06/03/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION ONLY
June 3, 2021 Thursday 2:00 PM
This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair’s
Determination.
SLCCouncil.com
No Formal Meeting
Please note: A general public comment period will not be held this day. This is the Council's monthly scheduled
briefing meeting. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Welcome and public meeting rules
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times
and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated: 13:25:24
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
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 TENTATIVE
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 TENTATIVE
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are
working on related to racial equity and policing in the City. The conversation may include
issues of community concern about race, equity, and justice in relation to law
enforcement policies, procedures, budget, and ordinances. Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
3.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Attorney’s Office ~ 2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed budget for the Office of the Salt
Lake City Attorney for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, June 3, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
4.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Information Management
Services (IMS)~ 2:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Information Management Services
(IMS) budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22. The department provides technical support for the
City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, June 3, 2021
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 20, 2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 18, 2021 and Tuesday, June 1,
2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
5.Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget: Unresolved Issues ~ 3:00 p.m.
90 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Unresolved issues are follow-up items to any questions or
requests that Council Members have raised during the Department budget briefings.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, June 1, 2021 and Thursday, June 3, 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
Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
6.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
7.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.
8.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.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Libby Stockstill
Policy and Budget Analyst
DATE:June 3, 2021
RE: Office of the City Attorney FY 2021-22
Budget, including: Civil Division,
Recorder’s Office, and Prosecutor’s Contract
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: June 3, 2021
Public Hearing: May 18 & June 1
Potential Action: June 8 or June
15 (TBD)
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Office of the City Attorney includes three divisions: Civil Practice, Recorder’s Office, and Risk
Management, and a contract with the County District Attorney’s Office (DAO) to manage the
Prosecutor’s Office. (Budgets relating to the Risk Management Division are analyzed separately with
the Governmental Immunity Fund and the Insurance & Risk Management Fund.)
The proposed Fy22 budget requests $15,180,321 and 68.75 full-time employees (FTE). There is an
increase of $1,366,054 (8.9%) from the FY 2021 Adopted budget. The proposed budget increase is
mainly due to an increase to personal services for recently approved staff positions during Budget
Amendment 5. Information regarding the proposed budget is included on pages E-17 through E-22 of
the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book FY 2022.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS (Available on Page E-21 of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget)
•Three Assistant City Prosecutors (10 Months): A request for $268,050 to fund an
additional three assistant city prosecutor positions. The positions would help facilitate the due
process benefit of the additional defense attorneys funded by the Indigent Defense
Commission and assigned to the Salt Lake City Justice Court arraignment courtrooms to speak
with defendants at first appearance.
•Personal Services Base to Base Changes: The proposed FY 2022 budget includes an
increase of $66,603 in base to base personal services changes. This is based on a comparison of
FY 2020-21 adopted budget to actual personal services costs paid during the first pay period of
the 2021 calendar year.
Page | 2
•Continued Funding for Added FY21 Budget Amendment 5 Staff Positions: The
budget proposal includes the costs for staff positions that were added to the 2021 amended
budget as part of Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment #5. The positions and costs are:
o $173,978 for a Senior City Attorney position to address increased workload. This
position addresses with litigation and help with police matters.
o $173,978 for a Senior City Attorney position to address increased workload.
o $87,748 for a Legal Secretary to assist attorneys with increased demands.
o $97,612 for an Assistant City Recorder due to the increased demands particularly with
an increased demand with virtual services.
•Social Media Retention: The proposal requests $15,588 to pay for current software used to
archive social media posts and comments. The expense has already been paid out but through
vacancy savings. There is a plan to complete an RFP process to procure an equitable solution
to meet the City’s social media retention needs.
•Office Victim Advocate- Grant Funding Match: The City applied for funding a Victim
Advocate through a grant. The budget proposal provides funding for the required grant match.
Additional changes in the proposed budget:
•$19,984 for insurance rate changes affecting all City departments.
•$31,843 in savings from a citywide 6-month hiring freeze due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. This
amount replaces the reduction from the FY 2021 budget.
•$55,480 the Attorney’s Office portion of the salary proposal described in the Budget Summary
portion of the Mayor’s recommended Budget Book.
ADDITIONAL POLICY QUESTIONS
•In the proposed budget requests, what might not be noticed by the public, but could help
improve the Office’s service to City departments?
Questions relating to the Prosecutor’s Office Questions
•As a part of this budget proposal, can you help us understand how the three new proposed
city prosecutors would change service levels for city tax payers?
•Are there any unmet needs or services that would benefit from filling these positions?
•What would be the role of the new victim advocate positions?
•What would be the cost of hiring a full time victim advocate? Is there a benefit to hiring an
ongoing victim advocate rather than on an annual basis through grant funding?
•What degree of catch-up will be needed by the prosecutor's office to make up for the
pandemic related backlog noted in the report?
•What is the highest priority need of the prosecutor's office included in this budget?
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
RECORDER’S OFFICE
The Recorder’s Office administers all legislative actions ensuring transparency to the public, such as
public meeting notification, City Council meeting minutes; coordination of city elections including
candidate forms; acts as a compliance office for State and local statutes, including GRAMA and the
Open and Public Meetings Act, and general access to City records; provides support for contract
execution, and oversight of adoption and publication of the City’s Municipal Code; and provides
support service to the City Administration and Council. To provide these functions to the various City
Departments, the Recorder’s Office has 7 full-time employees and one part-time employee.
Page | 3
The Recorder’s Office has made strides in improving efficiencies and city services. The City Recorder’s
office is working to enhance community engagement and technology services through new and
innovative means. Below is a list of projects completed or currently underway:
•Implementation of the City identified Document Repository (Laserfiche) for records
maintained by the Recorder's office
•Maximizing the automation capabilities to integrate Laserfiche throughout City processes
(Contracts and Public Body Meeting Materials with Transmittal and Claim forms in the near
future; and the automation of reports for transparency efforts
•Use of Electronic signatures for thousands of documents - adjusting to an electronic process
and workflow to change the timeline on contract recordings to be within 1-2 days
• Meeting Support for the Racial Equity in Policing Commission
•Expanded use of agenda software for minutes; enhancing collaboration opportunities
•Upcoming awareness campaign for the Ranked Choice Voting method (see more in the non-
departmental budget)
•Retention Schedule evaluations; with a schedule under development for consistent, regularly-
timed reviews for City Departments
•Participating in Citywide processes and opportunities to collaborate on efficiency
opportunities
•Migration of more than 200,000 files from the previous digital repository for increased search
functionality
PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
The City contracts with the District Attorney’s Office (DAO) to manage thirty-five full time and one
part time prosecutors and staff to provide Prosecutor services for the City. The contract includes
staffing salaries, lease fees for the office space, a management fee, and other operating fees. The
prosecutors staff the Salt Lake City Justice Court while DAO prosecutors take those cases over when
entered into district court calendars. The Prosecutor’s Office The contract between Salt Lake County
and Salt Lake City has been in place since 2015. Salt Lake City prosecutors and staff operate in the
workspaces as other Salt Lake County District Attorney employees. The DOA and City Prosecutors
interact with state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the City Homeless Services group,
Community Action Teams, Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Advisory Council, and the Salt Lake
Area Family Justice Center. The Prosecutor’s Office also participated in other programs, including a
two-phase expungement program and continued referrals through the Crime Prevention Investment
Program (CPIP) Diversion Program.
Tracking Measurements
The Office of the City Attorney uses eleven metrics included in Table 1 to measure performance
monthly (Mayor’s Recommended Budget FY 2022, p.E-18).
Page | 4
Table 1 City Attorney Performance Measures
City Attorney Office Background
Vision Statement
Our goal is to be valued and trusted partners, recognized and relied upon for our expertise, creativity,
and commitment to advancing the City’s goals.
Mission Statement
The City Attorney’s Office’s mission is to provide high-quality, timely legal advice to the city, and be
relied upon as a trusted productive, and a positive City team member.
Department Overview
The office of the Salt Lake City Attorney includes a section responsible for civil matters and
administration, a section responsible for risk management, and a section responsible for criminal
matter and the Office of the City Recorder.
The Office of the Salt Lake City Attorney strives to supervise and coordinate efforts of its four
Divisions. From and administrative perspective, the office closely coordinates with Risk Management
on litigation submitted against the City. The City Attorney also works with the Prosecutor’s Office on
budgetary and administrative matters and works with the Recorder’s Office to serve the city’s goals of
compliance with the law.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
OFFICE OF THE CITY RECORDER
LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 415, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145515, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5515
TELEPHONE: 801-535-7671 FAX: 801-535-7681
MEMORANDUM TO CITY LEADERSHIP
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council Chair Amy Fowler
DATE: June 2, 2021
FROM: Keith Reynolds, Deputy City Recorder – GRAMA
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
SUBJECT: GRAMA Specifics 2020
In January 2021, upon completing the GRAMA and Open Meeting Training with Cindy Lou
Trishman, Council Chair Fowler requested additional details on the breakdown of the GRAMA
statistics, specifically by department. The breakdown of the statistics is provided in this
memorandum. Additionally, due to inconsistencies of GRAMA responses, the Recorder’s office
training efforts have been prioritized. To date, three trainings have been held covering GRAMA
requirements and GovQA software overview. Each of the three trainings had over 60 attendees.
