05/14/2024 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
May 14, 2024 Tuesday 3:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in
person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street, Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
3:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 1:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
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.
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
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.
The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will
have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork.
Generated: 09:20:49
Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start
times and durations are approximate and are subject to change.
Work Session Items
Click Here for the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25
1.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Administration’s Overview and
Revenue Update ~ 3:15 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive a revenue update and an overview from the Administration of the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget for Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4,
2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
2.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Council Staff Overview ~ 3:55 p.m.
40 min.
The Council will receive an overview from Council Staff of the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget for Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2024-25.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4,
2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
3.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Finance Department ~ 4:35 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Finance Department budget for
Fiscal Year 2024-25.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4,
2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
4.Informational: 2024 Resident Survey Results ~ 4:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the 2024 Resident Panel Survey Results. Salt
Lake City conducts a Citywide resident survey approximately every two years by
contracting with a research firm to measure public moods and sentiments regarding
current issues and City services. The responses were collected in March and April 2024
from 653 participants.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
5.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board – Miranda
Bradshaw ~ 5:10 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Miranda Bradshaw prior to considering appointment to the
Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 27, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024
6.Board Appointment: Sister Cities Board – Stacee Adams ~ 5:15 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Stacee Adams prior to considering appointment to the Sister
Cities Board for a term ending July 3, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024
7.Board Appointment: Library Board – Natalie Moldover ~ 5:20 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Natalie Moldover prior to considering appointment to the
Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024
8.Board Appointment: Arts Council – Gabriella Huggins ~ 5:25 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Gabriella Huggins prior to considering appointment to the
Arts Council Board for a term ending May 21, 2027.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024
9.Board Appointment: Business Advisory Board – Bryce
Wurtsbaugh ~ 5:30 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Bryce Wurtsbaugh prior to considering appointment to the
Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 21, 2024
10.Youth State of the City Address.~ 5:35 p.m.
20 min.
The YouthCity Government will present the Youth State of the City Address to the
Council.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
11.Dinner Break ~ 5:55 p.m.
30 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
12.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2023-24
Follow-up ~ 6:25 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about Budget Amendment No.5 for the
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to
reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes an infrastructure loan pilot program
to upgrade utilities while 2100 South is being reconstructed between 700 East and 1300
East, a State appropriation for Avenues City Cemetery road reconstruction and
irrigation system upgrades, and additional funding for one-time police officer new hire
bonuses among other items.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY24.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 16, 2024; Tuesday, May 7, 2024 and Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 16, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 7, 2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
13.Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget: Office of the City Attorney ~ 6:55 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Attorney’s Office budget for
Fiscal Year 2024-25.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, May 14, 2024
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2024 and Tuesday, June 4,
2024 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Standing Items
14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
15.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.
16.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 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 2024, 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.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay
service 711.
•Salt Lake City FY24-25
•Budget Overview
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
BUDGET COMMITTEE
Many thanks to our FY24-25 Committee Members
Rachel Otto Chief Of Staff
Jill Remington Love Chief Administrative Officer
Mary Beth Thompson Chief Financial Officer
Damian Choi Chief Equity Officer
Katie Lewis City Attorney
Debra Alexander Chief Human Resources Officer
Aaron Bentley Chief Information Officer
Blake Thomas Director, Community and Neighborhoods
Laura Briefer Director, Public Utilities
Mike Brown Chief of Police
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
BUDGET DECISION MATRIX
The budget decision matrix is intended to apply to all services, programs, and departments across the
city. This matrix was utilized by departments to develop a rating as part of a given budget request, to
assist the committee in its review and assessment of each submission.
The matrix is three tiered with points awarded on a scale of 0, 2, or 4.
1 2 3 4 5
Score
Environment, Social & Community
Benefit Reliance + Core Service Mayor Goals Council Goals Mandate/Legal Obligation
0 Indirect benefit to the majority of the
community
Other Public Sector entities
provide this service
Does not meet any of the
Mayor's Goals
Does not meet any of the
Counil's Goals There is no mandate
2
Direct benefit to some of the
community and indirect benefit to the
majority of the community
Other Private Sector entities
provide this service
Meets 1-2 of the Mayor's
Goals
Meets 1-2 of the Council's
Goals Self Mandate
4 Direct Benefit to the majority of the
community
The City is the sole provider
of this service
Meets 3 or more of the
Mayors' Goals
Meets 3 or more of the
Council's Goals State or Federal Mandate
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
Major Category
FY 24 Adopted
Budget
FY 25
Recommended
Budget
Change from
FY 24 Adopted
Property Taxes 131,752,713$ 136,217,101$ 4,464,388$
Sales and Use Taxes 166,213,479$ 177,400,679$ 11,187,200$
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127$ 14,450,000$ 2,101,873$
Licenses and Permits 40,878,104$ 38,989,245$ (1,888,859)$
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621$ 5,954,017$ 819,396$
Charges, Fees, and Rentals 5,427,047$ 6,886,113$ 1,459,066$
Fines 4,063,548$ 4,435,035$ 371,487$
Parking Meter Collections 2,801,089$ 2,701,331$ (99,758)$
Interest Income 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ -$
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,948,012$ 3,298,277$ 350,265$
Interfund Reimbursement 26,131,213$ 32,128,467$ 5,997,254$
Transfers 9,938,944$ 5,495,833$ (4,443,111)$
Proceeds from Sale of Property 10,300$ 10,300$
Use of Fund Balance 32,878,021$ 39,278,680$ 6,400,659$
Total 448,514,918$ 475,245,078$ 26,730,160$
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
MAJOR CHANGES
Major Category Title Increase
Property Tax New growth, stabilization, RDA and inland port increment $4,464,388
Sales and Use Tax Healthy retail spending and increases in Questar/RMP energy rates $11,187,200
Licenses and Permits Increase in new licenses, Airport Parking and Innkeeper's taxes $1,744,771
Licenses and Permits Slowing construction activity and high interest rates ($3,634,853)
Interfund Reimb Increase in Admin fees and Police reimbursement from Airport $5,997,254
Transfers Removal of insurance premium holiday and ending of ARPA funding ($4,443,111)
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
HISTORY OF PROPERTY TAX
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
GIS VALUE
BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
FINAL ASSESSED VALUE
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
M
L
L
I
O
N
S
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
FY23-24 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
GIS VALUE
BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
FINAL ASSESSED VALUE
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
M
L
L
I
O
N
S
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY COUNCIL DISTRICT
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
HISTORY OF GENERAL SALES TAX REVENUE
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Lisa Hunt, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
BB
GROSS POINT OF SALES TAX RECEIPTS
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
ALL FUNDS
Fund Type
FY 24 Adopted
Budget
FY 25
Recommended
Budget
Change from
FY 24 Adopted
General Fund 448,514,917$ 475,245,078$ 26,730,161$
Airport Enterprise Fund 520,438,997$ 576,395,097$ 55,956,100$
Public Utilities Enterprise Funds 508,778,032$ 553,114,955$ 44,336,923$
Other Enterprise Funds 137,218,660$ 136,574,724$ (643,936)$
Internal Service Funds 138,145,589$ 137,517,819$ (627,770)$
Capital Improvement Program Fund 29,708,286$ 32,322,843$ 2,614,557$
All Other Funds 65,516,043$ 62,211,034$ (3,305,009)$
Total 1,848,320,524$ 1,973,381,550$ 125,061,026$
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
GENERAL FUND EXPENSE
BY DEPARTMENT
General Fund Departments FY 23 Adopted Budget FY 24 Adopted Budget FY 25 Recommended
Budget
Change from
FY 24
Adopted
Percentage
Change
Economic Development $ 3,695,620 $ 4,425,091 $ 4,809,183 $ 384,092 8.68%
Human Resources $ 4,236,836 $ 4,659,300 $ 5,059,723 $ 400,423 8.59%
Justice Courts $ 5,199,660 $ 5,489,720 $ 5,958,110 $ 468,390 8.53%
Council Office $ 5,387,707 $ 5,610,149 $ 6,289,340 $ 679,191 12.11%
Mayor's Office $ 6,625,451 $ 6,820,067 $ 7,366,396 $ 546,329 8.01%
Attorney's Office $ 9,007,633 $ 10,490,844 $ 12,881,528 $ 2,390,684 22.79%
Finance Department $ 10,709,847 $ 12,168,296 $ 12,963,889 $ 795,593 6.54%
911 Communications Bureau $ 10,872,140 $ 11,259,756 $ 11,610,306 $ 350,550 3.11%
Public Lands $ 24,229,676 $ 27,295,271 $ 29,716,013 $ 2,420,742 8.87%
Community & Neighborhoods $ 29,311,147 $ 33,143,161 $ 34,709,138 $ 1,565,977 4.72%
Public Services $ 39,398,484 $ 43,449,292 $ 46,261,468 $ 2,812,176 6.47%
Fire Department $ 48,586,492 $ 52,264,357 $ 54,549,009 $ 2,284,652 4.37%
Police Department $ 103,977,042 $ 110,976,812 $ 120,001,456 $ 9,024,644 8.13%
Non Departmental $ 124,299,673 $ 120,462,801 $ 123,069,522 $ 2,606,721 2.16%
Total $ 425,537,408 $ 448,514,918 $ 475,245,078 $26,730,164 5.96%
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
SALARY EXPENSE MAJOR CHANGES
GENERAL FUND – PERSONNEL EXPENSES
Personnel Expense FY25 Change
Base to Base $ 1,180,587
Pension/401k $ (1,368,659)
Health Insurance (3.66%) $ 1,980,811
Health Savings Account $ 1,116,947
Salary Proposal $ 10,628,878
CCAC Salary Adjustments $ 562,986
Total $ 14,101,550
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
EXPENSE MAJOR CHANGES
GENERAL FUND - MAJOR CHANGES
Dept Title Increase FT E
All Inflationary and Contractual Increases $2,566,683
Mayor New position - Sr Advisor $216,420 1
Attorney Personnel adjustments (grade changes)$174,997
Attorney New position - Boards Comp Analyst - 10 months $89,640 1
Attorney New position - Asst City Prosecutor - 10 months $60,623 1
Econ Dev Main street promenade economic analysis $115,000
Police Contract, event, task force overtime (revenue offset)$1,434,295
Police Airport staffing and equipment (revenue offset)$2,328,683
Public Lands New positions - Planner and Landscape Architect $268,615 2
Public Services New positions - Project delivery support for Parks $249,694 2
Public Services New position - Engineer IV $117,210 1
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
EXPENSE MAJOR CHANGES
FUNDING OUR FUTURE
Focus Title Increase FTE
Public Safety Medical Response Paramedics (MRPs) $163,727 2
Public Safety Calls for Service: Police Overtime Staffing $1,363,461
Public Safety Police Department Expungements $300,000
Public Safety Axon Body Camera Services Enhancement $143,280
Parks Parks Maintenance - Glendale Park Phase I $183,500 1
Streets Mill and Overlay Increase $296,000
Homelessness Rapid Intervention Team $253,026 3
Transit On demand rideshare services $307,807
FY24-25 BUDGET OVERVIEW
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
FUND BALANCE
GENERAL FUND PROJECTION
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 24,309,089 178,266,652 202,575,741 18,112,496 95,271,568 113,384,064 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (3,657,641) (29,211,158) (32,868,799) (662,906) (38,615,774) (39,278,680) Prior Year Encumbrances (2,538,952) (18,618,979) (21,157,931) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 18,112,496 130,436,515 148,549,011 17,449,590$ 56,655,794$ 74,105,384$
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 34.61% 33.26% 33.42% 30.14% 13.45% 15.59%Year End CAFR AdjustmentsRevenue Changes - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) (2,484,423) (2,484,423) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 18,112,496 127,952,092 146,064,588 17,449,590 56,655,794 74,105,384
Final Fund Balance Percent 34.61% 32.63% 32.86%Budget Amendment Use of Fund BalanceBA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - (204,200) (204,200) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - 763,950 763,950 BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (3,046,220) (3,046,220) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (2,890,480) (2,890,480) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - 5,513,148 5,513,148 BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (32,816,722) (32,816,722)
Adjusted Fund Balance 18,112,496 95,271,568 113,384,064 17,449,590 56,655,794 74,105,384
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 34.61% 24.29% 25.51% 30.14% 13.45% 15.59%
Projected Revenue 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923 57,891,384 421,343,716 475,245,078
FY2025 BudgetFY2024 Budget
•Homelessness Mitigation
•Presented by Andrew Johnston, LCSW/Director of Homeless Policy and
Outreach
HOMELESS SERVICES FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Andrew Johnston, LCSW/Director of Homeless Policy and Outreach
BB
HOMELESSNESS SYSTEM CHANGES
WINTER ‘23-24- INCREASED SHELTER BEDS (600-800)
FY’25- INCREASED STATE HOMELESSNESS OPERATIONS FUNDING
SUMMER ‘24- CONTINUE 485 BEDS THROUGH OCTOBER
MICROSHELTER COMMUNITY- MOVING TO NEW LOCATION + FORMALIZATION OF
RIO GRANDE POLICE UNIT
TOOELE, DAVIS, UTAH COUNTIES- ADDITIONAL SHELTER OPTIONS
ADDITIONAL LONG-TERM, LOW BARRIER SHELTER OPTIONS-
STATE OHS STILL WORKING ON WITH GOAL OF OPENING ASAP
RIGHT-SIZE
•Wiegand Center/ St
Vincent- ongoing funding
but slightly less reflecting
increases elsewhere
•Portable Toilets- reflect
actual usage
•RVs- moved to Public
Services
•Detox Beds- reduce city
reservations from 3-1
•VOA Street Outreach-
working with partners on
funding levels
HOMELESS SERVICES FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Andrew Johnston, LCSW/Director of Homeless Policy and Outreach
BB
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES CHANGES
MAINTAIN
•Advantages Services-
Street Cleaning
•Downtown
Ambassadors- COLA
increase
•HEART Team
INCREASE
•Rapid Intervention Team-
Add 2nd F/T team
•Police Dept- Rio Grande
Unit
STATE HOMELESS CITIES MITIGATION FUND=
$3,107,201* estimate
(not part of the base budget- will be a BA once received from state)
•HRC Police Units- 19 FTE’s
•Miller HRC, King HRC, Rio Grande team + Lieutenant
THANK YOU
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Lehua Weaver, Ben Luedtke
Allison Rowland, Sylvia Richards
Sam Owen, Kira Luke
DATE: May 14, 2024
RE: Fiscal Year (FY)2024-25 Budget Overview
Budget Book Page References: Key Changes pages 53 -91; Departmental Budgets 151-262;
Staffing Document 265-314
The FY 2025 budget proposed by the Administration reflects projections for continued growth in the City
population, with its resulting increase in the use of City services, tempered with slowing sales tax growth.
Although an analysis in the FY 24 budget process anticipated that a property tax increase would be needed to
balance the FY 25 budget, this has proved unnecessary. A large amount of funds went unspent by departments in
FY 23 and FY 24, which has resulted in the City’s rainy-day fund (“fund balance”) being healthy enough to avoid
a property tax increase to balance the general fund this year. The Administration indicates they are still pursuing
the long-term goal of aligning costs for necessary service-level increases with on-going revenue sources. As
discussed during the May 7 work session, the FY 25 budget for the Library Fund does include a $5.3 million
property tax increase.
Budget-setting is one of the City Council’s most important functions. The Council’s role in this process is to
review the Mayor’s recommended budget, consider broader policy goals and implications of funding strategies,
receive and consider public comment, and determine whether to make changes before adopting a final balanced
budget later in June. In this budgeting and legislative oversight role, the Council considers the following factors,
among others:
opportunities to address previously discussed policy goals or priorities identified by elected officials and
the public;
the impact these budget proposals may have on residents and businesses in the City;
the extent to which the proposed budget addresses City/Department needs and service levels;
the impacts decisions made this year would have on budgets for future years;
the extent to which the City’s budget furthers the overarching commitment to social equity;
potential unintended consequences that may result from budget and policy decisions; and
how these decisions align with the traditional role of City government to ensure an efficient use of
taxpayer dollars.
The Council will receive in-depth briefings on departments with significant proposed changes over the next few
weeks (see Attachment 1 for a schedule of department budget briefings), as well as hold two public hearings
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 7, 2024
Budget Hearings: May 21 & June 4, 2024
Potential Action: June 11 or 13, 2024
Page | 2
(May 21st and June 4th) to receive the public’s input on the Mayor’s recommended budget and any Council
proposed changes. The purpose of this staff report is to provide a general orientation to the
recommended budget as it relates to various Council priorities and potential public interest. It is
a starting point for future discussions and to identify potential follow-up questions that can inform the Council’s
final decisions.
Note: The Mayor’s budget proposal for the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) will be addressed in a
separate staff report and is scheduled for discussion during a special RDA meeting on May 21st, with follow-
up discussions as needed. The RDA Budget will also have public hearings on May 21st and June 4th, and the
Council, acting as the RDA Board, will consider adoption in conjunction with the overall City budget. The
annual budget must be adopted by June 30 per state law. The Council’s long-standing practice has been to
adopt the budget in mid-June which allows time before the new fiscal year begins to address a potential
mayoral veto.
The proposed budget includes several broad policy choices that could be viewed as balancing points among
alternative policy goals. The Council may choose to focus some discussion on these policy areas, and more detail
on these choices can be found later in this report and in future budget staff reports on individual departments:
Revenue Increases Paid for by Residents & Businesses – The proposed budget does not include
a general tax increase, but it does include several rate and fee increases in the Public Utilities
Department and the Waste & Recycling Division of the Sustainability Department, a property tax
increase for the Library Fund, and separately a property tax increase by the Metropolitan Water District.
These fee increases will be paid by residents and businesses. The first issuance of the Parks, Trails, and
Open Space General Obligation Bond approved by voters in 2022 will also show up on property tax bills
this year.
Continued Structural Deficit – The proposed budget uses one-time money to pay for on-going
needs, which has been a common practice but the size of the structural deficit has significantly increased
since the covid-19 pandemic. While the City is fortunate to have a significant fund balance to use in this
way, it is a shared goal to avoid the practice. The Administration notes that it will undertake a zero-
based budgeting exercise over the coming year to examine the amount of funds departments have left at
the end of the year and re-align budgets more closely with expenses, with the goal of reducing the
structural deficit, use of one-time funds, and reduce the need for a property tax increase in coming
years.
One factor that contributes to the structural deficit is that most positions proposed are funded for 10
months rather than 12 (reflecting the likely hiring period delay). This approach will mean that balancing
the budget in future years, when the ongoing needs are still there but the one-time revenue is not, will be
more challenging. See page 15 for more on the concept of a structural deficit.
In years where revenue and expenses are not impacted by economic downturns or other emergency
circumstances, policy makers do their best to avoid paying for on-going needs with one-time funding.
As noted above, based on analysis in previous budget years, the Administration anticipated needing to
propose a property tax increase to balance the budget.
Addressing Inflation – The pace of inflation in the economy is affecting the City budget on both the
revenue and expense sides of the ledger. In terms of revenues, inflation has some role to play in the
additional revenue the City will be receiving from Sales Tax, Franchise Taxes, greater interest income,
and the inflationary adjustment of all City Fees, an ordinance adopted by the Council in 2014. On the
expense side, the City is having to adjust budgets upward to cover increased costs in fuel and supplies,
contracts, and software, capital improvements, along with employee raises, to help the workforce make
ends meet in their own budgets and maintain a competitive position in the local labor market. Unlike
private businesses that can frequently adjust prices based on inflation, the City has limited budget
openings each year to account for these inflationary changes. See page 19 for a more detailed analysis.
Page | 3
Sales Tax Growth vs. Property Tax Growth: Historically, property tax has been the most stable
source of government funds, and sales tax has been more volatile in part because it’s more susceptible to
declines in the local economy such as during a recession. A variety of funding sources that provides a
broader revenue base is considered the most reliable way to fund governments. The City can raise
property taxes, but the ability to raise sales tax rates is governed by the State. In the proposed budget,
sales tax is by far the largest revenue source (37%) followed by property taxes (24%), and then use of
one-time fund balance (8%).
Employee Costs – The proposed budget includes a 5% cost of living increase for current employees
(including represented employees) and adds 33 fulltime equivalent or FTE employees in the general
fund compared to last year’s base budget (of which 4 positions added mid-year through budget
amendments). The budget also adds FTEs in enterprise funds including 25 in the Airport, and 1 in IMS.
20 positions were added through budget amendments in FY 24. These are smaller additions to the
employee workforce than have been made in the past several years. See page 15 for a detailed list of all
new positions in the general fund. These would be considered ongoing expenses in the context of the
point above. The City is a service-oriented organization by design where the employees are delivering
the public services. Historically, personnel expenses are about two-thirds of the total budget.
Maintaining a Healthy Fund Balance – The proposed budget uses approximately $39.3 million
(including $662,906 from Funding our Future fund balance), up from $32 million last year. Because the
City started with such a healthy general fund balance, this still leaves the FY 25 balance at 15.6%. Note
that current City policy calls for a 13% fund balance minimum target, and bond rating agencies have
recommended at least a minimum 10% fund balance level. See pages 9 and 12 for more on this topic.
Funding Our Future Categories – Revenue generated from the City’s ½% sales tax called “Funding
Our Future” funds five categories, and has grown from $38.5 million in FY 22 to $56.7 million in FY 25.
The five focus areas (which are not legally binding) are housing, street infrastructure (sidewalk-to-
sidewalk), public safety (911, fire, police, and related), transit, and maintenance of public lands. The
Mayor’s proposed budget identifies every line item adjustment, in keeping with the City’s original
commitment to transparency (see attachment 4). The Council has not evaluated the revenue split
amounts among categories in several years.
Funding CIP just below 7% - The proposed budget includes a General Fund transfer to CIP of just
below 7%, not including the one-time transfer of $15 million from Budget Amendment #5. If the General
Fund transfer is considered with the $15 million, then funding CIP would be at 10.8%. See Attachment
3 for a full list of projects recommended by the CDCIP Board and Mayor. Note: this calculation does not
include the tens of millions of dollars being deployed in the current fiscal year via the Sales Tax Bond for
City facilities (issued in 2022) or the GO Bond for Parks.
Policy benefits and precautions
Policy Balancing
The Proposed budget...
Uses a significant amount of one-
time money to fund on-going
needs and expansion of staffing
and programs.
The City was in the fortunate
position to have fund balance and
Federal grants to use in this
way. The City does not expect to
have remaining ARPA grant funds
available for FY2025.
This approach adds to the structural
deficit in future budget years.
Page | 4
Maintains a healthy Fund
Balance level
Using fund balance dollars helps
balance the budget without a tax
increase in the current year.
To the extent fund balance is used
for ongoing needs, this could add to
a structural deficit in future years.
Adds 33 FTEs in the general fund The City is fortunate to have a
healthy fund balance and sales tax
revenue to expand service provision
by adding employees.
The Council may wish to discuss
whether employees added are in the
areas of greatest need for service
provision, and may ask if the almost
100 employees added in the FY 24
budget are fully utilized.
Adjusts all general fund fees
commensurate with the October
2023 Western Region
Consumer Price Index (CPI) –
3.3%
Generates almost $1.1 million in new
revenue. Avoids property tax
increases by increasing revenue in
ways that the City has control over.
