY 21).
During the Budget Amendment discussion it was acknowledged that this move would be completed in two
phases (one in the budget amendment, one in the annual budget)
•Phase 1 was approved in BA 7 and included transferring 5 FTEs from PD, and Adding a Fire Captain FTE
and reclassifying the director to Fire Battalion Chief FTE. It also transferred operational costs.
•Phase 2 proposes to add 2 additional FTEs
o 1 Fire Captain - $136,865
o 1 Accountant - $63,517
o Administrative Costs
•During the Budget Amendment discussion the Administration provided the following objectives for
Emergency Management:
Emergency Management Objectives
1. Developing the organizational structure of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and its
place within SLCFD chain of command and Salt Lake City administration.
2. Providing emergency preparation, mitigation, and NIMS training for individual City
departments.
3. Improving upon the current City alerting system and better incorporating its use for both
internal and external audiences.
4. Identifying critical infrastructure, developing plans for its protection, and communicating and
coordinating those plans with all necessary parties.
5. Expanding upon public education initiatives to enable residents to become better prepared.
Focus on existing programs like: Firewise Communities, CERT, Safe Neighborhoods, Run-Hide-
Fight, Fix the Bricks, etc.
6. Maintaining and growing SLC’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
7. Identifying SLC’s Emergency Shelters/Victim ID centers/ Family assistance centers and sharing
how these facilities benefit the community.
FY 20 Actuals FY 21 Adopted FY 22 Proposed Change
Fire Department Budget by Division
FTEs
Admi ni strative Servi ces 6,709,576$ 6,610,353$ 6,849,396$ 62 2 39,0 43$ 3.6 %
Offi ce of the Chi ef 2,106,449$ 2,399,143$ 4,168,893$ 9 ##########73.8 %
Operations 33,587,401$ 33,728,024$ 34,569,111$ 303 8 41,0 87$ 2.5 %
Total 42,403,426$ 42,737,520$ 45,587,400$ 374 ##########6.7 %
Fire Department Budget by Type
Personal Service s 39,714,144$ 39,633,347$ 41,291,239$ ##########4.2 %
O & M 1,271,105$ 1,234,050$ 1,620,900$ 3 86,8 50$ 31.3 %
Charge s and Service s 1,301,188$ 1,711,923$ 2,517,061$ 8 05,1 38$ 47.0 %
Capi tal Ex pe ndi ture s 116,969$ 158,200$ 158,200$ -$ 0.0 %
Total 42,403,406$ 42,737,520$ 45,587,400$ ##########6.7 %
Page | 3
8. Emergency Management web page integration
9. Mutual aid/MOUs/contracts
B.Additional Medical Response Team (MRT), funded with ARPA dollars - 4 FTEs - $136,762 for
6 months, $46,700 for equipment. The proposed budget includes adding a Medical Response Team in
the Ballpark or Poplar Grove area, based on the high level of medical calls in those areas. This was a strategy
implemented in the downtown area to help reduce carbon emissions from responding with larger fire
apparatus to predominantly medical calls. It has also saved the department money over the year, both from
a fuel and fleet perspective, as well as freeing up heavy apparatus to respond to more serious calls in other
areas of the City. It should be noted that the budget proposal uses grant dollars for this program, and funds
it at a half year. While equipment is a one-time expense, a full year of the program from a staffing
perspective would cost
$273,524.
•The Administration notes that this program may be eligible for ARPA dollars because it would be
largely focused on the unsheltered population, which increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Council may wish to inquire if it makes sense to fund this program more
immediately with ARPA dollars, considering other proposed uses of those dollars
have been deemed ineligible.
•In FY 20 the Council adopted a legislative intent relating to the Medical Response Team, asking for
the Administration to continually evaluate data and recommend when an additional MRT made
sense.
•The Administration provided the following information with regard to metrics of the Medical
Response Team:
2020 medical response volume is most pronounced at Stations 8,1,7 and 6. The majority of these
calls are categorized as basic life support (BLS). Each of these calls would be eligible for an MRT
unit response that is available and assigned within district. SLCFD currently operate our sole MRT
out of Station 1, which reduces the response load on Medic Engine 1 substantially. The proposal for
an additional MRT, to be housed potentially at Station #6, would reduce the run volume currently
attributed to both districts surrounding Station 6 and the northern districts of Station 8’s district.
The department’s current MRT responds to approximately six calls per day out of Station 1. SLCFD
projects an additional MRT also to respond to 6 calls per day average.
The current MRT tallied 8,000 miles in 2020. At 24 mpg for the Hybrid SUV vs 4/mpg for a heavy
apparatus, that is 1500 gallons of fuel saved. In addition to the maintenance costs of each vehicle
and out of service time for a heavy apparatus staffed with 4 firefighters, the department believes
the MRT model to be significantly more efficient, effective, and valuable to the residents of Salt
Lake City for this specific service demand.
C.Reimbursement for SLCFD direct costs attributed to fire and medical operational response
at SLC Airport. The Fire Department has finalized the letter of agreement (LOA) regarding the services
it provides to the SLC Department of Airports. All fire and medical services provided are fronted in cost by
the Fire Department. This request is to capture the increased revenue (from SLCDA) and provide for an
expense budget for the Fire Department. This expense request only includes direct costs which are incurred
on behalf of the Airport, such as ARFF personnel, uniforms, physicals, PPE, workers’ comp. claims, and
staffing backfill, as well as Stations 11 and 12 expenses. A copy of the LOA and budget can be provided as
requested.
D. New apparatus equipment funding: The Fire Department, in conjunction with Fleet, will be
receiving three new apparatus in FY22. These new units require specialized equipment to successfully
provide service to the community. This has traditionally been requested and funded as the Fire
Department receives new fire apparatus. Equipment includes new hoses, nozzles, extrication equipment,
small power tools, fans, and thermal imaging cameras. Last budget cycle, Fire Department received three
new apparatus and requested $165,000 ($55,000/apparatus). Ultimately, that request went unfunded
and the new apparatus were outfitted with used equipment. This left the Fire Department with no backup
equipment to replace in the event of breakdown or obsolescence. This is not currently in the Mayor’s
recommended budget. If the Council wanted to add this funding it would be $160,000. The Council could
Page | 4
consider the $4 million line item from funding our future for Fire Apparatus purchase.
E.Restoring Vacancy Savings – $272,562 – the proposed budget includes restoring the one-time
reduction to hold positions open in FY 21.
F.Pension and Insurance Rate Changes - $164,636, in addition to $161,243 one-time – Pension
contributions are determined by the Utah State retirement system and cannot be independently negotiated
by the City. In addition to the standard pension contributions, the FY 22 budget includes a one-time budget
of $161,243 for contractual obligations to pay out vacation after retirements.
G.Merit Changes - $346,049. This budget increase reflects previously agreed-upon contractual increases.
It does not address any changes that may come from current discussion with represented employee groups.
H.Cost Saving measures – The Department has provided the following the information relating to cost
saving measures undertaken over the past year(s):
i.The new Fire Training Center was recently completed and was a retrofit solution from an old fire
station. This provided savings not only in monetary value but also in sustainability initiatives. The
building was not demolished, saving tons of debris from going to the landfill. Other fire stations,
apparatus, and associated equipment are always being evaluated for cost efficiencies and energy
savings.
ii.Internal audits are being completed as staff time allows. This has resulted in savings and updated
department policies.
iii.Determinant Codes are also routinely assessed by Fire staff, in consultation with our medical
director, to provide the appropriate level of medical response. The continued evaluation of these
codes will ensure the proper resources are being sent on calls and may eliminate many dual-
apparatus responses.
iv.The Medical Response Team (MRT) unit was relocated to alleviate multiple heavy apparatus
response to the core of the city. This frees up resources to be used in other parts of the city and
reduces heavy-apparatus carbon emissions.
All above-mentioned measures have a positive impact as cost savings can be applied toward
other needs throughout the department such as equipment, PPE, and our 4-handed staffing
model. These cost savings will be maintained with the adoption of the FY21 budget and the
department will continue to identify and implement efficiencies.
I. Fire Department Strategic Plan – The Department provided their 2020-2024 Strategic plan (see
attached). The Department prepared this plan with feedback from community members, City officials and
fire department employees. The strategic plan outlines goals for the department as well as strategies to meet
those goals. The goals are as follows:
•Provide unparalleled public safety service
•Firefighter health and safety
•Department training, leadership, and development
•Community Risk Reduction
The Council may wish to discuss this plan in greater detail with the department.
J.Cost recovery for fire service provided to the University of Utah facilities – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration about the response volume the SLCFD provides to the University of Utah, as
the University does not operate their own fire service. In previous years the council has discussed whether it
makes sense to dialogue with State Officials about potential cost recovery (full or partial) for this service.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Performance Measures. Traditional Fire Department performance measures include Run Volume
(see document attached). In addition, two of the performance measures listed on page E-45 of the
FY21 Mayor’s Recommended Budget book for “Turn-Out Times” and “Operational Injuries” refer to
Page | 5
targets. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration the specific targets that are exceeded,
since those numbers aren’t included on that page. The Council may also wish to review the metrics listed
on page E-45 of the budget book and provide feedback for other metrics that would be helpful to track in
conjunction with budget discussions.
B. Fix the Bricks Program - The Emergency Management Division is located within the Police
Department and manages this program. The City received three rounds of funding from FEMA and
submitted a fourth application (awards anticipated to be announced in the fall). Residents may receive
up to 75% cost reimbursement for structural safety upgrades and the property owner pays the remaining
25% which also serves as the grant matching funds. Salt Lake City has approximately 35,000
unreinforced masonry buildings. The Department reports the program is doing about 50 seismic
improvements annually and over 2,000 applications are on the waiting list. At the current rate it would
take 700 years for the program to full meet the estimated demand. The local supply of engineers and
contractors with the necessary specialized structural skill set is a program limitation. The program is
currently limited to single-family dwellings which means there is no seismic improvement program for
multi-family residences or commercial buildings. Residential buildings are currently prioritized because
that’s where people spend most time indoors (greatest chance of protecting lives), however, seismic
upgrades to commercial buildings would help in the scenario of an earthquake occurring during normal
business hours.
1. Does the Council want to explore additional resources (community partnerships, staffing and/or
funding) for this program? Some Council Members in prior discussions expressed interest in
expanding this program and improving equity for who can participate. The Division is awaiting
notification on the fourth round of FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grant funding to continue the
program. (See Additional Info section for unreinforced masonry buildings and program details.)
The Council may also wish to request information about the earthquake resiliency of and recent
damage to city-owned buildings, upgrade options and costs.
2. Data as of Jan 2021:
a. 3,714 homes on the waiting list
i. We have funding for roughly 514 of these at the top of the list that are in
varying stages of the program process. The number varies based on
estimate vs actual cost, if we have additional funding we try to pull in
additional properties.
ii. We will have funding for an additional 257+ if our BRIC application is
approved (currently pending). Also a varying number for the same reason as
above.
b. Total funding spent through the program since inception:
iii. Total spent since the beginning (2016-current) is $1,631,113.00
1. $1,176,618.61 was reimbursed by the PDM grant funding
2. $454,494.29 was match from the City and the Homeowners
A.Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) Trainings - The CERT program managed by
Emergency Management provides disaster preparedness training for a variety of hazards to residents.
Specific topics include fire suppression, medical operations, light search and rescue and team
organization among others. The Emergency Management Division continues to offer online CERT
trainings during the pandemic. The training is now available in Spanish. At current funding levels
capacity exists for approximately 300 residents to be trained a certified annually.
B. Run Volume by Station:
Page | 6
*Average per day reflects the busiest apparatus
*Does not include Swiftwater Rescue, Heavy Rescue or ARFF data
Fire Medical T otal
Av er age per
day *
Station 1 - 2 1 1 So u th 5 0 0 Ea st 376 48 424 9.96
Station 2 - 2 7 0 W 3 0 0 N 1 ,824 3,046 4,870 6.69
Station 3 - 2 4 2 5 S 9 0 0 E 626 1 ,752 2,378 6.5 0
Station 4 - 83 0 Eas t 1 1 t h A v e 581 5 47 1 ,1 28 3.08
Station 5 - 1 0 2 3 East 9 0 0 So u t h 1 ,386 2,428 3,81 4 5 .67
Station 6 - 9 4 8 We st 80 0 So ut h 1 ,070 2,032 3,1 02 8.25
Station 7 - 2 7 3 No r th 1 0 0 0 We st 75 7 2,366 3,1 23 8.5 3
Station 8 - 1 5 We st 1 3 0 0 So uth 1 ,872 4,993 6,865 9.72
Station 9 - 5 82 2 W A m e lia Ear hart Dr .337 340 677 1 .85
Station 1 0 - 7 85 A r a pe e n Dr 733 5 21 1 ,254 2.64
Station 1 1 - 5 81 No r t h 2 3 6 0 We st 51 6 1 ,468 1 ,984 5 .42
Station 1 2 - SLC A ir p o r t - I nte r nal 1 79 71 1 890 2.43
Station 1 3 - 2 3 6 0 E Par le y 's Way 423 5 83 1 ,006 2.75
Station 1 4 - 1 2 85 S 3 80 0 W 591 852 1 ,443 3.91
Medical Response T eam (Do wnto wn)5 1 ,676 1 ,681 5 .80
T ot al 1 1 ,276 23,363 34,639
1
SALT LAKE CITY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
STRATEGIC PLAN 2020-2024
Photo credit: taylor seymour
2
The 2020-2024 SLCFD Strategic Plan
is reflective of feedback collected
from Salt Lake City community
members, City officials, and fire
department employees.
Collecting, evaluating, and
incorporating this information was
a year-long process, culminating in
the formation of this document.
3
GOAL 1
Provide Unparalleled
Public Safety Service
GOAL 2
Firefighter Health
and Safety
GOAL 3
Department
Leadership, Training,
and Development
GOAL 4
Community Risk
Reduction
8
12
16
20
MESSAGE FROM
THE FIRE CHIEF
2020 promises to be
a seminal year in Salt
Lake City. Our Capital
City is evolving and as
such, our community’s
service demands are
becoming more diverse
and challenging. The Salt
Lake City Fire Department
will need to grow and
innovate to meet these
demands as will our
responsibility to increase our value within city services. As the leader of this
proud organization, I want to capitalize on these opportunities and maximize
our ability to serve our residents with distinction. We need priorities. We need
a strategy. We need to ask not only our internal customers, but our external
stakeholders how we can meet their needs and become better. In short, we
need a plan. Only in this manner will we exemplify the professional agency
we purport to be. We are an organization that excels in customer service and
we will continue to address each goal in this document to improve.
In 2014 our department published its first strategic plan. The document was
specific and detailed in nature. We have learned much since then and I think
you will find that introspection reflected in the pages that follow. This five-
year plan is thoughtful, intentional and holistic in nature. It is also intended
to be simple in design and interesting to the reader. The 2020 Strategic Plan
should give anyone an idea of what the Salt Lake City Fire Department is
and what we strive to become. It is a positive reflection of a public safety
organization that recognizes its challenges and is committed to addressing
them. We are an entity that can objectively reflect on our history and learn
from our mistakes. This is how we have come to be who we are; the most
recognized and respected fire department in Utah since 1883.
Utah’s Capital City is the most progressive within the state. It should not be
surprising that its fire department follows in this image. The 2020 Strategic
Plan was developed with an ambitious mindset and a commitment to review
annually. From emergency response, to professional development, to health
and wellness, and community risk reduction we have much to focus on. The
objectives will provide the driving force of organizational advancement. The
firefighters will provide the will and commitment to make it happen.
Thank you for taking the time to look at what we will accomplish over the
next five years.