Future trainings are being scheduled for June and July including specific department trainings,
Redaction and Sanitization steps, Denials and Appeals. Upon completion of the in-depth, priority
training, the Recorder’s office will continue to monitor GRAMA requests and maintain channels
of communication between all GRAMA coordinators.
2020 Overview
Total Requests 15,170
2019 819 fewer
2018 3 more
Breakdown by Request Type
Police 13,520
Airport 143
Fire 667
City 840
2
May 2021
Breakdown of 2020 City-type Requests
Attorney 186
City Council 10
City Recorder 24
Community & Neighborhood 420
Economic Development 1
Finance 36
Human Resources 19
Information Management Systems 7
Justice Court 27
Mayor’s Office 22
Public Services 15
Public Utilities 70
Redevelopment Agency 2
Sustainability 0
THE SALT LAKE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
AND
SALT LAKE CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
ANNUAL REPORT TO
SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL AND
THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
1
TO: SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL AND
THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:THE SALT LAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AND
THE SALT LAKE CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2021
RE: 2021 CONTRACT STATUS REPORT / ANNUAL REPORT TO THE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
REPORT SUMMARY
This report addresses the following topics:
I. Summary of Services Furnished
II. Case Estimates and Trends
III. Court Disposition Rates
IV. Program Participation Efforts
__________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
__________________________________________________________________
2020 was an unprecedented year, filled with challenges that seemed to
present themselves in an unending sequence day after day. The Salt Lake County
District Attorney’s Office (DAO) and the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office
(CPO) confronted those challenges and met them head-on. To ensure a rapid and
day-to-day response to the demands of the Covid pandemic, the District Attorney’s
Office in its role providing management services for the City Prosecutor’s Office
included the CPO in its daily Covid-19 Operations meeting, held every day during
the pandemic throughout 2020. Pursuant to the directives of the District
2
Attorney’s Office management team under the interlocal agreement, the City
Prosecutor’s Office in mid-March 2020 began shifting to a remote work platform
for the majority of its workforce. The earthquake brought about the necessity to
complete the transition to a 100% capable remote workforce. That in turn brought
about the rapid completion of the transition to digital files and related processes.
The criminal justice system, including the Salt Lake City Justice Court, moved to
remote appearances as a consequence of the pandemic. City Prosecutor staff began
assembling 100% digital files for the office. City prosecutors appeared “in court”
remotely, continuing to efficiently and effectively serve the residents of Salt Lake
City in the modified operations of the criminal justice system. Pandemic
limitations on court trials have created a backlog of some 480+ jury trials that will
have to be addressed as in -person hearings re-open. This will be in addition to the
typical workload that in early 2020 prompted a request for additional personnel.
The events of 2020 have heightened the need for those personnel, and 2020’s
request is renewed now in 2021, as the pandemic layering of delayed and pending
court hearings begins to settle in on an already over-taxed workforce.
I. SUMMARY OF SERVICES FURNISHED.
Throughout the challenges of 2020, t he City Prosecutor’s Office continued
to provide the Salt Lake City community with non-law enforcement community
3
screenings, law enforcement agency screenings, the prosecution of Class B and C
misdemeanors and infractions occurring in the Salt Lake City boundaries and filed
in the Salt Lake City Justice Court. This is accomplished with 15 prosecutors and
14 staff, when all positions are filled. The City Prosecutor’s Office started the year
handling its de novo appeals from justice court into the district court, and ended the
year with a new gained efficiency in the approach to those cases through the
interlocal agreement – management services contract with the District Attorney’s
Office. DAO prosecutors are now handling CPO cases that appear on appeal in
District Court. Given the relatively low numbers of cases appealed, DAO
prosecutors are able to handle the limited numbers of City appeals that are added to
District Court calendars that those same prosecutors would appear on anyway.
This allows one city prosecutor to be re-purposed to other functions. There were
no appeals to the Utah Court of Appeals and Utah Supreme Court from the City
Prosecutor’s Office in 2020, although the office stood ready to take those on if the
occasion arose.
As noted in the 2020 report:
The contract between Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City for
management of the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office has been in
place since September 2015. The District Attorney’s Office provides
the City Prosecutor’s Office with a variety of services. These services
include, but are not limited to, management, office space, parking,
security, computer services, copy services, office supplies, victim
advocate support, on -site daycare, fitness center and professional
training. Salt Lake City employees enjoy the same workspaces,
4
phone, computer, internet, and other support services as Salt Lake
County employees. The open access allows a free exchange of ideas
and materials that enhances the interactions between the agencies.
A. History of the Partnership and the impact of 2020.
From the 2020 report:
The Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office understands
the importance of both offices to Salt Lake County and to Salt Lake
City. Sim Gill was hired into the SLC Prosecutor’s Office in 1994 as
an entry-level Associate City Prosecutor. In 1995 he left the office to
join the Salt Lake County (SLCO) District Attorney’s Office (DAO)
as a Deputy District Attorney. In 2000, he returned to the office as the
Chief Salt Lake City Prosecutor, appointed by Mayor Rocky
Anderson and kept in that position for Mayor Anderson’s two terms.
In 2008, Mayor Ralph Becker retained Sim as the Chief Salt Lake
City Prosecutor. In 2010, Sim won election as the Salt Lake County
District Attorney, and left the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office
(SLCPO). On September 1, 2015, the interlocal management
agreement between the SLCO DAO and the SLCPO went into effect,
putting Sim at the helm of both offices as the DA and again as the
Chief Salt Lake City Prosecutor. It is the importance of th ese offices
to their respective jurisdictions and to each other that led to the
interlocal management agreement. The potential for a synergistic
relationship between both parties has realized real benefits for each
office, and each jurisdiction. The combined footprint of the offices
results in approximately 40% of the crimes in the State of Utah being
addressed through the unified management structure.
2020 addendum: As indicated, the net result of the events of 2020 was a
rapid shift to a 100% capable work-force, with the majority of the 29 CPO
personnel working from home remotely on any given day with only 1-2 personnel
in the office on any regular basis. This capability, made possible by the extant and
post -onset additional resources obtained by the District Attorney’s Office for City
5
Prosecutor personnel, allowed the CPO to meet the remote court hearing schedules
set by the Salt Lake City Justice Court and to work in close partnership with that
court.
B. Hiring, On-Boarding, and Training
Hiring. Salt Lake City employees are hired via Salt Lake City processes and
with the input of SLC Human Resources personnel. Hiring follows SLC policies
and procedures. In 2020, n o changes to the hiring process were set in place other
than remote interviews and other remote processes instituted as part of the
pandemic response in accord with SLC policy and practice and DAO management
directives.
On -Boarding. Because of the unique shared nature of the facilities, city
employees do have to undergo county policy and procedures for background
checks, given that the building is a secure space comparable to a courthouse.
During 2020, w ith the unique pandemic directive to minimize personnel in the
office, new hires typically were in the office for their first week with the office for
a general familiarization, setting up their office, obtaining laptops and cellphones
for remote work, and some basic training. Most then began remote work from
home.
Training. In 2020, t he Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office continued to
provide training to Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) n ew officers as
6
recruits with the following topics. The CPO taught one recruit class in 2018, three
recruit classes in 2019, and then two recruit classes in 2020. As in 2019 and
before, classes prosecutors taught to police recruits included:
*. Utah Criminal Code (2 hours),
*. Laws of Evidence (5 hours),
*. Traffic Law,
*. Court Demeanor,
*. Law of Arrest (5 hours),
*. Search and Seizure (7 hours),
*. Laws of Reasonable Force (2 hours),
*. Liability of Peace Officers (2 hours),
*. Crimes against Persons Part I (3 hours),
*. Crimes against Persons Part II (4 hours),
*. Introduction to Constitutional Law (two hours),
*. Introduction to the Utah Court System (2 hours),
*. Controlled Substance Law (2 hours),
*. Alcohol Beverage Control Act (2 hours),
*. Crimes against Family (one hour),
*. Crimes against Public Order and Decency (two hours), and
*. Crimes against the Administration of Government and Government law
(one hour).
In 2020, t he DAO continued to provide training and continuing legal
education during the Pandemic. Classes offered or proposed included: Excellence
in Prosecution, Jury Pitfalls, Case Resolution and Plea Negotiation, Improving the
Public Image of Prosecutors, Implicit Bias/Ethics, Field Trip to the Salt Lake
County Adult Detention Center (cancelled due to pandemic conditions), Advanced
Trial Advocacy, Exonerations, Ethics, Competency, Sentencing Guidelines, Field
Trip to the Utah State Prison, Resources/JRI, Secondary Trauma, Brady – Giglio,
and AP&P / Conditions of Probation and Parole.
7
Within the CPO, the remote work environment and reduced caseload (jury
trials going to zero for the remainder of 2020) provided an opportunity to
concentrate on some training issues in a way that had n ot been previously possible,
and that focus created gains in internal training procedure and outcomes during
2020.
C. The Screening Function/Process: Community Screenings, Law
Enforcement Screenings, review and filing of direct filed citations.