Previously residents have expressed
an interest in having small increases
annually rather than large ones
every few years.
The Council could discuss changing
the ordinance given current
economic conditions, since higher
fees would add to inflation burdens
on certain businesses and residents
Reducing fee increases would
require the general taxpayers to
absorb inflationary costs in this area
or offsetting budget cuts to
expenses.
Continues a pattern of relying
more heavily on sales tax
revenue growth than in previous
years.
Preserves and enhances core City
services and functions with an
approach that is in line with
economic forecasting from the State.
Sales tax is the most volatile of the
City’s major revenues sources. This
budget increases reliance on sales
tax as the largest revenue source for
the general fund (37% compared to
24% from property tax). In prior
years this split was relatively even. If
sales tax drops mid-year or next
year, program and staffing
expansions could need to be re-
evaluated.
Funding our Future revenues are
projected to increase by $7.4
million from FY 24, for a total of
$57 million.
Consistent with the City’s
transparency goals, the
Administration has provided a line-
by-line detail of each program (see
Attachment 4).
The Council may wish to review the
distribution among the five
categories to confirm they align with
the Council’s priorities. The Council
has redefined some of the original
four priorities and added a fifth.
Alternative Response Models Multiple City departments now
contribute to addressing mental
health and safety crises in ways that
avoid sending police officers as first
responders. The FY 24 budget
included expansion of the
Community Health Access Team or
CHAT in the Fire department and
the Civilian Response Team in the
Police Department.
The City has not yet had enough
years of operation to determine if
there is a more efficient alignment
of these response models, and how
the SLC911 dispatch system is used.
KEY ELEMENTS
The Mayor’s recommended budget process included consultation with an internal City budget committee that
reviewed all department proposals and scored them according to a decision matrix that included the Mayor’s
priorities, the Council’s priorities, and whether the proposal was considered a “Must” “Should” “Could” or
“Would” (“MSCW”). The budget committee also evaluated why the City was performing a given service and
whether there were alternative ways to provide it. See Attachment 2 for the scoring matrix used by the
Administration’s Budget Committee. The Mayor’s budget book notes the following priorities for FY 25:
Livability for residents and families
Resiliency
Capital Projects
Page | 5
Organizational efficiency and well-being
The overall FY 25 City budget of $1.97 billion represents a 6.6% increase over FY 24. Most funds are increasing
in total amount over FY 24, due largely to sales tax revenue increases, capital projects, fee increases, and a small
amount of estimated property tax new growth. Actual new growth amounts are typically available in early June.
The FY 25 General Fund budget represents a $26.7 million (6%) increase from FY 24, growing from $448.5
million to $475.2 million. Approximately $39.2 million (8.3%) is use of fund balance, up from $32.7 million
(6.3% of the total budget in FY 24). This year represents the sixth year that sales tax revenues exceed property
tax revenues as a proportion of the City budget (driven in large part by the implementation of the ½% Funding
Our Future sales tax). It’s important to note that sales tax is the most volatile of the City’s major revenue streams
and the General Fund budget is more reliant upon sales tax than in prior years.
Public Utilities Funds
(Water, Sewer,
Stormwater, Lighting)
28%
General Fund
24%
Airport Fund
29%
Internal Service Funds
(Fleet, IMS, Insurance &
Risk)
7%
RDA
4%
Housing Loans & Trust
0%
Golf
1%
Captial Improvement Funds
2%
Quarter Cent
Transportation Fund
1%
Debt Service Fund
2%All other Funds (CDBG,
Transportation, E-911,
Special Service Districts)
2%
Page | 6
*FY 2016 – the increase reflects a state law change to require RDA revenue “pass through” the general fund and therefore
was not an increase in actual revenue for General Fund purposes, just a reporting change.
**FY 2022, FY 2023, and to a lesser extent the FY 2024 budgets include use of Federal Grants (CARES Act and ARPA) that
are finite in amount and are likely unavailable in future years.
Note on budget terminology: This proposed budget is sometimes referred to as the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
budget, meaning the 12 month budget that ends on June 30, 2025. The budget that we are in as of the date of
this staff report is the FY 2024 budget, meaning the budget that started July 1, 2023 and ends on June 30,
2024.
The following chart depicts the sources of general fund revenue in the FY 25 recommended budget:
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
FY
2
0
0
6
FY
2
0
0
7
FY
2
0
0
8
FY
2
0
0
9
FY
2
0
1
0
FY
2
0
1
1
FY
2
0
1
2
FY
2
0
1
3
FY
2
0
1
4
FY
2
0
1
5
FY
2
0
1
6
*
FY
2
0
1
7
FY
2
0
1
8
FY
2
0
1
9
FY
2
0
2
0
FY
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
FY
2
0
2
3
FY
2
0
2
4
FY
2
0
2
5
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
General Fund Revenue % Change from Previous Year
Page | 7
The following chart depicts how expenses are divided among City departments for the FY 2025 Mayor’s
Recommended Budget:
Property Taxes
24%
Payment in Lieu of
Taxes
1%
Sales and Use Taxes
37%
Franchse Taxes
3%
Intergovernmental
1%
Charges for services
2%
Interfund
transfers in
1%
Other Revenue
19%
Use of Fund
Balance
8%
RDA Pass through
4%
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
Economic
Develop
ment
HR Mayor Council Justice
Court
Attorney Finance 911
Communi
cation
Bureau
Public
Lands
Communi
ty and
Neighbor
hoods
Public
Services
Fire Police Non-
Departme
ntal
FY 2022 $2,714,91 $3,267,66 $4,761,78 $4,551,15 $4,850,90 $8,029,30 $8,767,75 $9,016,38 $18,751,8 $24,003,8 $34,341,9 $45,587,4 $83,370,5 $115,566,
FY 2023 $3,695,92 $4,236,83 $6,625,45 $5,387,70 $5,199,60 $9,007,63 $10,709,8 $10,872,1 $24,241,7 $29,311,1 $39,398,4 $48,586,4 $103,977,$124,299,
FY 2024 $4,425,09 $4,659,30 $6,820,06 $5,610,14 $5,489,72 $10,490,8 $12,168,2 $11,259,7 $27,295,2 $33,143,1 $43,449,2 $52,264,3 $110,976,$120,462,
FY 2025 Proposed $4,809,18 $5,059,72 $7,366,39 $6,289,34 $5,958,11 $12,881,5 $12,963,8 $11,610,3 $29,716,0 $34,709,1 $46,261,4 $54,549,0 $120,001,$123,069,
4 Year Department Budget Comparison
Page | 8
The following are highlights of the Mayor’s recommended budget (not inclusive of every change):
Revenue Changes due to economic conditions
o Sales tax revenue is proposed to increase by about $11.2 million with Funding Our Future
representing about $7.4 million of this increase. Because of State law authorizing the tax, the
City receives a greater share of the Funding Our Future sales tax revenue than the regular sales
tax revenue, which is distributed on a 50% population/50% point of sale basis. By comparison
the FY 24 budget forecasted a $17 million sales tax budget increase. This represents about a
6.7% increase year over year from the adopted FY 24 budget. This represents a gradual cooling
of sales tax receipts, while still growing each year. The Administration closely monitors
economic data and actual sales tax receipts. Note: Sales tax receipts reflect a two-month delay
from actual purchases. For example, sales tax revenue received in April represents spending
that occurred the previous February. Historically, while this line item has represented the
largest year-over-year share of growth, it has also been the most volatile line item in the City
budget, and in the recession of 2009 the City saw significant budget shortfalls.
o The Administration is also proposing to recognize $1,000,000 in new growth property tax
revenue, which is less than was actually received in FY 24 ($2.9 million). The Administration
estimates new growth based on building permits and certificates of occupancy, but in FY 2022
the final number received by the Tax Commission did not comport with that data falling short
by nearly $2 million, with only $364,464 received that year. Staff cannot confirm the
Administration’s projected figure with the Tax Commission until early June (per state law it’s
due by June 8), and it cannot appeal the final figures from the State.
If the final property tax figure is lower than what is in the Mayor’s recommended
budget, the Council would either need to re-balance the budget with the lower number
(cutting expenses) or increase other revenue sources, such as property taxes, to meet
the proposed expenses.
Economic
Development
1%
HR
1%Mayor
2%
Council
1%Justice Court
1%Attorney
3%Finance
3%911 Communication
Bureau
2%
Public Lands
6%
Community and
Neighborhoods
7%
Public Services
10%
Fire
12%
Police
25%
Non-Departmental
26%
Page | 9
If the final property tax figure is higher than what is in the Mayor’s recommended
budget, the Council could add expenditures to the budget or adjust one of the other line
items (like decreasing the amount of one-time dollars used from fund balance for
example).
Staff note: Actual new growth since FY 2010 has varied from negative $90,000 in FY
2014 to a high of $3 million in FY 2020. The new growth formula changed in the 2016
Legislative session, and as such new growth has been easier to predict, with the
notable exception of FY 2022. (See chart on page 24 for a history of actual new growth
revenue received)
Recognizing this new growth revenue in the budget does not constitute a property tax
increase, because it is paid by new buildings, and therefore does not require a Truth in
Taxation hearing per State law.
o Building permit revenue is projected to decrease by $3.6 million from FY 24. This is a
conservative projection to account for the toll inflation may take on the pace of construction in
the City. Although modest relative to the total General Fund budget size, the downward trend of
building permit revenue was first noted mid-year FY 23. This revenue source has historically
been more volatile, like sales tax revenue, than others.
o Licenses revenue is projected to increase by $1.7 million, largely due to the Airport parking
fee and the transient room tax, as both the travel and hospitality sectors are strong performers
in the local economy.
o Interest income is projected to stay flat. This is revenue that is generated from the City
investing cash balances.
o Franchise taxes are expected to increase by $2.1 million, reversing a multi-year trend of
decreases. This is due to a renegotiated contract with Google Fiber, and rate increases in almost
all utilities. The total $14.5 million of revenue from franchise taxes in FY25 is still about half of
the $28+ million generated in FY18. Items contributing to this budget are taxes collected on
utilities, phone lines and gas bills. These taxes are capped by State law.
Revenue changes due to Policy Choices and New Proposals
o Property tax stabilization – The Administration is proposing to adjust the City’s property
tax budget upward by $1 million to match the actual property tax revenues received in the
previous fiscal year. The City also took this approach in FY 2009, FY 2010, FY 2016, FY 2018,
FY 2022, and FY 2023. If property tax revenues come in higher than budgeted for a given fiscal
year, that money will in effect become “one-time” money, unless the City undergoes a truth in
taxation hearing to raise its official property tax budget by that same amount. Raising the
official property tax budget guarantees this additional property tax revenue as ongoing in future
years. In FY 2024 (the current year), the City received approximately $1 million more in
personal property tax revenue above what was set as the property tax budget. If the economy
continues to grow, only the new growth will be paying for this additional revenue. However, if
the economy experiences a downturn, the “revenue budget watermark” will have been set, and
according to truth in taxation law, overall City taxpayers would see an increase to make up for
the downturn. This approach requires a truth in taxation hearing. Council Staff can
schedule additional discussions on this if Council Members are interested.
o City General Fund fees will bring in an additional $1.1 million due to an inflationary
Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment in all fees charged by the City (set by the Council in
ordinance in 2014). For FY 2025 the Administration referenced the western U.S. region CPI
used (set in October 2023) is 3.3%. The Council could request a more recent inflation figure
(April rather than October) as has been done previously. These fees and permits will always
have to be cost-justified, and the City undergoes a study regularly to confirm that the City is not
charging more in fees than it costs to provide the associated service. Adjusting these fees yearly
allows the City to keep pace with the cost of doing business in small amounts each year, rather
Page | 10
than one-time considerations of larger fee increases. The Council could consider changing this
ordinance given the unique economic circumstances for businesses and individuals at this time,
as these fees are paid by businesses. Note: The exception to these fee increases are youth sports
field rentals, which were recently reduced via a separate Council process on May 7. For
reference, the chart below lists recent years of inflationary adjustments to City fees:
Fiscal Year CPI Adjustment
to City Fees
FY 2025 (proposed)3.3%
FY 2024 6.3%
FY 2023 4.6%
FY 2022 2.35%
o Use of General Fund Balance - The Mayor’s recommended budget includes using $39.3
million from fund balance (including $662,000 from Funding our Future fund balance) to
balance the budget. This is more than the $32 million used from fund balance in FY 24. The
Administration noted that departments dropped almost that amount to fund balance as unspent
dollars in FY 23. This is the impetus for the Administration conducting a “zero based budget”
exercise over the course of the next year, to determine which areas are potentially funded but
not as critical to address City needs. If the FY 25 budget is adopted as proposed, the City would
still have just over a 15.59% fund balance (approximately $12.3 million above the desired 13%
minimum threshold).
o Judgement Levy – The FY 25 budget includes a judgement levy of $209,910. A judgement
levy is a one-time, one-year property tax increase to pay the City back for prior year judgements
which result in budget shortfalls. The City will not know the final amount of the judgment levy
until June 8, when we receive official figures from the State Tax Commission and County
Auditor. At that point the Council can decide whether to add it to the budget. The amount
cannot exceed the amount authorized by the County. This approach requires a truth in
taxation hearing.
Expense increases to existing services due to Inflation – The FY 25 budget includes a
number of line items in various departments to address the costs of inflation – fuel, contracts, software,
purchasing, etc. – totaling almost $4 million across general fund departments, which is a million more
than was included in the FYF 24 budget to address inflation. The following chart shows line items by
general fund department:
FY 25 Inflation Line Items
Community and Neighborhoods
Fleet fuel increases 11,557$
Fire
Contracts/Inflationary Increases 243,365$
Police
Inlfation general 199,145$
Inflation: Fleet 232,399$
Public Lands
Contractual Increases 796,800$
Public Services
Contractual Increases 603,308$
Inflationary Increases 340,109$
Non-Departmental
IMS: Contractual Increases 1,018,399$
IMS: Inflationary Increases 450,641$
Total Inflation-related budget increases 3,895,723$
Page | 11
**Straw poll** – Downtown Capital Projects Program Manager – 1 FTE – The Administration
is requesting a straw poll so that they can begin early advertising to hire a Senior Advisor to the Mayor.
This position would manage several major downtown projects including the Sports Entertainment
Cultural and Convention District, Main Street Pedestrian Improvements, and the Green Loop. The total
amount included in the FY 25 budget for this position is $216,420 which covers 12 months of salary and
benefits. See attached draft job description.
Other budget highlights relating to Council priorities – The Council sent the following
priorities to the Administration for the City’s budget committee to consider: Addressing the backlog of
maintenance projects, Assessing the City’s response teams and homeless services, Managing the City’s
rainy day fund, City employee Compensation, and Community outreach & Engagement. Note: The
following lists represent a snapshot of NEW or CHANGED items in the Mayor’s recommended budget
in the various areas that touch on one or more of the Council’s priorities (this does not necessarily
include continuation of programs started in previous years). It also represents an initial review of the
Mayor’s proposed budget and may shift as additional information and clarity is provided.
The following:
o Addressing the backlog of maintenance projects – At the Council’s January 2024
retreat, most Council Members indicated a desire to prioritize using the City’s healthy rainy day
fund in a way to catch up with long-deferred maintenance projects. In Budget Amendment #5,
the Administration proposed and the Council approved using $15 million from fund balance for
this purpose, which has been added to the CIP log – see information below chart and pages 17-
19 for more on CIP. In addition to that item, the following are line items in several departments
that may also fit this Council priority:
Public Lands Glendale Park Phase I - $106,800
Glendale Park Phase I Maintenance Tech - $76,700 (10 Months)
Public Services BA #3 – Road Marking and Maintenance - $200,000
Mill and Overlay Program Expansion - $296,000
Reclassify seasonal $ to Sign and Markings Technicians – 2 FTEs (budget
neutral)
Non-Departmental CIP – Facilities Capital Replacement - $350,000
CIP -Parks Capital Replacement - $250,000
CIP – Public Lands transfer to CIP for maintenance - $683,152
Vacant Building Maintenance
IMS – Radio replacement - $250,000
Pub Utilities – Fire Hydrant Maintenance - $293,219
There are several Mayor-recommended projects in the CIP log (Attachment 2) that would fit
within this policy goal, enhanced with the $15 million added from BA #5 – see pages 17-19 for
more on CIP:
Stabilize Fire Training Tower $ 858,800
400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction $ 4,000,000
Complete Streets Reconstruction $ 4,500,000
Liberty Park Greenhouse (design)$ 921,700
Complete Streets Overlay $ 3,500,000
Public Way Concrete $ 500,000
Facilities Replacement/Renewal Plan $ 2,756,500
Plaza 349 HVAC $ 2,200,000
Sugar House Park Pavilion Replacement $ 480,000
PSB – HVAC Replacement $ 1,300,000
Courts & Playground (some replacement)$ 1,508,090
700 South Reconstruction (4600 to 5000 West)$ 4,500,000
Traffic Signal Replacement $ 860,000
Page | 12
Memory Grove Park Repairs & Preservation Plan $ 1,910,000
Art Barn Infrastructure and ADA Improvement $ 500,000
Fairmont Park Basketball Court $ 754,000
Alleyway Improvements $ 500,000
Concrete Replacement $ 750,000
Total $ 32,299,090
o City response teams and homeless services – Council Members have asked for a review
of City response teams and homeless services to evaluate whether the City is deploying these
resources in the most efficient way. The Administration indicated they are working on
standardizing data collection and metrics across these services.
Community and
Neighborhoods
Transfer RV Program to Public Services along with several Homeless Services
Expenditures
Fire BA #3 – Medical Response Paramedics – 2 FTEs
(CHAT) Medical Response Paramedics – 2 FTEs
Narcotics Tracking System - $65,000 (share with PD)
Maintain CHAT Team
Justice Court Community Outreach Case Manager - $88,363 (1 FTE, 12 months)
Police BA #4 – Clean Neighborhoods Overtime - $1,829,000
Contract, Event, Task Force Overtime - $1,434,295
Maintain Social Worker program Civilian Response Team
Public Lands Maintain current staffing level of 19 park ranger FTEs
Public Services Rapid Intervention Team – $253,036 (3 FTEs) – doubles size
RV Removal/Disposal - $100,000
Non-Departmental Axon Body Camera Services Enhancement - $143,280 increase
Vehicles for new positions in FY 25 - $545,993 (FOF)
Racial Equity in Policing Commission recommendations ($1.5 million
remaining in account):
Arbinger Leadership Cohort - $74,688
Leadership in Police Org - $52,500
School Resource Training - $22,775
Culturally Responsive Therapy for Police Interactions - $99,840
Staff has listed the various response teams below:
Fire Department – Community Health Access Team (CHAT), Medical Response
Team (MRT)
Police Department – Social Worker Co-Responders, Civilian Response Team
CAN – Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART), Downtown Street
Ambassadors (expanded to North Temple, parts of Central City, and the
Ballpark neighborhoods), Code Enforcement
Public Lands – Park Rangers Program
Public Services – Community Cleaning Program (CCP) Rapid Intervention
Team
o Managing the City’s rainy day fund – Council Members expressed an interest in
proactively managing the City’s rainy day fund. While this budget does use a significant amount
of one-time money to balance the budget without a general fund tax increase, if the FY 25
budget is adopted as proposed, the City’s fund balance would be at 15.59% of general fund
revenues, $12.3 million dollars above the 13% minimum threshold (a goal set by the Council in
FY 20)
The Mayor’s recommended budget uses $39.3 million (up from $32.9 million in FY 24).
Page | 13
15.59% is a lower level than the last two fiscal years where fund balance has regularly
approached the 35% level. In recent years fund balance has grown significantly in large
part due to sales tax overperforming the City’s conservative budgeted amount, which
took into account continued worldwide economic uncertainty.
As noted above, this budget uses one-time funds to pay for on-going expenses and
utilizes one-time savings to balance the budget. Both of these strategies will potentially
increase the “structural deficit” for the next budget year.
However, given the significant amount of money dropped to fund balance by
departments, the Administration indicates they will endeavor over the coming year to
perform a “zero based budget” exercise, which will evaluate every program in each
department, to identify potential savings.
o City Employee Compensation – Reflecting the challenges of inflation faced by City
employees, the FY 25 budget includes a 5% cost of living increase for all City employees, along
with market adjustments as recommended by the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
to ensure salaries are competitive. The proposed salary increases add approximately $8.4
million in general fund expenses. The total cost for compensation in the City general fund is
$298.9 million, representing 63% of the total general fund budget. City-wide (including
enterprise funds) the total amount dedicated to compensation is $475.2 million.
The City’s general compensation philosophy is to pay employees in the 95%-100% of
market to maintain competitive compensation levels compared to other employers
along the Wasatch Front. The City’s public safety compensation philosophy is more
ambitious aiming to pay firefighters and police officers with or close to top of the
market wages.
The Administration is currently in negotiations with unions representing City
employees and the recommended budget has a placeholder to account for these ongoing
conversations. Additional compensation changes for represented employees may be
recommended to the Council as part of the FY2025 annual budget based on those
ongoing negotiations.
The budget also includes several adjustments recommended by the Citizen
Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) for positions that lag behind market pay by
more than 2%. The cost for these adjustments are $563,000 for the general fund and
$358,000 across other funds. The FY 25 budget also includes an adjustment to elected
official compensation, based on a review of the City Mayor’s salary compared to other
City Mayors and City Managers (depending on the form of government) in Utah as well
as Department Directors. Council salaries are set at 25% of the Mayor’s salary so those
are also automatically adjusted per ordinance.
The budget continues the City practice of funding 95% of employee health insurance
premiums and increases the front-loaded contribution to each employee’s Health
Savings Account (HSA) to help with the cost of the high deductible insurance plan.
o Community Outreach and Engagement – The FY 25 budget proposes the following
relating to outreach and engagement
Mayor’s Office SLC Volunteer Corps - $63,000
Love your Block program – tools and Expansion - $69,000 (one time)
Senior Advisor to the Mayor – Downtown Projects - $216,420
Community Cultural Events (supplies) - $15,000
Attorney’s Office Boards and Commissions Analyst - $89,640 (1 FTE)
Community and
Neighborhoods
Communications and Engagement Manager - $139,715 (1 FTE)
Economic Development Sister Cities Part Time Employee - $47,000
Page | 14
Justice Court Community Outreach Case Manager - $88,363 (1 FTE, 12 months)
Public Lands To deliver projects promised to public:
Public Lands Project Coordinator – budget neutral
Senior Public Lands Planner - $121,979
Senior Landscape Architect - $138636
Public Services To deliver projects promised to public:
Project Delivery support for Parks - $249,694 (2 FTEs)
Engineer IV - $117,210
Non-Departmental Arts Culture and Events (ACE) Fund for events - $100,000 increase
($300,000 total)
Open Streets for Summer 2026 - $400,000
Various community memberships
Policy Questions:
The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration overall investment in
engagement and outreach, including whether it is deployed in the most efficient way,
and if it is designed to deliver the best outcomes based on those efforts.