Sincerely,
Karl Lieb
4
MOTTO
Prepare Effectively
Respond Professionally
Impact Positively
MISSION
As Utah’s Capital City
fire department, it is
our mission to provide
unparalleled
fire, rescue, and
emergency medical
services to our community.
VISION
To redefine the standard
in emergency response,
community engagement,
and firefighter wellness.
VALUES
The members of the Salt Lake City Fire Department recognize the responsibility to
protect and serve the residents of our community. We welcome the challenge to
fulfill this duty by committing to the following core values:
• Trust
We recognize and value the trust provided to our department. We hold ourselves
to the principal standards of integrity and accountability to continually earn the
faith of those we serve.
• Community
We are actively engaged in the positive growth, development, and education of
neighborhoods within Salt Lake City. We not only serve the residents, we are a
part of the community.
• Respect
Salt Lake City is fortunate to be the most diverse, inclusive, and equitable city in
Utah. Our department and its members will provide the highest level of respect to
everyone we serve and serve with.
• Excellence
We strive for consistent excellence in all of our roles and responsibilities. We will
continue to seek new ways to improve through advancements in technology,
training, and professional development.
• Leadership
We are at the forefront of the most important issues facing our city. We can be
counted on as leaders for all community-risk education and emergency response
needs.
FEB 2016 MAR 2017
MAY 2017
APR 2016
MAY 2017
DEC 2017
Implemented SLC Fire
Cadet program
Began distribution
of naloxone kits in
partnership with UT
Naloxone
First Camp
Prometheus program
for young men
First Camp Athena
program for young
women Completed citywide
Community Wildland
Protection Plan
(CWPP)
SLCFD granted ISO
Class 1 designation
6
MAY 2018
OCT 2018
DEC 2018
AUG 2019
NOV 2018
Opened new SLC Fire
Station #14
First Net Zero, LEED Gold
certified fire station in the
country
Received new self-
contained breathing
apparatus (SCBA) for
all firefighters
Replaced frontline,
heavy apparatus over
a 5-year period
Opened new SLC Fire
Station #3
Second Net Zero, LEED Gold
certified fire station in the
country
Opened new SLC Fire
Logistics building
APR 2018
Created Community
Relations Division
7
8
GOAL 1
Provide unparalleled public safety service
Provide exceptional service to our community through efficiency and
professionalism
The members of our fire department recognize that responding to any call is a great responsibility.
Those who call for our services are often dealing with a moment of great stress or tragedy in which
they put their trust in the fire department to provide solace and relief. While we take great pride in the
level of service we provide, we realize there are always ways to improve. These strategies will continue
to advance our service to new heights.
Strategy 1
Dispatch coding,
protocols, and response times
o Review and improve dispatch codes to
confirm that the most appropriate units
are dispatched to each unique emergency
response.
o Perform an evaluation of the criteria
used by dispatchers to gather information
and recommend to Salt Lake City 911
dispatch protocols to improve dispatch
details.
o Continue to evaluate various dispatch
models and software providers.
Strategy 2
Create efficiencies in medical
response
o Assess and improve the current EMT/
paramedic response model using call
volume and patient dispositions.
o Improve the knowledge, skills,
and abilities of the Salt Lake City Fire
Department EMTs.
o Create an analysis of the Mobile
Response Team (MRT) data to determine
the most effective model for the MRT
program.
Strategy 3
Continue to improve fire
response
o Create a standardized template and
process for post incident analysis.
o Continue to develop Salt Lake City’s
wildland-urban interface program.
o Evaluate methods and technology that
will improve response times to critical
emergency calls.
Strategy 4
Enhance response to major
disasters and incidents
o Evaluate, enhance, and implement
Branch Operations policies and
procedures.
o Improve our unified command with Salt
Lake City Police, Emergency Management,
and Department of Airports.
o Establish protocols in partnership with
all valley fire departments to improve
emergency personnel response during a
large scale disaster.
“We strive to provide the
best training through self-
evaluation, technology and
innovation.”
Battalion Chief Kelly Carter
9
10
11
“Emergencies will
happen. It is through
preparation, education,
and training that we, as a
community, can become
better prepared to meet
and minimize their
impact .”
Battalion Chief Karl Steadman
12
GOAL 2
Firefighter health and safety
Maintain the highest standard for firefighter health and safety
When the community calls upon the fire department, they deserve and expect the highest level of
service to assist them in their times of need. Research has shown that repeated occupational exposure
can put a firefighter at significant risk for both mental and physical illness or injury. We aim to build
mental resilience, promote healthy lifestyle, optimize recovery, and establish research-driven support
networks. We advocate for wellness and crisis support programs for our members in an effort to
ensure their holistic wellness. The following strategies are the foundation to firefighter health and
safety.
Strategy 1
Fit to respond / Fit to retire
o Disseminate comprehensive
wellness training material through the
Certified Wellness Coordinators (CWCs)
with emphasis on the four pillars of
wellness: Mental Health, Physical Health,
Nutritional Education, and Recovery.
o Perform a needs assessment
and inventory, through the CWCs,
of each station to prioritize station
gym equipment, workout spaces, and
wellness options at all fire stations.
o Prioritize annual physical
examinations including developing an
annual job readiness assessment to
maintain the necessary standard of
physical fitness set forth by the TPT.
Strategy 2
Peer support and mental
health
o Review and improve Peer Support
Team (PST) policies to create more
efficient response from the PST following
traumatic incidents.
o Work with partnered department
clinicians, health providers, and local
universities to postulate further national
research regarding mental health and
wellness.
o Increase training on awareness
and prevention of firefighter suicide,
addiction, and post traumatic stress
injury (PTSI) related illness.
o Implement mental health and
resiliency training for all stages of a
department member’s career, from new
recruit to post-retirement.
o Improve department training
regarding available resources
for the families of department
members, including mental health
care and crisis resolution.
13
Strategy 3
Long-term health and injury/
illness prevention
o Collaborate with city officials
and insurance providers to expand
healthcare options and resources to
improve illness and injury prevention.
o Provide comprehensive cancer
screenings for department members
through in-station visits, trainings, and
private healthcare options.
o Continue to partner with local and
state union representatives to actively
pursue increased care and coverage
benefits for current and retired
department members.
o Continue to improve turnout
exposure protocols to better prevent
against exposure to carcinogenic toxins
in contaminated PPE.
Strategy 4
Improved workplace
environment
o Identify recruitment strategies that
will continue to add diversity and value
to all areas of the department.
o Secure funding to replace/refurbish
SLC Fire Stations 5 and 6 to improve
workplace environment.
o Continue to pursue and maintain
optimal fire department staffing.
14
“We hold ourselves
to the principal
standards of integrity
and accountability
in providing for
the demands and
expectations of the
community we serve.”
Battalion Chief Ron Fife
15
16
GOAL 3
Department training, leadership, and development
Increase investment in leadership development for fire department
personnel
With a strong economy, rising population, and a progressive and diverse population, the culture
and landscape of Salt Lake City continues to expand. With opportunity there will be challenges that
will test our resolve. Through redefined, sophisticated, and forward-thinking training solutions, our
department will innovate, adapt and continue to be a leader in our state and region.
Strategy 1
Expand Salt Lake City officer
development program
o Create a new and incumbent fire
officer development program specific
to the needs of the department with
an emphasis on new technology and
generational specific leadership skills.
o Provide consistent command and
control training to improve operations
and communication at all levels of
emergency management.
o Create opportunities for external
officer development, leadership, and
education for potential, new, and
experienced department officers.
o Institute a Fire Officer Mentoring
program in accordance with the
International Association of Fire Chiefs’
(IAFC) mentor program.
Strategy 2
Increase and enhance
department training
equipment
o Invest in new training tower props
and technology.
o Collaborate with the FAA and Salt
Lake City Department of Airports to
identify opportunities for an ARFF
training facility in Salt Lake City.
17
Strategy 3
Continuing education
opportunities and career paths
o Cultivate higher education
opportunities for all department members.
o Develop a career path that will
incentivize sworn and civilian employees to
seek opportunities for growth.
o Create an atmosphere of ongoing
personal and professional development.
“Mitigating the pain,
confusion, and chaos of a
person’s worst day with
compassion, skill, and
professionalism are the
hallmarks of the Salt Lake City
Fire Department.”
Captain Steve Crandall
18
19
“With all of the
bad things and the
negativity in the
world, I wanted to
know that in some
tiny way I’m making
sombody else’s life a
little bit better.”
Firefighter Vee Dickinson
20
GOAL 4
Community Risk Reduction
Effectively plan and prepare for any emergency, large or small
As the Capital City fire department, we are committed to leading the effort in community risk
reduction through planning and education. We recognize the impact that large scale disasters and
major emergencies can have on our city and our resources. Emphasis on public education will
dramatically increase the probability of a favorable outcome. Through collaboration with citizen
groups, local, state, and federal organizations, we will be able to ensure that effective communication
and training occurs. The following strategies will improve the resiliency of our community in the face
of human-caused and natural disasters.
21
Strategy 1
Service options for at-risk
target populations
o Work with community leaders
to improve the effectiveness of
treatment and care for identified at-risk
populations.
o Partner with Salt Lake City Police
outreach resources to decrease the
number of opioid-related emergencies
within the community.
Strategy 2
Advance our public
education efforts
o Through our Community Relations
Division (CRD), expand public
knowledge, outreach education,
and awareness to our community by
supporting community risk reduction
programs.
o Collaborate with Salt Lake City’s
Emergency Management Division
to design public safety education
programs that bring value to our
citizens.
o Develop and diversify the
department’s Community Health
Paramedic (CHP) program.
Strategy 3
Strengthen inspection
program
o Improve inspection technology
to ensure it meets the needs of the
department and the community.
o Ensure information gathered
during inspections is readily available
for use during incidents by fire
operations, dispatch, and support
services.
Strategy 4
Fire Prevention Division
support
o Present to the City Council
permits that should be added to the
city fee schedule to better serve the
community.
o Evaluate and monitor the
permitting process in an effort to
improve efficiency and effectiveness to
better serve the community.
Strategy 5
Collaborate with Salt
Lake City’s Emergency
Management Division
o Develop and practice effective
plans to respond to natural or human-
caused, physical or medical disaster
events.
o Participate fully in planning,
implementation, and review of all
local, state, and federally recognized
emergency drills.
o Develop Incident Action Plans (IAP)
for at-risk locations, including: airports,
arenas, schools, shopping centers,
hotels, public gatherings, urban
interface, etc.
Strategy 6
Enhance emergency
communications
o Enhance communications with the
media and the public through new
technologies, social media platforms,
and effective mediums for public
service announcements (PSAs) in times
of crisis.
o Practice internal call-back
procedures and enhance technology
for member communiation during a
major disaster.
o Establish a reporting network for
all department members and their
families to communicate during large
scale incidents.
“It is an honor to be part of
this vibrant community and we
strive to improve the lives of
all those that we have sworn to
serve.”
Assistant Chief Chris Milne
22
Acknowledgments
Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office
and Senior Leadership
Mayor Erin Mendenhall
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer
Lindsey Nikola, Director of Communications
Pam Lofgreen, Emergency Management Director
Bill Wyatt, Airport Director
Salt Lake City Council
Council Member James Rogers, District 1
Council Member Andrew Johnston, District 2
Council Member Chris Wharton, District 3
Council Member Ana Valdemoros, District 4
Council Member Darin Mano, District 5
Council Member Dan Dugan, District 6
Council Member Amy Fowler, District 7
Former Council Member Charlie Luke, District 6
Dr. Jennifer Seelig, PhD
Salt Lake City Fire Department
Karl Lieb, Fire Chief
Rusty McMicken, Deputy Chief
Mike Fox, Assistant Chief
Chris Milne, Assistant Chief
23
SLCFD Strategic Planning Committee
Battalion Chief Karl Steadman
Captain Brandon Shumway
Captain Robert Silverthorne
Captain Brandon Turman
Darby Egbert
Firefighter Brandon Heaney
Jose Vila Trejo
Firefighter Andrew Wilcox
Firefighter Matthew Wilson
Photo and Image Credits
Captain Adam Archuleta
Firefighter Jake Blaskowski
Trisha Thomas
Firefighter Gianni Valente
24
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland
Public Policy & Budget Analyst
DATE:June 1, 2021
RE: FY2022 BUDGET – REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE INTENTS AND INTERIM STUDY
ITEMS
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES: C-22 – C26
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
As part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget, the Administration provided responses to the Legislative Intent
Statements that the Council adopted last year with the Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) annual budget. Unlike in
previous years, there were no mid-year discussions or updates to these due to the multiple unusual
circumstances in 2020 which shifted City-wide focus to emergency response. The more typical Annual Schedule
for Review of Legislative Intents is included as Attachment C1.
The chart below summarizes the current status of each of these intents, and includes Council staff
recommendations to either leave open, or to close. Recommendations to close (or consider closing) include
whether the item would then be considered complete, or would continue indefinitely as a policy change.
Similar summaries follow for legislative intents that are pending from FY20, FY19, FY18, FY17, FY16 and FY15.
The full text of the open legislative intents is found in Attachment C2. The Administration’s responses are
reproduced from the FY21 Mayor’s Recommended Budget in Attachment C3. Updates may be available on
Tuesday.
Goal of the briefing: Review the status of past years’ Legislative Intents, consider options, and potentially
straw poll Council support for changing the status on specific items.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: June 1, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18, June 1
Potential Action: June 15 (TBD)
2
KEY BUDGET ISSUES & POLICY QUESTIONS
A. FY21 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Police Department
Role.
Open.
Park Rangers. The Administration reports the Police Department’s
bike squad assigned to park patrols is working with Parks staff to identify
the most effective use of these units. They are also reviewing models
elsewhere in the country with the goal of enhancing customer service in
terms of education, environmental services and interpretation.
Social Workers. The Administration continues to evaluate the co-
responder model to ensure that residents receive the most helpful
response to calls for service, while social workers and officers remain safe
on the job.
Internal Affairs Unit. The Police Department is working with Human
Resources to enhance oversight of IA by hiring a civilian director.
b.Police
Department Zero-
based Budget
Exercise.
Open.
Matrix Consulting Group was hired to conduct the independent audit of
the Police Department budget. The firm has provided updates and
preliminary recommendations to the Council and the Racial Equity in
Policing Commission. The zero-based budget exercise will be completed
later in 2021, once preparations related to accounting methods are
finalized.
c.CARES Act
Funding.
Close and complete.
The Administration reports having budgeted CARES Act funding in a
manner consistent with equity principles being discussed Citywide.
d.Ban Military
Equipment.
Close and complete.
On October 6, the Council passed Ordinance No. 46 of 2020, effectively
banning the acceptance of military equipment.
e.Police
Department
Reporting
Ordinance.
Open.
As a first step, the Council adopted the body camera ordinance of 2020.
The Attorney’s Office looks forward to working with the Council on
additional reporting requirements for the Police Department.
3
f.Tuition
Reimbursement
and Police Officer
Education.
Close and continue.
In January 2021, the Council received a briefing on tuition
reimbursement in the Police Department (PD). The program reimburses
participants for up to $4,000 in spending on tuition, fees, and books.
Between 2015 and 2020, 441 PD employees took advantage of this
program, and in 2019 and 2020, the annual average rose to around 80
employees per year. The PD continues to emphasize educational
attainment in its recruitment and promotion processes.
g.CIP and County
Transportation
Funds.
Close and continue.
The Administration reports that the Quarter-Cent County Transportation
Funds are now included as a funding source for CIP, and the process now
involves the CDCIP Board and the Mayor’s recommendations based on
CIP needs and available funds.
h.Communicating
Impact of Budget
Reductions.
Close and complete.
The Parks and Public Lands Division created a communication plan with
key messaging for outreach to the public. It included a monthly
newsletter, social media posts, website updates, and emails to all
Community Councils and approximately 150 other stakeholders, as well
as information for all Public Lands staff.
i.Golf CIP Fund
Plan.