During 2020, t he City Prosecutor’s Office continued to provide the Salt
Lake City community with community screenings, law enforcement agency
screenings, and the prosecution of Class B and C misdemeanors and infractions
occurring in the Salt Lake City boundaries and filed in the Salt Lake City Justice
Court .
Screening is the process where prosecutors review police reports and
determine whether to proceed with the charges requested by law enforcement or to
change those charges, refuse to file those charges, or requ est more investigation.
This occurs when a citation is filed with the court by police, or when police submit
a screening packet/request to the office for review. This is an important and
resource intensive process, as this is crucial to ensuring that the rights of victims
and accused persons are protected by thoughtful review and consideration of the
case.
8
Salt Lake City may be one of a few, if not the only, prosecution office in
Utah that allows for community screenings. Screening is crucial to the prosecution
process, the gateway to pursuing offenders while protecting the innocent, both
victims of crime and those factually innocent though accused. Community
screenings allow residents to approach the prosecution office where an initial law
enforcement report was not submitted for a detective screening or a citation was
not issued to the court.
The City Prosecutor’s Office works closely with the Salt Lake City Police
Department, Salt Lake City International Airport Police (now fully integrated with
the SLCPD), Salt Lake City Fire Department, Utah Department of Public Safety,
Utah Highway Patrol, State Bureau of Investigation, University of Utah Police
Department, Unified Police Department, Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Utah
State Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake County Animal Services, and Salt
Lake City code enforcement personnel.
D. The Justice Court Process.
The Justice Court process consists of case initiation (filing in the court by
citation or information), arraignment, pretrial hearings, law and motion
(evidentiary hearings), bench trials, jury trials, sentencings, and post-sentencing
reviews and orders-to-show-cause. In 2020, the pandemic response and move to
remote hearings allowed all hearings with the exception of jury trials to continue.
9
A return to in -person jury trials in 2021 is anticipated, in a modified format.
Challenges to the modified format are anticipated, in both the areas of due process
sufficiency and the mechanics of social distancing. As noted elsewhere, with some
480 jury trials left over from 2020 and pending in the SLC Justice Court as of
January 2021, there will be serious demands on the resources of all stakeholders in
the court to resolve that backlog.
E. Appeals from Justice Court and The Trial De Novo Process.
If a defendant is convicted in justice court, the defendant has an automatic
right of appeal to the Third District Court. There, the process starts all over, and
proceeds anew, as if the defendant had not been convicted in the justice court.
This protection for defendants has a corresponding special impact on victims in
domestic violence cases, and in public safety cases, like DUI’s. There is some
additional resource impact due to the second track of de novo court hearings.
During 2020, DAO management looked at the number of these justice court
to district court appeals and decided to try to enhance services t here by adding an
efficiency. District Attorney prosecutors staff the same calendars that city justice
court matters appear on when appealed into the district court. Acknowledging that,
and determining that tracking and appearing on these cases would not contribute to
an unacceptable workload addition to the DAO prosecutors, DAO administration
freed up city prosecutor personnel for other appearances and functions by having
10
DAO prosecutors take those cases over once the cases were entered district court
calendars. This freed up one city prosecutor from the district court assignment, for
other purposes.
F. Partner LEO agencies.
The Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office under the DAO management team
interacts with numerous law enforcement agencies. These include the Salt Lake
City Police Department (now including the former Salt Lake City International
Airport Police), Utah Highway Patrol, Utah Transit Authority Police, University of
Utah Police, Salt Lake County Animal Services, Salt Lake County Health
Department, the Utah Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources, the
Federal Transportation Safety Administration, and other law enforcement agencies
in course of occasional cases with jurisdiction in Salt Lake City or conflict from
other agencies based on professional courtesy.
G. Other Partner Organizations.
i. Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC). Salt Lake
City has a presence on the council and on the “Misdemeanors working group”, in
the presence of Judge Baxter from the justice court, Sim Gill as both the DA and as
the Chief City Prosecutor and other City Prosecutor’s Office personnel. From the
CJAC homepage:
The Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC) is created by
Salt Lake County ordinance and serves as an advisory committee to
11
the Salt Lake County Mayor and County Council. CJAC works
collaboratively to shape criminal justice policy and County
initiatives. The committee is made-up of law enforcement,
prosecutors, defense counsel, corrections, courts, human services, and
elected officials at the city, county, and state level.
https://slco.org/cji/advisory-council/
ii. The Salt Lake Area Family Justice Center is a collaborative staffing
approach to the issues of domestic violence and its aftermath and effects on
families. The Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office was a founding agency in the
implementation of that Center in Salt Lake City. City Prosecutor’s Office
personnel identified the need for a center on the lines of the Casey Gwinn San
Diego Family Justice Center approach, and began, with the YWCA, to investigate
options. One of those was a Presidential Grant Program that offered seed money to
kick-start these centers across the country. Although the grant application was not
successful, the process encouraged the collaborators to proceed on a model of a
part -tim e Center in the basement of a YWCA building, just to force the
implementation of the concept. The success of that resulted in the creation of the
current YWCA family justice center. While SLC Police are still housed on site,
SLC Prosecutor involvement has receded, in large part to resource demands that
have prevented the CPO from staffing a prosecutor there on a part or full-time
basis. Additional personnel would permit considering a return to a more robust
presence with this community agency.
12
H. Interaction with other City departments and working groups.
i. City Homeless Services Group. Participation in the meetings here
allows the CPO to stay informed on developments in the provision of city services
for persons experiencing homelessness, with the goal of just and humane
enforcement of criminal law where necessary with persons experiencing
homelessness.
ii. CAT Teams: There is a potential for a return to city prosecutor
presence on the city’s CAT (Community Action Teams) Teams. City prosecutors
were originally part of the community action teams in the 1990’s under grants that
hired city prosecutors as integral components to the CAT teams. Based on
observations of the CAT teams by city prosecutor personnel in 2019, city
prosecutor presence on a regular basis is again worth exploring. In order to
accomplish a return of prosecutors to regular attendance, additional prosecutors
would be necessary. That possibility is discussed below.
I. “ePROSECUTOR” and Data-Collection
In line with Mayor Mendenhall’s Salt Lake City Annual Progress Report
Card, and her reiteration there that “If you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it”,
the SLC CPO anticipates that it will be able to bring the “eProsecutor” case
management system on -line and into active use in 2021.
13
The Salt Lake City Prosecutor anticipates going live with eProsecutor within
a few months of the District Attorney going live with the product, which is
currently scheduled for April 2021. Original go-live was delayed due to COVID
and the difficulties of launching a complex system while the vast majority of staff
are working remotely. This tiered launch approach will allow for the following to
take place:
1. Additional development of the efiling interface for use by the City. The core
of the efiling interface has been developed for the District Attorney and is
being modified to accept efilings from the City Prosecutor.
2. Additional development of workflows specific to the processes of the City
Prosecutor. As their caseload is comprised entirely of misdemeanor
offenses, and mostly originating from e-citations, specialized workflows are
being developed to capture these processes.
3. Implementation of bug fixes and troubleshooting for issues identified during
initial go-live for DA. This will allow the City Prosecutor to avoid any of
these issues by their go-live date, making for a smoother transition.
The current appropriation is sufficient to cover all costs associated with any
additional development that is required for the City Prosecutor to go live. We look
forward to launching this system and reaping the benefits of the increased
efficiencies it will introduce.
The DAO-CPO partnership anticipates that this system will provide data
collection and management to enhance “measure t o manage” (data-driven
decision -making) capabilities.
14
II. CASE ESTIMATES, TRENDS, IMPLICATIONS, AND PROPOSALS.
A. Pandemic Impact
B. Case Trends
C. Matters By Case Type 2017-2020.
D. Matters By Case Type 2020
E. Matters By Case Type 2019
F. Prosecutor caseloads v. workloads
G. Industry and office trends
A. Pandemic Impact
The universal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is inescapable. While we
do not have the data to include in this report, it is reasonable to conclude that the
health restrictions imposed upon and/or the closing of downtown restaurants, social
clubs, theaters, cancelled outdoor downtown activities, and other businesses has
led to a noticeable reduction in the daytime population of Salt Lake City.
Additionally, of the businesses and organizations that have remained open, many,
where possible, have favored remote work that further reduces the daytime
population. According to a recent survey conducted by Downtown Alliance and
reported by KSL, 76% of downtown SLC employees are primarily working
remotely. As a result, the overall number of cases filed and prosecuted by the CPO
reduced slightly in 2020, but where some categories of cases decreased, there was
an alarming increase in categories of cases that effect public safety.
15
B. Trends
As stated above, there is strong evidence that the 2020 daytime population in
Salt Lake City was reduced due in large to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Correspondingly, according to the Utah State Courts, there was a 13% drop in
cases filed in the Salt Lake City Justice Courts that were prosecuted by the CPO
compared to 2019 (13,879 in 2020 v. 15,977 in 2019). However, despite the 13%
overall decrease in cases prosecuted by the CPO, the number of DUI related
offenses dropped by only 4%, whereas domestic violence cases actually rose by
5%.