The Administration provided information to Council Staff regarding the overall model
of engagement, similar to a “hub and spoke” model. With a central hub located in the
IMS Civic Engagement team, and the “spokes” represented by various FTEs in each
department (including the Council Office), particularly those that interface with the
public (new position proposed in CAN). The Council may wish to ask how the City’s
engagement efforts are coordinated with the constituent response efforts, especially as
more lines of communication are utilized. For example, when feedback or service
requests are submitted via social media or during open house meetings (staffed by one
group), does the CRM system or other investments in technology help coordinate efforts
to respond (by another workgroup).
Given the City resources dedicated to outreach and engagement, the Council and
Administration could brainstorm how to assess the City’s effectiveness at encouraging
and responding to constituents’ input.
The Council may wish to share feedback or questions based on interactions with their
constituents to help align the City’s efforts with ensuring the public is feeling heard.
The Council may wish to discuss providing policy guidance with the increased funding
for the Arts, Culture, and Events or ACE Fund.
o FY 25 Budget Highlights based on previous Council Priorities – While the Council did
not send these to the Administration based on specific priorities for FY 25, several topics
continue to be areas of interest for Council Members:
Transit/Transportation – the FY 25 proposed budget continues funding for HIVE
passes for public school students, faculty, and a parent or guardian and makes the
funding ongoing. It also increases funding for Westside on-demand ride service (for a
total of $3.3 million), and continues funding for Frequent Bus Routes on 200 South,
900 South, and 2100 South ($7 million) via Funding our Future.
Housing – The proposed budget continues the practice of transferring $2.59 million
from Funding our Future to the RDA for affordable housing development, building on
the $17 million allocated by the RDA in FY 24. It also continues the Tenant Relocation
Assistance program and Resource Center in CAN with Funding our Future dollars,
among other housing programs administered by the Housing Stability Division.
Business Support/Economic Development – The proposed budget continues
funding for the Construction Mitigation account managed by the Department of
Economic Development.
Apprenticeship program – The proposed budget reduces the Amount of Non-
Departmental budget funding for this purpose by $500,000, although it is not ending
Page | 15
the program. The Administration indicates this is because departments appear to be
managing their various programs within their existing budgets usually through
available vacancy savings. The Administration has expressed support in reviewing each
of these budgets in the upcoming zero-based budgeting exercise, so that they can be
called out as individual line items, so that the Council can be assured these programs
will be continued into the future.
Investing in Japantown – Council Members have expressed interest in funding 100
South between 300 West and West Temple/Historic Japantown street improvements
designed through the RDA’s community process. The FY 25 budget for the RDA
includes several items towards this effort:
Japantown Construction Documents - $100,000 (Central Business District)
Japantown Art - $300,000 (Central Business District) & $36,577 (Block 67)
Street safety – Council Members have expressed an interest in investing in traffic
calming and street safety improvements. Several CIP requests relate to this policy goal:
Complete Streets Reconstruction/Overlay - $3.5m/$2.75m
Safer Crossings (citywide) - $300,000 recommended in CIP
Neighborhood byways program - $970,000
Applications not recommended for funding
o Livable Streets Program –$3 million requested. Note: this program
received $1.6 million in FY 24
o HAWK Signal at Richmond St and Zenith Ave - $500,000 requested -
Constituent Application
o California Ave Pedestrian Safety - $807,000 requested - Constituent
Application
o 600 South Safety Improvements - $530,000 requested - Constituent
Application
o New FTEs and Potential Future Structural Deficit –The Mayor’s recommended budget
includes 33 new general funded FTEs, 4 of which were approved during budget amendments
over the past fiscal year. Because the budget is balanced with a significant amount of one-time
dollars, this ongoing expense could add to the structural deficit in the future. Several of the new
FTEs are proposed to be funded for a period of less than 12 months. Accounting for the
revenue offset from the Airport for new police officers working there, the total
amount budgeted for FY 25 is $2.1 million, and the total annualized cost is $2.5
million (a difference of $307,746). This can be an effective budgeting tool to help balance
the budget, since realistically it takes several months to hire an employee through the City’s HR
process. That said, it does add to the potential structural deficit for the following budget year,
once that FTE is filled. The following chart lists staffing levels by department currently and as
proposed, along with basic descriptions of the new positions added. More detail on each
position will be available during each department discussion over the coming weeks. Staff note:
Council Staff is working with the Administration to verify exact figures, as some
documentation in the budget book differs from the chart below. This also does not include
potential federal COPS Hiring grant-funded positions in the Police Department to address
safety concerns on the Jordan River. Staff is working with the Administration to clarify timing
of those FTEs.
Page | 16
“Structural Deficit” context: There is a certain share of structural deficit that occurs
regardless of the Council’s policy choices each year. This includes things like health
insurance premium increases, union-agreed pay adjustments, use of one-time revenues
used in the previous year, etc. Given the use of fund balance to balance the budget this year
($39.3 million) and previous years, as well as the one-time savings noted above, the
structural deficit for the FY 26 budget could be larger than in previous years, although this
will be mitigated to some extent by the zero-based budgeting exercise the Administration
indicates it will be pursuing. This annual conversation causes the Administration, through
their department experts, to look for creative efficiencies in expenditures that they might
not have otherwise been willing to explore. The Administration, with their front-line
employees, are best equipped to identify opportunities for efficiency gains. If all efficiencies
have been exhausted, the “fallback” options to address the structural deficit are
FY 2025 Proposed FTE Changes by General Fund Department
Department
Adopted FY
2024
Positions
Budget
Amendment
Positions
New
Positions
Total
(note: Total does
not reflect grant
positions, as they
are refected in
the grant fund)Change New Position Notes/Other Notes
Attorney 60.50 4.00 2 66.50 6 Boards Compensation Analyst (10 months)
Assistant City Prosecutor (10 months)
BA #4: Legislative Affairs Division - 4 FTEs - FY 25 budget
reclassifies an FTE to a Deputy level
Adjusting Dep Recorders from E26 to E31
Community and
Neighborhoods
195 2 197 2 Communications and Engagement Manager (10 months)
Building Inspector III (10 months)
Council 35 0 0 35 0
Economic Development 22 0 0.5 22.5 0.5 Sister Cities Park Time Position (12 months)
Finance 81.7 0 2.5 84.2 2.5 Business Systems Analyst (10 months) - 2 FTEs
Grant Analyast - Part Time to Full Time (10 months) - .5
FTEs
911 Communications Bureau 100 0 0 100 0
Fire 402 0 2 404 2 Medical Response Paramedics for (CHAT) Community
Health Access Team (FOF Funding) - 2 FTEs
Human Resources 33.4 0 0 33.4 0
Justice Court 42 0 1 43 1 Community Outreach Case Manager (12 months) (FOF
Funding)
Mayor 34 0 1 35 1 Senior Advisor Downtown Projects (12 months)
Police 761 0 6 767 6 Offset with Airport Revenue - 6 FTEs - Airport Staffing
and Equipment - (9 months)
Public Lands 157.85 4 4 165.85 8.00 Glendale Park Maintenance Tech III (10 months) - (FOF
Funding)
Public Lands Project Coordinator (10 months) -
(Seasonal Funding)
Senior Public Lands Planner (10 months)
Senior Landscape Architect (10 months)
BA #2 Planning and Design Division - 4 FTEs
Public Services
(note: Sustainability FTEs are
reflected in Refuse Fund not in
general fund staffing document)
273.00 -4 8 277.00 4 Project Delivery Support for Parks Projects (10 months) -
2 FTEs
Rapid Intervention Team (10 months) - 3 FTEs (FOF
Funding)
Reclassify Seasonal to Sign and Markings Technicians - 2
FTEs (budget neutral)
Engineer IV (10 months)
Total 2,197.45 4.00 29.00 2,230.45 33.00
Proposed FY 2025
Page | 17
service/program cuts and/or additional tax increases because per State law the City must
adopt a balance budget annually.
ADDITIONAL KEY ELEMENTS OF THE MAYOR’S BUDGET PROPOSAL
A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – The proposed budget has a General Fund transfer to CIP at
6.8% of ongoing General Fund revenues or $25.2 million. On May 7, in Budget Amendment #5 of
FY2024, the Council appropriated $15 million to a CIP holding account for capital maintenance projects.
Taken together, the $40.2 million from the General Fund ($15 million plus the $25.2 million) would be
equivalent to a 10.8% of ongoing General Fund revenues transfer to CIP which is the largest percentage
for many years. Previous plans identified 7% as a recommended minimum level of investment and a goal
of 9%. The City did reach the 9% funding level in FY2023, although several departments have noted
difficulty with getting projects constructed due to staffing constraints, continued supply chain
challenges, and construction inflation.
At the time of publishing this staff report an updated Mayor Recommended CIP Budget Book with
recommendations for the $15 million was being printed for delivery to the Council. A funding log
summarizing the Community Development & Capital Improvement Program or CDCIP resident
advisory board and mayoral funding recommendations including the $15 million for capital
maintenance is available as Attachment 2. Note that the funding log is not formatted for printing and is
best viewed on an electronic device with a large screen.
Differences between the CDCIP Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
The CDCIP Board’s recommendations do not include the $15 million for capital maintenance projects
because the appropriation was made after the Board’s final FY2025 budget meeting. The tables below
summarize the Mayor’s funding recommendations to use the $15 million for capital maintenance
projects in three ways. The Mayor’s recommendations also add $1.5 million of funding on top of the
CDCIP Board’s funding levels from three sources: $84,490 more from the General Fund, $750,000
more from Class C (gas tax), and $678,600 more from parks impact fees.
Mayor recommends additional funding to projects recommended by the CDCIP Board
Mayor recommends funding capital maintenance projects without CDCIP Board funding
recommendations
Page | 18
Mayor recommends substituting $3.14 million from the capital maintenance holding
account for an equivalent amount of quarter cent sales tax for transportation funding
recommended by the CDCIP Board for rebuilding the 400 South Jordan River Bridge and
reallocate the $3.14 million to the Green Loop project for designing eligible transportation
parts of the project.
Annual CIP Process Summary: Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding
available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and approves debt payments as part
of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews individual projects and
per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and
competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit
project applications. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program
(CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the applications in public meetings and makes
funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor provides a second set of
funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific funding.
Background on Infrastructure - Infrastructure in the City is funded several ways:
CIP (enhanced by Funding our Future in FY 20)– funds a variety of ongoing
infrastructure projects including sidewalks, ADA ramps, bridges, curb/gutter,
facilities and buildings, park amenities and usually local/residential neighborhood
streets. These are either funded through annual allocations on a pay as you go basis,
or larger projects are sometimes financed with debt service (future revenue bonds
such as sales tax).
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Funds (Fund Class 69 –
new in FY 20) – The Administration will be tracking both the receipt and
expenditure of these funds in a separate account to make reporting to the state
more streamlined (these funds are restricted as to use).
Class C (gas tax) funds in CIP – this usually funds larger scale projects and is
typically allocated in a large quantity. In recent year, the Council appropriated these
funds as a batch for street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The internal
Roadway Selection Committee determines which specific street segments receive
improvements based on several criteria and other major projects.
Streets Division Budget located in the Public Services Department – this
usually funds the more small-scale, maintenance activities such as pothole patching
Page | 19
and chip seal-type projects. The City currently has an asphalt street maintenance
program. The vast majority of City streets are asphalt pavement.
Impact Fees – Pay for bigger demand on City facilities caused by population and
employment growth. More specifically, impact fees are a payment of money
imposed upon a new development activity as a condition of development approval
to mitigate the impact of the new development on public infrastructure and
services. There are four types of impact fees charged by the General Fund which are
limited to eligible uses identified in the City’s Impact Fees Plan. The four types are:
fire, parks, police and transportation.
Infrastructure is also addressed indirectly through staff in Engineering,
Transportation (Community and Neighborhoods Department), and Streets (Public
Services) general fund budgets, and Public Utilities Budget (sewer, stormwater and
water).
B. Legislative Intents of the Council – The Administration has included all FY 2024 Legislative Intent
Statements and Interim Study Items adopted by the Council in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book,
starting on page 122 of the budget book, along with relevant department responses if available. The
Council held a high-level review of these at the May 7 work session. Staff will make a note of relevant
items throughout the department budget briefings and hold a legislative intent briefing later in the
budget process to confirm the list for the coming fiscal year.
C. Funding our Future - In 2015 the Legislature authorized the City to impose a 0.5% additional local
sales tax option as a result of the decision to relocate the State prison. The Council initiated this option,
and while the State enabling legislation did not restrict what the City could do with these funds, the
Council and Administration determined four critical need areas of focus for the funds based on resident
engagement and feedback: housing, public safety (including 911, fire, police, and more), transportation,
and street infrastructure (sidewalk-to-sidewalk). In FY 23, when the amount was anticipated to increase
significantly, the City added a fifth category need, Public Lands Maintenance.
The FY 24 budget is projecting $57.9 million in total revenue for funding our future, a $7.4 million
(14%) increase from FY 24. Note: this increase is greater than the City’s local option sales tax line
item because the Administration evaluated actual revenue received (the City retains 100% of the
sales locally unlike the City’s base local option, which is distributed 50% population/50% point of
sale).
The Administration’s proposed budget tracks the revenues and expenses separately to increase
transparency for the public as to how these funds are used. The public can also visit
fundingourfutureslc.com for details on the programs and projects funded from these dollars and
the voter-approved $87 million Streets Reconstruction Bond.
In FY 23, based on previous policy input from the Council about broadening the definition of
“Public Safety” beyond police, the City expanded uses such as Fire, mental health responders,
dispatchers, and emergency management personnel.
The chart below shows Funding our Future expenditures by department since 2023. See
Attachment 4 for a detailed list of specific Funding Our Future initiatives, by department.
Staff will highlight this revenue tool in each of the relevant departments.
Page | 20
D. Other Tax/Fee Increases – Council Members have asked to see a list of tax and fee increases in the
context of an average resident for other City-related funds (Library, Metro Water). Staff has put together
this initial review of information. More detail can be provided upon request:
E. Other Expense-Related Items of Note – Staff will be highlighting important expense changes in
each department briefing. The following is a list of some noteworthy Citywide items that may be of
interest to the Council and/or the general public:
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Community
and
Neighborhoods
Fire Police Public Lands Public Services 911 Non-
deparmental
(Includes
Public Safety,
Housing,
Transit,
IMS/Fleet
Support)
FY 2023 $3,371,453 $869,540 $12,207,968 $687,424 $2,675,831 $281,325 $25,803,749
FY 2024 $4,210,689 $1,400,953 $13,016,903 $1,848,671 $3,539,718 $792,384 $25,803,749
FY2025 $4,425,332 $1,469,701 $17,560,000 $2,417,245 $3,663,559 $948,924 $29,730,657
Funding our Future by Department
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY2025
Monthly Proposed
Increase
(Avg Home,
residential customer)
Percent usage rate
increase
Library property tax increase proposal*$3.42
Metropolitan water district property tax
increase proposa ** $3.92
Water utility $2.73 4%
Sewer utility $2.16 4%
Stormwater utility $1.06 10%
Street lighting utility $0.62 10%
Water utility new stabilization fee
(for most residential connections)$10.18
Sewer utility new stabilization fee
(for most residential connections)$7.22
Total Estimated MONTHLY Impact for Avg
Residential
$31.30
Total Estimated ANNUAL Impact for Avg
Resdiential
$375.64
*Average value property of $596,000
**Average value property of $576,000
Page | 21
1.Department Overviews and Objectives and Measurements – The Mayor’s Recommended
Budget Book includes a helpful 2-3 page overview of each department starting on page 151 of the
Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book. Each department section includes objectives and
measurements where available and tracked by the department. In addition, these department
overview pages include the following information:
Org chart of the department
Vision statement/mission statement and overview of the purpose and functions of the
department
Performance measures where tracked
Comparison of actual/adopted/proposed budget by category or division
High level description of changes from last year
Council Staff will highlight each of these as departments are briefed before the Council (see
Attachment 1 for schedule of briefings). The Council may wish to provide feedback to the
Administration at that time, regarding any additional helpful measurements/outcomes that would
help the Council in their budget deliberations.
2.Stipends for Boards and Commissions – The MRB continues funding stipends for board and
commission members, which was initially funded in the FY 23 budget with payments starting in
Spring 2023. The stipend is $40 per meeting for each board and commissioner. This is consistent
with the Council’s discussions at the outset of the Racial Equity and Policing Commission, in an
effort to broaden the constituencies who may be able to serve on boards and commissions by
offsetting potential costs (transportation, childcare, etc.). The Council may wish to ask the
Administration if they have received feedback from board and commission members about how this
funding is helping, or if there are other ways to expand the pool of residents that can afford to serve.
Staff note: This funding comes from the Mayor’s Office budget which does not have a separate
budget analysis staff report.
3. Public Utilities Funds budget items of note:
Water Utility – The total Water Utility budget for FY 25 is $206.3 million, up from $178
million in FY 24. The budget adds a proposed “stabilization fee” that would remain fixed for
water customers each month, depending on meter size. A medium-use residential customer
would see a monthly $10.18 stabilization fee added this year. There is also a proposed rate
increase of 4 percent total, including on usage and the regular monthly flat rate. Rate
increases are anticipated in future years. Rate increases for this year and the future are
timed based on capital projects and other cost increases. The stabilization fee aims in part to
recover operating revenue lost from decreased water sales and increased operating
expenses. Debt service cost for all the Public Utilities Enterprise Funds is modeled to peak
around 2037.
Sewer Utility – The total Sewer Utility budget for FY 25 is $311.9 million, up from $302
million in FY 24. It includes a proposed rate increase of 4 percent. Additional to the rate
increase, the proposal includes a new stabilization fee that would be fixed each month for all
customers. The fee depends on category of sewer customer. A medium-use residential
customer would see a new stabilization fee of $7.22 each month. The rate increase and new
stabilization fee are in response to increased operating cost and capital projects. Rate
increases are anticipated in future years. This fund’s payment on bonded debt as a percent
of gross operating revenue is budgeted at 36% for the coming year. The generational Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) construction project continues, necessary for compliance with
federal standards for water quality and treatment, as well as reliable service. As of April
2024, the correct budget cost estimate for the WRF is $711,635,000, based on financials for
the City's loan of Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) funds from the
federal government. The current projected variance from this budget is an estimated
$126,539,404, bringing one current projected cost estimate to $838,174,404. The WRF is
the major capital focus in this fund, along with sewer line replacement and other
infrastructure related to conveyance (for example, pump stations).
Stormwater Utility – The total Stormwater Utility budget for FY 25 is $28.2 million, up
from $23 million in FY 24. It includes a proposed rate increase of 10 percent this year. Bond
Page | 22
revenue for infrastructure needs would provide cash for capital projects. Ongoing capital
requirements and operating cost drive the proposed rate increase. Rate increases are
anticipated in future years.
Street Lighting Utility – The FY 25 budget for Street Lighting is $6.8 million, up from $6
million in FY 24. It includes a 10 percent rate increase. The capital improvements budget
would decrease from the previous year, while operating expenses go up. Rate increases are
anticipated in future years.
4. Golf – The Administration is proposing to continue the previous approach of using over $1 million
annually transferred from the General Fund to help the Golf Fund into a balanced operational
budget. Due to increased play over the last several years, the FY 25 budget continues the practice of
dedicating the $1 per round Capital Project fee along with operational surplus to needed capital
projects (prior to FY 24, this fee had been used to offset operational losses). This year the
Administration is proposing the following transfers from Non-Departmental (Gen fund) to the Golf
Fund:
Cost of living wage for golf employees - $370,100
Debt service payment on irrigation projects - $528,213
Administrative Fees -- $356,302 (these will be paid back to the general fund and is done for
accounting/transparency purposes) The Administration has previously stated that although
the Golf Fund is an enterprise fund, there is a broader public benefit to that open space to
justify the general fund subsidizing debt and administrative fees.
IMS Fees - $350,000 (these will be transferred to the IMS fund)
General transfer to assist Golf - $500,000 - This transfer for general golf operations was
proposed as one time initially in FY 20, but has transitioned into an ongoing transfer. In FY
25 it is proposed to be used for Rose Park Infrastructure Renewal, as it was in FY 23&24.
5.County transportation option - In 2018 the State Legislature passed SB 136, which provided a
process for Counties to add a sales tax levy to pay for “regionally significant transportation projects,”
and indicated that beginning July 1, 2019, cities in those counties would receive 0.1% of the tax (UTA
also receives 0.1% and the County retains 0.05%) for this purpose. Technically this is a tax collected by
the County and remitted to the City, although it still falls under the category of a sales and use tax. This
is anticipated to generate approximately $9.7 million in FY 25 that will be transferred to CIP for
consideration for transportation projects, in accordance with Council legislative intent. Note: The
Administration is tracking this particular revenue and expense in a separate fund, so the total is not
reflected in the general fund budget from an accounting perspective.
6.Lifestyle Spending Account (LSA) removed – According to the Administration, due to budget
constraints, the proposed budget removes this benefit that was added in FY 24 budget. The Lifestyle
Spending Account (LSA) reimburses employees up to $500 for items such as out of state medical travel
expenses, childcare, equipment purchases, health and fitness services, etc. Council Staff has inquired
with the Administration about how many employees actually used this program.
7.Health insurance – The City pays 95% of employee’s health insurance premiums for the health plan
offered by the City, the Summit Star High Deductible Health Plan administered by PEHP. Premiums are
proposed to increase (3.66%) for the City’s health plan, which is a very low increase and is an indicator
of sound fund management and responsible employee use. The Administration is proposing to continue
the up-front contribution to health saving accounts (HSAs) for employees. Due to clarifications with the
IRS, increasing deductibles for employees, the proposed budget increases the upfront contribution for
HSAs - $1,000 for a single employee (up from $750) and $2,000 for couples and families (up from
$1,500). The HSAs are managed independently by each employee, can accrue money year to year, and
earn interest.
Page | 23
8.Retirement – The Utah State Retirement System (URS) indicates to the City each year how much the
City must contribute towards employees’ retirement. There have been years when the City has had to
allocate significantly more funding to this line item to make up for the retirement system’s losses during
the 2008 recession. However, in recent years, increases have not been as significant. Council staff flags
this item annually however, as it is a necessary expense associated with City personnel that is not
controlled by City policymakers.