Open
The Administration indicated interest in developing a long-term plan for
Golf’s CIP fund, but proposes a short-term plan for now, given the
difficulty of forecasting Golf receipts.
➢The Council may wish to request the short-term Golf CIP
plan offered for review.
j.Historic Park
Design Guidelines
Open
The Parks and Public Lands Division has created a report that provides
background on the City’s cultural landscapes, recommendations on
specific sites, work in progress, departmental coordination, and a
comprehensive list of these sites, along with the recommendation for
consultant services and cost estimates.
➢The Council may wish to request the full report offered for
review.
k.4th Avenue Well
Noise Reduction.
Close and continue.
The Public Utilities Department reports that architects and engineers
have incorporated noise reduction into the building design to meet
County requirements. Also, a consultant has been hired to advise on noise
4
reduction. Any noise generated by the well will be below County
requirements, and not greater than current ambient measurements. A
link to a Spectrum Engineering report can be found in this item’s
response from the Administration, Attachment C3.
l.Fund Balance
Floor Goal.
Close and continue.
The Administration reports that in late April, 2021, the General Fund
fund balance exceeded 15%, one percentage point beyond the Council
goal of 14%.
m.Transfer Housing
Trust Fund
Development
Loans and
Payments.
Open.
This process is ongoing, with work involving HAND, RDA, the Attorney’s
Office and Finance. The portfolio continues to reside in HAND’s loan
management system. An ordinance change will be required to complete
this process.
➢The Administration mentions a need for clarification from
the Council/Board on the proposed new structure and
other modifications. Would the Council or RDA Board like
to schedule a briefing for this purpose?
n.Calculate RDA
Legislation
Impacts. It is the
intent of the Council
that the Finance
Department and the
RDA work together
to calculate the
impact on City
resources of changes
proposed in 2019
and 2020 to State
RDA legislation.
Open.
The Administration reported: “The approved RDA legislation provides
the City with the option to establish a new CRA tax rate to provide an
ongoing funding source that enables the Agency to continue carrying out
its work in supporting the City’s short and long-term needs. If the option
was taken, the City Council/RDA Board would have significant control
over key factors to be memorialized with an Interlocal Agreement
between the City and Agency. These include adoption of an
implementation plan to set priorities and guide investment,
determination of the amount of revenue the Agency could collect through
the tax rate and any earmark or allocation of funds to specific initiatives.
The legislation does not decrease the City’s current revenue. The direct
impact to the City’s General Fund is not realizing the increase in revenue
that is typically expected when RDA project areas expire. As each area
expires, the City and CRA tax rates would be incrementally adjusted in a
way that reallocates the City’s participating share of increment from that
project area to the RDA as ongoing revenue, with the intention of
maintaining overall tax neutrality. Once the CRA tax rate is established,
both the City and RDA would realize future new growth at the same rate,
as both entities would share the entire City as its tax base. When it comes
to the City’s current capacity to utilize the revenue created by new growth
in RDA project areas to mitigate the impact of sudden emergencies such
as COVID-19, the main factor is how the City budgets the new growth. If
the City does not intentionally earmark the new revenue for specific
initiatives or a rainy-day fund, it will likely be absorbed into the General
Fund and applied toward one-time or ongoing expenses. Another
important consideration is that if the timing doesn’t align with a project
5
area expiring in the same year as the significant event, the new revenue
would not be available for use at that time. If the City Council established
a new CRA tax rate, it would essentially redirect the revenue created by
new growth in the RDA project areas to the Agency as a separate taxing
entity that has the flexibility to support the entire City in times of crisis.
RDA staff worked with the Finance Department to draft an overall
analysis on the legislation which includes the calculation of the tax rate
and recommendations from Finance on how to maintain tax neutrality.
The amendments included in the final version of the legislation would not
impact the analysis or tax rate calculation.”
Council staff has reviewed this analysis and some Council
Members have asked for follow-up on some areas in the
analysis that were not addressed.
o.Decriminalization
Review of City
Code.
Open.
The Attorney’s Office reports that two clerks from the University of Utah
Law School will work on this project, beginning in May, 2021. They will
produce a chart that allows both City branches to prioritize sections of
City Code for potential decriminalization.
B. FY20 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Golf Food and
Beverage Options.
Open.
The Golf Division responded that in March, 2020, they had secured a
contract with a new concessionaire to operate at all courses besides
Mountain Dell, which has a different concessionaire. The COVID-19
pandemic forced the cafés to shut down soon thereafter, and only limited
to-go service could be offered during the summer. To help keep the
concessionaires viable, the Division waived the normal monthly rent and
waste collection fees for all of 2020, including the revenue sharing
portion of both sets of agreements. Golf also covered the cost of all café
equipment repairs in 2020 and into 2021. Even though golf play volume
has been high in 2021, café business is still lagging. Golf has resumed
contracted space rental fees and revenue sharing with the concessionaires
for 2021 and is working with each to try to drive business into the cafés.
The Golf Division did not respond specifically to the zoning aspects of the
original Legislative Intent, so the Council may wish to renew: “…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.”
6
b.Police Uniform
Allowance.
Open.
The Administration repeated the response from 2020: “The Police
Department is currently negotiating uniform allowance with the Police
Union. Further information will be forthcoming as negotiations proceed.”
c.Park Ranger
Program
Open. Schedule a discussion on whether to continue in PD
The Police Department provided staffing proposal alternatives with the
associated cost estimates to the City Council earlier this year and will
continue to develop the program. The PD envisions the park squad
officers working in conjunction with other departmental units, city
departments and local agencies. “By utilizing a community response
model, Police can multiply the effectiveness of the park squad by
leveraging other units and agencies, including Community Intelligence
Units, the Community Connections Center, Homeless Outreach,
Crisis Intervention Team, the Parks Department, the Health Department,
etc.”
d.Funding Our Future
i.Unspent Funds.
ii.Affordable Housing
Allocation (NWQ)
iii.Housing Program
Outcome Report
iv.New Sales Tax
Funds for Public
Safety
See staff suggestion on each item below
i.Unspent Funds. This intent was related to the FY21 budget.
Close and complete.
ii.Affordable Housing Allocation. In February 2021, the RDA
Board approved the Housing Allocation Funds Policy, which
includes housing funds from Agency project areas as well as
Funding our Future and the 10% tax differential from the
Northwest Quadrant/Inland Port Authority. As part of this policy
and process, the Agency will prepare an annual Funding Strategy,
subject to Board approval, that will include the priorities and
proposed allocation of funds. Within this Funding Strategy, the
Agency will report on the use of the resources and impact within
the related housing programs. Close and continue.
iii.Housing Program Outcome Report. The Civic Engagement
Division responded: “The last update was transmitted to Council
and provided a July 1- December 31, 2020 update report. The next
reporting period will be January 1 – June 30, 2021.” The Council
may wish to request a copy of the latest report. Close and
continue.
iv.New Sales Tax Funds for Public Safety. The current
Administration agrees that the Fire Department, and 911 Dispatch
must be included in the allocation of Funding Our Future revenue.
Close and continue.
e.Building Rehab
Projects near HRCs
Close and complete.
HAND reports: “$92,000 was appropriated to SLC Targeted Residential
and Commercial Programs. The funding was offered to over 500 property
owners around both the Geraldine King and Gail Miller HRCs. At the end
7
of the program, after extensive outreach to those who were eligible and
had applied to receive the grants, HAND staff ended up with several
commercial and residential property owners that did not utilize the
funding. The final payment that went to a property owner was made in
late February 2021. Once final payments were made, the unused portion
of the $92,010 was $23,037.”
➢The Council may wish to consider reiterating its interest in
an evaluation of potential future expansion of the funding
and City-wide application.
f.Complete Streets
Definition
Close and continue.
The Administration reports, “The Transportation Division follows the
Complete Streets Ordinance, meaning that the needs of all modes of
travel are considered in street design. This includes walking, biking, and
transit, but could include other modes of travel as well, such as scooters.
Transportation’s CIP requests have placed a heavy emphasis on
pedestrian safety and complete streets, using the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Master Plan and the Transit Master Plan as guides. Examples include
requests for complete streets enhancements, urban trails, transportation
safety (with an emphasis on pedestrian safety), neighborhood byways,
bus stop enhancements, and “first/last mile” connections. In addition,
planning efforts are underway to develop a City-wide Livable
Streets (Traffic Calming) Plan, as well as a Street and Intersection
Typology Guide that will create a more holistic, people-oriented street
design philosophy for the City. The Typologies Guide is in draft form and
will go out for a third and final round of public input in summer 2021.”
The Council may wish to schedule a review of this project in
coming months, and if still of interest, consider providing
more detailed direction. If the Council is not inclined to
schedule a review, then perhaps the item could be changed to
“Closed and complete” status.
g.Crossing Guards. Close and continue.
In FY20, the Council funded a new third-party crossing guard contract,
including a $1 per hour pay raise for part-time crossing guards to make
the position more attractive. Shortly after, a contract was awarded to All
City Management Services, a company with nationwide presence. The
company was unable to replicate the success experienced in their other
markets, so the Administration rescinded the contract in October 2020.
For now, the Compliance Division continues to operate the Crossing
Guard program, with 71 active guards covering 50 State-mandated
locations.
The Department further notes: “The Administration is currently
evaluating options to strengthen the program and consolidate
partnerships not only with the School District but with other community
organizations. Nonetheless, the School District is recognizing its
8
challenges to keep up with proper staffing levels, from bus drivers and
kitchen staff to paraprofessionals and afterschool personnel.
“Recruiting volunteers has been an idea that comes around as a potential
solution, every time we witness the high levels of willingness from
community members to contribute their time for the safety of the
students. Whereas the inclusion of volunteers supplements the number of
individuals crossing children, it is still to be determined how the City will
handle any liability resulting from an injury or malpractice when a non-
employee is performing unsupervised City work. This is a question that
the Risk Management Department may be able to answer.”
h.Green Team Metrics. Close and complete.
The land on which the Green Team Farm (Phoenix Farm) currently sits
has been slated for redevelopment in FY22 and the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget proposes funding only through December 2021.
Final metrics include the following:
- 2019-2020: 17 participants enrolled in the program. 10
participants completed the program and successfully secured
housing and employment.
- 2020-2021: 9 participants enrolled in the program. 6 participants
are actively enrolled in the program.
-In March - June of 2020 the program was suspended due to
COVID-19. It is now back to full operations with appropriate
health/safety guidelines.
i.Holding Accounts.
i. ADA Administrator
position in
Community &
Neighborhoods
ii. Funding for equity
training and other
coordination.
a. Equity
Administrator
b. FOF
“Building a
More
Equitable
City”
Close and complete.
i.ADA Administrator position in Community &
Neighborhoods. This position has remained vacant and the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget includes a proposal to move it to
the Mayor’s Office.
ii.Funding for equity training and other coordination.
a.Equity Administrator. This position has remained vacant
and the Mayor’s Recommended Budget includes a proposal to
move it to the Mayor’s Office.
b.Funding Our Future “Building a More Equitable City.”
Utah Community Action (UCA) developed a program titled
“Landlord Tenant Mediation” to provide financial resources to
avoid eviction, and where necessary, provide a mediator to
assist clients through an eviction process. Case management is
provided by UCA. The number of households assisted into
housing from April 2020 through March 2021 was 33,
affecting a total of 68 individuals. Each of these households
was able to avoid eviction. As of approximately mid-May, UCA
9
C. FY19 Legislative Intent Statements
c. Digital Equity
Policy
has processed cases amounting to $101,343 of the $300,000,
leaving $198,657 available for program use.
c.Digital Equity Policy. In September, 2020, the Council
adopted the Digital Equity policy, which ensures inclusive
access to technology, allowing all residents to fully engage in
today’s digital society. Ongoing efforts include developing the
City Equity Plan which will incorporate a demographic study
and recommendations on how to improve equity.
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Performance
Measures for
Homeless Services
Funding
Close and continue.
The Administration responded: “The HEART team collects and analyzes
quarterly and annual data to ensure that the City’s contribution to
homeless services continue to align with ongoing need.
Bed utilization is reviewed for programs such as motel voucher programs,
winter overflow, and VOA detox. In each of these programs bed
utilization helps determine how well the city continues to meet this need.
Service utilization is reviewed for programs such as storage, and Weigand
Day Center. In each of these programs analyzing the services provided
versus the usage of indicated services helps determine if the city is
continuing to provide necessary services.
On demand health/sanitation/restroom services are evaluated not only in
the context of services provided, but also capacity of the agency to quickly
respond to the needs of the city as well as metrics that include number of
people employed via these services. Employees are often those that are
homeless, at risk of becoming homeless, or formerly homeless as they
work toward stronger employment opportunities.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss any additional metrics that the
Council may want information on.”
➢The Council may wish to request these data for review and
discussion in a work session briefing.
b.Neighborhood Safety
Program for HRCs
Close and continue.
The Administration reports, “HAND/HEART submitted the
Neighborhood Action Strategies Plan to the Council for review earlier this
year. This plan was developed in partnership with VODA, a consulting
firm. This outlines a neighborhood engagement framework that serves as
the guiding document for the work of the City’s Mitigation Community
10
Engagement Coordinator on the HEART team. As a result of this plan, we
have implemented regular meetings with HRC operators and the Police
Department, Neighborhood Action Councils that engage housed members
of the community, as well as HRC residents and staff.”
The group also submitted a grant request to the State for funding to
expand the Downtown Ambassador program to serve in the
neighborhoods immediately surrounding the HRCs.
c.Streamlining the
Permitting Process
Open.
This response has not been updated. Additional information may
become available as part of the follow-up Building Services Audit
currently underway.
In 2019, the Administration reported, “Accela and Projectdox (Current
plan review and permitting software in use across all Departments and
Divisions responsible for plan review and permitting on the built
environment) currently have over 250 reports available with numerous
parameters – very quick and easy to access. We also have dozens of Ad
Hoc reports that have been developed and deployed by our staff using
electronic tables updated in real-time in both Projectdox and Accela.
We have agreed to try, as a pilot program, bringing the Fire
inspections/inspectors into Building Services and are working on the
specific logistics associated with that consolidation. We are working
towards implementing that pilot this summer.
So, in response to the Council request, Yes, we can provide any/all of that
information in any time increment that they would like, including
annually with the Mayor’s Budget.”
➢The Council may wish to request an update and briefing
on this topic.
d.Prostitution
Outreach Program
(POP)
Open.
In its June 9, 2020 review of Legislative Intents, the Council requested
an update and discussion with the Administration on this topic. With the
ongoing pandemic and other emergencies in 2020 there was not time on
agendas to schedule this update. The response below was not updated.
The Administration commissioned a study on human trafficking in Utah,
and established a Human Trafficking Working Group, which met several
times since January 2019.
➢The Council may wish to ask for an update on this project
from the Administration.
e.City-Owned Land
Inventory
Open.
11
D. FY18 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Secured Parking on
500 West Green
Median.
Open.
The Administration did not provide an update to this item.
The Administration reports that it continues to work on the City-owned
land inventory and will ultimately couple it with the new ERP system
asset management function.
➢The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to consider
how this information could be used to inform policy.
f.Fleet Insurance for
High-Risk Vehicles
Open.
In March, 2019, the previous Administration’s response provided
information about third-party liability claims against the City and a three-
year summary of auto liability claims by department. The response also
stated that the Council’s interest in options to self-insurance for high-risk
vehicles would need to involve information managed by the Fleet
Management Division, so that it would include the cost of damages from
striking stationary objects, as well.
➢Next step: The Council could request more information
from the Fleet Management Division, to inform more
comprehensive deliberations on this item.
g.(Funding Our
Future) Housing
Program Outcome
Report
Close and continue.