16
C. Matters By Case Type 2017-2020.
In 2019, generally, the surge seen during and after the 2017 Operation Rio
Grande had dissipated and numbers had stabilized, with some variations as
indicated below. 2020 saw a general drop in cases with the exception of Domestic
Violence (DV) offenses.
Notable, however are one year (2018-2019) increases in Domestic Violence, DUI,
and Non -DV Assaultive Conduct, which tend to be the most time and resource
intensive offenses that the office prosecutes. 2019-2020 saw a drop in DUI, but a
continuing increase in Domestic Violence (DV) offenses (generally attributed to
the pandemic based on various theories). DV offenses are those where a dedicated
SLC CPO victim advocate is most needed and which will result in the highest
efficiencies.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Movi
ng
Viola
tions
Non-
movi
ng
Viola
tions
Drive
r's
Licen
se
Viola
tions
Othe
r
Misd
emea
nors
Contr
olled
Subst
ance
Viola
tions
Theft Publi
c
Intoxi
catio
n
Dom
estic
Viole
nce
DUI Assa
ult
(non
DV)
Liquo
r
Viola
tions
Anim
al
Contr
ol
and
Wildli
fe
Parks
and
Recre
ation
Viola
tions
Sale
of
Alcoh
ol
Viola
tions
2017 21206 8937 3691 5880 4271 2915 1368 743 1088 755 281 196 91 90
2018 18287 9653 3311 4764 3450 2145 1393 861 786 578 329 174 68 45
2019 1628711582 3446 5413 2152 1949 1410 1038 966 628 163 191 83 20
2020 12939 9276 2941 4897 1688 1619 1076 1091 926 583 167 174 116 17
Matters by Case Type 2017 -2020
2017 2018 2019 2020
17
D. Matters By Case Type 2020 (State Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Data).
Where more cases are closed than opened (filed with the court) it creates a
systemic gain in that more cases are closed out of the system than remain in it . By
this data set, all categories except DUI and DV experienced more closures than
filings.
Where more cases are left open than closed, t his creates a systemic drag in that
cases remain in the system and carry over from time period to time period,
requiring more court hearings and more resources from all stakeholders. In this
data set, DUI and DV are the only categories that saw more new cases opened
(filed with the court) than old cases being closed.
875
3072
13541
10541
652
3307
2120
32 387
2909
245 171 739
7585
926
2941
12939
9276
583
1619 1076
17 167
1688 174 116
1091
4897
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000 Matters by Case Type 2020
Closed Open
18
E. Matters By Case Type 2019.
2019 Categories where more cases were closed than left open: Assault, Public
intoxication, Liquor Violations, Controlled Substances, Parks and Recreation
violations. This creates a systemic gain in that cases are closed out of the system.
2019 Categories where more cases were left open than closed: DUI, Driver’s
License violations, Moving Violations, non-moving violations, Theft, Public
Intoxication, Illegal Sale of Alcohol, Animal Control/Wildlife, Domestic Violence,
Other Misdemeanors and Infractions. This creates a systemic drag in that cases
remain in t he system and carry over from time period to time period.
854
3139
15406
9288
661 1902 1257
18 208
2338
174
90 527
4974
966
3446
16278
9653
628
1949 1410
20 163
2152
191 83 1038
5413
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000 Matters by Case Type 2019
Closed Open
19
F. Prosecutor caseloads v. workload
As stated earlier, using the data provided by the Utah State Courts, the CPO
prosecuted 13,879 cases filed in the Salt Lake City Justice Courts in 2020. With
the 13 line prosecutors currently employed, that equates to an average caseload of
1,068 cases per line prosecutor. Note the term “line prosecutor” is a reference to
attorneys whose primary assignment is in court, as opposed to first assistant
prosecutors whose primary job duties include training and supervisory functions.
However, while the CPO has 13 line prosecutor positions, circumstances beyond
our control has left us with far fewer active prosecutors to carry the load. As of the
writing of this report, 4 line prosecutors have resigned their positions.
Additionally, 3 line prosecutors are on ext ended military orders, and 1 line
prosecutor is out on extended family leave. Consequently, while the caseload per
prosecutor in 2020 was 1,068, the realized caseload per prosecutor is much higher.
It is also important to separate the per prosecutor caseload from the per prosecutor
workload. For each single case, there are several necessary steps and actions taken
by each prosecutor; discovery review, witness contact, victim contact, review of
criminal history, and restitution determination to name a few. With over a
thousand cases per prosecutor, the time investment to properly address each case is
immense. The caseload/workload combination leaves little time to manage the
20
other responsibilities that befalls the line prosecutor including screening, attorney
of the day, and calendar prep.
As has been stated in previous reports, the need for additional personnel to
properly meet our obligations is paramount.
The following discussion is the 2019 discussion relative to caseload by
varying prosecutor staffing numbers. Although a drop in total cases opened or
filed was experienced in 2020, there is a pending backlog of jury trials and an
expectation that numbers will climb closer to 2019 levels as vaccinations occur and
methods are emplaced to return caseflow closer to historic levels. Thus, t he 2019
discussion is realistically closer to what can be expected in 2021. It also appears
that the State adjusted 2019 numbers upward from those in the 2020 report, as
indicated.
Case data from the court indicates the following for combined categories of
Misdemeanor and Traffic cases. Below, t he notations “13”, “15”, and “17”
reference the caseload per prosecutor counting the current 13 line prosecutors, then
with 15 line prosecutors (adding 2), and then with 17 line prosecutors (adding 4).
These numbers are adjusted to reflect the number of traffic cases that are estimated
to be handled by prosecutors. The vast majority of traffic cases are resolved by
bail forfeiture or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), that is, by someone
paying a fine without seeing a judge, or resolving a case with court personnel
21
pursuant to an MOU between the court and the CPO. Note the term “line
prosecutor” is a reference to attorneys whose primary assignment is in court, as
opposed to first assistant prosecutors whose primary job duties include training and
supervisory functions.
2019 = 13,373 15,977 line-prosecutor handled cases.
= criminal cases filed (9373 10,328) + traffic cases handled (working est. at
approx. 4000, believed to be conservative, with other estimates ranging from
9000 to 13000 5,649)
= with 13 Line attorneys: 1028 1229 cases per attorney. At 15: 891 1065.
17: 786 939.
Note that the estimate of approximately 4000 is an estimate from justice
court staff and seems exceedingly low based on prosecutor experience, but,
until another analysis renders better data, this estimate will be utilized.
5,649 cases appears to be an accurate updated number from State data.
There are qualitative rationales for increasing staffing and improving the service
levels on the spectrum from processing cases to truly prosecuting cases effectively,
to the greater benefit of victims’ rights, defendants’ rights, and overall criminal
justice system due process and social justice outcomes.
One study determined that the appropriate number of misdemeanor cases for
a legal defender to carry as a caseload was 400 cases per year. The working theory
for prosecutors has been that working caseload of twice that, 800 cases per year,
was a goal to be attained to provide resources that might meet the standard for
providing a quality justice system. As noted above, even with conservative
estimates, the number of cases carried by prosecutors is well above the ideal.
22
There is another factor that comes into play, and that is the available
experience of the line prosecutors currently in the office. Prosecutors who have
had the core training program are available to handle cases and calendars without
const ant supervision. There are currently two first assistant city prosecutors in the
office to provide administration, supervision, and training to the 13 line
prosecutors. Prosecutors who are new require significant training and supervision.
Thus, as the number of new prosecutors rises in the office, additional work is
shifted to the more experienced prosecutors in the office until training is
completed. Thus, looking at the numbers above for 2019, it is possible to
understand the per prosecutor increase in caseload as the ratio of trained
prosecutors and new prosecutors changes.
Again:
2019 = 13,373 15,977 line-prosecutor handled cases.
= criminal cases filed (9373 10328) + traffic cases handled (est. at approx.
4000 5649)
= with 13 Line attorneys: 1028 1229 cases per attorney. At 15: 891 1065.
At 17: 786 939.
Thus, to near the goal of approximately 800 cases per line prosecutor in the office,
another 4 prosecutors would be needed, based on available data. Without
additional prosecutors, the rotation of new prosecutors into the office creates an
impact in moving work on to other more experienced prosecutors until those new
23
prosecutors are trained. That impact can be seen by the per prosecutor caseload
impact assuming a caseload split among the experience prosecutors, less the new:
Caseload per trained line prosecutor, with 13 trained (0 new) prosecutors: 1229.
Caseload per trained line prosecutor, with 12 trained (1 new) prosecutors: 1331.
Caseload per trained line prosecutor, with 11 trained (2 new) prosecutors: 1452.
Caseload per trained line prosecutor, with 10 trained (3 new) prosecutors: 1597.
Caseload per trained line prosecutor, with 9 trained (4 new) prosecutors: 1775.
Th ese caseload estimates provide some perspective on the impact to line-
prosecutor caseload. With 4 new prosecutors in the office, until they are trained
and effective, that amounts to nearly a 50% caseload increase. 1775/1229 = 144%.