9.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding- While ARPA funds were required to be spent by
December 31, 2024, staff is including the chart from FY 24 budget discussions, as several questions have
been raised by the public about how the City spent its ARPA dollars:
General Budget Background Information
1.Property Tax Split – Below is a chart depicting the current (as of 2021) distribution of property taxes to
various entities, that are paid by residents and businesses in Salt Lake City (note that this shifts each year
slightly if one entity elects to pursue an increase in taxes):
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2023 BA#6 FY2024 TOTAL
Taking Care of the City:
Revenue Loss (Based on Calendar Year Calculations)11,432,646$ 11,432,646$ 19,890,111$ 18,603,080$ 49,925,837$
Salary: Bonus 1,193,000$ 1,193,000$ 1,193,000$
Salary: Police Retention and Recruitment 8,507,318$ 8,507,009$ 4,300,000$ (73,560)$ 12,733,449$
Council Adopted ARP Allocation -$
- Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)93,829$ 28,529$ 28,529$
- Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)90,633$ 88,391$ 88,391$
- Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)711,350$ 70,148$ 70,148$
- Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)50,000$ -$
- Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)290,000$ 70,471$ 211,000$ 110,775$ 392,246$
-* Grant Administrator (Finance)95,000$ 40,616$ 95,000$ 99,750$ 235,366$
- Grant Manager (Finance)101,200$
- Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000$ 200,880$ 200,880$
- MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)136,762$ 136,762$ 136,762$
- MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700$ 46,700$ 46,700$
Water and Sewer Infrastructure 2,000,000$ -$ 2,000,000$ (2,000,000)$ -$
Council Added BA2 - Annex Building Renovation for Odyssey House 500,000$ 500,000$ (500,000)$ -$
ARPA Revenue Loss -$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance -$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance (FOF)-$
Homelessness and Public Safety: the City's Greatest Current Need -$
Police OT for Clean Neighborhoods teams 1,505,920$ 1,505,871$ 1,664,000$ 3,169,871$
Salary Restoration (Public Lands Park Rangers)1,508,044$ 1,508,044$ 1,680,496$ 792,195$ 3,980,735$
Public Lands Park Rangers (One-time directly from ARPA funding)69,247$ -$
CCP clean-up 325,250$ 27,259$ 143,080$ (103,080)$ 67,259$
HEART 57,000$ 57,000$ -$ 57,000$
Advantage Services Contract -$
Emergency Shelter Set Aside 600,000$ 301,456$ 301,456$
Police Overtime 400,000$ 27,895$ 372,105$ 400,000$
Building Community Resilience -$
Perpetual Housing Fund 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$
Urban Land Fund 4,000,000$ 90,188$ 4,000,000$ (4,000,000)$ 90,188$
Community Grants -$
Community Grants 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ (2,000,000)$ 2,000,000$
TOTAL 1,193,000$37,520,899$25,332,866$38,855,792$19,926,440$1,002,720$ 85,117,818$
Amount of Distibution 85,411,572$
ARPA remaining 293,754$
* $207,044 is projected for the remaining salaries of the Grant Administrator
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
FY2022
Actuals
Page | 24
2.New Growth Fluctuations – The following chart illustrates the historic new growth revenue received by
the City each year. Staff noted that the pattern in recent years does not track the actual pattern of building
permit activity, particularly in years before state law was clarified in 2016, and since 2020, when building
permits in the City have been steadily increasing:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - FY 2024 Department Budget briefing schedule
Attachment 2 – Decision Matrix for Budget Subcommittee
Attachment 3 – FY 2025 CDCIP Board and Mayor Recommended CIP Projects
Attachment 4 – Funding Our Future FY 24 detail
Attachment 5 – Draft Job Description for Downtown Projects Coordinator
SLC School District
26%
State Basic School Levy
14%
Charter School Levy
1%
SL County
15%
Salt Lake City
29%
Salt Lake City JL
0%
SLC Library
6%
SLC Library JL
0%
Metro
Water
SLC
2%
SLC Mosquito
Abatement
1%
Central UT Water
Conservancy
4%
Multicounty
Assessment Levy
0%
County Assessor Levy
2%
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
FY
2010
FY
2011
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
FY
2024
Actual New Growth Received
ATTACHMENT 1 - FY 2025 Department
Budget Briefing Schedule
April 16
Work Session
Public Utilities
May 7
Work Session
Airport
Library
Metro Water
Formal Meeting
Mayor’s Recommended Budget Presentation
May 14
Council Work Session
Budget Highlights from the Mayor’s Administration,
including revenue
Council Staff Budget Overview
Finance
Attorney's Office
May 21
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Meeting
RDA Budget Overview & Budget focus
Council Work Session
Human Resources
Compensation
IMS
Justice Court
Public lands
Golf
RDA, City Council, and Local Building Authority Budget Public Hearing
- 7:00 p.m.
Thursday, May 30 (work session only)
Community & Neighborhoods
Public Services
Fleet
Non-Departmental
Insurance & Risk Management
Police
Unresolved Issues
June 4
Work Session
Fire
Sustainability & Refuse
Legislative Intents and Interim Study Items
Unresolved Issues
Formal Meeting
City Council Budget Public Hearing
Thursday, June 6
Work Session
CIP Overview
Economic Development
911 Communications Bureau
Governmental Immunity
Tuesday June 11th
RDA
Unresolved Issues
Council Work Session
Unresolved Issues
Legislative Intents
RDA & Council Formal Meeting
Potential budget adoption
Thursday June 13th
RDA & Council Formal Meeting
BACKUP - budget adoption
July & August
CIP
Tuesday, August 20h
Council Formal Meeting - Truth in Taxation Public Hearing
1 2 3 4 5
Score Environment, Social & Community Benefit Reliance + Core Service Mayor Goals Council Goals Mandate/Legal Obligation
0 Indirect benefit to the majority of the
community
Other Public Sector entities
provide this service
Does not meet any of the
Mayor's Goals
Does not meet any of the
Counil's Goals There is no mandate
2
Direct benefit to some of the community
and indirect benefit to the majority of the
community
Other Private Sector entities
provide this service
Meets 1-2 of the Mayor's
Goals Meets 1-2 of the Council's Goals Self Mandate
4 Direct Benefit to the majority of the
community
The City is the sole provider of
this service
Meets 3 or more of the
Mayors' Goals
Meets 3 or more of the Council's
Goals State or Federal Mandate
Salt Lake City CIP Funding Log FY25
General Fund Class C Parks Impact Fee FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent Total General Fund Class C Parks Impact Fee FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Capital
Maintenance Total
Available Funds 7,300,000$ 3,500,000$ 18,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 39,900,000$ Available Funds 7,330,000$ 4,250,000$ 18,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,154,490$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 55,734,490$
Recommended Funds 7,300,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,146,200$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 25,046,200$ Recommended Funds 7,330,000$ 4,250,000$ 3,824,800$ 1,000,000$ 1,154,490$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 41,559,290$
Remaining Funds -$ -$ 14,853,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,853,800$ Remaining Funds -$ -$ 14,175,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,175,200$
1.5% for Art 1.5% for Art 167,378$
Cost Overrun Cost Overrun 223,171$
Dept/Div/Const Application Title
Council
District
Previous Program
Allocations
CAP Committee
ranking Avg CDCIP Score Minimum/Partial Funding Requested Funding General Fund Class C Parks IF FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Total
Recommeded
Funding General Fund Class C Parks IF FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Capital
Maintenance
Total
Recommeded
Funding General Fund Class C Parks IF FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Fire
Stabilize the Fire Training Tower
Deterioration 2 1 76.48 $858,800 $858,800 858,800$ 858,800$ 858,800$ 858,800$ 858,800$ 858,800$
Engineering
400 South Jordan River Bridge
Reconstruction 2 2 74.16 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 860,000$ 3,140,000$ 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 4,000,000$
C - Public Lands Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration 5 NA 67.44 No $124,000 124,000$ 124,000$ 124,000$ 124,000$ 124,000$ 124,000$
Engineering Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 CW
Street
Reconstruction
FY24: $7,793,000
FY23: $9,369,130
FY22: $2,046329
FY21: $2,546,329
FY20: $4,801,400 3 65.09 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 4,500,000$
Public Lands
Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and
Construction Documents 5 9 60.34 See Note $921,700 804,500$ 117,200$ 921,700$ 804,500$ 117,200$ 921,700$ 921,700$ 921,700$
Engineering Complete Streets Overlay 2025 CW
Street Overlay
FY24: $1,250,000
FY22: $175,000
FY20: $1,000,000 5 59.57 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 2,750,000$ 2,750,000$ 2,750,000$ 750,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 3,500,000$
Engineering Public Way Concrete 2025 CW
Public Way Concrete
FY24: 750,000
FY23: 436,281
FY22: $750,000
FY20: $402,443 4 59.49 $750,000 $750,000 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$
Public Services Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan CW
Facilities Asset
Replacement and
Renewal
FY24: $2,848,771
FY23: $1,790,149
FY22: $1,570,509
FY21: $2,503,710
FY20: $1,250,000 11 59.06 $1,366,350 $2,756,500 1,366,350$ 1,366,350$ 1,366,350$ 1,390,150$ 2,756,500$ 2,756,500$
Public Services Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements - Phase I 4 7 57.47 See Note $2,200,000 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$ 2,200,000$
Transportation
Transit Capital Program / Funding Our Future
Transit CW
Transit Capital
FY24: $1,100,000
FY23: $1,100,000
FY21: $1,067,000
FY20: $1,100,000 15 56.89 $500,000 $1,500,000 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,500,000$
Transportation Safer Crossings Citywide CW
Transportation
Safety
FY24: $1,220,000
FY23: $1,013,313
FY22: $2,178,815
FY21: $2,284,945
FY20: $452,000 12 56.43 $300,000 $600,000 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$ 600,000$
Public Lands
Sugar House Park – Two Pavilion
Replacements for the Cost of One 7 13 55.03 $960,000 $960,000 480,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$ 480,000$ 960,000$ 960,000$
Public Lands
Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate
Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation Systems,
and Reducing Water Use CW
Waterwise
Enhancements
FY20: $419,328 14 54.48 $500,000 $3,250,000 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 3,250,000$ 1,100,000$
Public Services HVAC Control Replacement at PSB 4 6 53.49 $1,300,000 $1,300,000 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$
C - Public Lands
Citywide Park Restroom Planning
Study/Fairmont Restroom Conceptual
Design CW NA 53.44 Yes $100,000 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$
Transportation Neighborhood Byways Program CW
Neighborhood
Byways
FY24: 800,000
FY22: $1,545,000
FY20: $150,000 17 53.18 $970,000 $1,600,000 20,000$ 950,000$ 970,000$ 20,000$ 950,000$ 970,000$ 1,600,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,600,000$
Public Lands Courts & Playgrounds CW
Courts and
Playgrounds
FY24: $1,574,000
FY23: $521,564
FY22: $1,113,045 19 52.34
$600,000 for 1 playground
$950,000 for 1 court $3,100,000 549,150$ 549,150$ 549,150$ 54,490$ 904,450$ 1,508,090$ 3,100,000$ 1,100,000$
Engineering
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000
West) Additional Funding 2 10 51.54 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 -$ 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$ 4,500,000$ 3,500,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 4,500,000$
Transportation
Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades
Program CW
Traffic Signal and
Intersection
Upgrades
FY24: $400,000
FY23: $81,000
FY22: $1,014,450
FY21: $1,800,000
FY20: $700,000 8 51.08 $800,000 $2,700,000 500,000$ 230,000$ 730,000$ 500,000$ 230,000$ 130,000$ 860,000$ 2,700,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 2,700,000$
Public Lands
Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs +
Preservation & Maintenance Plan 3 22 51.04 See Note $1,910,000 -$ 1,910,000$ 1,910,000$ 1,910,000$ 1,100,000$
Fire Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements 2 24 50.13 See Note $1,410,300 -$ -$ 1,410,300$ 1,100,000$
Public Lands
Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization:
Doubling Bond Investment 2 18 49.60 See Note $1,500,000 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 1,300,000$ 200,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,300,000$ 200,000$
Transportation Livable Streets Program CW
Livable Streets
FY24: $1,644,126
FY21: $270,000
FY20: $849,500 21 49.39 $500,000 $3,000,000 -$ -$ 3,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Arts Council
Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and
Accessibility Improvement Request 4 16 48.84 See Note $500,000 -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
C - Public Lands
Jordan River Trail Safer Crossing
Improvements 2 NA 48.13 Yes $200,000 -$ -$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$
Police Police Department Training Center CW 20 46.46 $75,000 $250,000 -$ -$ 250,000$ 250,000$
C - Transportation
Pedestrian Safety / HAWK at Richmond St.
and Zenith Ave.7 NA 45.56 No $500,000 -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
Transportation
Transportation Corridor Transformations
Program CW
Corridor
Transformations
FY22: $2,540,344
FY21: $1,100,000
FY20: $875,000 23 44.58 $560,000 $4,600,000 -$ -$ 4,600,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 4,600,000$
C - Public Lands
Jordan River Trail Food Forest + Partner
Garden 1 NA 44.00 Yes $385,000 -$ -$ 385,000$ 385,000$
Transportation Urban Trails Program CW
Urban Trails
FY24: $1,700,000
FY22: $2,231,750
FY21: $3,192,000 26 43.65 $600,000 $1,500,000 -$ -$ 1,500,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
C - Transportation
Route 209 - Accessibility, Bus Shelters,
Benches, and Trash Cans 3 NA 43.13 Yes $500,000 -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
C - Public Lands Fairmont Park East Enhancement 7 NA 42.38 Yes $1,100,000 -$ -$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$
Public Lands Green Loop Implementation CW 27 41.86 See Note $10,000,000 -$ 3,140,000$ 3,140,000$ 10,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 4,000,000$
CDCIP Board Recommendations Funding EligibilityMayor Recommendations
Salt Lake City CIP Funding Log FY25
General Fund Class C Parks Impact Fee FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent Total General Fund Class C Parks Impact Fee FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Capital
Maintenance Total
Available Funds 7,300,000$ 3,500,000$ 18,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 39,900,000$ Available Funds 7,330,000$ 4,250,000$ 18,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,154,490$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 55,734,490$
Recommended Funds 7,300,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,146,200$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 25,046,200$ Recommended Funds 7,330,000$ 4,250,000$ 3,824,800$ 1,000,000$ 1,154,490$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 41,559,290$
Remaining Funds -$ -$ 14,853,800$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,853,800$ Remaining Funds -$ -$ 14,175,200$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 14,175,200$
1.5% for Art 1.5% for Art 167,378$
Cost Overrun Cost Overrun 223,171$
Dept/Div/Const Application Title
Council
District
Previous Program
Allocations
CAP Committee
ranking Avg CDCIP Score Minimum/Partial Funding Requested Funding General Fund Class C Parks IF FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Total
Recommeded
Funding General Fund Class C Parks IF FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
Capital
Maintenance
Total
Recommeded
Funding General Fund Class C Parks IF FOF Streets FOF Other FOF Transit 1/4 Cent
CDCIP Board Recommendations Funding EligibilityMayor Recommendations
C - Engineering
Main Street Alley Improvements, from No-
Tell Motel to Utah Pride 5 NA 41.75 Yes $170,000 -$ -$ 170,000$ 170,000$
C - Public Lands Faultline Park Playground 4 NA 41.31 No $337,000 -$ -$ 337,000$ 337,000$
C - Transportation
Guadalupe Neighborhood Streets
Improvement 3 NA 41.19 Yes $2,517,000 -$ -$ 2,517,000$ 1,100,000$
Public Services Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 4 29 40.72 $601,900 $601,900 -$ -$ 601,900$
C - Transportation 500 East Raised Crosswalk (400 Block)4 NA 40.63 No $115,000 -$ -$ 115,000$ 115,000$ 115,000$ 115,000$
Public Services PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 4 25 40.16 $709,633 $874,400 -$ -$ 874,400$
C - Public Lands Poplar Grove Park Lighting 2 NA 40.13 Yes $620,000 -$ -$ 620,000$
C - Transportation
California Avenue Pedestrian Safety
Improvements Construction 2 NA 40.13 Yes $807,000 -$ -$ 807,000$ 807,000$ 807,000$ 807,000$ 807,000$
C - Transportation 600 South Safety Improvements 4 NA 40.00 Yes $530,000 -$ -$ 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$
C - Public Lands Victory Park Tennis Courts 4 NA 39.56 No $52,600 -$ -$ 52,600$ 52,600$
C - Public Lands Riverside Park Pathway Loop 1 NA 38.81 No $530,000 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$ 530,000$
C - Public Lands Curtis Park Reimagined 6 NA 38.38 Yes $960,000 -$ -$ 960,000$ 480,000$
C - Transportation
Marmalade-Fairpark East-West Connector
Study 3 NA 38.13 Yes $80,000 -$ -$ 80,000$
C - Public Lands Fairmont Park Basketball Court 7 NA 37.69 Yes $754,000 -$ 678,600$ 75,400$ 754,000$ 754,000$ 678,600$ 754,000$
C - Engineering
Fayette Avenue Improvements between
Washington Street & 200 West 5 NA 37.19 Yes $560,000 -$ -$ 560,000$ 560,000$ 560,000$ 560,000$ 560,000$
Public Lands
“Elevating Access”: The Regional Athletic
Complex’s Blueprint for the Future 1 30 36.68 See Note $6,250,000 -$ -$ 6,250,000$ 3,417,000$ 1,100,000$
Police
SLC Public Safety Building (Police
Occupancy) Remodels 4 31 36.61 $265,745 $650,000 -$ -$ 650,000$ 650,000$
C - Public Lands Street Futsal courts 1:1 Match CW NA 36.31 Yes $350,000 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$ 350,000$
Engineering
Alleyway Improvements and Mitigation
2025 CW
Alleyway
Improvements
FY24: $250,000
FY23: $142,919
FY21: $200,000 28 36.30 $200,000 $500,000 -$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
C - Public Lands International Peace Gardens 2 NA 35.88 No $512,696 -$ -$ 512,696$ 256,348$ 512,696$
C - Engineering
1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and repave
street 7 NA 34.94 No $347,000 -$ -$ 347,000$ 347,000$ 347,000$ 347,000$ 347,000$
C - Transportation 700 East Median Tree Planting Project CW NA 34.88 Yes $2,400,000 -$ -$ 2,400,000$
C - Public Lands Playground Shade CW NA 34.00 Yes $500,000 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$
C - Public Lands First Encampment Park 5 NA 32.44 Yes $145,000 -$ -$ 145,000$ 145,000$
C - Engineering Alley Improvement A798 7 NA 31.63 Yes $69,000 -$ -$ 69,000$ 69,000$ 69,000$
C - Transportation
Westminster Urban Forestry and Traffic
Calming Measures 7 NA 31.56 Yes $477,000 -$ -$ 477,000$ 477,000$
C - Arts Council
Harvey Milk Blvd LGBTQ+ and Neighborhood
Visibility CW NA 31.44 Yes $500,000 -$ -$ 500,000$ 500,000$
C - Arts Council 200 E 1910 S Public Art 5 NA 30.75 No $75,000 -$ -$ 75,000$ 75,000$
C - Engineering
Alleyways between Sherman/Harrison and
Harrison/Browning 5 NA 29.94 No $134,000 -$ -$ 134,000$ 134,000$ 134,000$
C - Arts Council Jackson Park Art 2 NA 29.31 No $75,000 -$ -$ 75,000$ 75,000$
C - Public Lands
Pocket Park Community Space - Jake Garn
Way 2 NA 28.69 Yes $330,000 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$ 330,000$
C - Public Lands 800 East Parks and Pathway 4 NA 28.38 Yes $174,000 -$ -$ 174,000$ 174,000$
C - Engineering Fairpark placemaking signage CW NA 27.63 No $55,000 -$ -$ 55,000$
C - Public Lands
Equal Grounds Project (Calisthenics-Fitness
Area)CW NA 26.75 Yes $86,200 86,200$ 86,200$ 86,200$ 86,200$ 86,200$ 86,200$
C - Public Lands Liberty Wells Community Garden 5 NA 26.19 No $280,000 -$ -$ 280,000$
Police
Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear
Parking Lot 4 32 24.55 $50,000 $50,000 -$ -$ 50,000$
C - Public Lands 5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)2 NA 24.31 No $50,000 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
C - Transportation
Sugar House Map and Historic Recognition
Project 7 NA 22.75 Yes $95,000 -$ -$ 95,000$
C - Public Lands East Bench H Rock Preserve 6 NA 22.56 No $200,000 -$ -$ 200,000$
Mayor's Office Historic Signs/Markers CW NA NA 30,000$ 30,000$
Engineering Concrete Replacement CW NA NA 750,000$ 750,000$
$90,390,096 7,300,000$ 3,500,000$ 3,146,200$ 1,000,000$ 1,100,000$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 25,046,200$ 7,330,000$ 4,250,000$ 3,824,800$ 1,000,000$ 1,154,490$ 1,000,000$ 8,000,000$ 15,000,000$ 41,559,290$
Mean 43.00
Median 41.36
Attachment 2 5/9/2024
FOF Expenses and Revenues
FY2025 Change FY2024 FY2023
Total FOF Revenue 56,743,385 - 52,338,120 47,215,097
Community and Neighborhoods 4,460,689 Beginning Balance 3,371,453 Beginning Balance 3,046,398
(64,759) Personal Services Base to Base Changes 54,400
Annualization of partially funded positions - Annualization of partially funded positions 40,749 Annualization of partially funded positions -
Pension Changes 8,514 Pension Changes (5,400) Pension Changes (916)
Insurance Rate Changes 36,292 Insurance Rate Changes 2,620 Insurance Rate Changes 4,000