The Civic Engagement team is charged with Funding Our Future reports.
They provided this response: “The last update was transmitted to the
Council and provided a July 1-December 31, 2020 report. The next
reporting period will be January 1 –June 30, 2021.”
h.General Fund
Subsidy for Golf
Consider closing and reformulating.
In its June 9, 2020 review of Legislative Intents, the Council requested
an update and discussion with the Administration on this topic. With the
ongoing pandemic and other emergencies in 2020 there was not time on
agendas to schedule this update. (Note: This Intent was inadvertently
omitted from the list sent to the Administration, so there was not an
opportunity to update the reply.)
➢The Council may wish to renew this conversation by
requesting an update from Council staff.
12
➢The Council may wish to request an update or briefing on
the previous Administration’s review of the project’s
effectiveness which was scheduled for 2019.
E. FY17 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Administration
Metrics and
Reporting.
i.Metrics in
conjunction
with the
annual
budget
Open.
In its June 9, 2020 review of Legislative Intents, the Council requested
an update and discussion with the Administration on this topic. With the
ongoing pandemic and other emergencies in 2020 there was not time on
agendas to schedule this update. (Note: This Intent was inadvertently
omitted from the list sent to the Administration, so there was not an
opportunity to update the reply.)
➢The Council may wish to ask for an update from the
Administration.
b.Fleet Fund Financial
Sustainability.
Open.
The Administration had no further response beyond the one provided for
FY21, “Fleet continues to work on the recommendations, one of which was
moving the public safety fleet to cash purchases; however, the FY21 MRB
does not support that plan. The Committee will consider the list of 24
proposed replacements after the budget is adopted. Other
recommendations will move ahead as funding is available. The vehicle
utilization reports have been implemented, and loaner pool will be
implemented in the next two months.”
c.Cost Analysis for
Development Review
Team services.
Open.
The Administration reports that this analysis has been completed and will
be transmitted to the Council in the coming months.
➢The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to discuss the
results of this analysis once it is completed.
F. FY16 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
13
a.Building Permit Fee
Cost Study.
Open.
The Administration reports that this analysis is forthcoming.
➢The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to discuss the
results of this analysis once it is completed.
G. FY15 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
Maintenance of
Business Districts.
Open.
The Administration reports that it has no further response beyond the one
provided for FY21, “Facilities and Public Lands continue to refine cost
estimates for maintenance that consider varying levels of service and
types of amenities.”
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents.
Attachment C2. Original Legislative Intent Statements from FY21 and earlier.
Attachment C3. Original Legislative Intent Statements with Administration Responses from Mayor’s
Recommended Budget, Fiscal Year 2021-2022.
Attachment C1. Annual Schedule for Review of Legislative Intents
Briefing #1: Post-budget discussion
•Transmittal: August
•Work Session: September
•Purpose:
o Q & A with department representatives
o Workshop to refine the legislative intents
o Receive information from the departments – what’s been tried and/or whether
they would like to propose a better approach, etc.
o Early status information, first-round thoughts, feedback
Briefing #2: Mid-year status update –Timed to coincide with BA 3 or 4
•Transmittal: January - February
•Work Session: March
•Purpose:
o Briefing from Department representatives
o Mid-year update on progress made, department response, impact to budget if
any, etc.
o This is not expected to be a 100% complete report or close-out, but rather a mid-
term update
Briefing #3: Combined with annual budget report
•Transmittal: No separate transmittal; information and updates included or apparent in
annual budget information
•Work Session: Intents would be discussed as part of department annual budget briefings
•Purpose:
o Continue tracking legislative intents and close out as applicable
o Refine status and next steps for the coming fiscal year
Exceptions: Some items may have a separate timeline identified and those will be considered
separately.
Attachment C2. Original Legislative Intent Statements from FY21 and earlier
Note: Only Intents that remain open are included below.
FY 2021 Legislative Intents (Revised June 9, 2020)
a.Police Department Role. It is the intent of the Council to re-evaluate the role the City asks the Police
Department to play, and the budget to fulfill that role, and ask the Administration to evaluate moving
certain programs out of the Police Department, like park rangers and social workers, and potentially add
a function to the Human Resources Department to enhance the independence of the Internal Affairs
unit.
b.Police Department Zero-based Budget Exercise. It is the intent of the Council to hire an
independent auditor to evaluate each line item in the Police Department budget with the goal of
conducting a zero-based budget exercise, which takes the budget apart and builds it back in a way that
aligns with the policy goals of the Council, Mayor and public. A report back to the Council would happen
in September, or sooner if possible.
c.CARES Act Funding. The Council intends to use forthcoming CARES act funding to prioritize the
community needs consistent with the equity principles being discussed.
d.Ban Military Equipment. The Council intends to work with the Attorney’s Office to create an
ordinance that prohibits the City from accepting grant awards for federal military equipment. The
ordinance may include any foreseeable exceptions for the Council’s consideration.
e.Police Department Reporting Ordinance. The Council intends to work with the Attorney’s Office
to create an ordinance that establishes reporting requirements for internal information collected by and
related to the Police Department.
f.Tuition Reimbursement and Police Officer Education. It is the intent of the Council to
encourage the Administration to assure that the City’s tuition reimbursement program is accessible to
Police Department staff members and that the Police Department has a system to provide the flexibility
necessary for staff to seek degrees, particularly in fields that relate to public safety, human relations,
communications, community building, criminal justice, psychology and other areas that add value to
their work. Further, the Council encourages the Administration to include strong advanced education
requirements in their promotion and hiring process.
g.CIP and County Transportation Funds. It is the intent of the Council that future years Quarter-
Cent County Transportation Funds go through a process that involves community input and considers
other CIP needs, potentially combined with a redefined CIP process.
h.Communicating Impact of Budget Reductions. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration return with a communication strategy to inform the public about the likelihood of
reduced service levels in City parks and public lands due to budget reductions.
i.Golf CIP Fund Plan. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration clarify the long-term plan
for the Golf Enterprise Fund’s CIP fund.
j.Historic Park Design Guidelines. It is the intent of the Council that a briefing with the
Administration be scheduled in order to discuss the steps and funding necessary to create design
guidelines for the City's historic parks. Next steps would be identified pending the briefing discussion.
k.4th Avenue Well Noise Reduction. It is the intent of the Council that the Department of Public
Utilities continues to consider additional noise-reducing options for the new 4th Avenue Well project.
l.Fund Balance Floor Goal. The Council intends to continue the legislative intent from last year
setting a minimum fund balance “floor” at 14%.
m.Transfer Housing Trust Fund Development Loans and Payments. The Council intends to
transfer the Housing Trust Fund’s housing development-loan-related balances and payments to be
overseen by the RDA. During FY20, HAND and the RDA developed a detailed “housing framework” for
consideration by the RDA Board and the Council. These bodies may wish to schedule time once the FY21
budget is complete to finalize this work, which may include changes to City ordinances and/or board
policies.
n.Calculate RDA Legislation Impacts. It is the intent of the Council that the Finance Department and
the RDA work together to calculate the impact on City resources of changes proposed in 2019 and 2020
to State RDA legislation.
o.Decriminalization Review of City Code. It is the intent of the Council that an in-depth review be
conducted of the City Code to consider items that could be de-criminalized. Council staff could work
with Council Members and the City Attorney’s Office to draft a scope and come back with a report on the
timeline.
FY 2020 Legislative Intents (Revised June 9, 2020)
a.Golf Food and Beverage Options. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to
examine the open space zone ordinance, with the goal of removing barriers to providing flexible food
and beverage options in golf courses. To the extent that barriers exist in State law the Council requests
an analysis of those, and that changing them be identified as a future legislative priority.
b.Police Uniform Allowance. It is the intent of the Council that from the outset of the next MOU
process with the Salt Lake City Police Association, the Administration include discussion of the uniform
allowance, with the intent to make it more competitive with local agencies.
c.Park Ranger Program. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration develop a proposal for
Council consideration that addresses the overall goal of increasing the perception of safety in parks,
including the concerns raised by community and Council Members that uniformed police officers could
cause fear or uncertainty among minority and at-risk populations, interfering with their enjoyment of
these public spaces.
d.Funding Our Future
i.Unspent Funds. It is the intent of the Council that any funds allocated in Fiscal Year (FY)
2020, but not expected to be spent by the end of the fiscal year, be included in the FY21 Annual
Budget discussions for evaluation and appropriation.
ii.Affordable Housing Allocation. It is the intent of the Council that the City evaluate the
impact that the infusion of the 10% tax differential from the Northwest Quadrant/Inland Port
Authority will have on the City’s ability to fund housing programs.
iii.Housing Program Outcome Report. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
provides a written report on housing program outcomes and metrics funded from Funding Our
Future revenue in time for consideration in the fiscal year 2021 (FY21) budget.
iv.New Sales Tax Funds for Public Safety. 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.
e.Building Rehab Projects near HRCs. It is the intent of the Council that this funding be used for a
pilot program around each of the new Homeless Resource Centers and that the Administration will
provide a written report on the use of the funding after distribution, and evaluate a future expansion of
the funding and a city-wide application.
f.Complete Streets Definition. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to clarify the
components of the “complete streets” concept and evaluate whether there are additional opportunities
to include pedestrian and neighborhood safety as it relates to any future CIP project and, specifically, to
consider how pedestrian and neighborhood safety can build on the current ordinance.
g.Crossing Guards. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide a briefing on the
City’s crossing guard program staffing (including efforts to increase the number of crossing guards and
coordinate with the School District), as well as challenges related to staffing and the City’s responsibility
in crosswalk coverage. The goal of further discussion is to identify future steps for coordination or
funding that would improve the number of crosswalks, staffing, and student safety, which may include
an RFP and outside contract to provide this service. The Administration is also requested to evaluate
whether volunteers could be either incorporated in the City’s program or otherwise encouraged.
h.Green Team Metrics. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration work with its Green Team
partners to develop metrics that track tangible improvements in job-related skills among participants, in
addition to graduate employment rates.
i.Holding Accounts. It is the intent of the Council to set aside funding for some new proposed projects
to discuss with the Administration the portions of the recommended budget that establish new
programs not previously reviewed by the City Council. The Council will schedule briefing time as soon as
information is available to minimize any impacts. The items or projects set aside into the holding
account include:
i.$60,369 for an ADA Administrator position in Community & Neighborhoods
ii.Funding for equity training and other coordination
a.$60,369 Equity Administrator
FY 2019 Legislative Intent Statements (Revised June 2, 2020)
a.Performance Measures for Homeless Services Funding. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration propose a clear set of metrics to document and assess the City’s contribution to
homeless services, particularly if those contributions are expected to be multi-year or ongoing in nature,
or go beyond the City’s typical roles, such as funding for case management and beds in addiction
treatment facilities.
b.Neighborhood Safety Program for HRCs. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
consider the options for creating safety programs to offset negative consequences similar to the
Downtown Ambassadors to serve the neighborhoods where the two Homeless Resource Centers (HRC)
are planned.
c.Streamlining the Permitting Process. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
continue to evaluate ways to consolidate and streamline the steps required in the permitting process,
particularly focusing on the City Departments that are beyond the purview of Building Services.
d.Prostitution Outreach Program (POP). It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
discuss and evaluate the opportunity for a program to address the goals of the former Prostitution
Outreach Program (POP) with the County District Attorney and other stakeholders, and provide budget
information to the Council on implementation.
e.City-Owned Land Inventory. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration complete a City-
owned land inventory reflecting all City departments and provide this to the Council.
f.Fleet Insurance for High-Risk Vehicles. It is the intent of the Council to request that the
Administration explore options other than self-insurance for vehicles at high risk of accidents/damage.
g.(Funding Our Future) Housing Program Outcome Report. It is the intent of the Council that
the Administration report on housing program outcomes and metrics funded from the new sales tax in
time for consideration in the fiscal year 2020 (FY 2020) budget. Council staff note: The Council could
make any FY 2020 appropriation contingent on completion of this report.
FY 2018 Legislative Intents (Revised June 2, 2020)
a.Secured Parking on 500 West Green Median – Appropriate funding for the 500 West median
secure parking lot with the intent that the Administration evaluate the effectiveness of these
improvements and other City interventions in the area in approximately 2 years.
FY 2017 Legislative Intents (Revised June 2, 2020)
a.Administration Metrics and Reporting (Note: The Council may also consider formalizing these
items in the Reporting Ordinance.)
i.Metrics in conjunction with the annual budget. It is the intent of the Council that
department metrics be included with the annual budget, and updated annually. The metrics of
interest are items that measure the effectiveness of the City’s service delivery, or track a
department’s progress towards specific goals. The Council welcomes the inclusion of existing
measurements and is not asking that new systems and metrics be developed in all cases.
However, in cases where tracking these metrics requires increased resources, the Council will
consider these requests highly important.
b.Fleet Fund Financial Sustainability. It is the intent of the Council to request that the
Administration report back during the first Council meeting in November on a plan to achieve financial
sustainability of the Fleet Fund.
c.Cost Analysis for Development Review Team (DRT) services. It is the intent of the Council to
request that the Administration conduct an analysis of the City’s costs for Development Review Team
services as a first step in cost-justification for potential fee-setting. After review of the cost analysis, the
Council may wish to reach out to key users of the service for feedback on advantages and disadvantages
of cost-recovery for the use of DRT.
FY 2016 Legislative Intents (Revised June 2, 2020)
a.Building Permit Fee Cost Study. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration conduct and
update a cost justification and benchmarking study for building permit fees.
FY 2015 Legislative Intents (Revised June 2, 2020)
a.Maintenance of Business Districts. It is the intent of the Council to hold a briefing regarding the
costs of enhanced services provided to the Central Business District, in order to consider: a) revising how
City services are provided and paid for, b) services that may be offered to other established or developing
Business Districts in the City, and c) maintenance of amenity upgrades (such as lighting and benches). It
is also the intent of the Council that this discussion happen in time to incorporate any changes into the
renewal of the Central Business District agreement and Sugar House Business District.
Attachment C3. Administration Responses to FY21 Legislative Intent
Statements
Intents are reproduced as they were adopted on June 9, 2020
a. Police Department Role. It is the intent of the Council to re-evaluate the role the City asks
the Police Department to play, and the budget to fulfill that role, and ask the Administration to
evaluate moving certain programs out of the Police Department, like park rangers and social
workers, and potentially add a function to the Human Resources Department to enhance the
independence of the Internal Affairs unit.
Administration Response:
-Park Rangers: The Police Department has established a bike squad assigned to park
patrols and is working closely with parks staff to identify the most effective use of these
park patrol units. The Administration is also looking at other models around the country
with the goal of enhancing the work these squads do with additional resources focused
on customer service. Ideally, these additional resources would provide a combination of
education and compliance of park rules, environmental services, and historical and
cultural interpretation. Utilizing this model would not eliminate the need for the park
patrol bike squads – whose focus is to enforce state and local laws and provide quick
response in our public spaces when called.
-Social Workers: The Social Workers are working with officers assigned to the Crisis
Intervention Team in a Co-responder model. The social workers have expressed
concerns regarding a potential shift in this model, because they often respond to
dangerous situations that ultimately require a police officer. The Department and the
Administration are committed to continuing to evaluate the co-responder model to
ensure that City residents are getting the best and most helpful response to calls for
service, and that social workers and officers remain safe on the job.
-Internal Affairs Unit: The Police Department is actively working with Human Resources
to enhance the oversight of the Internal Affairs Unit and is in the process of hiring a
Civilian Director. A Civilian Director will ensure that the IA unit operates professionally
and with the continuity and experience that is required to best serve the Department and
the City’s residents.
b. Police Department Zero-based Budget Exercise. It is the intent of the Council to hire an
independent auditor to evaluate each line item in the Police Department budget with the goal of
conducting a zero-based budget exercise, which takes the budget apart and builds it back in a
way that aligns with the policy goals of the Council, Mayor and public. A report back to the
Council would happen in September, or sooner if possible.