In 2019, 10 new prosecutors were hired into the 13 position line prosecutor
designation. That reflects approximately a 77% rotation of line prosecutors in
2019. That compares with a 60% rotation of line attorneys in 1994-1995 and
approximately 80% rotation in the years 2010-2015. The majority of those
prosecutors leaving in 2019 rotated into the District Attorney’s Office. Qualified
prosecutors being hired into the DAO benefits the residents of Salt Lake City as
constituents of the DAO.
Some component of the 2019 rotation was a result of the robust economy,
which resulted in an appealing private sector for attorneys, and, escalating district
attorney salaries and flexible work schedules in other counties.
24
G. 2020 hiring rotations.
In 2020, 6 new prosecutors were hired into the 13 position line prosecutor
designation. That is a 46% new hire rate during 2020, with 5 of the 6, and 5 of the
13 (38%), beginning with the city in February of 2020, and the sixth hire starting in
September of 2020. Thus, through 2020, only one line prosecutor position (1/13 or
7.7% of line prosecutors) rotated after the onset of the pandemic, looking at a mid-
March date as the reference point for the full impact of the pandemic. Thus, it is
possible to ascribe non -pandemic reasons for the rotation and new hires up to
February, including a robust economy and workload up to that point. The 2020
report is a good reference for that discussion. Indicators in early 2021 for line
prosecutor rotation would suggest explanations for rotation other than a robust
economy.
H. Industry and office trends
During 2020, the CPO lost 3 line prosecutors. Early into 2021, the CPO has
lost an additional 4 line prosecutors. Our efforts to advertise, interview, and select
replacements has proven increasingly challenging. In our observation, our
applicant pools are noticeably smaller, the quality of applicant has appeared to
decline, and of those that we make formal offers to, more are declining our offers
or withdrawing their applications. This could be due to any number of factors, but
an inescapable truth is that the competition for prosecutors has increased.
25
According to the ABA, enrollment levels in American law schools are at 1980
levels. With decreased enrollment, decreased numbers of graduates, coupled with
ever-increasing tuition that typically leads to increased student loan debt, attracting
new prosecutors to an environment that has extremely high caseload and workload
demands at our current compensation levels is increasingly challenging. This is an
issue that if left unaddressed will exacerbate the already difficult position the CPO
is in.
In an effort to maintain and possibly improve on the level of service, these
observations lead to the following proposals:
RENEWED PROPOSAL 1. REQUEST FOR VICTIM ADVOCATE
(GRANT / FTE).
In the years 2018-2019, the Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office was able to
utilize the services of a grant -funded victim advocate through the contract
interlocal agreement collaboration with the SLCO DA and SLC. The expectation
in early 2020 was that the experiment had drawn to a close and the DA staff person
would be re-allocated back to the DA caseload. The consensus is that the services
of the victim advocate were invaluable to the prosecutors’ office and to victims.
This was primarily for the domestic violence caseload in the office, although
victims of other offenses did benefit from this service. When the CPO 2020
request for a victim advocate was withdrawn due to the impact of Covid, the DAO
made the determination to continue to share the services of the DAO victim
26
advocate with the CPO to maintain the level of service to the residents of Salt Lake
City. After another year of sharing a DAO victim advocate with the CPO, the DAO
has begun a phased transition to pull that service allotment back fully into the
DAO, leaving the CPO without the shared DAO victim advocate on or before
July1, 2021.
The Cit y Prosecutors’ Office would renew its 2020 request in 2021 that the
city provide, by grant or general fund a victim’s advocate that can be dedicated to
the city caseload to replace the experimental victim advocate loaned to the city for
city cases by the Salt Lake County District Attorneys’ Office. The duties of this
victim advocate would include: ensuring the smooth transfer of victim services
from SLCPD victim advocates to the SLC Prosecutors’ Office as cases move from
police investigation and are submitted for prosecution screening; maintaining
contact with victims through all phases of the criminal justice system; facilitating
community screenings; addressing restitution issues, court process familiarization,
in -court accompaniment (accompanying victims into court); and assisting victims
in accessing available post-trauma resources
2020 PROPOSAL 2. INVESTIGATOR. NOT RENEWED FOR 2021,
SUBSTITUTING A REQUEST FOR ANOTHER PROSECUTOR.
During the course of 2019 and into 2020, the SLC Prosecutor’s Office on
occasion utilized the services of the POST-certified, law enforcement experienced
investigators of the SLCO DAO. These investigators serve a dedicated,
27
supplementary investigation function that follows police detective investigation.
These investigators can be utilized by a prosecutor’s office to provide investigative
services at prosecution direction in a focused, short notice, prioritized manner that
responds to the fast -paced, sudden demands of prosecution once cases move from
police and to prosecution offices. Examples include: capturing social media and
other digital evidence quickly and after cases are in screening and after cases are
filed and pending in the criminal justice system. This is an important function that
can spill over into the prosecution function from law enforcement, as in a recent
case that generated more than 60 hours of video evidence. Given the current
circumstances, current need indicates that the best course of action is that another
FTE prosecutor position, rather than an investigator, will serve Salt Lake City best.
The DAO will allow on -occasion, urgent need use of its investigative unit as a
courtesy to the CPO.
PROPOSAL 3. THREE (3) ADDITIONAL PROSECUTORS.
The City Prosecutor’s Office would request an additional three (3) FTE
prosecutor positions, switching out one investigator position for a prosecutor
position in the original 2020 proposal. This request is not based on caseload
increase under the provisions of the interlocal agreement (contract). Additional
28
prosecutors would help maintain service levels to the SLC community. Additional
defense attorneys were funded by the Indigent Defense Commission, which allow
one defense attorney to be assigned in the SLC Justice Court arraignment
courtroom. The additional defense presence has changed the dynamic in the
courtroom to the extent that an additional prosecutor will help facilitate the due
process benefit sought from the placement of that defense attorney to talk to
defendants at first appearance.
While this increase may not be reflective of a caseload increase, it will help
address the workload issues created by new technology (police body cams are an
example). As noted above, review of available body cam evidence currently is an
additional demand placed on prosecutors in the course of providing discovery and
for trial preparation. Examples include: SLCJC case 191402872 with eight (8)
video segments involving five (5) law enforcement officers and total video time of
one hour – two (2) minutes – ten (10) seconds for a public intoxication case.
29
SLCJC case 161412356 with seven (7) video segments involving five LEO’s and
total video time of two (2) hours – eight (8) minutes – sixteen (16) seconds for a
criminal trespass case. These are relatively simple police cases, that create
significant discovery review and trial preparation issues. This is even more true of
the more significant cases the office handles such as domestic violence and DUI
cases.
30
III. COURT DISPOSITION RATES
A. Cases Filed Versus Cases Disposed
B. Criminal Prosecution Caseload Dispositions
A. Cases Filed Versus Cases Disposed.
Significance:
The Administrative Office of the Court’s (AOC’s) goal is 95% of
active cases disposed of within 6 months. The difference in the
percentage of cases approaching the AOC time goal reflects an
improved disposition rate since 2015 based on the efforts of the
management team under the contract, which took effect on September
1, 2015. Thus, the lower disposition rates in 2015 are based on 9
months of management under the prior model and three months under
the DAO-interlocal agreement-management contract model. The
2020 pandemic returned disposition rates to near 2015 levels.
B. Criminal Prosecution Caseload Dispositions.
In 2020, the total number of criminal cases filed in the Salt Lake City Justice
Court was approximately (estimated to be) 28,313 including traffic
violations. Of that number, city prosecutors touched or were involved with
some 13,879 (again, using the best available data). The difference is largely
69%
89%92%85%90%
68%
77%
94%97%91%97%
75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
% of Pending Cases Resolved
Within the AOC's 6 Month Time Goal
Criminal Traffic
31
made up of traffic cases (low level offenses) that were resolved by bail
forfeiture (paying a fine without seeing a judge) or otherwise pursuant to a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the SLC Justice Court that
increases efficiencies by allowing for dispositions without prosecutor
involvement.
IV. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION EFFORTS
A. Operation Homeless Connect
B. Salt Lake County Expungement Day
C. CPIP (County Pretrial Intervention Program) Diversion Program
A. Operation Homeless Connect.
The Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office participated in the City’s 2019
Operation Homeless Connect, where the office assisted by interacting with 101
persons experiencing homelessness, and assisted in having 177 justice court cases
heard at the event. Unfortunately, in the wake of the Covid pandemic’s challenges,
the 2020 Hom eless Connect had to be cancelled.
39,821
35,743
35,321 28,313
39,347
36,968
35,382 35,729
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2017 Filed 2017 Disposed 2018 Filed 2018 Disposed 2019 Filed 2019 Disposed 2020 Filed 2020 Disposed
2020 Total Cases Filed versus Cases DisposedFiledDisposed
32
B. Salt Lake County Expungement Day.
In 2019, t he Salt Lake City Prosecutor’s Office participated in the two-phase
Expungement program, with a day in June and again in November, 2019. In the
first phase in June, 348 persons were assisted with their expungements. In the
second phase in November, 2019, more than one hundred cases were addressed for
expungement. The effort will have far reaching impact on those who successfully
expunge their cases, especially in terms of employment.