Health Savings Account 5,750 Merit Changes - Merit Changes -
Salary Proposal 64,088 Salary Proposal 42,026 Salary Proposal 32,668
Train Crossing Safety Signage (150,000) Homeless HSD - Advantage Services 598,000 Budget Amendment #2 - Salary Changes 20,156
CAN/HSD - TIP, Tenant Relocation Assistance Program - CAN/HSD - TIP, Tenant Relocation Assistance Program 180,000 Transportation Planner III (Grade 28) (10 Months)203,747
CAN/HSD - TIP, Tenant Resource Center and Navigation Service - CAN/HSD - TIP, Tenant Resource Center and Navigation Service 46,000 Program Expenses [One-Time $8,800]11,000
TOTAL Community and Neighborhoods 4,425,332 - 4,210,689 3,371,453
Fire Department 1,400,953 869,540 Beginning Balance 236,448
Annualization of partially funded positions - Annualization of partially funded positions 24,022
Personal Services Base to Base Changes - Personal Services Base to Base Changes 42,368 Personal Services Base to Base Changes 25,846
Pension Changes 9,585 Pension Changes (1,076) Pension Changes (1,264)
Insurance Rate Changes (15,141) Insurance Rate Changes 3,348 Insurance Rate Changes 1,648
Merit Changes - Merit Changes 6,571 Merit Changes -
Salary Proposal 69,304 Salary Proposal 37,261 Salary Proposal 6,696
Health Savings Account 5,000 316,092
Fleet Fuel Cost Increase
Medical Response Paramedics (MRPs) - 163,727 Remove Program Expense [One-Time](47,200) Remove FD Deployment Expense Reimbursement [One Time]
Remove Emergency Management Phase 2 [One Time](36,066)
(CHAT) Community Health Access Team Enhancements - (CHAT) Community Health Access Team Enhancements 369,667 Transfer MRT from ARPA Funding
Program Costs [One-Time, $2,000]- (2,000) Program Costs [One-Time, $2,000]21,000 MRT Expansion (Firefighter) - (Grade 17) (11 Months)264,240
Fire Captain - Medical Division (6-month funding)- Fire Captain - Medical Division (6-month funding)72,252 Program Expenses [One-Time $47,200]55,900
Program Costs [One-Time, $2,500]- (2,500) Program Costs [One-Time, $2,500]3,200
TOTAL Fire 1,469,701 159,227 1,400,953 869,540
Justice Court
Community Outreach Case Manager (Grade 19) (12 Mos)- 88,363
Total Justice Court - 88,363
Police Department 13,016,903 12,207,968 Beginning Balance 8,749,563
Personal Services Base to Base Changes - Personal Services Base to Base Changes (421,911) Personal Services Base to Base Changes 985,535
Annualization of partially funded positions - Annualization of partially funded positions 546,193 Annualization of partially funded positions
Pension Changes 187,183 Pension Changes (11,921) Pension Changes 16,223
Insurance Rate Changes 350,523 Insurance Rate Changes 32,376 Insurance Rate Changes 54,240
Merit Changes - Merit Changes 2,780 Merit Changes 120,288
Salary Proposal 2,109,141 Salary Proposal 377,963 Salary Proposal 534,466
Health Savings Account 67,250 NFP & CCAC Cost Projections [41 Impacted Employees]
Budget Amendment #2 - Salary Changes 1,002,346
BA #4: Police Clean Neighborhoods 1,829,000 Civilian Response Team Program Director - (Grade 32) (10 Months)130,143
Civilian Response (Grade 20) (9 Mths)- Civilian Response (Grade 20) (9 Mths)202,999 Civilian Response Team Specialist - (Grade 19) (6 Months) (CRT Funded)520,164
Other Equipment [One-Time]- (74,056) Other Equipment [One-Time]74,056
Fleet & Fuel Costs (Ongoing)- Fleet & Fuel Costs (Ongoing)6,400 Program Expenses 95,000
Calls for Service: Overtime Staffing - 1,363,461
Total Police Department 17,560,000 1,289,405 13,016,903 12,207,968
Public Lands 1,848,671 687,424 Beginning Balance
Move Park Ranger to Funding Our Future 687,424
Personal Services Base to Base Changes - Personal Services Base to Base Changes (69,774)
Pension Changes 104,267 Pension Changes (4,900)
Insurance Rate Changes 161,011 Insurance Rate Changes 1,892
Health Savings Account 25,250 Merit Changes 4,986
Salary Proposal 278,046 Salary Proposal 26,893
Glendale Park Phase I - 106,800 FOF - Parks New Properties & Growth and Use Impacts (10 months)
Glendale Park Phase I: Maintenance Tech III (Grade 119 Union) (10 Mnths)- 76,700 Parks Maintenance Tech II (Grade 16) (10 Mths)67,800
Associated Seasonals - Associated Seasonals 127,500
Program Costs [Ongoing]- Program Costs [Ongoing]110,450
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)- Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)67,800
Maint. Electrician IV (Grade 22) (10 Mths)- Maint. Electrician IV (Grade 22) (10 Mths)83,800
Program Costs [Ongoing] - Program Costs [Ongoing] 39,000
General Maint. Worker IV (Grade 21) (10 Mths)- General Maint. Worker IV (Grade 21) (10 Mths)79,800
Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (Grade 20) (10 Mths) - Sprinkler Irrigation Tech III (Grade 20) (10 Mths) 76,000
Central Control Irrigation SPE (Grade 20) (10 Mths)- Central Control Irrigation SPE (Grade 20) (10 Mths)76,000
Sr Warehouse Operator (Grade 15) (10 Mths)- Sr Warehouse Operator (Grade 15) (10 Mths)7,500
FOF - T&NL New Properties & Growth and Use Impacts - FOF - T&NL New Properties & Growth and Use Impacts
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)- Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)62,000
Associated Seasonals - Associated Seasonals (13,400)
Program Costs [Ongoing]- Program Costs [Ongoing]38,000
Environ Specialist II Union - Environ Specialist II Union 74,700
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)- Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)62,000
Associated Seasonals - Associated Seasonals 17,200
Program Costs [Ongoing]- Program Costs [Ongoing]52,000
Operational Expenses [One-Time]- (50,000) Operational Expenses [One-Time]50,000
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)- Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)62,000
Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)- Sr Natural Resource Technician (Grade 16) (10 Mths)62,000
TOTAL Public Lands 2,417,245 133,500 1,848,671 687,424
Public Services 3,539,718 3,482,579 Beginning Balance 2,675,831
Personal Services Base to Base Changes 15,500 Personal Services Base to Base Changes (203,084) Personal Services Base to Base Changes (4,016)
Annualization of partially funded positions - Annualization of partially funded positions 44,327 Annualization of partially funded positions -
Pension Changes 52,203 Pension Changes (12,672) Pension Changes 3,358
Insurance Rate Changes (10,333) Insurance Rate Changes 7,856 Insurance Rate Changes 12,400
Health Savings Account (3,528) Merit Changes 6,344
Salary Proposal - Salary Proposal 90,712 Salary Proposal 62,552
Budget Amendment #2 - Salary Changes 77,623
Mill and Overlay Increase - 296,000 390,552
Budget Amendment #3: Road Marking Maintenance (Moved to CIP Maint.)200,000 138,460
Streets Mill and Overlay Pilot Program (Equipment funding in CIP)(130,000) Streets Mill and Overlay Pilot Program (Equipment funding in CIP)130,000 Program Expenses 20,000
Incentive for RV Removal and Disposal - 100,000 Expansion of Traffic Signal Maintenance (Grade 23) (10 Months)83,175
Rapid Intervention Team (Following Pilot) - 253,026 Program Expenses 16,300
TOTAL Public Services 3,663,559 649,026 3,539,718 3,482,579
911 Dispatch 846,846 792,384 281,325
Annualization of partially funded positions 511,059
Personal Services Base to Base Changes - Personal Services Base to Base Changes 21,631
Pension Changes 6,492 Pension Changes (3,780)
Insurance Rate Changes 51,935 Insurance Rate Changes 3,224
Salary Proposal 35,401 Salary Proposal 33,387
Health Savings Account 8,250
Total 911 Dispatch Bureau 948,924 - 846,846 792,384
Non Departmental FY2025 Base Budget Addition/Reduction FY2024 Budget FY2023 Budget
Police Body Cameras and Vehicle Integration 512,578 512,578 Police Body Cameras and Vehicle Integration 512,578 Police Body Cameras and Vehicle Integration 512,578
Free Bus Passes for School Children,Parents,Guardian,Faculty 114,648 114,648 Capital Improvement Projects and Maintenance Fund 3,100,000 Capital Improvement Projects and Maintenance Fund 3,100,000
City Hall Police Presence (Ongoing)- 62,400 62,400 Parks Maintenance from FOF 2,000,000 Parks Maintenance from FOF 2,000,000
City Hall Security: City Hall Public Order Security (Ongoing)- 99,840 99,840
Axon Body Camera Services Enhancement - 143,280 143,280
Capital Improvement Fund:-
Transfer Out to CIP Fund Funding Our Future Transit Key
Routes Holding Account (One-time) (600 North Corridor
Transformation)
Capital Improvement Projects Fund 3,100,000 54,490 3,154,490
Westside New Project (Art)150,000 (150,000) -
Public Lands Transfer back to CIP for Maintenance - 683,152 683,152
Fleet Fund:- Fleet Fund:Fleet Fund:
Public Safety Apparatus/Vehicle Replacement 4,000,000 (4,000,000) - Public Safety Apparatus/Vehicle Replacement 4,000,000 Public Safety Apparatus/Vehicle Replacement 4,000,000
Streets Fleet Equipment/Vehicle Replacement 1,700,000 (1,700,000) - Streets Fleet Equipment/Vehicle Replacement 1,700,000 Streets Fleet Equipment/Vehicle Replacement 1,700,000
- Public Services - Concrete Maintenance Equipment
Fleet - Centralized Fleet Maintenance 138,500 138,500 Fleet - Centralized Fleet Maintenance 138,500 Fleet - Centralized Fleet Maintenance 138,500
Remove FY2024 Vehicles for New Positions 908,350 (908,350) - Fire - MRT 50,000
Vehicles for New Positions in FY2025 - 545,993 545,993 Police - Civilian Response Team Program Director 60,300
- Police - Civilian Response Team Members 315,000
Public Utilities Funds:- Public Services - Traffic Sign & Marking 133,000
Transfer from Fire for Fire Hydrant Fee 241,250 241,250 Public Services - Traffic Signal Maintenance 170,300
Fire Hydrant Fee (Ongoing)- 293,219 293,219 Remove FY2023 Vehicles for New Positions 728,600
IMS Services:- IMS Services:IMS Services:
IMS Servies 430,054 430,054 IMS Servies 430,054 IMS Services 430,054
IMS Expenses for New Positions (GF - 47, FOF - 22)59,164 (59,164) - IMS Expenses for New Positions (GF - 47, FOF - 22)66,000 IMS Expenses for New Positions (GF - 47, FOF - 22)66,000
New CAP Software ($350,000 one-time) $250,000 on going 350,000 (100,000) 250,000
Versaterm (Fire, Police, Attorneys Office)- 578,975 578,975
Budget for New Positions - Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing (transfer to
RDA) 2,590,000
Police Department:- Police Department:
Social Worker Program 706,553 706,553 Police Officer Training [One-Time $150,400]
Increased Mental Health Responders 571,074 571,074 Social Worker Program 646,017 Social Worker Program 962,109
REP FY2021 Holding Account [FY2021 REP Fund Balance]1,531,389 11,000 1,542,389 Increased Mental Health Responders 450,000 Increased Mental Health Responders 450,000
Arbinger Leadership Cohort (REP-C) (Ongoing)- 74,688 74,688
Leadership in Police Organization (REP-C) (Ongoing)- 52,500 52,500
School Resource Training (REP-C) (Ongoing)- 22,775 22,775
Culturally Responsive Therapy for Negative Police Interactions (REP-C)
(Ongoing)- 99,840 99,840
- 842,000 BA#2 Transfer Social Workers to Fire Department (316,092)
- Diversifying Public Safety Civilian Response Models Holding Account Diversifying Public Safety Civilian Response Models
Holding Account 842,000
Transit:- Transit:Transit:
Transit Plan - Service for Key Routes (1, 2, 9 & 21)7,000,000 7,000,000 Transit Plan - Service for Key Routes (1, 2, 9 & 21)6,600,000 Transit Plan - Service for Key Routes (1, 2, 9 & 21)6,600,000
-
Transit Plan - On-Demand Ride Services (Smaller Service Area)3,000,000 307,807 3,307,807 Transit Plan - On-Demand Ride Services (Smaller Service Area)1,900,000 Transit Plan - On Demand Ride Services 1,900,000
Transit Plan - UTA Outreach 100,000 100,000 Transit Plan - UTA Outreach 100,000 Transit Plan - UTA Outreach 100,000
Redevelopment Agency Fund - Redevelopment Agency Fund
Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing (transfer to RDA)1,840,000 750,000 2,590,000 Housing Plan - Land Discounts and Financing (transfer to RDA)2,590,000
Gap Financing for Switchpoints Project on N. Temple (One-time)250,000 (250,000) -
Switchpoint and Catalytic Grant Program 750,000 (750,000) -
Sanctioned Camping Catalytic Grant Prog Holding Account (One-time)500,000 (500,000) -
-
Municipal Contributions & Civic Support -
Salt Lake City Arts Council 200,000 - 200,000
PD Expungements 300,000 - 300,000
VOA-Detox 1,000,000 - 1,000,000
Salary Contingency 277,097 - 277,097
-
Total Non Departmental 29,730,657 (4,637,555) 25,093,102 25,803,749 25,803,749
Total FOF Expense 60,215,418 (2,318,034) 57,897,384 50,667,529 47,215,097
Budget Amendment #4 - CHAT (3 FTEs from Police, Funding from Non
Expansion of Traffic Sign & Marking Maintenance (Grade 18) (10 Months)
Budget Amendment #4 - CCP-Rapid Intervention Team (Transfer from ARPA to
Draft job description: Downtown Capitol Projects Program Manager
Background:
Salt Lake City is seeking a qualified individual who will drive the City’s strategic capital
improvement projects and downtown real estate development initiatives. This position sits
within the Salt Lake City Mayor's office and oversees the execution of priority projects and
public-private partnerships currently identified and prioritized by the Mayor, including but not
limited to the downtown sports & entertainment district, Main Street pedestrian
improvements, the Green Loop, and Grand Boulevards.
Key Functions:
Partners with internal team to ensure smooth communication, detailed project
management, and thoughtful pacing/ordering of major projects.
Collaborates with cross-functional teams to create/maintain the Mayor’s downtown
dashboard, an amalgamation of project plans, timelines, budgets, and corresponding
performance metrics. Leads and monitors project progress.
Retains and/or cultivates partnerships with key external stakeholders, including
community organizations, government agencies, businesses, developers and brokers to
build consensus, explore partnership opportunities, secure resources and navigate
complex projects.
Builds and executes strategies to secure private sector funding for key projects.
Oversees the development of community outreach plans in direct coordination with
internal stakeholders to support the successful execution of downtown capital
improvements and real estate projects.
Council Budget Overview
5.13.24
Council Budget Role
The Council considers:
•previously discussed policy goals or priorities identified by elected officials and the
public,
•the extent to which the City’s budget furthers the overarching commitment to social
equity,
•the extent to which the proposed budget addresses community needs and service
levels,
•How decisions made this year may create a budget impact in future years,
•potential unintended consequences that may result from budget and policy decisions,
•how these decisions align with the role of City government and whether there are
duplications with the role of other governmental entities, to ensure an efficient and
transparent use of taxpayer dollars
•This proposed budget uses more one time money than was used to balance the budget last year
(almost $40 million compared to $32 million). It maintains a 15.6% fund balance from the City’s
healthy savings account, or $12.3 million over the 13% threshold. This avoids a property tax increase
this year, but may ensure one is needed next year, unless other cuts or adjustments are made.
•Due to the rapid growth of sales tax revenue, it is currently 37% of the City’s revenue budget.
However, It is a more unstable revenue source, due to volatility based on the economy, and the City
cannot adjust it without State authorization.
•Adds 29 full-time employees to the general fund, not including 4 that were added during budget
amendments in FY 24. This is significantly less than have been added in the last several years.
•Recognizes the impact of rapid inflation on salary & benefits, contracts, supplies and materials
expense, and on the revenue side by increasing fees based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
•Continued/expanded alternative response models – the proposed budget expands one of the
programs created over the last several years to diversify the City’s public safety response and
maintenance of public spaces. The Administration is evaluating metrics for those models but does
not yet have recommendations for realignments/efficiencies.
•The following slides highlight some proposals in the Mayor’s recommended budget relating to
Council Priorities. There are many elements in the budget that address long-standing basic City
needs and continue progress on many of the Council’s priorities, although the Council may wish to
expand even more in some areas.
Legislative Branch Perspective:
High-level Budget takeaways
Legislative Branch Perspective
Policy Balancing
Use of one-time moneyHealthy Fund
balance allows no
tax increase
Adds to structural
deficit in future
Fee Increases to keep pace with InflationSmall increases each
year can be easier on
residents/businesses
Increases inflationary
burden on
residents/businesses
Adds over 30 FTEs
Healthy sales tax
growth allows growing
City services to match
demand
Evaluate service
level areas for
future efficiency
Increased Reliance on Sales Tax RevenueEnhances core City
services to match
demand
Most volatile of the
revenue sources, and
not under Council
control
Fund CIP just under 7%
Use of $15m from BA#5
allows significant
investment in needed
maintenance projects
Lower ONGOING
CIP investment than
previous years
Alternative Response Models
Multiple Departments
contributing to
alternative responses
to public safety
Not enough
operational time to
evaluate efficiencies
Note: Fiscal years 2022 and 2023 saw significant revenue increases in the form of one-
time grant money from the federal government.
-10.0%
-5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
FY
2
0
0
6
FY
2
0
0
7
FY
2
0
0
8
FY
2
0
0
9
FY
2
0
1
0
FY
2
0
1
1
FY
2
0
1
2
FY
2
0
1
3
FY
2
0
1
4
FY
2
0
1
5
FY
2
0
1
6
*
FY
2
0
1
7
FY
2
0
1
8
FY
2
0
1
9
FY
2
0
2
0
FY
2
0
2
1
FY
2
0
2
2
FY
2
0
2
3
FY
2
0
2
4
FY
2
0
2
5
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
General Fund Revenue % Change from Previous Year
Property Taxes
24%
Payment in Lieu of
Taxes
1%
Sales and Use Taxes
37%
Franchse Taxes
3%
Intergovernmental
1%
Charges for services
2%
Interfund
transfers in
1%
Other Revenue
19%
Use of Fund
Balance
8%
RDA Pass through
4%
Revenue sources the
City can control
FY 25 Budget includes:
• $1 million Property Tax Stabilization
•4% Increase in all City fees based on the Consumer Price Index
Department Proposed Changes
Public Lands Glendale Park Phase I - $106,800
Glendale Park Phase I Maintenance Tech -$76,700 (10 Months)
Public Services BA #3 – Road Marking and Maintenance - $200,000
Mill and Overlay Program Expansion - $296,000
Reclassify seasonal $ to Sign and Markings Technicians –2 FTEs (budget neutral)
Non-Departmental CIP – Facilities Capital Replacement - $350,000
CIP -Parks Capital Replacement - $250,000
CIP – Public Lands transfer to CIP for maintenance - $683,152
Vacant Building Maintenance
IMS – Radio replacement - $250,000
Pub Utilities – Fire Hydrant Maintenance - $293,219
CIP Log $15 million from BA #5 Added to the CIP Log to fund additional deferred maintenance projects – see next slide
Addressing Maintenance Backlog
The following is a snapshot of NEW or CHANGED items in the Mayor’s recommended budget in the various
areas that touch on one or more of the Council’s priorities (this does not include continuation of programs
started in previous years, and is not comprehensive
Addressing Maintenance Backlog
The following is a list of CIP projects recommended by the Mayor, and includes the additional $15 million from BA #5
CIP Log
Stabilize Fire Training Tower $ 858,800
400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction $ 4,000,000
Complete Streets Reconstruction $ 4,500,000
Liberty Park Greenhouse (design)$ 921,700
Complete Streets Overlay $ 3,500,000
Public Way Concrete $ 500,000
Facilities Replacement/Renewal Plan $ 2,756,500
Plaza 349 HVAC $ 2,200,000
Sugar House Park Pavilion Replacement $ 480,000
PSB – HVAC Replacement $ 1,300,000
Courts & Playground (some replacement)$ 1,508,090
700 South Reconstruction (4600 to 5000 West)$ 4,500,000
Traffic Signal Replacement $ 860,000
Memory Grove Park Repairs & Preservation Plan $ 1,910,000
Art Barn Infrastructure and ADA Improvement $ 500,000
Fairmont Park Basketball Court $ 754,000
Alleyway Improvements $ 500,000
Concrete Replacement $ 750,000
Total $ 32,299,090
Department Proposed Changes
Mayor’s Office BA #2 – Love your block operation expenses - $62,250
SLC Volunteer Corps Expansion - $63,000
Love Your Block program expansion - $69,000
Community Cultural Events - $15,000
Community and
Neighborhoods
Transfer RV Program to Public Services along with several homeless services expenditures
Fire BA #3 – Medical Response Paramedics – 2 FTEs
(CHAT) Medical Response Paramedics –2 FTEs -$163,727
Narcotics Tracking System - $65,000 (share with PD)
Maintain CHAT Team
Justice Court Community Outreach Case Manager –1 FTE -$88,363 (12 months)
Police BA #4 – Clean Neighborhoods Overtime - $1,829,000
Contract, Event, Task Force Overtime - $1,434,295
Maintain Social Worker program Civilian Response Team
Public Services Rapid Intervention Team – $253,036 (3 FTEs) – doubles size
RV Removal/Disposal - $100,000
Non-Departmental Axon Body Camera Services Enhancement - $143,280 increase
Vehicles for new positions in FY 25 - $545,993 (FOF)
Racial Equity in Policing Commission recommendations ($1.5 million remaining in account):
Arbinger Leadership Cohort - $74,688
Leadership in Police Org - $52,500
School Resource Training - $22,775
Culturally Responsive Therapy for Police Interactions - $99,840
Equity and Diversified Response Models
The following is a snapshot of NEW or CHANGED items in the Mayor’s recommended budget related to one or more of the Council’s
priorities (this does not include continuation of programs started in previous years, and is not comprehensive.