Administration Response: The Council hired an auditor to evaluate the Police Department
Budget and the presentation to Council by Matrix was scheduled on 4/20/2021.
c. CARES Act Funding. The Council intends to use forthcoming CARES act funding to
prioritize the community needs consistent with the equity principles being discussed.
Administration Response: Budgeted use of CARES Act fund was prioritized according to the
requirements of this intent.
d. Ban Military Equipment. The Council intends to work with the Attorney’s Office to create an
ordinance that prohibits the City from accepting grant awards for federal military equipment. The
ordinance may include any foreseeable exceptions for the Council’s consideration.
Administration Response: In the fall of 2020, the City Attorney’s Office worked with the
Council to draft an ordinance banning acceptance of military equipment. This ordinance was
passed on October 6, 2020 at Ordinance No. 46 of 2020.
e. Police Department Reporting Ordinance. The Council intends to work with the Attorney’s
Office to create an ordinance that establishes reporting requirements for internal information
collected by and related to the Police Department.
Administration Response: While the first step of this reporting and transparency goal was the
adoption of the body camera ordinance in 2020, the Attorney’s Office looks forward to engaging
with the Council on additional reporting requirements for internal information collected by and
related to the Police Department.
f. Tuition Reimbursement and Police Officer Education. It is the intent of the Council to
encourage the Administration to assure that the City’s tuition reimbursement program is
accessible to Police Department staff members and that the Police Department has a system to
provide the flexibility necessary for staff to seek degrees, particularly in fields that relate to
public safety, human relations, communications, community building, criminal justice,
psychology and other areas that add value to their work. Further, the Council encourages the
Administration to include strong advanced education requirements in their promotion and hiring
process.
Administration Response: On January 12, 2021, the Council received a briefing from Debra
Alexander, CHRO, about tuition reimbursement in the Police Department. Records maintained
in Human Resources reveal four hundred forty-one (441) employees in the Police Department
had utilized the tuition reimbursement program in the years 2015 through 2020. On average, for
those years, about sixty-three (63) employees each year received tuition reimbursement.
However, in years 2019 and 2020, about eighty (80) employees utilized the program - an
increase of about 25%. The increased utilization may due, in part, to enhanced reimbursement
limits and an increasing emphasis on formal education in public safety. Consistent with Internal
Revenue requirements, an employee may receive up to four thousand dollars ($4,000) in
reimbursement. The program reimburses an employee for amounts s/he spends on tuition, fees
and books. The Police Department has continued to place an emphasis on educational
attainment, when applicable, during its recruitment and promotion processes.
g. CIP and County Transportation Funds. It is the intent of the Council that future years
Quarter-Cent County Transportation Funds go through a process that involves community input
and considers other CIP needs, potentially combined with a redefined CIP process.
Administration Response: The Quarter-Cent County Transportation Funds are now included
as a funding source in the Capital Improvement Program Process that involves the Community
Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board and Mayor’s recommendations
based on CIP needs and available funds.
h. Communicating Impact of Budget Reductions. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration return with a communication strategy to inform the public about the likelihood of
reduced service levels in City parks and public lands due to budget reductions.
Administration Response: In response to the Council’s Legislative Intent request, the City’s
Parks and Public Lands division created a communication plan that entailed several means of
outreach to the public. These include:
- A newsletter: The division will include/has included the Key Messaging in monthly
newsletters. These newsletters are sent to approximately 2,500 people during the last
week of each month.
- Social Media: Social media posts with the Key Messaging have been and will continue to
be made on Public Lands’ account. As of November 2020, Public Lands had 1,878
followers on Facebook, 2,434 followers in Instagram, and 1,024 followers on Twitter.
- Website: Since the coronavirus pandemic began, Public Lands has been regularly
updating a COVID-19 webpage with information specific to our operations and the use of
related properties: bit.ly/slcpplcovid19
- Community Councils: Emails have been and will continue to be sent to all Salt Lake City
community councils that includes our Key Messaging.
- Stakeholders: Public Lands has been and will continue to send out Key Messaging by
email to a list of approximately 150 stakeholders.
- Public Lands Staff: The Key Messaging has been and will continue to be shared in an
email and printed memo to all Public Lands staff members.
This messaging has been tailored to both the Summer/Fall 2020 and the Winter 2020/Spring
2021 time periods.
Note: A more comprehensive document detailing the efforts Parks and Public Lands has made
in response to this Legislative intent will be provided as backup documentation accompanying
this response.
i. Golf CIP Fund Plan. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration clarify the long-term
plan for the Golf Enterprise Fund’s CIP fund.
Administration Response: Public Lands and the Golf Division is very interested in the
prospect of developing a long-term plan for the Golf Enterprise Fund’s CIP fund. At this time
however, with the instability and uncertainty of the ability of Golf revenues to cover operational
expenses, a short-term plan is proposed.
Note: A more comprehensive short-term Golf CIP Fund Plan will be provided as backup
documentation accompanying this response.
j. Historic Park Design Guidelines. It is the intent of the Council that a briefing with the
Administration be scheduled in order to discuss the steps and funding necessary to create
design guidelines for the City's historic parks. Next steps would be identified pending the
briefing discussion.
Administration Response: In response to this Legislative Intent, the Parks and Public Lands
division has created a report that provides detail of:
- The background of the City’s cultural landscapes
- The purpose and need of placing high value on preserving these landscapes
- Recommendations for moving forward on specific sites
- Efforts that are a work in progress
- Details on departmental coordination
- Next steps, and
- A comprehensive list of parks/cultural landscapes with recommendation for consultant
services and cost estimates.
Note: The full report in response to the Legislative Intent will be provided as backup
documentation accompanying this response.
k. 4th Avenue Well Noise Reduction. It is the intent of the Council that the Department of
Public Utilities continues to consider additional noise-reducing options for the new 4th Avenue
Well project.
Administration Response: The noise impact of the 4th Avenue Well Project is a priority issue
for Public Utilities in the design and construction of the project. Below are key points related to
this issue:
- The department’s architects and engineers have incorporated noise reduction into the
building design to reduce the noise to meet County requirements;
- A consultant has been hired to advise on noise reduction;
- County requirements will at least be met, and it is anticipated that any noise generated
by the well will be below the County’s requirements.
- The anticipated noise output upon completion of the well project won’t be greater than
current ambient measurements.
- The well project is predicted to be in the low 30s dBA, while the measured nighttime
ambient is 50 dBA.
- Further details are in a report from Spectrum Engineering who will also perform post
construction sound level measurements to confirm the noise reduction efforts. The direct
link to the Spectrum Engineering report on our 4th Avenue Well project site is
https://0dc33739-402d-4038-9f7a-
52ebc40e00aa.filesusr.com/ugd/3a2d4f_4a35d2c0f8d84d168150b70c2b88c20c.pdf.
l. Fund Balance Floor Goal. The Council intends to continue the legislative intent from last
year setting a minimum fund balance “floor” at 14%.
Administration Response: The General Fund fund balance currently stands at more than
15%.
m. Transfer Housing Trust Fund Development Loans and Payments. The Council intends
to transfer the Housing Trust Fund’s housing development-loan-related balances and payments
to be overseen by the RDA. During FY20, HAND and the RDA developed a detailed “housing
framework” for consideration by the RDA Board and the Council. These bodies may wish to
schedule time once the FY21 budget is complete to finalize this work, which may include
changes to City ordinances and/or board policies.
Administration Response: HAND continues to work with the RDA, the Attorneys, and Finance
regarding the transfer of the Housing Trust Fund or HTF (aka HDTF) portfolio. The portfolio
resides in HAND’s loan management system (N4F), and HAND continues to maintain the loans.
The key component of transferring the portfolio requires ordinance modifications regarding the
current Housing Trust Fund Ordinance that includes process for the HTF Advisory Board. For
example, the HTFAB does not currently have the authority to make a recommendation to the
RDA Board, only to the Mayor and City Council. Clarification from Council/Board on moving
forward with the proposed structure from RDA staff will guide future process for the HTFAB and
would assist in proposed modifications. HAND will continue to work with CAN Leadership, the
RDA, the Attorneys, and Finance on proposed code modifications and identifying appropriate
fund classes and cost centers to enable the transfer.
n. Calculate RDA Legislation Impacts. It is the intent of the Council that the Finance
Department and the RDA work together to calculate the impact on City resources of changes
proposed in 2019 and 2020 to State RDA legislation.
Administration Response: The approved RDA legislation provides the City with the option to
establish a new CRA tax rate to provide an ongoing funding source that enables the Agency to
continue carrying out its work in supporting the City’s short and long-term needs. If the option
was taken, the City Council/RDA Board would have significant control over key factors to be
memorialized with an Interlocal Agreement between the City and Agency. These include
adoption of an implementation plan to set priorities and guide investment, determination of the
amount of revenue the Agency could collect through the tax rate and any earmark or allocation
of funds to specific initiatives. The legislation does not decrease the City’s current revenue. The
direct impact to the City’s General Fund is not realizing the increase in revenue that is typically
expected when RDA project areas expire. As each area expires, the City and CRA tax rates
would be incrementally adjusted in a way that reallocates the City’s participating share of
increment from that project area to the RDA as ongoing revenue, with the intention of
maintaining overall tax neutrality. Once the CRA tax rate is established, both the City and RDA
would realize future new growth at the same rate, as both entities would share the entire City as
its tax base. When it comes to the City’s current capacity to utilize the revenue created by new
growth in RDA project areas to mitigate the impact of sudden emergencies such as COVID-19,
the main factor is how the City budgets the new growth. If the City does not intentionally
earmark the new revenue for specific initiatives or a rainy-day fund, it will likely be absorbed into
the General Fund and applied toward one-time or ongoing expenses. Another important
consideration is that if the timing doesn’t align with a project area expiring in the same year as
the significant event, the new revenue would not be available for use at that time. If the City
Council established a new CRA tax rate, it would essentially redirect the revenue created by
new growth in the RDA project areas to the Agency as a separate taxing entity that has the
flexibility to support the entire City in times of crisis. RDA staff worked with the Finance
Department to draft an overall analysis on the legislation which includes the calculation of the
tax rate and recommendations from Finance on how to maintain tax neutrality. The
amendments included in the final version of the legislation would not impact the analysis or tax
rate calculation.
o. Decriminalization Review of City Code. It is the intent of the Council that an in-depth
review be conducted of the City Code to consider items that could be decriminalized. Council
staff could work with Council Members and the City Attorney’s Office to draft a scope and come
back with a report on the timeline.
Administration Response: The City Attorney’s Office has two clerks from the University of
Utah Law School starting in May 2021 and we are excited to engage them in this analysis and
process. The clerks’ work product will be a chart that can be shared with both the Council and
Administration so both branches can prioritize sections of City Code to potentially decriminalize.
A. FY21 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Police Department Role. Open.
b.Police Department Zero-
based Budget Exercise.
Open.
c.CARES Act Funding. Close and complete.
d.Ban Military Equipment.Close and complete.
e.Police Department
Reporting Ordinance.
Open.
f.Tuition Reimbursement
and Police Officer
Education.
Close and continue.
g.CIP and County
Transportation Funds.
Close and continue.
h.Communicating Impact
of Budget Reductions.
Close and complete.
i.Golf CIP Fund Plan. Open
➢The Council may wish to request the short-term Golf
CIP plan offered for review.
j.Historic Park Design
Guidelines
Open
➢The Council may wish to request the full report
offered for review.
k.4th Avenue Well Noise
Reduction.
Close and continue.
l.Fund Balance Floor
Goal.
Close and continue.
m.Transfer Housing Trust
Fund Development
Loans and Payments.
Open.
➢The Administration mentions a need for
clarification from the Council/Board on the
proposed new structure and other modifications.
Would the Council or RDA Board like to schedule a
briefing for this purpose?
n.Calculate RDA
Legislation Impacts. It is
the intent of the Council
that the Finance
Department and the
RDA work together to
calculate the impact on
City resources of
changes proposed in
2019 and 2020 to State
RDA legislation.
Open.
Council staff has reviewed the RDA analysis and some
Council Members have asked for follow-up on some
areas in the analysis that were not addressed.
o.Decriminalization
Review of City Code.
Open.
B. FY20 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Golf Food and Beverage
Options.
Open.
b.Police Uniform Allowance.Open.
c.Park Ranger Program Open. Schedule a discussion on whether to continue in
PD.
d.Funding Our Future
i.Unspent Funds.
ii.Affordable Housing
Allocation (NWQ)
iii.Housing Program Outcome
Report
iv.New Sales Tax Funds for
Public Safety
See staff suggestion on each item below
i.Unspent Funds. Close and complete.
ii.Affordable Housing Allocation. Close and continue.
iii.Housing Program Outcome Report. Close and
continue.
iv.New Sales Tax Funds for Public Safety. Close and
continue.
e.Building Rehab Projects
near HRCs
Close and complete.
➢The Council may wish to consider reiterating its
interest in an evaluation of potential future
expansion of the funding and City-wide application.
f.Complete Streets Definition Close and continue.
The Council may wish to schedule a review of this
project in coming months, and if still of interest,
consider providing more detailed direction. If the
Council is not inclined to schedule a review, then
perhaps the item could be changed to “Closed and
complete” status.
C. FY19 Legislative Intent Statements
g.Crossing Guards. Close and continue.
h.Green Team Metrics. Close and complete.
i.Holding Accounts.
i. ADA Administrator position
in Community &
Neighborhoods
ii. Funding for equity training
and other coordination.
a. Equity Administrator
b. FOF “Building a More
Equitable City”
c. Digital Equity Policy
Close and complete.
i.ADA Administrator position in Community &
Neighborhoods.
ii.Funding for equity training and other
coordination.
a.Equity Administrator.
b.Funding Our Future “Building a More
Equitable City.”
c.Digital Equity Policy.
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Performance Measures for
Homeless Services Funding
Close and continue.
➢The Council may wish to request these data for
review and discussion in a work session briefing.
b.Neighborhood Safety
Program for HRCs
Close and continue.
c.Streamlining the Permitting
Process
Open.
➢The Council may wish to request an update and
briefing on this topic.
d.Prostitution Outreach
Program (POP)
Open.
➢The Council may wish to ask for an update on this
project from the Administration.
e.City-Owned Land Inventory Open.
➢The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to
consider how this information could be used to
inform policy.
f.Fleet Insurance for High-
Risk Vehicles
Open.
➢Next step: The Council could request more
information from the Fleet Management Division,
to inform more comprehensive deliberations on this
item.
D. FY18 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Secured Parking on 500
West Green Median.
Open.
➢The Council may wish to request an update or
briefing on the previous Administration’s review of
the project’s effectiveness which was scheduled for
2019.
E. FY17 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
a.Administration Metrics and
Reporting.
i.Metrics in conjunction
with the annual
budget
Open.
➢The Council may wish to ask for an update from the
Administration.
b.Fleet Fund Financial
Sustainability.
Open.
c.Cost Analysis for
Development Review Team
services.
Open.
➢The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to
discuss the results of this analysis once it is
completed.
F. FY16 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
g.(Funding Our Future)
Housing Program Outcome
Report
Close and continue.
h.General Fund Subsidy for
Golf
Consider closing and reformulating.
➢The Council may wish to renew this conversation by
requesting an update from Council staff.
a.Building Permit Fee Cost
Study.
Open.
➢The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to
discuss the results of this analysis once it is
completed.
G. FY15 Legislative Intent Statements
Title Staff Status Assessment
Maintenance of Business
Districts.
Open.