2020 presented unique challenges to the expungement effort. Given the
pandemic’s impact, expungement efforts were held remotely. The first of the two
held in 2020 was held on 7/8/2021. DAO and SLC prosecutors participated. This
engagement provided assistance to more than 180 persons. Sixty-six completed
applications went to the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI) for a
determination on Criminal Record Expungement eligibility. The second of the two
2020 events was held on 9/23/2021. On that date, SLCO DAO and SLC CPO
personnel participated in a group effort that again provided expungement related
services to more than 180 persons. Another 60 completed applications were sent
to BCI for an eligibility determination. Given the number of different agencies
involved, more than 120 completed applications represent a significant
collaborative effort, especially in the face of 2020 pandemic constraints.
33
C. CPIP Diversion Program.
From the 2020 Report:
In 2019, the SLCO DA initiated its CPIP Diversion program,
aimed at diverting cases from the criminal justice system in an effort
to avoid the demonstrated negative impact that arises from early
encounters with the criminal justice system and that encourage more
criminal behavior rather than discourage it. The cases identified for
this program typically are first offenses or offenses after a period of
no criminal involvement, and that do not implicate public safety.
Those candidates are offered participation in the diversion program,
overseen by Salt Lake County probation services, and that typically
involve one or two cou rses aimed at changing negative thought
processes and negative behaviors. Successful candidates achieve a
dismissal of their charges without entering a plea and minimizing
damage to their criminal history, with the associated employment and
other consequences. The DAO management team instituted a parallel
program in the SLC Prosecutor’s Office, and the implementation of
that program is on -going, with a number of successful program
participants reaching the milestone of a case dismissal. This program
in t he long run will have dual benefits of lessening the impact of first
or early encounters on new defendants and of keeping cases out of the
criminal justice system for greater resource efficiency.
2020 CPIP addendum. 46 cases were referred to the program for
consideration where the defendant did not enter into the program as set out
following. 5 declined to participate, 13 were declined due to history, 17 invitations
had no response from the defendant and/or attorney, 4 charges were determined not
appropriate for diversion, 4 cases have no decision made yet and are pending, 2
cases were dismissed due to evidence concerns and 1 case was dismissed by the
court.
34
There were 31 successful CPIP completions in 2020. Those cases broke
down as follows: 15 retail theft cases, 6 trespass cases, 3 drug cases, 3 minor-in-
possession cases, 1 failure to disclose ID, 1 public intoxication, 1 theft by
deception, and 1 supplying alcohol to a m inor.
The CPIP/Diversion program now has a demonstrated track record that is
really only limited by resources for further implementation.
V. CONCLUSION.
In 2020’s report, we began our conclusion with this:
During 2019, and looking forward in 2020, the co-location of the City
Prosecutor’s Office with the District Attorney’s Office and the relationship
between the offices continues to be developed and refined, to the benefit of both
agencies. In what has developed into a challenging employment environment, the
relationship between the offices creates an opportunity to utilize each office’s
strengths to buttress the other as appropriate responses are developed to maintain
the level of service to the residents of Salt Lake City.
Certainly time and events can shift perspective on what constitutes a
challenging work environment. The challenging work environment of 2019 has
been well-eclipsed by what we have seen in 2020. The impact of 2020 will take
some time to recede, and hopefully will do so in 2021.
The 2020 Report concluded: “There is a valuable and demonstrable
synergistic effect that has developed from personnel familiarity and physical
proximity since the start of the DAO-City working relationship. The County looks
35
forward to continued collaboration with the City.” 2020 reinforced the value of
that working relationship.
In the midst of a pandemic, earthquake, civil unrest, and historic
windstorms, the City Prosecutor’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office worked
together through it all as professionals. Then, to the extent that people were
willing to share their personal lives, the offices saw people endure the Covid virus,
endure health challenges, lose friends and loved ones, welcome a newborn, add
new pets (remote work associates) to their households, and in the midst of all the
complexity, work through the challenge of trying to educate their kids and still be
productive while working at home to increase office safety [maintain office health]
and maintain public safety. The technological and human adaptation to a remote
workforce allowed the City to remain in the high 80 and low 90 percent range for
remote workers, which was amazing. This was accomplished while maintaining a
high -quality work product in the new and constantly changing court
environment. The residents of Salt Lake City were well-served by their City
Prosecutor’s Office in 2020, and by the continued partnership between t he City
Prosecutor’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office. The City can be proud of
every person in the City Prosecutor’s Office in their 2020 performance, and be
assured of the continued mutual value in the interlocal agreement between the
offices.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Kira Luke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE: June 3. 2021
RE: FY 2021-22 Budget – Information Management Services (IMS) Department
DEPARTMENT AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Information Management Services (IMS) provides technical support for General
Fund departments and Enterprise Funds in the City. IMS is operated as an Internal Service Fund,
which means that its source of revenue comes from charging fees to the City departments and funds
based on the services provided.
Employees: 84 (+15 since last budget)
Proposed FY22 Budget: $19,215,550
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Mayor’s recommended budget for IMS totals $19,215,550 which is a $2,392,544 or 14.2%
increase over the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 20-21 (FY20).
FY21 Adopted FY22 Proposed Difference Percent
Change
$17,345,710 $19,215,550 $2,392,544 14.2%
Four major themes are visible in the IMS budget this year:
•Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software implementation
•Restructure and role consolidation
•Increased demand for technical stability and support
•Increased public connectivity with City information and processes
Over the past year, as Salt Lake City has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, IMS has
maintained functionality, provided new tools and supported City Departments through the rapid
adoption of remote work technology. The recommended budget includes continued funding for the
Page | 2
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) initiative, ongoing implementation of Constituent Relationship
Management (CRM) software, and increased staffing to meet these needs. (See major project
descriptions on page 4)
Major changes since FY21 adoption happened in IMS’s budget through budget amendments 6 and 7,
which included several staffing reorganizations.
Staffing changes include:
A new Geographic Information Services (GIS) Division, which provides GIS support to all
Departments, and coordinates data-gathering Citywide for Departments to use in decision-making,
reporting, and communications.
Large internal implementation projects involving multiple departments, such as ERP or the
Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) software, are within the Innovations Team’s purview.
The Civic Engagement Team is now housed within Media Services, the City’s content and
communications division. This allows public-facing events and engagement initiatives from
departments to receive coordinated consulting and outreach. These three teams consolidate Full
Time Employee (FTE) positions from multiple Departments including Community and
Neighborhoods (CAN), Public Services, and Public Utilities to provide centralized consulting and
support to all City Departments.
These budget amendment interdepartmental FTE transfers account for nine of the 15 new positions
between FY21 and FY22.
IMS is also participating in the Citywide, grant-funded apprenticeship program and is the beneficiary
of 10 apprentices. Reports from the Department are favorable of this new experience.
Major expenditure increases in FY22
•$349,470 in software subscription increases
•$1,129,391 in contractual increases
•$2,000,000 for the ERP system
•$125,000 for website enhancements.
•$350,000 for public safety network infrastructure
Some things the public might see from FY22 funding proposals:
•Improved City website function and accessibility
•Self-serve online knowledge base (CRM)
•Improved comment forms (CRM)
•Improved issue reporting online and via mobile app (CRM)
•Public-facing wifi access in select locations (City Connect)
Some things City staff might see from FY22 funding proposals:
•Streamlined business processes (ERP) - less time on administrative functions, more time to
focus on primary job roles
•Continued tech support
•Continued telework abilities and improvements
•Organized GIS datasets available to the public and staff
Page | 3
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. FY21 to FY22 is the largest FTE increase (15) the IMS budget has seen in years, and is generally
commensurate with the number of Citywide employees and software services the IMS
Department provides support for.
a.The Council may wish to ask, are current staffing levels and/or technological
advances sufficient for IMS to provide timely support and implementation
of new initiatives?
b.With the competitiveness of the job market, especially now following
quarantine, the Council may wish to ask about market comparisons
and whether IMS and HR have a plan to address attraction and
retention of key technical staff.
2. Network Security: the City’s network security provides protection for everything from
constituent data to major City infrastructure. The FY22 budget proposes $50,000 for a
penetration testing consultant to audit the City’s network security.
a.The Council could confirm with the City Attorney's office whether upon
completion of this testing, an executive session on deployment of security
could allow the Council to learn about the city's current status and whether
additional efforts could be made to protect public and city information.
3.IMS reports a positive experience participating in the grant-funded Apprenticeship program.
While measurable benefits include additional staff to support the Department’s workload,
immeasurable benefits include the fresh energy and diverse perspectives apprentice
participation brings.
a.The Council may wish to discuss funding options to continue the initiative.
4.FY21 saw many changes in the City’s technological relationship with the public, from virtual
meeting software to heighted awareness of the digital divide leading to adoption of a Digital
Equity Policy and funding for public-facing wireless access points.
a.The Council may ask for more information about how the IMS role is evolving
(or has evolved), and whether there are anticipated changes to the
deployment of resources and/or budget.
b. Staff understands a donation program is in development; the Council may
wish to ask for an update on this or any resources anticipated.
c.The Council may wish to ask for an update on the public wireless access
funded in FY21, and whether there are plans for expansion or other ways to
improve internet accessibility.
d. The Council may wish to ask for any other updates on the role Salt Lake City
plays in addressing the digital divide.