Teams:
Fire - Community Health Access Team (CHAT), Medical Response Team (MRT)
Police – Social Worker Co-Responders, Civilian Response Team
CAN – Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART), Downtown Street Ambassadors (via DTA)
Public Lands – Park Rangers Program
Public Services – Community Cleaning Program (CCP), Rapid Intervention Team, RV Compliance
•Budget uses significant one-time funds to balance
•Fund balance still well above 13% threshold ($15.59%, $12.3 million)
•Upcoming zero-based budget exercise is an opportunity to evaluate why
departments are not fully spending budgets, opportunities to re-assign positions
and/or reduce budgets
Maintaining Healthy Rainy Day Fund
City Employee Compensation
•Proposed budget includes 5% Cost of Living Adjustment for employees – adds
$8.2 million in expenses to the general fund
•Union negotiations ongoing, TBD
•Increased contribution to employee HSAs
•CCAC Recommended adjustments for various positions citywide
•HR Recommended increase to Mayor’s salary, which triggers a Council
adjustment, too
Community Outreach and Engagement
Proposed Changes
Mayor’s Office SLC Volunteer Corps - $63,000
Love your Block program – tools and Expansion - $69,000 (one time)
Senior Advisor to the Mayor – Downtown Projects - $216,420 –1 FTE
Community Cultural Events (supplies) - $15,000
Attorney’s Office Boards and Commissions Analyst - $89,640 (1 FTE)
Community and Neighborhoods Communications and Engagement Manager - $139,715 (1 FTE)
Economic Development Sister Cities Part Time Employee - $47,000
Justice Court Community Outreach Case Manager –1 FTE - $88,363 (12 months)
Public Lands To deliver projects promised to public:
Public Lands Project Coordinator –1 FTE - budget neutral
Senior Public Lands Planner –1 FTE - $121,979
Senior Landscape Architect –1 FTE - $138,636
Public Services To deliver projects promised to public:
Project Delivery support for Parks - $249,694 (2 FTEs)
Engineer IV –1 FTE - $117,210
Non-Departmental Arts Culture and Events (ACE) Fund for events - $100,000 increase ($300,000 total)
Open Streets for Summer 2026 - $400,000
Various community memberships
Policy Questions
•role of centralized civic engagement team and individual communication officers
•CRM system and constituent response
Highlights relating to previous priorities
Proposed Changes
Transit/Transportation Continued/ongoing funding for HIVE passes for public school students, faculty, parents/guardians
Additional $300,000 for Westside On Demand ride service - $3.3 million total
Frequent Bus Routes – 200 South, 900 South, 2100 South - $7 million
Housing $2.59 million from Funding our Future to RDA for Affordable Housing ($2.9 million in the Housing Development
Fund)
Continues funding for Housing Stability/Thriving In Place Programs
RDA – ADU Program (continued funding)
RDA - $1 million for Competitive Housing Development Pool (Secondary Housing Fund)
RDA - $3.6 million (Primary Housing Development Loan Fund)
RDA – Westside Community Initiative - $1.8 million
Business Support/Economic
Development
Continues funding for Construction Mitigation
Apprenticeship Program - $500,000 reduction in Non-Departmental (absorbed in departments – see policy q)
Japantown Investment Japantown Construction Documents - $100,000 (Central Business District)
Japantown Art - $300,000 (Central Business District) & $36,577 (Block 67)
Street Safety Complete Streets Reconstruction/Overlay - $3.5m/$2.75m
Safer Crossings (citywide) - $300,000 recommended in CIP
Neighborhood byways program - $970,000
Applications not recommended for funding:
Livable Streets Program –$3 million requested. Note: this program received $1.6 million in FY 24
HAWK Signal at Richmond St and Zenith Ave - $500,000 requested - Constituent Application
California Ave Pedestrian Safety - $807,000 requested - Constituent Application
600 South Safety Improvements - $530,000 requested - Constituent Application
FY 2025 Proposed FTE Changes by General Fund Department
Department
Adopted FY
2024
Positions
Budget
Amendment
Positions
New
Positions
Total
(note: Total does
not reflect grant
positions, as they
are refected in
the grant fund)Change New Position Notes/Other Notes
Attorney 60.50 4.00 2 66.50 6 Boards Compensation Analyst (10 months)
Assistant City Prosecutor (10 months)
BA #4: Legislative Affairs Division - 4 FTEs - FY 25 budget
reclassifies an FTE to a Deputy level
Adjusting Dep Recorders from E26 to E31
Community and
Neighborhoods
195 2 197 2 Communications and Engagement Manager (10 months)
Building Inspector III (10 months)
Council 35 0 0 35 0
Economic Development 22 0 0.5 22.5 0.5 Sister Cities Park Time Position (12 months)
Finance 81.7 0 2.5 84.2 2.5 Business Systems Analyst (10 months) - 2 FTEs
Grant Analyast - Part Time to Full Time (10 months) - .5
FTEs
911 Communications Bureau 100 0 0 100 0
Fire 402 0 2 404 2 Medical Response Paramedics for (CHAT) Community
Health Access Team (FOF Funding) - 2 FTEs
Human Resources 33.4 0 0 33.4 0
Justice Court 42 0 1 43 1 Community Outreach Case Manager (12 months) (FOF
Funding)
Mayor 34 0 1 35 1 Senior Advisor Downtown Projects (12 months)
Police 761 0 6 767 6 Offset with Airport Revenue - 6 FTEs - Airport Staffing
and Equipment - (9 months)
Public Lands 157.85 4 4 165.85 8.00 Glendale Park Maintenance Tech III (10 months) - (FOF
Funding)
Public Lands Project Coordinator (10 months) -
(Seasonal Funding)
Senior Public Lands Planner (10 months)
Senior Landscape Architect (10 months)
BA #2 Planning and Design Division - 4 FTEs
Public Services
(note: Sustainability FTEs are
reflected in Refuse Fund not in
general fund staffing document)
273.00 -4 8 277.00 4 Project Delivery Support for Parks Projects (10 months) -
2 FTEs
Rapid Intervention Team (10 months) - 3 FTEs (FOF
Funding)
Reclassify Seasonal to Sign and Markings Technicians - 2
FTEs (budget neutral)
Engineer IV (10 months)
Total 2,197.45 4.00 29.00 2,230.45 33.00
Proposed FY 2025
Truth In Taxation
Holds constant the dollar amount of property taxes that an entity receives,
regardless of changes in property values
Value
Rate
Baseline Property Tax Budget (DOLLARS)
Rate
Value
•Unless the Council chooses to increase taxes to receive more $ - requires public hearing & notice
•One exception – “New Growth” authorized by the County & State
•Other related concepts to cover at a later date – “Judgement Levy”, “Property Tax Stabilization”
New Growth
N
e
w
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
New $ received by
City
(confirmed on June 8)
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
l
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
e
d
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ch
a
n
g
i
n
g
R
e
a
l
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
s
Baseline Property Tax Budget
N
e
w
C
i
t
y
B
u
d
g
e
t
New “Baseline”
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
FY 2024 Property Tax Revenue FY 2025 Property Tax Revenue
Without Property Tax Stabilization or Increase
Allowed “Baseline”
NEW GROWTH
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
Amount
received
above budget
Amount
received
above budget
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
FY 2024 Property Tax Revenue FY 2025 Proposed
Property Tax Revenue
With Property Tax Stabilization
NEW City “Baseline”
NEW GROWTH
Stabilization
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
FY 2024 Property Tax Revenue FY 2025 Proposed
Property Tax Revenue
NEW City “Baseline”
NEW GROWTH
Stabilization
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
Amount
received
above budget
Who Pays?
If economy grows at the same rate
Existing Taxpayers
New Investment
in Personal Property
like business equipment
Existing Taxpayers
New Buildings
(Real Property)
New Business Investment
(Personal Property)
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
FY 2024 Property Tax Revenue FY 2025 Proposed
Property Tax Revenue
NEW City “Baseline”
NEW GROWTH
Stabilization
FY 24
Adopted
Property
Tax Budget
Amount
received
above budget
Who Pays?
If economy DOES NOT grow at the same rate
Existing Taxpayers
New Investment
in Personal Property
like business equipment
Existing TaxpayersNew Buildings
(Real Property)
Other FY 25 Property Tax/Fee Proposals
Monthly Proposed
Increase
(Avg Home,
residential customer)
Percent usage rate
increase
Library property tax increase proposal*$3.42
Metropolitan water district property tax
increase proposa ** $3.92
Water utility $2.73 4%
Sewer utility $2.16 4%
Stormwater utility $1.06 10%
Street lighting utility $0.62 10%
Water utility new stabilization fee
(for most residential connections)$10.18
Sewer utility new stabilization fee
(for most residential connections)$7.22
Total Estimated MONTHLY Impact for Avg
Residential
$31.30
Total Estimated ANNUAL Impact for Avg
Resdiential
$375.64
*Average value property of $596,000
**Average value property of $576,000
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Senior Analyst
DATE:May 14, 2024
RE: Proposed FY 2025 Finance Department Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes 56, Department Overview 183-187, Staffing Document 284-287
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Department of Finance includes Policy and Budget Development, Accounting & Financial Reporting, Purchasing
and Contracts, Grants Acquisition Management, the Treasurer’s Office, Revenue and Collections, Business Licensing,
Fraud Waste and Abuse, and the Civil Action Unit (handles parking notices, ground transportation, alarm violations,
snow removal, loud party, and animal control). The $13,008,630 proposed FY2025 budget is (-$5,133,597) or (-28%)
less than last year. The decrease is entirely caused by eliminating funding to maintain the old financial system
(OneSolution) because it’s discontinued. The City has transitioned to Workday as the new financial system Workday
maintenance funding is centralized in the separate IMS budget. The proposed Finance budget includes three new FTEs
and several small increases for personnel services detailed below.
The Department leadership shared the following top priorities that informed the FY2025 budget proposal:
- Implementation of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) Workday new financial system
- Program based budgeting (all departments are using this approach except the Airport and Public Utilities)
$717,208 Increase for Personnel Services
This funding reflects several personnel services category increases itemized on page 187 of the budget book and in the
table below. The smaller items occur in most annual budgets including base to base changes such as from mid-year
reclassifications and benefit changes, insurance rate increases, merit changes for represented employees, pension
changes, and annualizing the cost of positions that were partially funded for the soon-to-end fiscal year. The total
personnel services budget would be $11,361,105, which is 87% of the total department budget.
Personnel Services Line Item Change
Salary Proposal 343,378$
Base-to-base changes 154,466$
Business Systems Analyst (2 New FTEs)126,437$
Insurance Rate Changes 66,413$
Grant Analyst (Convert from Half to Full FTE)55,284$
Health Savings Account 37,600$
Pension Changes 18,428$
Less contingent FTE (see clarification on next page)(84,798)$
Total 717,208$
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 14, 2024
Budget Hearings: May 21 and June 4, 2024
Potential Action: June 11 or 13, 2024
Page | 2
$343,378 for the 5% general pay increase / cost of living adjustment or COLA proposed in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget for all City employees.
$126,437 for two business systems analyst FTEs that would be funded for 10 months (plus $68,082 from the IMS Fund).
The estimated total annual cost for the positions is $233,422. The positions are split 65% ($151,724) paid by Finance and
35% ($81,698) paid by the IMS fund. The new Workday financial system provides the City with new tools for improved
transparency and accountability. Workday has eliminated some of the prior workload in the Department and at the same
time created new tasks. For example, the grants module and donations module removed the needs for manually
updating spreadsheet while at the same time creating new abilities for budgets to be locked down earlier to reduce the
risk of double-spending. The two new business systems analysts would focus on implementing the new Workday tools.
The Department has characterized this as higher value-added work instead of spreadsheets management.
$55,284 to convert a half-time grant analyst to be full time that would be funded at 10 months. The estimated total
annual cost for the position is $110,568 (already includes benefit eligible expenses). The position would handle the
increasing workload caused by departments applying for and being awarded more grants. This trend is anticipated to
continue in part driven by ongoing large grant opportunities from the federal government. The full-time position may
also attract a better pool of candidates.
$20,000 for professional development opportunities and potential bonuses mostly related to continuing
implementation of the Workday new financial system. These funds were added in the FY2024 annual budget as one-
time and are now proposed to be ongoing.
$84,798 re-appropriation for a contingent FTE for more anticipated donations to the Salt Lake Foundation. The
Foundation is a 501(c)3 organization for charitable and educational purposes controlled by the City that receives
donations advancing the City’s policy goals. The position was envisioned as a liaison between the City and the Salt Lake
Foundation. The partial year funding was originally approved in the FY2024 annual budget. The position remains
vacant. The funds were inadvertently counted across several of the line items in the personnel services table above which
is why the line item is negative to avoid double-counting.
$60,000 existing from one-time to ongoing for Resource X which is a software the Finance Department uses
for program-based budgeting. This change will allow moving to a long-term contract.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Workday Implementation – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how implementation is going of
the new Workday financial system, examples of new tools it provides to the City, and share the goals for the new
business systems analysts.
2.Use & Effectiveness of the Good Landlord Program – The Council may wish to ask about the status of the
Good Landlord Program given increased use and budget resources. Since its implementation nearly 10 years ago,
one FTE was added two fiscal years ago which was the only staffing increase since the program began. Over the
same time, the number of licensed housing rental units has more than tripled, and the City’s recently implemented
new Affordable Housing incentives, and increased enforcement on short-term rentals may all affect the reliance on
the program’s resources.
For example, the Council may request information about any opportunities for improvement, if additional
resources or policy / legal changes are needed, how the housing construction boom has affected the usage rate,
whether it is accomplishing its intended purposes, etc.? Some Council Members have expressed interest in
exploring new resources to increase enforcement, new / proactive education, and balancing landlord and tenant
resource assistance.
The Council could coordinate with the Administration about the preferred timing for this discussion, whether
there is value in a more comprehensive discussion, and/or whether it is possible to identify potential budget needs
sooner rather than later.
3.Fund Balance Target Percentage Range (minimum and maximum) – The Council may wish to continue
the policy discussion from the financial risks and reserves briefing earlier this year. Some Council Members
expressed interest in developing a percentage range for Fund Balance instead of the current minimum target of
13%. The Council could request the Administration proposed range options such as by a legislative intent.
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Impact Fees Fully Paying for an Existing FTE
A recent change to state law requires that an FTE fully dedicated to impact fees tracking and reporting should be fully
paid from impact fees. The proposed budget has an existing Financial Analyst IV FTE in the Finance Department that
will be fully paid from impact fees instead of the General Fund beginning in FY2025. The cost would be equally split
between the four types of General Fund impact fees: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Personnel costs typically do
not belong in the CIP Fund because it’s limited to capital projects, bond payments, and other debt obligations like
property rent. This case would be the sole exception to comply with state law. It would also allow simpler tracking for
budget and accounting and be easier to pull reports on the position such as for an audit.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. Department Performance Measurements
ACRONYMS
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
COLA – Cost of Living Adjustment
ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning
FTE – Full-time Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
IMS – Information Management Systems Department
Page | 4
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY COMPARISON BUDGET CHART
BY FUNCTION
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Actuals Actuals Adopted Proposed Dollars %
Office of the Director 10 $ - $ - $ - $ 602,285 $ 602,285 -
Accounting & Financial
Reporting 14 $ 2,529,351 $ 3,206,820 $ 2,229,781 $ 3,345,798 $ 1,116,017 50%
Policy & Budget 8 $ 621,815 $ 855,138 $ 3,140,673 $ 668,218 $ (2,472,455)-79%
Purchasing & Contracts 13 $ 997,836 $ 1,224,556 $ 1,558,727 $ 1,700,393 $ 141,666 9%
Revenue & Collections 23 $ 1,851,485 $ 1,970,345 $ 2,073,612 $ 3,556,024 $ 1,482,412 71%
Internal Audit 4 $ 893,288 $ 1,035,779 $ 1,248,797 $ 877,849 $ (370,948)-30%
Treasurer’s Office 9 $ 1,655,112 $ 1,781,394 $ 1,961,447 $ 1,994,504 $ 33,057 2%
Grants Administration 4 $ - $ - $ - $ 263,558 $ 263,558 -
ERP (Workday)
Maintenance - $ 3,075,269 $ 4,814,192 $ 5,929,187 $ - $ (5,929,187)-100%
Total 85 $ 11,624,155 $ 14,888,224 $ 18,142,224 $ 13,008,630 $ (5,133,594)-28%
Funding Source
General Fund 84.7 $ 8,513,325 $ 10,038,470 $ 12,168,296 $ 12,963,889 $ 795,593 7%
IMS Fund - $ 3,075,269 $ 4,814,192 $ 5,929,187 $ - $ (5,929,187)-100%
Risk Admin Fund 0.3 $ 35,562 $ 35,562 $ 44,741 $ 44,741 $ - 0%
Total 85 11,624,156$ 14,888,224$ 18,142,224$ 13,008,630$ $ (5,133,594)-28%
Department of Finance
Division FTEs Difference
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25
Actuals Actuals Adopted Proposed Dollars %
Personnel Services $ 7,597,933 $ 9,046,505 $ 10,643,897 $ 11,361,105 717,208$ 7%
Operations & Maintenance $ 342,183 $ 78,135 $ 780,174 $ 291,841 (488,333)$ -63%
Charges & Services $ 3,255,399 $ 5,763,584 $ 5,573,153 $ 1,355,684 (4,217,469)$ -76%
Capital Expenditures $ 424,149 $ - $ 1,145,000 $ - (1,145,000)$ -100%
Totals $ 11,619,664 $ 14,888,224 $ 18,142,224 $ 13,008,630 (5,133,594)$ -28%
Operating Budget for Department of Finance
Difference
Page | 5
ATTACHMENT 2
DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
Performance Measure 2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Actual
2022
Actual
2023
Actual
2023 &
2024
Target
Maintain a General Fund Balance between 15%
and 18%15%21%24%24%38%>15%
Maintain the City's prestigious AAA bond ratings AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA
The City’s rate of return on investments will be
greater than the rate for the State Pool.
State
2.7625%
City
2.5228%
State
2.0493%
City
1.9043%
State
0.4819%
City
0.5676%
State
0.4930%
City
0.5839%
State
3.7318%
City
3.1512%
City > State
Percentage of contract and purchase orders
awarded to small and disadvantaged business
enterprises.
3.92%3.30%TBD TBD TBD 5%
Complete 75% of planned internal audits and cost
analyses annually
NA, New
Measure 43%54%56%66%≥75%
Payments to vendors electronically 45%44%52%65%71%72%
1
Finance FY24-25 Budget
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson
FINANCE FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Organizational Chart
2
FINANCE FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Overview of Changes:
General Fund Expenditures
FY24 Adopted Budget Proposed Changes FY25 Recommended
Personnel: $10,643,897 $181,721 $10,780,877
Operating: $1,524,399 $80,000 $1,604,399
FTEs: 82 FTE: +2.5 FTE: 84.5
2
Note: Does not include personnel services and associated FY25 personnel related adjustments such as benefits or retirement
FINANCE FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
INSIGHT DESCRIPTIONS
ResourceX Program Based Budgeting
•The Budget Office is looking to continue the work effort around Program Based Budgeting with
ResourceX. Now in its third year, all general fund departments are participating, and staff are
looking to establish a long-term contract agreement.
•$60,000 ongoing
Business Systems Analyst – 2 FTEs (E28)
•This insight is to increase service level with the implementation of Workday (as an internal
service department supporting all city departments). The focus of these roles will be on
enhancing Workday modules including Procurement,Treasurer's Office and Grants.
•$126,437 One Time (10 Months) / $233,422 Ongoing Annually
Grants Analyst – Part Time to Full Time (E26)
•This professional position has been hard to fill as a Part Time position due to expertise and skill
set needed. As a full time, benefited position, it is anticipated we will find stronger candidates.
•$55,284 One Time (annual half time) / $110,567 Ongoing Annually
FINANCE FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
BB
INSIGHT DESCRIPTIONS
Professional Development
•One-time funding for bonuses converted to ongoing professional development.
•$20,000 ongoing
Key Changes/Insights
Insights Description Value ($)One-Time /
Ongoing Fund Source Department
Scoring
1 ResourceX Program Based Budgeting $60,000 Ongoing General Fund 12
2 Business Systems Analyst - 2FTEs (10 Mo)
$126,438
$233,422
One-Time
Ongoing
General
Fund/IMS 12
3 Grant Analyst – PT to Full Time $55,284 Ongoing General Fund 12
4 Professional Development $20,000 Ongoing General Fund 12
6 Total $368,706 Ongoing General Fund
3
FINANCE FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
THANK YOU
Presented Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
With support from:
Greg Cleary, City Budget Director
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:May 14, 2024
RE: Salt Lake 2024 Resident Survey
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Salt Lake City conducts a citywide resident survey on an approximately biennial basis by contracting
with a research firm to measure public moods and sentiments regarding current issues and City
services. The survey has historically been a valuable tool for a formal scientific collection of resident
perceptions. Responses inform citywide performance measures, communication efficacy, and future
funding and service priorities. The City’s Innovation & Project Management Team, a division of the
Information Management Services (IMS) Department, leads coordination with Y2 Analytics, the
survey firm. Staff from the Council Office and Mayor’s Office participated in the planning committee
in preparation for the 2024 survey.
Goal of the briefing: Brief the Council on the conclusions and methodology of creating
and conducting the Resident 2024 Survey, and solicit Council feedback on adequate
representation.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Panel vs random sampling: The biennial survey typically solicits responses via mailings to
10,000 random households, compared to a panel survey, which is a smaller, self-selected
sample size (see page 2 for more details on 2023’s panel survey). The Council may wish to have
a discussion with the Innovation Team and consultants on the benefits and risks of using
responses from a self-selected panel as data points for this and future biennial survey
comparisons.
Page | 2
2.Council feedback on survey elements: One next step is to convene a mid-year workgroup
to prepare for the next survey. The Council may wish to provide feedback for the workgroup on
the questions below and/or any other elements that Council Members think would be helpful
to inform future decision-making.
a. The survey team has a standard practice of weighting data to account for comparative
district and demographic representation. However, the smaller the sample size, the
greater the sampling error. In small samples like this year’s response pool, this leads to
less reliable conclusions, and a higher risk of further minimizing already minoritized
voices. The Council may wish to discuss:
i. Would it be helpful to establish a minimum threshold of responses by District?
ii. Are there other demographic data points essential to capture a minimum
sample size for?
b. Discontinuing telephone outreach seemed to be a key factor in the small response rate
this year. Does the Council wish to set an expectation that phone outreach be used in
future years?
c.Does the Council have other priorities it would be helpful to gather resident feedback
on?
3.Appendix of open responses: the transmittal included 19 pages of comments from survey
participants. Some are simply technical/administrative, but others contain feedback on
specific projects/policies. The Council may wish to ask for a supplemental summary that
conveys an overview of the different sentiments and topics covered by the appendix.
Caveats when comparing to 2023 panel survey
A major benefit of the biennial surveys is the ability to track resident attitudes over time, and this
year’s survey adds some illuminating data points to that end. 2023 is included here because several
slides in the presentation compare 2024 findings to 2023 responses. However, it’s worth noting that
among the prior year surveys, the 2023 survey was not a classic biennial survey. In FY23, IMS's
budget for surveys increased by $45,0000 to $75,000 to establish a survey panel for the City’s
engagement efforts with the stated goal of recruiting City residents who are representative of the City’s
population.
The panel survey uses a different type of outreach (email solicitation) to a narrower, self-selected pool
of constituents (people who have previously interacted with the City and consented to future contact
for surveys) than the typical resident survey methodology. The potential limitations of self-selection
were partially offset by ensuring respondents represented all seven City Council Districts and
weighting of some districts with smaller number of participants.
The 2024 survey was conducted by mailing invitations to a random sample of residents, which is
generally considered a more representative methodology. The different survey approaches between
2023 and 2024 mean caution should be taken when comparing results between the two surveys and
generalizing trends to a broader population.
Changes since previous years
One challenge for the resident survey is striking the right balance between keeping questions
consistent enough to demonstrate shifts in public sentiment year over year, while also evolving to
gather feedback on new initiatives and technologies. Another form of evolution is shifting methods of
Page | 3
outreach and languages to capture optimal representation, like in FY19 when the Council added
funding for that year’s survey to ensure telephone outreach could be provided in Spanish. This was in
addition to the online option, which is available in English and Spanish.
2024’s survey was solicited through the mail, but could only be taken online, a departure from
the City’s standard method of soliciting surveys through the mail and conducted online or over
the phone. This may have been a factor in the lower-than-usual response rate of 653
respondents, nearly half the responses historically received.
Survey response periods have varied from year to year. This year, the survey was conducted
over 10 days, from March 28th to April 7th. Prior years were typically open longer; this year,
staff worked at an accelerated rate to ensure results were available in time to inform the annual
budget deliberations.
Respondents Phone Online Survey Open
Period
2024 653 0 653 3/28-4/7 (10 days)
2023 1079 0 1079 2/14-3/6 (21 days)
2021 1214 ~500 ~700 4/14-26 (12 days)
2019 1297 400 897 4/9-5/10 (31 days)
2015 1257 400 857 Unknown
This year’s survey contains question on new topics like the City’s civilian Community Response
Team, and raising families in Salt Lake City. Questions from past years with less current
relevance, like the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, have been removed.
2024’s survey also includes an appendix of 19 pages of comments in response to “anything
else?” These range from technical feedback on the survey’s quality to detailed thoughts on
homelessness, housing affordability, and more.
This year’s low survey response rate means that some districts have markedly lower
representation than prior years (~50% of the prior low in District 1’s case, and nearly 33% of
the next lowest turnout in District 2). Although responses are weighted to bring representation
to a level comparable to the census demographics, the Council may wish to discuss whether a
minimum threshold of responses per district should be established to ensure a sufficient
sample size to extrapolate conclusions from.
Responses by District
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total/total
respondents
2024 54 27 108 117 112 110 118 646 / 653
2023 91 105 146 102 219 188 242 1093 / 1079*
2021 115 77 222 179 192 213 209 1207 /1207
2019 105 76 119 95 116 136 127 777 / 1257
2015 2015 did not include responses broken down by district
*In addition to prior caveats about 2023’s survey, staff noted numbers that indicate 61
respondents were able to indicate not living in Salt Lake City, but still select a Council District,
Page | 4
leading to more District respondents than actual qualified survey responses. However, the rest
of the survey’s questions were only given to City residents.