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 28, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Follow-up Responses to Open Legislative Intents from Prior to FY 2021
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Randy Hillier, Senior Policy & Budget Analyst (801) 535-6606 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Legislative Intents
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration is forwarding to the City Council follow-up
responses to the City Council’s adopted legislative intents from prior to fiscal year 2021 that
remain open. The Administration’s responses to the Council’s fiscal year 2021 legislative intents
is contained in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book.
PUBLIC PROCESS: NA
rachel otto (May 27, 2021 16:16 MDT)
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
FY 2020 Legislative Intents
a. Golf Food and Beverage Options. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration
to examine the open space zone ordinance, with the goal of removing barriers to providing
flexible food and beverage options in golf courses. To the extent that barriers exist in State law
the Council requests an analysis of those, and that changing them be identified as a future
legislative priority.
Administration Response: Golf completed an RFP process in early 2020 to secure a
concessionaire for the café operations at Bonneville, Forest Dale, Glendale, Nibley Park and Rose Park
locations. A contract was signed on March 24, 2020 with EMSG Food Service. At the time of the
agreement, EMSG indicated a willingness to invest some of their own capital in necessary facility
improvements (up to $15,000 per location) to allow for adding more flexible food and beverage
options at golf courses with the intent of expanding community access and service offerings.
With the rapid development of COVID-19, EMSG was not able to begin operations at the courses.
Despite being open for play, golf clubhouses were closed to the public for several months in 2020.
EMSG was able to begin offering limited to-go orders in the summer, with limited indoor seating in
late summer. Golf was concerned that they might lose the two concessionaires under contract due to
lack of revenue and, in an effort to help keep the concessionaires viable during COVID-19 related
restricted months, Golf waived the normal monthly rent and waste collection fees for all of 2020
including the revenue sharing portion of both sets of agreements. Golf also covered the cost of all café
equipment repairs in 2020 and into 2021.
Even though golf play volume has been high in 2021, café business is still lagging. Golf has resumed
contracted space rental fees and revenue sharing with the concessionaires for 2021 and is working
with each concessionaire to try to drive business into the cafés. It is still uncertain if EMSG will be able
to contribute any funds to facility improvements in 2021.
b. Police Uniform Allowance. It is the intent of the Council that from the outset of the next
MOU process with the Salt Lake City Police Association, the Administration include discussion
of the uniform allowance, with the intent to make it more competitive with local agencies.
Administration Response: The Police Department is currently negotiating uniform allowance with
the Police Union. Further information will be forthcoming as negotiations proceed.
c. Park Ranger Program. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration develop a
proposal for Council consideration that addresses the overall goal of increasing the perception
of safety in parks, including the concerns raised by community and Council Members that
uniformed police officers could cause fear or uncertainty among minority and at-risk
populations, interfering with their enjoyment of these public spaces.
Administration Response: The Police Department provided staffing proposal alternatives with the
associated cost estimates to the City Council earlier this year and will work with the Administration as
well as the Council to develop the program going forward.
When developing these plans, Police considered community needs and how to meet those needs from
an operational standpoint while considering the most reasonable uses of funding. Ultimately, the
department sees the operational focus of the park staffing to be community responsive. Police
envisions the park squad officers working in conjunction with other departmental units, city
departments and local agencies. By utilizing a community response model, Police can multiply the
effectiveness of the park squad by leveraging other units and agencies. This would include the
involvement of Community Intelligence Units, Community Connections Center, Homeless Outreach,
Crisis Intervention Team, the Parks Department, the Health Department, etc. Police will also use our
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
community policing reorganization, making patrol the background of our organization. This will fill up
the beats and provide opportunities for patrol officers to work proactively within the parks.
The Police Department has assigned a Park Bike Sergeant to manage park patrol and related activities.
d. Funding Our Future
i. Unspent Funds. It is the intent of the Council that any funds allocated in Fiscal Year
(FY) 2020, but not expected to be spent by the end of the fiscal year, be included in the
FY21 Annual Budget discussions for evaluation and appropriation.
Administration Response: This pertained to the FY 2021 Budget
ii. Affordable Housing Allocation. It is the intent of the Council that the City evaluate
the impact that the infusion of the 10% tax differential from the Northwest
Quadrant/Inland Port Authority will have on the City’s ability to fund housing
programs.
Administration Response: This is under the direction of the City’s Redevelopment Agency. HAND
reached out to RDA to provide a response, any follow up questions should be directed to Danny Walz
and/or Tammy Hunsaker.
In February 2021, the Agency Board approved the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy which
established guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of
housing. This policy includes not only housing funds from Agency project areas and operations but
also sources such as Funding our Future and the 10% tax differential from the Northwest
Quadrant/Inland Port Authority. The Board also approved in March 2021, the RDA’s Housing
Development Loan Program which established the one-stop shop for developers to access the
resources for the development of housing. As part of this policy and process, the Agency will prepare
an annual Funding Strategy, subject to Board approval, that will include the priorities and proposed
allocation of funds in order to align with the City’s housing plan, Agency project area plans, Guiding
Framework and Fund Policy. It is within this Funding Strategy that the Agency will report on the use
of the resources and impact within the related housing programs.
iii. Housing Program Outcome Report. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration provides a written report on housing program outcomes and metrics
funded from Funding Our Future revenue in time for consideration in the fiscal year
2021 (FY21) budget.
Administration Response: The City’s Civic Engagement Team is facilitating Funding Our Future
Reports. Any follow up questions should be directed to Kyle Strayer as the manager of that team.
Civic Engagement provided this response: The last update was transmitted to Council and provided a
July 1- December 31, 2020 update report. The next reporting period will be January 1 – June 30,
2021. HAND has provided a copy of the latest report.
iv. New Sales Tax Funds for Public Safety. 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.
Administration Response: No further response.
e. Building Rehab Projects near HRCs. It is the intent of the Council that this funding be
used for a pilot program around each of the new Homeless Resource Centers and that the
Administration will provide a written report on the use of the funding after distribution, and
evaluate a future expansion of the funding and a city-wide application.
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
Administration Response: $92,000 was appropriated to SLC Targeted Residential and
Commercial Programs. The funding was offered to over 500 property owners around both the
Geraldine King and Gail Miller HRCs. The grant amounts were initially made with a limit of up to
$500 for residential and $1,000 for businesses, but due to additional feedback from the community,
the grant limits were raised to $1,500 for residential and $3,000 for businesses. At the end of the
program, after extensive outreach to those who were eligible and had applied to receive the grants,
HAND staff ended up with several commercial and residential property owners that did not utilize the
funding. The final payment that went to a property owner was made in late February 2021. Once final
payments were made, the unused portion of the $92,010 was $23,037.28
f. Complete Streets Definition. It is the intent of the Council to ask the Administration to
clarify the components of the “complete streets” concept and evaluate whether there are
additional opportunities to include pedestrian and neighborhood safety as it relates to any
future CIP project and, specifically, to consider how pedestrian and neighborhood safety can
build on the current ordinance.
Administration Response: The Transportation Division follows the Complete Streets Ordinance,
meaning that the needs of all modes of travel are considered in street design. This includes walking,
biking, and transit, but could include other modes of travel as well, such as scooters. Transportation’s
CIP requests have placed a heavy emphasis on pedestrian safety and complete streets, using the
Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the Transit Master Plan as guides. Examples include requests
for complete streets enhancements, urban trails, transportation safety (with an emphasis on
pedestrian safety), neighborhood byways, bus stop enhancements, and “first/last mile” connections.
In addition, planning efforts are underway to develop a City-wide Livable Streets (Traffic Calming)
Plan, as well as a Street and Intersection Typology Guide that will create a more holistic, people-
oriented street design philosophy for the City. The Typologies Guide is in draft form and will go out
for a third and final round of public input in summer 2021.
g. Crossing Guards. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide a briefing on
the City’s crossing guard program staffing (including efforts to increase the number of crossing
guards and coordinate with the School District), as well as challenges related to staffing and
the City’s responsibility in crosswalk coverage. The goal of further discussion is to identify
future steps for coordination or funding that would improve the number of crosswalks,
staffing, and student safety, which may include an RFP and outside contract to provide this
service. The Administration is also requested to evaluate whether volunteers could be either
incorporated in the City’s program or otherwise encouraged.
Administration Response: During the first months of FY 2020, a contract was awarded to All City
Management Services, a company with nation-wide presence. Unable to replicate the success
experienced in their other markets, facing unique challenges when recruiting and not being able to
hire enough personnel to reach a comfortable level of staffing to take on the operation, the
Administration rescinded the contract in October 2020.
At the present time the Compliance Division continues to operate the Crossing Guard program.
Currently 71 active guards covering 50 State-mandated locations.
The Administration is currently evaluating options to strengthen the program and consolidate
partnerships not only with the School District but with other community organizations and is
considering the restructuring of the program to manage a more direct connection with the school
community. Nonetheless, the School District is recognizing its own challenges to keep up with proper
staffing levels, from bus drivers and kitchen staff to paraprofessionals and afterschool personnel.
Recruiting volunteers has been an idea that comes around as a potential solution, every time we
witness the high levels of willingness from community members to contribute their time for the safety
of the students. Whereas the inclusion of volunteers supplements the number of individuals crossing
children, it is still to be determined how the City will handle any liability resulting from an injury or
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
malpractice when a non-employee is performing unsupervised City work. A question that the Risk
Management Department may be able to answer.
h. Green Team Metrics. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration work with its
Green Team partners to develop metrics that track tangible improvements in job-related skills
among participants, in addition to graduate employment rates.
Administration Response: The Green Team partners, Advantage Services and Wasatch
Community Gardens, each provide annual reports on the number of participants and graduates each
year.
2019-2020: Seventeen participants enrolled in the program. 58% (ten participants) completed the
program and successfully secured housing and employment.
2020-2021: Nine participants enrolled in the program. 66% (six participants) are actively enrolled in
the program.
In March - June of 2020 the program was suspended due to COVID-19. It is now back to full
operations utilizing appropriate health/safety guidelines.
Metrics that indicate improvement toward post program job opportunities:
1. Resume building skills
2. Increasing personal interviewing skills
3. Improve job environmental
4. Improve networking skills
The land on which the Green Team Farm (Phoenix Farm) currently sits has been slated for
redevelopment in FY22 and its staff has recommended re-appropriating the funding for this program
at that time.
i. Holding Accounts. It is the intent of the Council to set aside funding for some new proposed
projects to discuss with the Administration the portions of the recommended budget that
establish new programs not previously reviewed by the City Council. The Council will schedule
briefing time as soon as information is available to minimize any impacts. The items or
projects set aside into the holding account include:
i. $60,369 for an ADA Administrator position in Community & Neighborhoods
Administration Response: This position has remained vacant and the Mayor’s
Recommended Budget includes a proposal to move it to the Mayor’s Office.
ii. Funding for equity training and other coordination
a. $60,369 Equity Administrator
Administration Response: This position has remained vacant and the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget includes a proposal to move it the Mayor’s
Office.
b. $300,000 Funding Our Future funding for “Build a More Equitable City” (also
listed below)
Administration Response: A program titled “Landlord Tenant Mediation”
was developed by Utah Community Action (UCA) and is designed to provide
financial resources to avoid eviction, and where necessary, provide a mediator
to assist clients through an eviction process. In all instances, case management
is provided by UCA. The number of households assisted into housing from
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
4/1/2020 to 3/31/2021 was 33, with a total of 68 individuals being impacted.
Each of these households was able to avoid eviction.
As of approximately mid-May, according to ZoomGrants, the grant
management system, UCA has processed cases amounting to $101,343 of the
$300,000, leaving $198,657 available for program use.
c. $50,000 Sustainability Environment and Energy funding
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
d. Digital Equity Policy
Administration Response: The SLC City Council adopted the Digital Equity
policy in September of 2020. Salt Lake City’s digital equity policy ensures
inclusive access to technology, allowing all residents to fully engage in today’s
digital society. This policy is directly in line with the City’s mission statement
for social equity, education, economic opportunity, and community resilience.
Ongoing efforts include the developing City Equity Plan which will incorporate
a demographic study and recommendations on how we might improve equity in
our community. This information will be informing our digital equity work. We
continue to develop public private partnerships and investments in internet
access through expanding public Wi-Fi and a new policy has been initiated
which aims to direct our disposal of City owned computers to residents in need.
FY 2019 Legislative Intent Statements
a. Performance Measures for Homeless Services Funding. It is the intent of the Council
that the Administration propose a clear set of metrics to document and assess the City’s
contribution to homeless services, particularly if those contributions are expected to be multi-
year or ongoing in nature, or go beyond the City’s typical roles, such as funding for case
management and beds in addiction treatment facilities.
Administration Response: The HEART team collects and analyzes quarterly and annual data to
ensure that the City’s contribution to homeless services continue to align with ongoing need.
Bed utilization is reviewed for programs such as motel voucher program, winter overflow, and VOA
detox. In each of these programs bed utilization helps determine how well the city continues to meet
this need.
Service utilization is reviewed for program such as storage program, and Weigand Day Center
program. In each of these programs analyzing the services provided vs the usage of indicated services
helps determine if the city is continuing to provide necessary services.
On demand health/sanitation/restroom services are evaluated not only in the context of services
provided, but also capacity of the agency to quickly respond to the needs of the city as well as metrics
that include number of people employed via these services. Employees are often those that are
homeless, at risk of becoming homeless, or formerly homeless as they work toward stronger
employment opportunities.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss any additional metrics that the Council may want information
on.
b. Neighborhood Safety Program for HRCs. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration consider the options for creating safety programs to offset negative
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
consequences similar to the Downtown Ambassadors to serve the neighborhoods where the
two Homeless Resource Centers (HRC) are planned.
Administration Response: HAND/HEART submitted the Neighborhood Action Strategies Plan to
council for review earlier this year. This plan was developed in partnership with VODA, a consulting
firm. This outlines a neighborhood engagement framework that serves as the guiding document for
the work of the Cities Mitigation Community Engagement Coordinator on the HEART team. As a
result of this plan, we have implemented regular meetings with HRC operators and the Police
Department, Neighborhood Action Councils that engage housed members of the community as well as
HRC residents and staff, and submitted a grant request to the state for funding to expand the
Downtown Ambassador program to serve in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the HRCs.
c. Streamlining the Permitting Process. It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration continue to evaluate ways to consolidate and streamline the steps required in
the permitting process, particularly focusing on the City Departments that are beyond the
purview of Building Services.
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
d. Prostitution Outreach Program (POP). It is the intent of the Council that the
Administration discuss and evaluate the opportunity for a program to address the goals of the
former Prostitution Outreach Program (POP) with the County District Attorney and other
stakeholders, and provide budget information to the Council on implementation.
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
e. City-Owned Land Inventory. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
complete a City-owned land inventory reflecting all City departments and provide this to the
Council.
Administration Response: The Administration is continually working on this City-owned land
inventory and will ultimately be coupling it with the new ERP system asset management
function.
f. Fleet Insurance for High-Risk Vehicles. It is the intent of the Council to request that the
Administration explore options other than self-insurance for vehicles at high risk of
accidents/damage.
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
g. (Funding Our Future) Housing Program Outcome Report. It is the intent of the
Council that the Administration report on housing program outcomes and metrics funded
from the new sales tax in time for consideration in the fiscal year 2020 (FY 2020) budget.
Administration Response: The City’s Civic Engagement Team is facilitating Funding Our Future
Reports. Any follow up questions should be directed to Kyle Strayer as the manager of that team.
Civic Engagement provided this response: The last update was transmitted to Council and provided a
July 1- December 31, 2020 report. The next reporting period will be January 1 – June 30, 2021.
HAND has provided a copy of the latest report.