Page | 4
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
IMS’s internal performance metrics year over year:
Measure 2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Target
2022
Target
Citywide I.T. assets inventoried on
an annual basis.
9%21%33%75%100%
Case Closed by staff within
standard response thresholds
based on priority, severity, and
system.
89%95%89%99%99%
Objective and Key Results (OKR)
and Continuous Feedback and
Recognition (CFR) Program
implemented in the department.
0%0%33%65%100%
Projects that followed agile project
management methodology.
20%35%65%80%100%
MAJOR INITIATIVES
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Initiative
FY22 Budget: $3,750,000
$2,000,000 implementation ( third party)
$1,000,000 annual software subscription/service contract year 1
$750,000 training and supporting software
The budgets presented here are estimates, since final contracting is still underway. This does not
include the FTEs in the Innovations Division or other departments currently focused on ERP
implementation. One new FTE is requested in the FY22 budget to support the ERP implementation:
ERP Conversion manager, $164,756
ERP software is a central system that tracks and manages processes including:
•Project management
•Risk management & compliance
•Supply chain operations
•Human Resources
o Performance management
o Recruitment & onboarding
o Learning management
•Financial systems
•Document management and archival
By providing a holistic view of the City’s internal processes, an ERP is intended to help decision-
makers rely on clear, accurate data to identify opportunities to create streamlined, efficient processes.
Although there is not a measurable cost savings from ERP implementation, the system is anticipated
Page | 5
to bring improved transparency in City processes for leadership, staff, and the public. Additional
benefits include streamlined collaboration as well as prevention of costly failures.
A working group involving representatives from the Council Office, Mayor’s Office, and multiple
departments have been meeting to audit existing City systems and identify opportunities for
refinement. A formal procurement process is underway and implementation is anticipated early this
year. The first departments expected to realize the benefits from the software will be Finance and
Human Resources.
Unified Communications (UC) System
FY22 Budget: $295,250
Funding and implementation of the Unified Communications System began in FY20. This project is
partially creditable for Salt Lake City’s rapid transition to telework in 2020. This system includes the
Webex platform used for Council Meetings, as well as other teleconferencing and teleworking tools the
City is implementing. COVID-19 slowed the original Unified Communications implementation plans,
but Plaza 349 has been fully updated and the remaining City offices will be completed with the
funding this fiscal year.
Constituent Relationship Management (CRM) Software
FY22 Budget: $377,547
Funding for the CRM first began in FY18. Since then, the system has been internally implemented,
with ongoing use from the Council’s Liaisons, Mayor’s Office, Community and Neighborhoods, and
coordination with nearly every City department to implement requests for services and requests for
information. The CRM began with case management and tracking, but has also expanded to
incorporate updated web forms for the public and staff to use to send comments and concerns to the
City. Improvements anticipated in this fiscal year include an online self-serve knowledge base, a
streamlined mobile app, and progress coordinating the case management and tracking component
between departments.
Goals of the CRM:
•Help staff keep track of public requests for service or information, and contact information
•Automate work assignments
•Track responses or flag needed follow-ups on a topic
•Save staff and constituents time by providing a knowledge base to answer common questions
•Provide data elected officials can use in making service level decisions
Additional services the City is implementing on the platform the CRM is built on include social media
management, a Citywide central email newsletter platform, and engagement analytics, and
constituent-facing interfaces for multiple departments like Building Services and Finance.
Public Safety Building (PSB) Server and Infrastructure Upgrade
FY22 Budget: $350,000 (Non-Departmental)
Page | 6
The IMS department is leading this initiative. The Public Safety Building is one of the newest and
most structurally sound of the City’s assets. As such, it houses a significant portion of the City’s
technology infrastructure. Funding from the bond for this building has been re-scoped to address part
of the need for infrastructure and servers within that building. The existing equipment is approaching
the end of its useful life. FY21 included funding for this project, but staff understands the remaining
need for full replacement of public safety infrastructure is significant.
Personnel changes
Total Change: $206,788 increase in salary changes from year to year. $125,000 from this increase
from the previous fiscal year is the removal of vacancy savings captured last year.
Base to Base Changes -$ 33,303
Restoration of Vacancy Savings $125,000
3.5% Insurance Increase $ 30,724
1% Salary Proposal $ 84,367
Acronyms
Community and Neighborhoods - CAN
Fiscal Year (encompasses July 1- June 30) – FY
Full Time Employee - FTE
Geographic Information Systems - GIS
Information Media Services – IMS
Information Management Services
2022 Budget Presentation
Presented by Aaron Bentley, CIO
Joseph Anthony, Finance Manager
Department Mission Statement
Our mission is to be a trustworthy and valued business
partner that delivers the right information to the right
person at the right time.
Division Composition
•Administration/Office of CIO
•Data Analytics and Geographic Information Systems
•Infrastructure Technology and Security
•Media and Engagement Services
•Software Services
•Innovations
About Us
Information Management Services
2
2021 Fiscal Year Highlights
Growth within the IMS Department
Innovations Division
•To develop better ways that the city may improve
equity among throughout the city.
•Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software Project
3
2021 Fiscal Year Highlights
Growth within the IMS Department
Media and Engagement Services Division
4
Data Analytics and Geographic
Information Systems Division
2022 Fiscal Budget
Information Management Services
Total budget requested
$24,302,487
Total Full Time Employees requested
84.0
5
2022 Operation Budget Changes
Relative to the budget approved in the 2021 fiscal year.
Contractual Increases
$1,129,391
•The increase for contractual changes reflects the
increase from the vendors for our continuing
maintenance and support.
6
Technical & Inflationary Increases
$234,449
•Items that have a contract with an annual increase
associated with their costs
•New software.
•The City is required to perform a bi-annual
penetration test of the network.
2022 Operation Budget Changes
Relative to the budget approved in the 2021 fiscal year.
ERP System Implementation
$2,000,000
•Implementation cost for the 2022 fiscal year only.
•Does not include the cost of the annual maintenance.
Website Enhancements
$125,000
•Improve website stability and improve virtual
meetings.
•Not a refresh of the website
7
Server Infrastructure
$180,000
•Multiple servers are past their useful lives
•Offer improved security and enhanced features
2022 Full Time Employee Budget Changes
Relative to the budget approved in the 2021 fiscal year.
New FTE Requested
6 Additional FTE
•IMS Total FTE will increase from 78 to 84.
New positions include:
•ERP Conversion Manager
•Network Engineer -Cyber Security
•Network Engineer -Unified Communications
•Software Services -Data Engineer
•Network Engineer -Enterprise Backup and Wireless
•Civic Engagement Specialist
Base to Base
$206,788
•Increased cost of the current employees in IMS.
8
Thank You
9
iCIMS
(Onboarding)
Checksuite
(Check writer)
HUMAN RESOURCES
TREASURY
Airport Budgeting Program
(Expense budgeting)
Airventory
(Inventory system)Revenue ManagementAIRPORT FINANCE
Active Directory
(Login & user management)
Servicenow
(Data capture)
Salesforce
(CRM)
Cartegraph
(Asset management)
Accela
(Permitting)CROSS
DEPT.
PAYROLL Kronos WFC
(Timekeeping)
Payroll Administration
(*25+ programs)
PEHPTelestaff
(Manage users & scheduling)
FINANCE
Cornerstone
(Learning Management System)
Bank Access
(Reconciliation & file processing)
Cashiering System
(Payments to the City)
EDS
(Travel spending)
Laserfiche
(Document management)
EXISTING ERP
TECHNOLOGY
The programs and systems in this graphic
are all actively part of Salt Lake City's
Finance and Human Resources
technology ecosystem. All are connected
in some way to One Solution, and many
were created in-house to address One
Solution's limitations.
App developed in-house
Could be replaced with new ERP
Does not directly interface with One Solution
KEY
200 Edits
(SQL statements)
URSCorestream
PUBS
(Utility billing)
PUBLIC
UTILITIES
CAMP
(Revenue budgeting)
Investment Management
(Asset management)
POPS
(Personnel Budgeting)
TM1/Limelight
(Revenue budgeting)
Cognos
(Reporting system)
*PAYROLL ADMINISTRATION
25+ programs include: Adjusted Payrolls (7 functions), Core
Stream (2 functions), Delete Pay Stubs from Employee
Online, File Processing (5 functions), Liberty Mutual (2
functions), Met Live (2 functions), Longevity, New Hires, Pay
Mailer (2 functions), Terminations (2 functions), and
Verification of Employment.
Wire Transfer
(Robotic Process Automation)
ONE
SOLUTION/
FINANCE
ENTERPRISE
This graphic depicts how a new ERP could simplify the City’s
current technology ecosystem by filling gaps and
addressing limitations of One Solution.
The filled circles surrounding the new ERP
indicate complete absorption of all existing
ERP technology into the new system. The
new ERP will completely replace all
existing human resources, payroll,
finance, treasury, and airport
finance systems. The incomplete
circles represent the partial
replacement of existing
ERP-related technology.