__________________
AARON BENTLEY
CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
jill love 04/16/2024
j_i l l love (Apr 1 6_, 2024 11:44 MDT)Date Received:
Jill Love, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 04/16/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 16, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM:Aaron Bentley, Director, Information Management Services Department
SUBJECT:2024 Biannual Resident Survey Results
STAFF CONTACTS: Hailey Leek, Innovation Team Lead, Hailey.Leek@slc.gov
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item
RECOMMENDATION: None
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In March and April 2024, Y2 Analytics conducted the
biannual resident survey for Salt Lake City. A total of 653 Salt Lake City residents responded
online. Invitations with unique access codes were sent via mail to randomly selected households,
identified through a USPS residential address database. This sample included an oversample of
residents from specific target areas based on Census blocks or other relevant geographic
variables.
The five key takeaways from the 2024 Biannual Resident Survey are:
1.Residents enjoy a high quality of life. On a scale from 0 to 100, SLC residents offer an
average quality of life rating of 72, which is three points higher than last year’s evaluation
from email panelists. Quality of life is highest in Districts 5 and 6, with a 76 out of 100
for both. 59% of residents also say the city is headed in the right direction, while 45%
believe that their city tax dollars are well-spent.
2.SLC citizens rate social workers, golf course maintenance well. 911 dispatch and
fire/paramedics are also highly rated. Homeless engagement and street maintenance are
the lowest-rated services. Given the opportunity to fund city services, residents are the
most likely to give money to street/road surface maintenance and city parks/open
spaces.
3.Neighborhoods are walkable and well-connected. Residents tend to express positive
perceptions of their neighborhood’s access to key amenities such as parks, shopping, and
parking. The thing that SLC residents most enjoy about the city are its restaurants, and
nearly 60% of residents prefer to eat at restaurants in the City over anywhere else.
4.Police generally trusted while residents support the initiative to have social workers
handle various emergencies. 63% trust the police ”a great deal” or “a moderate amount”
and almost 90% of residents believe law enforcement should build relationships with
community members. 92% believe that social workers should be dispatched for various
emergencies. The vast majority who believe this express confidence in social workers’
specialized training.
5.Bare majority of residents express satisfaction with contacting the city. 54% of those who
contacted the city in the last year were satisfied with the response they received. Of those
who contacted the city, most did so over the phone. Residents would prefer to contact
the city through this avenue or via email. Residents would prefer to receive news or
updates from the City by email, although many currently do not.
Staff from Y2 Analytics is available to present the full findings to City Council.
Notes:
Kyrene Gibb of Y2 Analytics and Hailey Leek plan on being at the table at the work
session.
Attachments include:
o 2024 Resident Survey Report (full visualized of results)
o Topline Report
o Topline Appendix (written responses)
S A L T L A K E C I T YPANELIST ATTITUDES
O F F I C I A L 2 0 2 4 R E S I D E N T B I -A N N U A L S U R V E Y
1.Residents enjoy a high quality of life.
On a scale from 0 to 100, SLC residents offer an average quality of life rating of 72, which is three points higher than last year’s
evaluation from email panelists. Quality of life is highest in Districts 5 and 6, with a 76 out of 100 for both. 59% of residents also say
the city is headed in the right direction, while 45% believe that their city tax dollars are well-spent.
2.SLC citizens rate social workers, golf course maintenance well.
911 dispatch and fire/paramedics are also highly rated. Homeless engagement and street maintenance are the lowest-rated services.
Given the opportunity to fund city services, residents are the most likely to give money to street/road surface maintenance and city
parks/open spaces.
3.Neighborhoods are walkable and well-connected.
Residents tend to express positive perceptions of their neighborhood’s access to key amenities such as parks, shopping, and parking.
The thing that SLC residents most enjoy about the city are its restaurants, and nearly 60% of residents prefer to eat at restaurants in
the City over anywhere else.
4.Police generally trusted while residents support the initiative to have social workers handle various
emergencies.
63% trust the police ”a great deal” or “a moderate amount” and almost 90% of residents believe law enforcement should build
relationships with community members. 92% believe that social workers should be dispatched for various emergencies. The vast
majority who believe this express confidence in social workers’ specialized training.
5.Bare majority of residents express satisfaction with contacting the city.
54% of those who contacted the city in the last year were satisfied with the response they received. Of those who contacted the city,
most did so over the phone. Residents would prefer to contact the city through this avenue or via email. Residents would prefer to
receive news or updates from the City by email, although many currently do not.
5 KEY FINDINGS TO REMEMBER
■Gauge attitudes towards city services and public safety.
■Gather perceptions about neighborhood quality and community.
■Understand what draws residents to and keeps residents in SLC.
■Gauge attitudes towards transportation options and maintenance.
■Examine from which communication channels residents most commonly receive
information about the city and which modes they would prefer.
■Evaluate how residents feel about and utilize community councils.
SURVEY OBJECTIVES
R E S E A R C H G O A L S
■10,000 SLC households were sampled from a list of resident contacts gathered from a
USPS residential address database.
■653 residents within the boundaries of Salt Lake City participated in this survey.
■Survey responses were collected between March 28th and April 7th, 2024.
■Invitations were sent via mailed letter and interviews were completed online.
■Data have been weighted to reflect population statistics from the U.S. Census’ American
Community Survey to better approximate a representative sample of the City as a whole,
specifically regarding age, city council district, race, gender, and home ownership.
■Margin of error +-3.8 percentage points
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
S A M P L I N G , M O D E , & M A R G I N O F E R R O R
SURVEY
RESPONDENTS –
DEMOGRAPHICS
10
5
0
DEMOGRAPHICS: TENURE, CHILDREN, HOMEOWNERSHIP
Residency Tenure (n = 624)
Less than 1 year 1 %
1 - 5 years 27
6 - 10 years 14
11 - 15 years 9
15 - 20 years 5
20 - 40 years 29
40 - 60 years
60 - 80 years
More than 80 years
85%Children in Household (n = 649)
5 7 2
None 1 2 3+
Homeownership (n = 625)
53%
Rent / Other
48
Own
Census Estimate
Own 48%
Rent 51
DEMOGRAPHICS: AGE, GENDER, RACE, MARITAL STATUS
42%Age (n = 617)Gender (n = 625)
7
17 13 13 15
18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Ethnicity (n = 616)
43%
Female
Marital Status (n = 622)
50
Male
85 41%
34
17
23%
4 5 2
BIPOC White Other Married Divorced Widowed Partner Single
O t h e rCensus Estimate
18-34 42.5%
35-44 17.8
45-54 12.4
55-64 12.6
65+14.7
Census Estimate
Men 51%
Women 49
Census Estimate
Married 41.2%
Single 43
Divorced 11
Partner 1.4
Widowed 3.4
Census Estimate
White 77%
BIPOC 23
Prefer not to say
Employment (n = 624)
Employed
Retired
Self-employed
Unemployed
Homemaker
Student
71%
Education (n = 625)
Post-graduate degree
College graduate
31%
14 42
9
3
2
1
Some college
Vocational or technical school
High school graduate
Some high school or less
17
1
8
0
DEMOGRAPHICS: EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, INCOME
Income (n = 624)
25
Under $25,000 $25,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $124,999 $125,000 - $149,999 Over $150,000 Prefer not to say
18
12 13 10
5 %6 8
4
C
e
n
s
u
s
M
e
d
i
a
n
Unweighted Weighted Census
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
C O U N C I L DISTRICTS
N size Sample %Sample %Estimate %
54 8%12%14%
27 4%12%14%
108 17%15%15%
117 18%15%15%
112 17%15%14%
110 17%15%14%
118 18%15%14%
PANEL RESIDENTS –
KEY METRIC
COMPARISONS
TO PRIOR SURVEYS
Q: All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n = 653)
Average: 72
OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE IN SALT LAKE CITY
Very few residents rate their quality life in Salt Lake below 50. The average rating among SLC residents is 72, up 3 points from 2023.
Q: All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n = 650)
Average: 65
Average: 67
Average: 74
Average: 67
Average: 76
Average: 76
Average: 75
QUALITY OF LIFE BY CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
Residents in District 5 and 6 report the highest average quality of life (76) and those in District 1 report the lowest average quality of life (65).
how would you rate your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n = 650)**Survey of resident contacts from SLC utilities database
***
VOTERS PANELISTS
Q: All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high,*Survey of SLC registered voters, not all SLC residents
QUALITY OF LIFE CONSISTENT OVER TIME
Since 2015, resident quality of life has only decreased 5 points. 2024’s average of 72 is up 3 points from 2023.
Q: Overall, would you say Salt Lake City is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction? (n = 647)**Survey of resident contacts from SLC utilities database
% Right Direction
81%75%
VOTERS PANELISTS
72%71%
59%
*Survey of SLC registered voters, not all SLC residents
MAJORITY SAY SLC HEADED IN RIGHT DIRECTION
Nearly 3 in 5 say that SLC is headed in the right direction. This is improvement over last year, when only 45% said so, signaling that the City is recovering from 2023’s dip.
63%*
45%**
Q: In general, how do you rate the service you receive from Salt Lake City for your tax dollar? (n = 653)
Resident rating of tax dollar
Excellent Good Fair Poor
LESS THAN HALF SAY THEIR TAX DOLLAR IS WELL-
SPENT
In 2024, 45% of respondents said that the service they receive for their tax dollar was “good” or “excellent”, while 55% say the service is “fair” or “poor”. Residents rate the
tax dollar consistently with how they did in 2023.
Q: Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following government services in Salt Lake City? If you have
no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable." (n = 645-648)
2023
Δ from 2023
—
6.9
⇩ 0.2
6.4
⇧ 0.2
6.6
=
5.2
⇧ 1.4
—
6.2
⇩ 0.1
5.5
⇧ 0.5
6.0
⇩ 0.1
5.5
⇧ 0.3
TOP 10 RATED CITY SERVICES
Social workers are the highest-rated service among residents, followed closely by the city golf courses, the highest-ranked service in 2023. 911, Fire/EMS, and park rangers
also received high ratings this year.
Q: Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following government services in Salt Lake City? If you have
no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable." (n = 645-648)
2023
Δ from 2023
5.0
=
5.4
⇩ 0.4
5.2
⇩ 0.4
4.7
=
4.7
⇧ 0.1
3.6
⇧ 0.6
4.1
⇧ 0.1
4.2
=
—
3.6
⇩ 0.1
BOTTOM 10 RATED CITY SERVICES
Street maintenance is among the worst-rated services for the second year in a row, and the homeless engagement and response team, assessed for the first time this year,
is among the lowest-rated city services.
Q: Imagine you were given $100 of the Salt Lake City budget to spend to improve city services. How would you want to see the city divide your $100 among the city
services? (You may spend the $100 all in one category or divide it up as you please, but the total must be $100.) (n = 653)
Average
amount
allocated
Allocation to city services % who
allocated
more than $0
Other responses primarily consist
of contributing to services for the
homeless and affordable housing
opportunities.
CITIZENS WOULD ALLOCATE FUNDS TO SURFACE
MAINTENANCE
When asked what services they would fund if they were given $100 to spend at their will, residents on average spent more on surface maintenance than any other service.
More residents spent any amount of money on surface maintenance than any other service
* Groupings were created to emphasize the key takeaways from this question. They are not evenly distributed groups.
Willingness to pay more property taxes for better city services
Average:
$97 increase
Q: What is the maximum amount of additional annual property taxes you would be willing to pay to fund the improved provision of city services? (n = 653)
RESIDENTS WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY ~$100 MORE IN
TAXES
When asked what increase in property taxes they would be willing to pay to receive improved city services, residents, on average, said $97. This average was partially
affected by 12% of respondents saying they would not be willing to pay any additional taxes and 17% saying they would pay $250 (the maximum option) more.
NEIGHBORHOODS
& INITIATIVES
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood? (n = 649)
Neighborhood aspects – everyday life
% agree
in 2023
70%
⇧ 5%
61
⇧ 6%
58
⇧ 4%
—
40
⇧ 5%
26%
⇧ 8%
RESIDENTS FIND NEIGHBORHOODS WALKABLE,
CONNECTED
Respondents have differing views on various aspects of their neighborhoods. The majority think that their neighborhood is walkable, connected to the city and
aesthetically pleasing. Only 37% think their neighborhood schools are important gathering places and only 26% think things have gotten better since they moved in.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood? (n = 647)
Neighborhood aspects – accessibility
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree % agree
in 2023
—
61
⇧ 3%
—
58
⇧ 11%
49
⇧ 8%
RESIDENTS FEEL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ACCESSIBLE
Over 60% of residents agree that their neighborhood has good park, shopping, parking, and transit access. Just under 60% think their neighborhood has the right mix of
business and housing. Of the options that were asked last year, agreement is up across all three.
Feelings of safety
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe
Q: How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE DAY? (n = 649)
Q2: How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE NIGHT? (n = 650)
SLC RESIDENTS FEEL SAFER DURING THE DAY
Respondents were more likely to say they felt safe during the day (88% in their neighborhoods, 82% in downtown SLC) than at night (69% in their neighborhoods, 51% in
downtown SLC). Even so, over half of respondents feel safe in downtown at night, which received the lowest safety rating.
A
t
n
i
g
h
t
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
a
y
Aspects of SLC that residents find enjoyable Prefer in SLC over anywhere else
Q: Which of the following aspects of Downtown Salt Lake City do you appreciate or find enjoyable? Select all that apply. (n = 653)
Q2: For which of the following activities or aspects do you prefer to do in Downtown Salt Lake City rather than anywhere else? Select all that apply. (n = 647)
CITIZENS ENJOY SLC’S RESTAURANTS AND FOOD
OPTIONS
80% of residents enjoy Salt Lake’s restaurants and nearly 60% prefer the restaurants in SLC over anywhere else. The arts/performances and events/festivals in Salt Lake
City are also popular, with around half of residents enjoying these areas in Salt Lake over anywhere else. Citizens tend to find places to bike, go to parks, and attend sports
games in places outside of the city.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Q: How much do you trust Salt Lake City police? (n = 634)
Amount of trust in the Salt Lake City Police
A great deal A moderate amount A small amount Not at all
POLICE RECEIVE A GENERAL LEVEL OF TRUST
63% of respondents trust the police a “moderate amount” or ”a great deal”. Less than one in six don’t trust the police at all, although nearly a quarter only trust the police
“a small amount”.
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about local law enforcement? (n = 629)
Statements about Salt Lake City Police
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
9 IN 10 BELIEVE THE POLICE SHOULD BUILD COMMUNITY
RELATIONSHIPS
3 in 4 also believe that it would be valuable for the police to interact with residents outside of law enforcement. Residents are least likely to agree that additional funding
will make their communities safer or improve law enforcement in their communities.
628)
Awareness of changes
to emergency request calls
Belief that social workers should
handle these sorts of emergencies
Q: Recently, Salt Lake City made some changes in how emergency request calls are routed to the appropriate response teams. Specifically, the city has allocated resources to social workers and
social services to respond to many emergency calls that would previously have been dispatched to the police department. Emergencies of this sort include mental health emergencies, or
attempted suicide or suicidal ideation, among other things. Before reading this, were you aware that the city had made these changes? (n = 634)
Q2: Which of the two following statements regarding social services and responses to mental health emergencies comes closer to your view, even if neither one fully represents how you feel? (n =
32%
Aware
92%
Agree
EMERGENCY CALL INITIATIVE HAS NEARLY UNANIMOUS
SUPPORT
The City’s new initiative to allocate resources to social workers and social services for some emergency request calls has 92% support despite having relatively low
awareness (32%).
Q: Which of the following reasons describes why you feel mental health emergencies should be handled by social service professionals and social workers? Select all that apply (n = 560)
Why social workers should handle these emergencies
SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD HANDLE THESE CALLS DUE TO SPECIALIZED
TRAINING
When asked why they believed that social workers should handle certain emergency calls, almost all agreed that social workers’ specialized training allowed them to be
successful in these situations. Their access to specialized resources was also seen as important.
Q: Which of the following reasons describes why you feel mental health emergencies should be handled by police? Select all that apply (n = 62)
”Police should also bring
social workers to these
calls.”
“Response time is critical.”
“It depends on the
situation.”
[Police] can hand off the
situation to a trained social
worker, but you don’t want
to send a social worker into
a potentially dangerous
situation.”
“Social workers cannot
enforce laws or arrest.”
Why police should handle these emergencies
THOSE WHO PREFER POLICE SUPPORT CONCERNED ABOUT
VIOLENCE
Those who do not support the new emergency call initiative oppose it primarily because they believe that the situations that social workers would handle are too
dangerous for them. Some people said that social workers should be brought to these calls with police but that police should respond first due to the possible violent
nature of these calls.
= citizens agree that this role
should be addressed by the
level of government indicated
Roles in addressing homelessness
Q: Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah each play a different role in addressing homelessness. Which level of government do you think should be responsible for addressing each of
the following? (n = 566-577)
SLC SHOULD HANDLE MOST THINGS WHEN ADDRESSING
HOMELESSNESS
When asked what role the City, County, and State should play in addressing homelessness, 73% said that the city should focus on public safety. Residents think that the
City should focus on addressing encampments/occupied vehicles, picking up trash/biowaste, providing outreach, and mitigating concerns more than the County or State
should.
FAMILY FOCUS
“I’m too old to raise children.”
Reasons for not having children in SLC
Plan to have kids in SLC
<1% prefer
not to answer
28%
Yes
62%
No
Q: Do you plan to have and raise children, or have and raise additional children while living in Salt Lake City? (n = 650)
Q2: Which of the following, if any, are reasons you do not want to raise children in Salt Lake City? Please select all that apply. (n = 434)
“I already have adult children.”
62% DO NOT PLAN TO HAVE KIDS IN SALT LAKE
Residents who do not want children in SLC primarily do not because they do not want children at all or are concerned about air quality or affordable housing in the City.
“Housing construction focuses on
apartments that are not conducive
to family living.”
“The political atmosphere at the
state level.”
TRANSPORTATION &
ROADS
Primary methods of transportation
Q: What methods of transportation do you use when traveling around Salt Lake City? Please select all that apply. (n = 651) AND
Q2: What 2 methods of transportation do you prefer to use when traveling around Salt Lake City ? (n = 364)
PERSONAL VEHICLE MOST POPULAR METHOD OF
TRANSPORTATION
Nearly 8 in 10 use a personal vehicle as one of their two most-used methods of transportation. Walking and public transit are the next most popular methods of
transportation for travelling around the City.
Q: How often do you take public transportation when traveling around Salt Lake City? (n = 649)
Frequency of public transportation use
A QUARTER OF RESIDENTS NEVER USE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION
Most of those who do occasionally use public transport do so less than once a month (44%). 31% use public transportation monthly or more often.
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about public transportation in Salt Lake City? (n = 640)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree Neither Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Not applicable
RESIDENTS AGREE THAT TRANSPORT SHOULD RUN
LATER
Nearly half agree that buses and trains do not run late enough into the night but that public transport is affordable (48% and 49%, respectively). Residents are less likely to
agree that bus routes go to where they need them to go (32%) or that trains go to recreation they enjoy (30%).
Q: How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads in the neighborhood where you live? (n = 641)
How well do the following statements describe roads in the neighborhood where you live?
Extremely well Very well Somewhat well Slightly well Not well at all
RESIDENTIAL ROADS HAVE MIXED REVIEWS
Residents are pretty evenly divided between positive, neutral, and negative attitudes towards traffic and lighting in their neighborhoods. However, they are less likely to
have positive attitudes towards the roads being safe for cyclists or well-maintained. Most are neutral to negative on both of those points.
Q: How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads you use daily around the city? (n = 635)
How well do the following statements describe roads you use daily around the city?
Extremely well Very well Somewhat well Slightly well Not well at all
CITY ROADS NOT SEEN AS WELL MAINTAINED
51% said that they do not think the roads in the city are well maintained. Across the board, SLC residents do not feel positively about the roads they use frequently around
the city. The highest % of positive support (35%) is for the roads being well-lit.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Q2: In which of the following areas of the city would you like to see more parks and open spaces? Select all that apply. (n = 627)
Locations where residents enjoy being outside Locations where residents want parks
Q: In which of the following areas of the city do you enjoy being outside or in open spaces? Select all that apply. (n = 645)
RESIDENTS WANT PARKS IN DOWNTOWN,
SUGARHOUSE
Residents most enjoy being outside in Sugarhouse (73%) and City Creek Canyon (60%). The places where they enjoy being outside do not always line up with where they’d
want to see parks, however. 29% want to see more parks in Downtown and 27% want them in Sugarhouse, while only 13% want more parks in City Creek Canyon. Another
popular spot for new parks would be the University/Foothill area, with 21% of resident wanting parks here.
CITY COMMUNICATION
CHANNELS & WEBSITE
Q2: Overall, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city’s response? (n = 316)
CONTACTED CITY OFFICES SATISFACTION WITH CITY RESPONSE
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
54%
SATISFIED
⇩ 12% from 2023
46%
DISSATISFIED
Q: During the past year, have you contacted a Salt Lake City government office to get information, file a complaint, or obtain services? (n = 642)
JUST OVER HALF OF CITY RESPONSES ARE
SATISFACTORY
About 2 in 5 residents of the city have contacted city offices in the past year, down 10% points from 2023. Those who contact the city are satisfied 54% of the time, which is
down 12% points from 2023.
26 %
28
23
23
42%
⇩ 10% from 2023
Q: In the past year, how have you contacted the Salt Lake City government offices? Select all that apply. (n = 314).
Q2: How do you prefer to contact the Salt Lake City government offices? (n = 637)
Over the phone
On the city website
Via email
Through the SLC Mobile app
In person
Through the mail
Via social media
Other
USED Preferred
64%75 31 37
34
37
43
15
42 2526
18
22 11 24
14
19
5
6
4
6
2
0
33 2
1
11 2
4
20232024
Over the phone
On the city website 43
Via email
Through the SLC Mobile app
In person
Through the mail
Via social media
Other
LIVE PHONE & EMAIL INTERACTIONS PREFERRED
While residents have approached the city across a wide variety of communication channels (primarily phone, website, and email), residents still prefer the website over
other channels.
Q: From which sources do you currently receive your information about Salt Lake City? Select all that apply. (n = 632).
Q2: From which source would you prefer to receive most of your information about Salt Lake City? (n = 631)
Social media
Newsppaer
City newsletter bill inserts
Email from the City
City website
Social media livestreams
Community council
City-hosted virtual events
Other
Preferred
Social media
Newspaper
City newsletter bill inserts
Email from the City
City website
Social media livestreams
Commuity council
City-hosted virtual events
Other
1415
1315
4244
10
9
2
3
1
0
3 6
USED
38
33 36
31 34
31
40%
43
2829
15
17
1516
2 4
9 14
20232024
33
SOURCE OF CITY NEWS – EMAIL STRONGLY
PREFERRED
Residents are receiving news about the city from a variety of media channels, but a plurality of respondents prefer official city emails over other modes.