FY 2018 Legislative Intents
Open Legislative Intents from Years Prior to FY 2021
a. Secured Parking on 500 West Green Median – Appropriate funding for the 500 West
median secure parking lot with the intent that the Administration evaluate the effectiveness of
these improvements and other City interventions in the area in approximately 2 years.
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
FY 2017 Legislative Intents
a. Fleet Fund Financial Sustainability. It is the intent of the Council to request that the
Administration report back during the first Council meeting in November on a plan to achieve
financial sustainability of the Fleet Fund.
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
b. Cost Analysis for Development Review Team (DRT) services. It is the intent of the
Council to request that the Administration conduct an analysis of the City’s costs for
Development Review Team services as a first step in cost-justification for potential fee-setting.
After review of the cost analysis, the Council may wish to reach out to key users of the service
for feedback on advantages and disadvantages of cost-recovery for the use of DRT.
Administration Response: This analysis has been completed and will be transmitted to the
Council in the coming months.
FY 2016 Legislative Intents
a. Building Permit Fee Cost Study. It is the intent of the Council that the Administration
conduct and update a cost justification and benchmarking study for building permit fees.
Administration Response: This study is forthcoming.
FY 2015 Legislative Intents
a. Maintenance of Business Districts. It is the intent of the Council to hold a briefing
regarding the costs of enhanced services provided to the Central Business District, in order to
consider: a) revising how City services are provided and paid for, b) services that may be
offered to other established or developing Business Districts in the City, and c) maintenance of
amenity upgrades (such as lighting and benches). It is also the intent of the Council that this
discussion happen in time to incorporate any changes into the renewal of the Central Business
District agreement and Sugar House Business District.
Administration Response: No further response at this time.
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, Ben Luedtke, Lehua Weaver
Allison Rowland, Sam Owen, Sylvia Richards and Libby Stockstill
DATE:June 1, 2021
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up of Council Questions
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Staff has kept a list of items that one or more Council Members have raised as potential changes to the Mayor’s
Recommended budget. It should be noted that this is a staff-generated draft, reflecting Council questions and
discussions as of the date of its printing. It may be updated prior to the work session discussion, and Council
Members may have changes or corrections to individual items.
If a budget impact is apparent, that amount has been listed, or noted as “to be determined.” Depending on
Council feedback, adjustments can be made to the overall key changes document, so that the Council can track
the net effect of these decisions on the overall budget.
Changes to the budget may cause it to be out of balance (increase or decrease expenses and revenues). As these
changes occur, the Council would need to identify offsetting revenue enhancements or expense reductions to
bring the budget back in balance. Staff can research and provide other revenue generation or expense cutting
options if the Council is interested.
(Note: this list is not comprehensive – please let staff know if there are other items to add)
Specific unresolved issues are listed in the attached spreadsheet. Staff will be
prepared to talk through these items and will add/edit the list based on continued
Council Member discussions.
General Follow-up Items/Themes
1.ARPA funding guidance - After receiving guidance from the US Treasury, the Administration
has advised that the funds are much more restrictive than what is proposed in the Mayor’s
recommended budget. In general all funds have to be specifically tied to recovering from the
effects of the pandemic. The Administration provided information about which of the proposed
uses are eligible, which are eligible with adjustments, and which are not eligible. Each of these
is noted in the attached spreadsheet.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 28, 2020
Budget Hearing: June 2, 2020
Potential Action: TBD
2
a. In the absence of clear alternative uses for ARPA dollars, the Council could place the
remaining unspent dollars in a holding account for future allocation once eligible
uses are identified. The Council may also ask the Administration to review all CIP
projects for ARPA eligibility.
b. The Council may wish to hold a policy discussion with the Administration about policy
goals for potential future federal funding (ARPA dollars or potential future
infrastructure dollars), and if there are specific areas of the City budget the Council
would like to target.
c. Staff is checking with the Attorney’s office and Administration about using ARPA
dollars for issues the Council has identified as a priority.
d.Position by position review:
i.The Council may wish to review the positions that are not eligible and decide
whether to include them in the general fund (if revenues permit).
ii.The Council may wish to review the positions/programs that are eligible if
changes to the scope of the positions/programs are made, and decide whether
those changes are consistent with Council goals and are practical to implement.
iii.The Council may wish to review the positions that are eligible and identify
support.
iv. For the positions that the Council supports, the Council may wish to specify
whether their expectation is that those be recorded in the City’s financial system
as temporary grant positions, or as regular employees.
2.Public Safety service delivery – the Council has supported a variety of ideas that go along
with diversifying public safety response and enhancing accountability and transparency in
policing. It should be noted that all of these ideas are subject to identifying available resources.
The detailed ideas are listed in the attached spreadsheet, but in general this includes:
•Support for more social workers
•Support for a civilian community service office (holding account with details TBD)
•Support for increasing mental health resources for first responders, including dispatch
•Support for equipment and/or staff to enhance transparency with body cameras.
3.Investment in Capital Improvements for constituents – The Council has expressed an
interest in increasing funding for the CIP fund so that additional constituent projects that are
not currently recommended for funding, can be addressed. Council Members have indicated
that their interest is particularly due to the City not accepting constituent projects in FY 21.
This idea is subject to identifying available resources.
a.Council Members have asked about increasing the CIP fund to the traditional 7% level.
If the Council wanted to increase the funding for CIP to 7% level, it would need to
identify $2,775,049 in revenue. (Depending on eventual usage in CIP, sources could
include General Fund, Funding our Future, County transportation funds, Transportation
holding account)
b.An alternative idea is to allocate specific amounts sufficient to fund specific projects.
3
4.Compensation – some Council Members have expressed an interest in increasing
compensation for employees beyond the Administration's proposed 1% increase. This idea is
subject to identifying available resources. If the Council wanted to increase compensation for
employees by 1% across the board, it would require identifying $1.7 million in the general fund
($1.1million for represented units) and $1.1 million in other funds.
a. Staff can provide amounts for specific employee units of the City if the Council is
interested.
b.Council Members also discussed adjusting the City’s policy of compensating at 95% of
market.
5.New Positions – some Council Members expressed an interest in considering proposed new
positions in more detail. Each new position is listed in the attached spreadsheet under the
proposed department. Note: While most positions are funded for less than a full year to reflect
the time it takes to actually hire an employee, there are a few that are proposed for a full year
of funding. The Council could consider adjusting those budget amounts to reflect the realities
of the hiring process. Alternately, the Council could authorize advertising for new positions to
begin before the fiscal year begins.
6.Department Reorganizations – some Council Members expressed an interest in taking more
time to consider department reorganizations. To the extent that any new FTEs are proposed
either as a part of reorganizations or in general, those are in the attached spreadsheet.
7.Funding source options - Staff has identified the following potential funding sources for
Council discussion/consideration, potentially to address some of the above ideas (these are
included on the attached spreadsheet):
a.Potential additional revenue (pending information from Tax Commission and follow up
from the Administration)
i.Actual New Growth
ii.Actual Judgement levy
iii.Revenue loss replacement from ARPA - (potentially more than $10m is eligible)
b. Funds included in the MRB that are not needed
i. Election expenses - $187k
ii. Interest expense (not doing a tax anticipation note this year) - $350k
iii. Body cam one-time dollars - $93k
c. Fund balances available
i. Funding our future fund balance available - $200k from FY 20, $1.9m fry FY 21
(above 14%) - note: this is one-time $
ii. General fund balance available if BA #9 ARPA dollars are adopted - $1.2m -
note: this is one-time $
iii. North Temple Viaduct CRA debt service overage – TBD - note: this is one-time
$
d. Holding accounts available
i. Transportation holding account - $1.8m - note: this is one-time $
4
ii. Holding account for underserved communities (CIP?) - $669,138 - note: this is
one-time $
Potential conditional appropriations
1. Diversification of public safety response – Set aside $_______ from _______ in a holding
account for later appropriation, pending discussion with the Administration about the feasibility
of establishing community enforcement and support approaches that enhance community safety
and reduce the dependence on sworn police officers for duties that fall outside of their scope.
2. Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails – condition any current or
future budget for trails that no dollars are spent until the public review period is over and the
Council has been briefed/approves of future plans
3.Continued Contingency for All Funding Our Future -- Sales Tax Funds (this has been
adopted each year since the City implemented the sales tax). The Council approves Funding
Our Future sales tax revenue appropriations with the following conditions:
a. Expenditure of Funding Our Future Sales Tax Funds. Funding our Future funds may not be
expended unless the department or division expending the funds complies with:
i. Utah Fiscal Procedures Act
ii. The City’s Procurement Code and Rules
iii. Written verification from the City Attorney and City Finance Director that proper
legal and financial procedures have been followed.
b. Other Funding Our Future Budget Contingencies:
i. The Administration providing a written semiannual spending, implementation and
outcomes report on each of the four critical need areas.
ii. Tracking funding for Fleet provided through the Funding our Future tax separately
to ensure it is spent only on public safety (police, fire, dispatch).
iii. The Administration spending funds in the four critical need areas as adopted in the
attached key changes spreadsheet.
iv. The Administration bringing back to the Council any proposed adjustments to the
adopted budget in a budget amendment for re-appropriation before changes are made.
v. The Administration maintaining and regularly updating a publicly available
dashboard reflecting revenues received and actual uses.
vi. In FY21 and all future funding requests, providing a label denoting which line items
are funded with this Funding Our Future sales tax funds.
vii. For all positions added, the Administration shall submit an annual written review
along with the Mayor’s Recommended Budget to ensure that each position continues to serve
the critical need areas and, if a Council work session briefing is scheduled, provide a
presentation of the report.
Potential legislative intents
1. Update boarded building fee
2. Trips to transit – evaluating for expansion in future areas. The Administration has provided
some additional information:
Measuring success: The Transit Master Plan identifies accessibility and cost effectiveness as the two
key goals for this program. The specific metrics to determine if we are meeting those goals could be
5
total ridership, as well as cost per rider. Here are the metrics being used by UTA for their Southwest
Salt Lake County Service:
Timeline: We anticipate that this service will launch between August and the end of 2021. After one
year, we will be able to do some initial evaluations, but it may take 2-3 years to fully understand the
impact and benefits of the service.
Glossary
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees - AFSCME
Budget Amendment - BA
Capital Improvement Program – CIP
Community and Neighborhoods – CAN
Community Land Trust – CLT
Economic Development Corporation of Utah -
EDCU
Funding Our Future - FoF
Frequent Transit Network – FTN
Fiscal Year – FY
Full-Time Employee – FTE
Housing and Neighborhood Development – HAND
Human Rights Commission – HRC
Homeless Resource Centers – HRCs
Housing Trust Fund - HTF
Interlocal Agreement – ILA
International Association of Chiefs of Police – IACP
Mayor’s Recommended Budget - MRB
Redevelopment Agency – RDA
Salt Lake City School District – SLCSD
Salt Lake City Fire Department - SLCFD
Request for Proposal - RFP
TBD – To Be Determined
Transit Master Plan – TMP
United Nations – UN
Utah League of Cities and Towns
Utah Transit Authority – UTA
Volunteers of America - VOA
Wasatch Community Gardens - WCG
5/28/2021 **DRAFT**6:01 PM
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund Funding our Future ARPA Funding CIP Funding (pending
need to track separately)
Net $1,819,327 $2,129,483 $1,923,500 $-
Amount Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses Revenue Expenses
Revenue Items
Actual New Growth Revenue TBD
Judgement Levy (if the actual amount is greater than the
proposed budget)TBD
Confirm property tax stabilization $1,000,000
Capture funds not expended/encumbered from FY 2020
Funding our Future $200,000 $200,000
Funding our future fund balance dollars over 14%$1,929,483 $1,929,483
Capture funds swapped in BA #9 for ARPA dollars
(would increase usage of fund balance from $4.9 million to $6.1
milion)$1,193,000 $1,193,000
Revenue replacement for ARPA
(potential to increase from MRB)TBD
Use overage funds from North Temple Viaduct CDA account for
debt service TBD
Expense Items
Total ARPA Expenses proposed in MRB $4,198,794
Attorney's Office
NEW - City Prosecutors (10 months) - $89,350 each, 10 months $268,050
Community and Neighborhoods
NEW - CAN Deputy (10 months)$158,750
NEW - HAND office facilitator (revenue offset)
ARPA Funded:
Eligible - Special projects assistant (only elibile if focused on
rent assistance)$93,829
Not eligible - Associate Planners (Funding for 3 - $78,333
each)$235,000 $(235,000)
Not eligible - Transportation Right of Way Utilization Mgr $160,000 $(160,000)
Eligible - Youth and Family Community Program Mgr $90,633
Eligible - Youth and Family Programming continuation $711,350
Response to Council question re: enhancing ability to do long
term planning (not in MRB)
Planning Manager $136,149
3 Senior Planners $330,297
3 Principal Planners $316,638
1 Administrative Support Position $74,399
operational budget $30,000
Economic Development
ARPA Funded:
Not Eligible - 3 FTE - Arts Council Staffing $350,000 $(350,000)
Not Eligible - 1 FTE -Business & Cultural Districts $150,000 $(150,000)
Eligible - Economic Dev Strategic Plan (if focused on covid
recovery programs - more info needed)$50,000 $(50,000)
Eligble - Economic Development Staff (if focused on recovery
efforts - more info needed)$290,000 $(290,000)
Not Eligible - Tech Lake City $45,000 $(45,000)
Not Eligible - Construction Mitigation (need more info if
focused on small business recovery loans)$200,000 $(200,000)
Finance
NEW - 1 FTE - Deputy Director (10 months)$143,603
NEW - 1 FTE - Business Analyst (full year)$89,500
ARPA Funded:
Eligible - 1 FTE Grant Administrator $101,020
Eligible - 1 FTE Grant Manager $95,000
Not Eligible - Amex Cart Merchant Fees $40,000 $(40,000)
Not Eligible - Business Analyst $89,500 $(89,500)
Fire
Emergency Management "Phase 2" Positions
NEW - 1 Fire Captain $136,865
NEW - 1 Accountant $63,517
ARPA Funded:
Eligible -4 FTE - MRT Expansion (6 months)$136,762
Eligible - MRT Expansion Equipment (one-time)$46,700
Human Resources
NEW - HR Analyst to support ERP $111,075
NEW - HR Supervisor (10 Months)$136,865
NEW - 2 FTEs - HR Tech (10 Months) - $54,475 each/10 months $108,950
ARPA Funded:
Eligible -4 FTE - MRT Expansion (6 months)$136,762
Eligible - MRT Expansion Equipment (one-time)$46,700
Police
NEW - staff to track legislated issues (10 months)$60,833
NEW - internal mental health resource (10 months)$100,000
NEW - 6 social workers (see non-dept for funding) - 3 @ 10
months, 3 @ 6 months
Additional social workers (SEE NON-DEPT)
Alternative response models (SEE NON-DEPT)
Body Camera technology (SEE NON-DEPT)
Public Services
Public Lands Department TBD
NEW - 4 FTEs Public Lands Department Development ($134,
145 each - full year)$536,583
NEW - 1 FTE - North Temple Groundskeeper ?