C R O S S -D E P T.P U B L I C U T I L I T I E S
FUTURE ERP
TECHNOLOGY
App developed in-house
Does not directly interface with ERP
KEY
P A Y R O L L
F I N A N C E
T R E A S U R YAIRPORT F I N A N C E
Active Directory
(Login & user management)
Servicenow
(Data capture)
Salesforce
(CRM)
Cartegraph
(Asset management)
Accela
(Permitting)
PUBS
(Utility billing)
Secondary Interfaces:
Telestaff
(Manage users & scheduling)
Laserfiche
(Document management)
Interfaces that will likely not be
replaced by new ERP:
PEHP URSCorestream
CROSS
DEPT.
PUBLIC
UTILITIES
H
UMAN RE SOURC E S
FUTURE
ERP
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP)
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Salt Lake City is implementing a new Citywide
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solution.
This solution will address:
•Many current pain points within human resource and financial
systems, policies, and procedures. The pain points are attributed to a
variety of sources, and there is an urgent need to objectively examine the
City’s entire resource management ecosystem
•The City’s need to modernize its technologies to enhance services to
residents, City departments, and employees.
A cross-departmental committee will focus on technology,
organizational structure, policies, and procedures. The
group will convene regularly and provide consistent
updates to City leadership for review and consideration.
ERP systems tie multitudes of business processes together
and enable the flow of data between them. By collecting
and managing an organization’s shared data, ERP
systems eliminate data duplication and provide data
integrity in a single system.
A software that organizations
use to manage day-to-day
business activities such as
accounting, procurement, project
management, risk management and
compliance, supply chain operations, and human
resource information systems. A complete ERP suite also
includes enterprise software that helps plan, budget,
predict, and report on an organization’s financial results.
WHAT IS
AN ERP?
E
n
t
e
rprise Resourc e P l a n n i n g (ERP)
•Outdated and unintegrated technology associated
with human resources and financial management
systems.
•Long-standing policies and procedures that impact
and inform the current state of the City's complex and
disjointed resource management ecosystem.
•Organizational structure that contributes to the lack of
integration among resource management functions
and staff Citywide.
•Lack of financial transparency.
•Disjointed human resource services.
•Distrust of staff when new solutions and centralized
programs are implemented in the current technology
ecosystem.
•Need to evolve daily operations to fit industry best
practices.
•Modern systems follow predefined processes in
many cases and the City will need to adjust our
practices to meet the system and industry standards.
MANAGEMENT
The cross-department committee includes representatives from Human
Resources, Finance, Mayor and City Council Offices, IMS, and capital
management, policy, and communications specialists from Public Services
and Community and Neighborhoods (CAN).
Executive
Sponsors
Leadership
Committee
PURPOSE
The purpose of the ERP is to address several current
internal issues:
Continued on next page >
Participants: Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth
Thompson, Debra Alexander, Jen Bruno
Lead: Nole Walkingshaw
Participants: Aaron Bentley, Elizabeth Buehler,
Scott Black, Sandy Casement, Alyssa Johnson,
Keith Klemas, Richard Rutledge, Council rep.
Lead: Nole Walkingshaw
Business
Process
Realignment
Task Force
Participants: Nole
Walkingshaw, Keith
Klemas, Richard Rutledge,
James Phelps
Lead: Alyssa Johnson
Technology
Task Force
Participants: Aaron
Bentley, James Phelps,
Keith Klemas, Richard
Rutledge
Lead: Scott Black
Organizational
Change
Management
Task Force
Participants: Sandy
Casement
Lead: Elizabeth Buehler
VISION
Salt Lake City’s ERP implementation project will:
Build an effective and
innovative project
team
Produce measurable,
actionable results
Create efficient
processes
Develop clarity and
accountability
Engage with
stakeholders
PHASES
The new ERP will be implemented in phases to ensure its viability and success. The size of each circle indicates effort (time and resources).
DISCOVERY
ITERATIVE WINS
RFP PROCESS
IMPLEMENTATION
Investigate blocks within
functional areas; consider
pros & cons of existing
systems & processes.
Research best
practices and identify
technological needs.
CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
& ONGOING
SUPPORT
RFP process may run
parallel with the
Discovery & Iterative
Wins work
Outcome of
discovery
process
Objectives
exercise
Development
of key results
for identified
objectives
Vendor
selection
Project
management
strategy
development
Implementation
Training of staff,
evaluation of
new business
processes
INTERNAL ENGAGEMENT
Communication throughout this project will focus on listening to our internal users’ experiences with current systems, rather than solely
directing the implementation of an ERP. We will engage staff in discussions about the organization’s current structure, policy, technology
issues, and proposed solutions. Such discussions can help bring staff to equal levels of understanding about the situation and provide space
for colleagues to arrive at their own conclusions about the need for change.
Implementation of a new ERP will be a multi-year, phased project. If you have any
questions or comments about this project, contact:
NAME: Nole Walkingshaw
EMAIL: Nole.Walkingshaw@slcgov.com
PHONE: (801) 535-7128
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 3, 2021
RE:UNRESOLVED BUDGET ISSUES – Follow-up of Council Questions
The Council reviewed this information on Tuesday, June 1st, received additional information
from the Administration an indicated initial items of interest. The Thursday, June 3
discussion will give the Council the opportunity to begin to determine which of the funding
requests have the support of a majority of the Council. Ideally the Council will take a straw
poll on each item. Staff will record the Council’s preferences and update a ‘balancing
spreadsheet’ in real time so that the Council and public can see the impacts of the tentative
decisions. There may be additional information based on ongoing compensation
discussions.
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)
General Follow-up Items/Themes
Project Timeline:
Briefing: June 1 and June 3,
2021
Budget Hearing: May 18 and
June 1, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
2
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.
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.
3
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.
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.
a. 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.
b. This would not necessarily adjust the City’s general approach to compensate to “95% of
market” – the Council could adjust that pending available resources.
c. Staff can provide amounts for specific employee units of the City if the Council is
interested.
d.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
4
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 $
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.
5
Potential legislative intents
1.Update Boarded Building Fee.
2. Golf Fund Update. To include:
a.Golf Fund Financial Sustainability.
b.Long-term CIP Plans.
c. Golf Food and Beverage Options
3. Ongoing Expenses for Maintenance at City-Owned Parcels
4.Energy Efficiency as a Condition of RDA Project Loans and Investments.
5.RDA Structure of Accounts, including Fund Balances and Previous Capital Projects.
6. 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
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.
6/2/2021 **DRAFT** 2:25 PM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
A B C D E F G H I J K
Net 3,313,723$ 2,129,483$ 1,583,500$ -$
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)1,432,646$ 1,432,646$
Use overage funds from North Temple Viaduct CDA account for
debt service - Transfer to RDA for N. Temple Strategic
Intervention 1,000,000$
Carry forward CIP dollars set aside for underserved communities
- Transfer to RDA for N. Temple Strategic Intervention 669,138$
CIP recapture 155,000$ $155,000
Completed Class C funds 208,000$ $208,000
Old CDBG projects 73,000$
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 focused on Community
Commitment Program (CCP)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
Eligble - Economic Development Staff (if focused on recovery
efforts - more info needed) $ 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$ (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
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 - 1 FTE Deputy Director (10 months)134,316$
NEW - 1 FTE Community Partnership Coordinator (10 months)84,113$
NEW - 1 FTE Public Land Planner (10 months)95,327$
NEW - 1 FTE Finance Manager II (10 months)117,877$
NEW - 1 FTE Groundskeeper (10 months)convert from seasonal
NEW - 1 FTE Recreational Trail Manager (10 months)64,734$
NEW - 1 FTE Recreational Signage Coordinator (10 months)51,847$
NEW - 1 FTE Trails and Natural Lands Technician (10 months)41,419$
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$ (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$
ULCT - additional funding for ARPA assistance (one-time -TBD)20,000$ 20,000$
Legislative non-departmental - Citywide lobbyist 60,000$ 60,000$
Correct Arts Council Allocation 37,500$ 37,500$
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$
3 more social workers for 6 months 168,750$ 168,750$
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? whatever is unspent ARPA
Other funds
Unresolved Issues Tracking General Fund Funding our Future ARPA Funding
CIP Funding (pending
need to track separately)
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an
individual;
§52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205( l )(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;
§52-4-205(l )(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) if 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;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(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.
Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or
detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
City CouncilAmy Fowler 06/03/2021
4
4
44
advice of counsel
Amy Fowler (Nov 16, 2021 21:23 MST)Nov 16, 2021
Closed Session - Sworn Statement - June 3,
2021
Final Audit Report 2021-11-17
Created:2021-11-11
By:Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAo_-PYR3ga-pxymixvR4J6ymeB-eYUhhn
"Closed Session - Sworn Statement - June 3, 2021" History
Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com)
2021-11-11 - 10:00:11 PM GMT
Document emailed to Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) for signature
2021-11-11 - 10:00:54 PM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2021-11-12 - 3:15:27 PM GMT
Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
2021-11-17 - 4:22:59 AM GMT
Document e-signed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2021-11-17 - 4:23:08 AM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2021-11-17 - 4:23:08 AM GMT