NEW - (2 FTEs )Recreational Trail System $304,167
Maintenance of new amenities $338,413
Recapture 2 months of funding from any FTEs added TBD
ARPA Funded:
Not Eligible - Forest Preservation and Growth - 1 FTE and
ongoing equipment $219,000 $(219,000)
Not Eligible - Forest Preservation and growth one-time $95,000 $(95,000)
Recature Fireworks funding due to drought conditions $25,000
Additional help with special events permitting
Public Services Department
NEW - Engineer (9 Months)$92,255
NEW - 2 FTES - Landscape Architect (9 months)$169,833
NEW - 1 FTE Architect (9 months)$88,477
NEW - Engineering Informaton and Records Specialist (9
months)$42,375
NEW - 1 FTE Streets Response Team (FOF)$53,300
911 Communications (rename?)
NEW - 8 FTE Dispatchers (6 months) to implement 32 hr
workweek pilot (FOF)$153,450
Council idea - add internal mental health FTE (10 months)$100,000
Non Departmental
recapture funds based on actual election expenses $183,327 $(183,327)
recapture interest expense $350,000 $(350,000)
Additional CIP dollars - funding sources are general fund, FOF,
County Transportation fund, Class B&C
to 7% level $2,775,049
for specific community applications TBD
to CIP from Funding our Future - would have to be for FOF
eligible projects
Increase employee compensation ($1,750,889 for each 1% city-
wide, general fund only)
recapture $1.8 million from transportation holding account to
fund street improvements on 600 North $1,879,654 $1,879,654 $1,879,654
Carry forward CIP dollars set aside for underserved
communities $669,138
ULCT - additional funding for ARPA assistance (one-time -TBD)$20,000
Legislative non-departmental - Citywide lobbyist $60,000
Adjustments related to police reform and/or alternative
response models
Additional social workers (cost per month per social worker
FTE - Staff is confirming amount)$9,375
Civilian response model (TBD) - potential holding account for
further discussion with the Administration
remove funding for body camera equipment from FY 21 (only
needed one-time)$93,000 $(93,000)
fund additional axon body camera services $349,692
potential FTE or contract position to review body camera
footage and/or use of force incidents, support to PCRB -
maybe in HR
other FTEs as recommended that could be implemented from
Matrix audit
ARPA Funded:
Eligible - Apprenticeship Program (if focused on re-
employment)$1,000,000
Holding account for ARPA dollars pending further
evaluatation for eligibility in BA #1 balancing?
Other funds
Evaluation Only. Created with Aspose.Cells for .NET.Copyright 2003 - 2021 Aspose Pty Ltd.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/2/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Joshua Isbell as a member of
the Police Civilian Review Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the: Police Civilian Review
Board.
Joshua Isbell – to be appointed for a three year term starting the date of City Council advice and
consent and ending on September 2, 2024 .
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/2/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
STAFF CONTACT:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation: Police Civilian Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Justin Rodriguez as a member
of the Police Civilian Review Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Police Civilian Review
Board:
Justin Rodriguez – to be appointed for a three year term starting the date of City Council advice and
consent and ending on September 2, 2024.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:June 1, 2021
RE: Proposed FY 2021-22 Finance Department Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes B-22, Department Overview E-35 to E-39
Staffing Document F-20 to F-22
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Finance includes Policy and Budget Development, Accounting & Financial Reporting, Purchasing
and Contracts, Grants Acquisition Management, the Treasurer’s Office, Revenue and Collections, Business Licensing,
Fraud Waste and Abuse, and the Civil Action Unit (handles parking notices, impound hearings, ground transportation,
alarm violations, snow removal, loud party, and animal control). The $13,850,256 proposed FY22 budget is $3,960,341
(40%) more than last year which reflects new FTEs and costs associated with the new ERP system. The budget
recommendations include:
$233,103 for Two New FTEs for a Total of 72
The proposed budget would add two new positions to the Department: a deputy director and a business analyst. The
Finance Department is the only City department without a deputy director or equivalent position. One of the primary
duties of the new deputy director would be overseeing implementation of the ERP system’s financial functions. The
business analyst would join two other analysts working with multiple software programs and datasets to fulfill
regulatory requirements and evaluate City operations.
A consumer protection analyst FTE that specializes in landlord/tenant issues is proposed to be transferred from the
Finance Department to the Mayor’s Office as part of the new Office of Equity and Inclusion. The Department reports
three positions are currently vacant including the consumer protection analyst, a contracts FTEs and landlord/tenant
supervisor.
$196,020 for Two Additional FTEs using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding
At the time of writing this staff report, the Administration was reviewing over 150 pages of guidance from the
U.S. Treasury about allowable uses of ARPA funding. The City received $40 million in the first round of ARPA
funding with another $47 million expected in the second round likely sometime next year. The Administration is
proposing $196,020 of ARPA funding for two new FTEs in the Finance Department. $101,020 for a grant
administrator and $95,000 for a grant manager. The two FTEs would allow the Department to take on the
additional workload of receiving, administering, tracking, reporting, and auditing the Federal funding. The
position would need to also be funded in FY23 and FY24 and would sunset when the City has used all ARPA
funding by December 2024.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 1, 2021
Budget Hearings: May 18 and June 1
Potential Action: June 8 or June 15
Page | 2
$89,500 for a Busines Analyst FTE using ARPA Funding Requested but Ineligible
The proposed budget requests funding for this new FTE but it was found to be ineligible. U.S. Treasury guidance
on allowable uses of ARPA funding was issued after the proposed budget was presented to the Council. As a
result, General Fund dollars would need to be used to fund this position. This will be addressed in the
unresolved issues staff report for Council consideration.
$3,620,257 Increase for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System
The $3.6 million increase for the OneSolution Maintenance/IMS Fund line items is a 247% year over year increase. The
total cost for the line item is $5,086,937. Most of the increase is from $2 million for implementation of the ERP and
$500,000 for the ERP software subscription. The remainder includes continuing to pay for the existing financial system
(OneSolution). The existing system must be continued until the new system is tested and fully functioning.
The ERP will replace multiple existing software programs and systems in the City. Implementation and the associated
funding increase in the Finance Department budget is expected to occur over two or three years. The ERP will impact
every City department and employee. After implementation the annual cost for this line item will be significantly less
because funding for the old financial system and ERP consultants will no longer be needed.
$208,672 Increase for Personal Services
This reflects base to base changes, insurance rate increases, restoration of funding removed for the six-month hiring
freeze in FY21 during the early stages of the pandemic, merit increases for represented employees and the 1% general
pay increase proposed in the FY22 budget. The total personal services budget would be $7,522,703.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Increasing Department Workload – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the Finance
Department is managing an increasing workload over recent years such as multimillion dollar rounds of federal
stimulus, relief and recovery funding during the pandemic, integrating the RDA and HAND further into the City’s
financial and transparency systems and the upcoming implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
system. The ERP will replace several existing financial programs including some that the City has used for over a
quarter-century.
2.Minimum Fund Balance Goals (13%, 14% or between 15% to 18%) – The Council may wish to discuss
with the Administration the City’s different goals for a minimum Fund Balance (rainy day fund/savings account).
The Council has a minimum target of 13% which was increased from the previous 10% a few years ago. The
Council also adopted a legislative intent supporting a 14% goal if revenues allowed. The Finance Department has a
performance metrics with a goal to maintain Fund Balance between 15% and 18%.
3.Increasing Use of Good Landlord Program – The Council may wish to ask the Department if additional
resources or changes are needed because of increasing program utilization during the housing construction boom
of recent years. The number of licensed housing rentals has tripled since the program began but staffing levels for
it remain the same.
4.Coordinating Grant Applications – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how grant applications
are coordinated between and within departments to avoid the City submitting competing applications. The Grants
Acquisition & Management office with two coordinator FTEs is located within the Finance Department. The City
has been applying for and receiving an increasing number of grants in recent years.
5.State Rate of Return Exceeding City’s Rate – The Council may wish to ask the Administration why the State
Pool’s rate of return exceeded the City’s return on investments in 2018-2020. The Finance Department’s third
performance measure (see Attachment 2) has a target of the City’s rate being greater than the State’s rate.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Financial Risk Assessment
In Budget Amendment #4 of FY20 the Council appropriated $100,000 to conduct a risk-based analysis for the General
Fund Balance reserve requirements (rainy day fund / City’s savings account). This is believed to be the first complete
financial risk assessment for the City. It’s expected to be a major project for the Finance Department in FY22 and the
Council may wish to request a briefing and/or small group meetings to provide additional feedback on the scope of work.
Page | 3
The assessment was delayed due to the multiple emergencies of 2020, the ongoing pandemic, and an increase in the
Finance Department’s workload. A consultant will be engaged, and the Finance Department will conduct some work in
house. A draft RFP was developed and is being refined.
The primary risk factors are anticipated to be revenues, infrastructure, vulnerability to extreme events and public safety
concerns. The secondary risk factors are anticipated to be leverage, expenditure volatility, growth in the community, and
liquidity. The last area will be recommendations and other ideas to support the General Fund Balance.
Operations During Local Emergencies
The Finance Department provided the following examples of operational changes during the pandemic and other recent
local emergencies:
- Purchasing and Contracts Management implemented teleworking, virtual meetings including for bid
conferencing, paperless purchase orders and digital signatures for contracts
- Paperless, fully electronic accounts payable process and records management
- Processing payrolls without disruption / delay for City employees
- Tracking expenses associated with the earthquake, windstorm, and pandemic
- Completing the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY21 and FY22 almost entirely electronically
- The annual financial audit for FY21 was completed virtually and a hybrid approach is planned in future years to
reduce the cost of auditor visits
Business License Online System
The Council was briefed on January 14, 2020 and saw a demonstration of the new business license software. Applicants
piloted the program using a kiosk in the business license office before the pandemic and continues via WebEx.
Developing the new system was delayed for several months because of the pandemic. The program will be refined based
on further testing feedback. Applicants will be able to apply, change and renew business licenses online when the system
is implemented.
Collections Division Resumes Activities Paused During Pandemic
During the early stages of the pandemic many activities in the Collections Division were paused but have now fully
resumed including charging late fees, small claims fillings, sending accounts to the Office of State Debt Collection,
intercepting state tax refunds and out bound calls.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. Department Performance Measurements
ACRONYMS
CFO – Chief Financial Officer
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
IFAS – Internal Financial Accounting Services
IMS – Information Management Systems Department
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
TBD – To Be Determined
Page | 4
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY COMPARISON BUDGET CHART
BY FUNCTION
A c t u al A do pt e d Pro p o sed
2 0 19 -2 0 2 0 2 0 -2 1 2 0 2 1-2 2 Do llars %
A c c o u nting & Fina nc ial Re p o r t ing 1 8 $ 2 ,0 7 6 ,4 3 8 $ 2 ,3 0 0 ,0 87 $ 2 ,5 1 7 ,0 6 8 $ 2 1 6 ,9 81 9 %
Po lic y & Bu d ge t 3 $ 6 2 5 ,2 2 3 $ 4 7 2 ,4 1 6 $ 5 5 9 ,9 5 8 $ 87 ,5 4 2 1 9 %
Pur c hasing & Co nt r ac ts 1 0 $ 9 2 1 ,0 2 7 $ 1 ,0 1 0 ,6 6 6 $ 1 ,0 1 1 ,6 2 6 $ 9 6 0 0 %
Re v e nu e & Co lle c t io ns 2 6 $ 1 ,85 6 ,1 2 2 $ 1 ,9 89 ,81 7 $ 2 ,0 0 4 ,4 1 2 $ 1 4 ,5 9 5 1 %
I nte r nal A u d it & Financ ia l A naly sis 6 $ 83 3 ,89 6 $ 9 2 4 ,1 7 2 $ 9 3 6 ,0 4 6 $ 1 1 ,87 4 1 %
Tr e a su r e r ’s Offic e 9 $ 1 ,5 88,9 1 1 $ 1 ,7 2 6 ,0 7 7 $ 1 ,7 3 4 ,2 0 9 $ 8,1 3 2 0 %
One So lutio n Maint e nanc e - $ 5 9 4 ,4 0 5 $ 1 ,4 66 ,6 80 $ 5 ,0 86 ,9 3 7 $ 3 ,6 2 0 ,2 5 7 2 4 7 %
T o t al 7 2 $ 8,4 9 6 ,0 2 2 $ 9 ,889 ,9 15 $ 13 ,85 0 ,2 5 6 $ 3 ,9 60 ,3 4 1 4 0 %
Fu n din g So u rc e
Ge ne r al Fu nd 7 1 .7 $ 7 ,86 6 ,0 5 5 $ 8,3 87 ,6 7 3 $ 8,7 2 7 ,7 5 7 $ 3 4 0 ,0 84 4 %
I MS Fu nd
(One So lutio n Maint e nanc e )- $ 5 9 4 ,4 0 5 $ 1 ,4 66 ,6 80 $ 5 ,0 86 ,9 3 7 $ 3 ,6 2 0 ,2 5 7 2 4 7 %
Risk A d min Fund 0 .3 $ 3 5 ,5 6 2 $ 3 5 ,5 6 2 $ 3 5 ,5 6 2 $ - 0 %
T o t al 7 2 8,4 9 6 ,0 2 2$ 9 ,889 ,9 15$ 13 ,85 0 ,2 5 6$ $ 3 ,9 60 ,3 4 1 4 0 %
De part m en t o f Fi n an c e
Div i sio n FT E s Diffe re n c e
A c t u al A do pt e d Pro po se d
2 0 19 -2 0 2 0 2 0 -2 1 2 0 2 1-2 2 Do l lars %
Pe r so nal Se r v ic e s $ 6 ,89 5 ,7 0 4 $ 7 ,3 1 4 ,0 3 1 $ 7 ,5 2 2 ,7 0 3 2 0 8,6 7 2$ 3 %
Op e r at io ns & Mainte na nc e $ 2 3 1 ,7 86 $ 6 88,6 7 4 $ 6 89 ,1 7 4 5 0 0$ 0 %
Cha r ge s & Se r v ic e s $ 1 ,3 6 7 ,9 4 1 $ 1 ,83 9 ,2 1 0 $ 4 ,4 85 ,3 7 9 2 ,6 4 6 ,1 6 9$ 1 4 4 %
Ca p it a l Ex pe nd itu r e s $ 5 9 1 $ 4 8,0 0 0 $ 1 ,1 5 3 ,0 0 0 1 ,1 0 5 ,0 0 0$ 2 3 0 2 %
T o t al $ 8,496 ,0 2 2 $ 9,889 ,9 15 $ 13 ,85 0 ,2 5 6 $ 3 ,960 ,3 4 1 4 0 %
Op e rat i n g Bu d g e t fo r De p art m e n t o f Fin an c e
Di ffe ren c e
Page | 5
ATTACHMENT 2
DEPARTMENT MEASUREMENTS
Perfo rm an c e M easu 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 &
2 0 2 2
T arge t
Ma int a in a Ge ne r a l Fund Bala nc e b e t we e n
1 5 % a nd 1 8%1 2 .1 9 %1 4 .6 0 %2 1 .3 6 %>1 5 %
Ma int a in t h e Cit y 's p r e st igio u s A A A b o nd
r at ings A A A A A A A A A A A A
The Cit y ’s r at e o f r e t u r n o n inv e st m e nts w ill
b e gr e a te r t h a n the r at e fo r t he Stat e Po o l.
St a te
1 .7 9 9 5 %
Cit y
1 .6 5 88%
Stat e
2 .7 6 2 5 %
Cit y
2 .5 2 2 8%
Stat e
2 .0 4 9 3 %
City
1 .9 0 4 3 %
Cit y >
St at e
Pe r c e ntage o f c o nt r a c t and p ur c h a se o r d e r s
awar d e d t o s m a ll and d isad v a ntage d
b usine ss e nte r p r ise s.
4 .2 0 %3 .9 2 %3 .3 0 %5 %
Pe r c e ntage o f to t a l Civ il He ar ings d o ne
o nline
NA , Ne w
Me asu r e 5 4 .0 0 %9 9 .0 0 %5 0 %
Pe r c e ntage o f Online He a r ing s Co m p le t e d
w it h in 4 8 Ho u r s
NA , Ne w
Me asu r e 9 2 .0 0 %88.0 0 %9 0 %
Co m p le t e 7 5 % o f p lanne d inte r na l aud its
and c o st a na ly s e s annually
NA , Ne w
Me asu r e
NA , Ne w
Me a sur e 4 3 .0 0 %≥7 5 %