99
Q3: How useful are the posts or updates you currently receive from Salt Lake City’s social media accounts for you, personally? (n = 235)
% who
use site
18%
16%
40%
Platforms where residents
see SLC social media content Usefulness of posts
50%
25%
16%
48%
25%
Q: Which, if any, of the following social media platforms (i.e., websites or apps) do you use or visit? Select all that apply. (n = 639).
Q2: Do you happen to see or read Salt Lake City's content or posts on any of the following social media platforms? (n = 59-257).
NoYes Not sure
X MOST POPULAR SOCIAL MEDIA OUTLET FOR SLC
CONTENT
Nearly 70% of residents who use X or Nextdoor see the City’s content on those platforms. However, only 44% of Instagram or Facebook users (the two most popular sites
for residents) see the City’s content on those platforms. For those who see the city’s content, over half find the content “somewhat useful”.
Q2: How many times have you attended a community council meeting in the past year? (n = 91)
Community Council
Participation Frequency of participation
14%
Yes
84%
No
Q: In addition to the Mayor and City Council, another way to engage on City issues is through community councils. These councils are neighborhood level advocacy groups that listen to
presentations about City issues, gather neighborhood feedback, and gather concerns to share with the City Council and Mayor. In the past year, have you attended a meeting of your local
community council? (n = 531)
MAJORITY DO NOT ATTEND COMMUNITY COUNCILS
When asked if they have attended a community council in the past year, 84% of residents said that they have not. Of those who have, only 12% attend regularly.
Uns ure =
~1 %
Q: Would you say the community council is important or unimportant to your civic life or how you interact with the city and local government? (n = 91)
Importance of Community Council
COMMUNITY COUNCILS SEEN AS IMPORTANT
For those who attend community councils, 92% say that the councils are “somewhat” or “very” important. Only 1% of see the councils as not at all important.
Q: Which of the following are reasons you value your community council? Select all that apply. (n = 512) *Asked of all respondents
Reasons for valuing Community Council
COMMUNITY COUNCILS VALUED FOR REPRESENTATION,
ACCESS
When asked why they value the community councils, residents noted that the councils represented their concerns, increased their access to City government, and
represented the needs and wants of real people.
Page 1 of 21
SALT LAKE CITY BIANNUAL SURVEY 2024
TOPLINE REPORT
METHODOLOGY DETAILS
n = 653 Salt Lake City Residents
Online interviews fielded March 28 – April 7, 2024
Margin of error +- 3.8
For this survey, 10,000 Salt Lake City households were sampled from a list of resident contacts gathered from a USPS residential address
database. From this sample, 653 current Salt Lake City residents responded to the survey (response rate 6.5%). Survey invitations were sent
via postcard and interviews were completed online. The data were weighted to reflect the demographic composition of Salt Lake City at
large according to current US Census American Community Survey population estimates, specifically regarding age, gender, ethnicity, home
ownership, and city council district.
CONTACT
For more information, please contact Kyrene Gibb at:
Kyrene Gibb, kyrene@y2analytics.com
Y2 Analytics
250 E 200 S Suite 1120
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
801-406-7877
Page 2 of 21
Thank you for responding to our survey about public policy and services in Salt Lake City. Your time and opinions are greatly valued. Please
note that your participation is voluntary and that all your answers will remain strictly confidential.
This survey takes most people about 15 minutes to complete. If you exit the survey before completion, you will be able to resume it at a later
time. On the next screen you will be asked to input the six-digit Access Code printed on the invitation letter you received in the mail.
To begin the survey, click on the “ → ” button below. During the survey you can use the navigation button on the bottom of the screen to
advance questions. If during the survey you do not see the button, scroll down until you see it.
s_qualify.Do you currently live in Salt Lake City? (n=653)
Yes 100%
No *
Don't know
n_quality.All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your
overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n=650)
Average
Quality of life 71.61
s_direction.Overall, would you say Salt Lake City is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction? (n=647)
Right direction 59%
Wrong direction 41
s_taxdollar.In general, how do you rate the service you receive from Salt Lake City for your tax dollar? (n=653)
Excellent 7%
Good 38
Fair 40
Poor 15
Page 3 of 21
s_service.Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following
government services in Salt Lake City? If you have no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable."
7 Not
1 (Poor)2 3 4 5 6 (Excellent)applicable
Police department 9%5 10 15 22 14 10 16
(n=646)
Fire/Paramedics 0%0 2 4 11 19 34 28
(n=647)
Parks (n=647)4%4 8 13 24 29 16 3
Street maintenance 21%14 18 17 17 7 6 1
(n=648)
Street lighting (n=647)6%5 10 21 24 19 14 1
Recycling programs 10%8 10 15 20 18 13 6
(n=648)
Sewers (n=647)2%2 3 13 23 23 15 19
Drinking water 2%3 6 9 24 27 26 2
(n=647)
Airport (n=646)3%4 4 9 21 24 27 7
Snow removal (n=649)1%2 6 10 24 31 25 0
Social workers (n=647)5%3 3 6 8 6 6 63
Park rangers (n=648)4%1 3 4 13 10 13 52
Homeless engagement 27%15 14 14 8 3 3 16
and response team
(n=645)
Garbage pickup 1%1 2 8 17 34 32 6
(n=646)
Public parking (n=646)9%10 13 25 17 13 9 3
Salt Lake City Library 3%2 3 6 12 23 39 12
(n=647)
City golf courses 5%1 3 8 8 7 7 61
(n=646)
Public transit (n=646)6%9 11 17 19 14 10 13
City website (n=647)2%2 8 15 17 10 6 40
Bike lane availability 7%6 9 18 20 14 12 15
(n=648)
Sidewalk maintenance 11%7 11 28 21 15 5 2
(n=646)
911 and dispatch 3%0 2 6 13 16 17 43
(n=647)
Homeless services 27%13 11 9 5 2 1 31
(n=647)
Emergency mental 8%4 6 8 7 2 2 63
health services
(n=648)
Page 4 of 21
n_allocate.Imagine you were given $100 of the Salt Lake City budget to spend to improve city services. How would you want to see
the city divide your $100 among the city services? (You may spend the $100 all in one category or divide it up as you
please, but the total must be $100.) (n=653)
Average
Police services 7.19
Fire and emergency medical services 6.33
Animal control services 1.93
Snow removal services 3.31
Surface maintenance on city streets and roads 12.97
Sidewalks 3.67
Street lighting 3.6
City code enforcement 1.97
City parks, trails, and open spaces 10.49
Community events 2.86
Culinary (drinking) water 4.33
Planning, zoning, and building services 3.51
Emergency preparedness 3.26
Clean or renewable energy resources 9
Economic development 4.18
Public transportation 9.62
Other, please specify 11.78
n_service_pay.What is the maximum amount of additional annual property taxes you would be willing to pay to fund the improved
provision of city services (in US dollars)? (n=635)
Average
Maximum amount:97.18
Page 5 of 21
s_homes1.How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood? (n=649)
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
I am pleased with the 25%37 10 17 11
way my neighborhood
looks
My neighborhood gets 15%30 22 18 15
enough attention
from the city
My neighborhood is 35%32 10 18 5
connected to the rest
of the city
Things in my 11%23 36 16 15
neighborhood have
gotten better since I
moved here
My neighborhood is 40%35 6 11 8
walkable
The schools in my 19%18 42 11 9
neighborhood are
important gathering
places for the
community
s_homes2.How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood? (n=647)
Strongly agree Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
I do most of my 34%30 6 13 17
food shopping in
my neighborhood
My neighborhood 24%33 12 21 10
has the right mix
of business and
housing
My neighborhood 30%39 11 13 7
has access to
usable transit
My neighborhood 43%40 7 7 3
has access to
parks and public
lands
There is sufficient 31%32 10 19 8
convenient, safe
parking in my
neighborhood
Page 6 of 21
s_safety_day.How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE DAY? (n=649)
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
In your 61%27 9 2
neighborhood
In downtown 39%43 15 4
Salt Lake
s_safety_night.How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE NIGHT? (n=650)
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
In your 36%33 21 10
neighborhood
In downtown 15%36 31 17
Salt Lake
m_dtdraw.Which of the following aspects of Downtown Salt Lake City do you appreciate or find enjoyable? Select all that apply.
(n=653)
Shops and retail 51%
Restaurants and food 80
Parks and open spaces 55
Events and festivals 61
Sports games 25
Arts / cultural performances 62
Its walkability / pedestrian-friendliness 53
Its public transit access 45
Its bike-ability 30
Other, please specify:7
None of the above 5
Page 7 of 21
m_dtbest.For which of the following activities or aspects do you prefer to do in Downtown Salt Lake City rather than anywhere else?
Select all that apply. (n=647)
Shops and retail 31%
Restaurants and food 57
Parks and open spaces 22
Events and festivals 46
Sports games 22
Arts / cultural performances 51
Its walkability / pedestrian-friendliness 31
Its public transit access 30
Its bike-ability 15
Other, please specify:5
None of the above 14
s_children.How many children under the age of 18 live in your home? (n=649)
None (0)85%
One (1)5
Two (2)7
Three (3)2
Four (4)<1
Five (5)<1
Six (6) or more *
s_plankids.Do you plan to have and raise children, or have and raise additional children while living in Salt Lake City? (n=650)
Yes 28%
No 62
Prefer not to answer 10
[SHOWN IF s_plankids = No]
m_plankids_no. Which of the following, if any, are reasons you do not want to raise children in Salt Lake City? Please select all that apply.
(n=434)
I dont plan on having children at all 41%
SLC does not have affordable childcare 22
I dont own my home 20
There is not enough affordable housing in SLC 37
There is not enough green space 7
SLC does not have access to high quality education 19
Im concerned about the air quality in SLC 39
Other, please specify:22
None of the above 11
Page 8 of 21
m_gentrans.What methods of transportation do you use when traveling around Salt Lake City? Please select all that apply. (n=651)
Personal vehicle (e.g., car, motorcycle, etc.)94%
Bicycle 36
Walk 71
Public transit (i.e. bus, train)42
Rideshare (e.g., Uber. Lyft, etc.)36
Electric Scooters 13
Other, please specify:3
[SHOWN IF m_gentrans SELECTED COUNT IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 3]
m_gentrans_pref. What 2 methods of transportation do you prefer to use when traveling around Salt Lake City? (n=364)
Personal vehicle (e.g., car, motorcycle, etc.)44%
Bicycle 16
Walk 31
Public transit (i.e. bus, train)18
Rideshare (e.g., Uber. Lyft, etc.)5
Electric Scooters 3
Other, please specify:1
s_pubtrans.How often do you take public transportation when traveling around Salt Lake City? (n=649)
Nearly every day 4%
2-3 times a week 7
About once a week 4
2-3 times a month 9
About once a month 7
Several times a year 13
About once or twice a year 16
Less than once a year 15
Never 25
Page 9 of 21
s_trans.How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about public transportation in Salt Lake City? (n=640)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Not
applicable
Public transit is 24%25 19 12 5 16
affordable
The trains come often 13%29 17 10 10 21
enough to be convenient
The train routes go where I 10%26 11 19 15 19
need them to go
The buses come often 10%23 16 15 13 24
enough to be convenient
The bus routes go where I 9%23 14 15 12 26
need the to go
Buses and trains do not 27%21 19 3 5 26
run late enough at night
Train stops are close 19%17 5 19 26 14
enough to where I live
I can take trains to 8%22 13 15 24 19
recreation I enjoy
m_outside_where.In which of the following areas of the city do you enjoy being outside or in open spaces? Select all that apply. (n=645)
Downtown Salt Lake City 54%
Central City 18
Sugarhouse 73
The Avenues / Capitol Hill 55
University / Foothill 52
Granary / Ballpark 12
Airport area 2
Fairgrounds 13
Rose Park 17
Poplar Grove / Glendale 11
Emigration Canyon 54
City Creek Canyon 60
Other, please specify:7
None of the above 2
Page 10 of 21
m_parks_where. In which of the following areas of the city would you like to see more parks and open spaces? Select all that apply.
(n=627)
None of the above 28%
Downtown Salt Lake City 29
Central City 8
Sugarhouse 27
The Avenues / Capitol Hill 16
University / Foothill 21
Granary / Ballpark 8
Airport area 2
Fairgrounds 5
Rose Park 11
Poplar Grove / Glendale 5
Emigration Canyon 17
City Creek Canyon 13
Other, please specify:3
None of the above *
s_compts1.How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads in the neighborhood where you live?
(n=641)
Extremely well Very well Moderately well Slightly well Not well at all
Traffic is too fast 17%16 28 20 20
They are safe for 11%25 31 21 12
pedestrians
They are safe for 5%14 37 22 21
cyclists
They are well lit 12%23 33 18 13
They are well 2%16 30 20 32
maintained
s_compts2.How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads you use daily around the city ? (n=635)
Extremely well Very well Moderately well Slightly well Not well at all
Traffic is too fast 17%13 32 19 19
They are safe for 6%19 36 26 13
pedestrians
They are safe for 7%11 37 28 17
cyclists
They are well lit 9%26 42 17 7
They are well 3%13 33 25 26
maintained
Page 11 of 21
s_citystaff1.During the past year, have you contacted a Salt Lake City government office to get information, file a complaint, or obtain
services? (n=642)
Yes 42%
No 58
[SHOW IF s_citystaff1 = Yes]
s_citystaff2.Overall, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city’s response(s)? (n=316)
Very satisfied 26%
Somewhat satisfied 28
Somewhat dissatisfied 23
Very dissatisfied 23
[SHOW IF s_citystaff1 = Yes]
m_citystaff4.In the past year, how have you contacted the Salt Lake City government offices? Select all that apply. (n=314)
In person 14%
Over the phone 64
Via email 37
On the city website 43
Through the mail 4
Via social media (e.g., X (formerly known as Twitter),3
Facebook)
Through the SLC Mobile app 18
Other, please specify:1
s_citystaff5.How do you prefer to contact the Salt Lake City government offices? (n=637)
In person 5%
Over the phone 31
Via email 26
On the city website 24
Through the mail 2
Via social media (e.g., X (formerly known as Twitter),2
Facebook)
Through the SLC Mobile app 8
Other, please specify:2
Page 12 of 21
m_news1.From which sources do you currently receive your information about Salt Lake City? Select all that apply. (n=632)
City newsletter inserts in water or other municipal
bill
31%
Email(s) from the City 31
City website 29
Newspaper 36
Social media (e.g., X (formerly known as Twitter),40
Facebook, etc.)
Social media livestreams (e.g., Facebook Live,15
Instagram Stories, etc.)
City-hosted virtual events 4
Community council 15
Other, please specify:14
s_news1.From which source would you prefer to receive your information about Salt Lake City? (n=631)
City newsletter inserts in water or other municipal
bill
13%
Email(s) from the City 42
City website 10
Newspaper 9
Social media (e.g., X (formerly known as Twitter),14
Facebook, etc.)
Social media livestreams (e.g., Facebook Live,3
Instagram Stories, etc.)
City-hosted virtual events 1
Community council 2
Other, please specify:6
m_socialmedia.Which, if any, of the following social media platforms (i.e., websites or apps) do you use or visit? Select all that apply.
(n=639)
Facebook 40%
X (formerly known as Twitter)18
Instagram 50
Nextdoor 16
LinkedIn 25
Reddit 25
TikTok 16
YouTube 48
None of the above [REMAINING SOCIAL MEDIA 12
QUESTION NOT SHOWN IF SELECTED]
Page 13 of 21
[SHOW IF m_socialmedia SELECTED CHOICE COUNT IS GREATER THAN 1]
s_cityonline.Do you happen to see or read Salt Lake City's content or posts on any of the following social media platforms? (n=0)
Yes No Not sure
Facebook 44%48 8
X (formerly 69%27 4
known as
Twitter)
Instagram 44%46 10
Nextdoor 69%25 6
LinkedIn 17%79 4
Reddit 34%53 13
TikTok 28%66 6
YouTube 18%75 7
None of the ***
above
[SHOW IF SELECT YES FOR AT LEAST ONE SOCIAL MEDIA SITE IN s_cityonline]
s_socialsat.How useful are the posts or updates you currently receive from Salt Lake City’s social media accounts for you, personally?
(n=235)
Extremely useful 5%
Very useful 22
Somewhat useful 55
Not very useful 18
Not at all useful 1
s_ccoun.In addition to the Mayor and City Council, another way to engage on City issues is through community councils. These
councils are neighborhood level advocacy groups that listen to presentations about City issues, gather neighborhood
feedback, and gather concerns to share with the City Council and Mayor. In the past year, have you attended a meeting of
your local community council? (n=531)
Yes 14%
No 84
Unsure 1
[SHOW IF s_ccoun = Yes]
s_ccoun_oft.How many times have you attended a community council meeting in the past year? (n=91)
Once 40%
Twice or a few times 38
Multiple times 10
I attended/have attended regularly 12
Page 14 of 21
[SHOW IF s_ccoun = Yes]
s_ccoun_imp.Would you say the community council is important or unimportant to your civic life or how you interact with the city and
local government? (n=91)
Very important 42%
Somewhat important 50
Not very important 8
Not at all important 1
m_ccoun_pros.Which of the following are reasons you value your community council? Select all that apply. (n=512)
They represent me and my neighborhoods concerns 29%
They increase my access to city government and 23
resources
They represent the needs and wants of real people 23
They help me feel connected to others in my 18
neighborhood and community
They help me feel connected to the place where I live 21
They make it easier to organize and mobilize 17
collective action
Their leadership is accessible and accountable to 15
those in the neighborhood
Other, please specify:5
None of the above 43
s_trust.How much do you trust Salt Lake City Police? (n=634)
A great deal 23%
A moderate amount 40
A small amount 23
Not at all 14
Page 15 of 21
s_messages.To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about local law enforcement? (n=629)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Providing more funding to police 17%23 23 17 20
will make my community safer
Law enforcement agencies 58%31 7 2 3
should build relationships with
the community to develop
strategies that reduce crime
and disorder
Police officers in my community 15%32 35 10 7
primarily focus on enforcement
and keeping things under
control
It would be valuable for the 44%31 18 2 5
community if local officers
interacted with the public
outside of enforcing the law
Racial profiling is significant 21%28 31 7 13
issue within law enforcement in
my community
Providing more funding to police 15%22 25 19 19
will improve law enforcement in
my community
Local law enforcement officers 42%33 16 4 5
should attend community
events, give public
presentations, and participate
in community service projects
Local law enforcement officers 42%28 18 7 3
need to do a better job working
with community members to
identify problems and solutions
Page 16 of 21
s_soc_aware.Recently, Salt Lake City made some changes in how emergency request calls are routed to the appropriate response
teams. Specifically, the city has allocated resources to social workers and social services to respond to many emergency
calls that would previously have been dispatched to the police department. Emergencies of this sort include mental
health emergencies, or attempted suicide or suicidal ideation, among other things. Before reading this, were you aware
that the city had made these changes? (n=634)
Yes 32%
No 68
s_soc_belief.Which of the two following statements regarding social services and responses to mental health emergencies comes
closer to your view, even if neither one fully represents how you feel? (n=628)
These emergencies should be handled by social
services professionals and social service workers
92%
These emergencies should be handled by the police 8
[SHOW IF s_soc_belief = “emergencies should be handled by social services…]
m_soc_pos.Which of the following reasons describes why you feel mental health emergencies should be handled by social service
professionals and social workers? Select all that apply. (n=560)
Social workers have specialized training 92%
Social workers have specialized resources 72
Social services represent greater community control 30
over public safety
Social services are requisite with the importance of 66
mental health care
Police would make situations more dangerous 57
Other, please specify:9
None of the above 1
Page 17 of 21
[SHOW IF s_soc_belief = “emergencies should be handled by the police”]
m_soc_neg.Which of the following reasons describes why you feel mental health emergencies should be handled by police? Select all
that apply. (n=62)
Those situations are too violent and dangerous for
social workers
Police are sufficiently trained to deal with dangerous
individuals/situations
Police responses are an effective deterrent to
violent/dangerous behavior
Those situations are too rare to merit a specialized
response
72%
43
62
24
Other, please specify:15
None of the above *
m_homeless_roles.Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the State of Utah each play a different role in addressing homelessness.
Which level of government do you think should be responsible for addressing each of the following? Select all that apply.
I don't think a
government
entity should be
Salt Lake The State of responsible for
Salt Lake City County Utah this
Funding non-profit organizations 37%41 76 17
(n=573)
Funding housing and shelters 44%45 83 7
(n=572)
Running shelters (n=569)53%59 54 7
Convening organizations to address 61%57 62 5
concerns regarding homelessness
(n=572)
Developing policies to address 62%58 71 4
homelessness (n=577)
Mitigating concerns regarding 67%55 63 4
homelessness (n=573)
Addressing encampments (n=574)71%52 40 6
Providing outreach (n=569)67%59 46 6
Picking up trash/needles/biowaste 68%59 35 1
(n=568)
Addressing occupied vehicles and RVs 69%41 29 11
(n=566)
Providing land/buildings for homeless 46%53 75 9
services (n=571)
Public safety (n=574)73%57 54 1
Page 18 of 21
And now just a few more questions that will help us ensure we have a representative sample and to group and categorize responses.
s_gender.Which of the following best describes how you think of yourself? (n=625)
Male 50%
Female 43
Non-binary/third gender 2
Prefer to self-describe – please specify if you wish:1
Prefer not to say 4
n_yearborn.Please select the year you were born: [CATEGORIZED INTO AGE GROUPS]
18-34 41%
35-44 17
45-54 13
55-64 13
65+15
s_timelived.How long have you lived in Salt Lake City? (n=624)
Less than one year 1%
1-5 years 27
6-10 years 14
11-15 years 9
15-20 years 5
20-40 years 29
40-60 years 10
60-80 years 5
80 years or more <1
s_ownrent.Which of the following best describes where you are currently living? (n=625)
Own or buying my own home 48%
Rent my home or apartment 45
College or university housing 1
Live with parents 4
Other 3
Page 19 of 21
s_edofr.What is the last year of school you completed? (n=625)
Some high school or less <1%
High school graduate 8
Some college 17
College graduate 42
Post graduate degree (e.g., MA, MBA, LLD, PhD)31
Vocational school or technical school 1
s_employ.What is your employment status? (n=624)
Self-employed 9%
Employed by someone else 71
Unemployed 3
Homemaker 2
Retired 14
Student 1
s_student.Are you attending a college or university? (n=625)
Yes, full time 6%
Yes, part time 5
No 90
[SHOW IF s_student = Yes]
s_college.At which college or university are you currently enrolled? (n=35)
University of Utah 38%
Salt Lake Community College 15
Ensign College *
Westminster *
Other, please specify:47
s_lgbtq.Do you identify as LGBTQ? (n=625)
Yes 20%
No 73
Prefer not to say 7
Page 20 of 21
s_marriage.Are you currently… (n=622)
Married 41%
Divorced 5
Widowed 2
Living with partner 17
Single 34
m_race.Are you: (n=616)
American Indian / Native American 4%
Asian 7
Black / African American 4
Hispanic / Latino 6
Pacific Islander 2
White / Caucasian 85
Other, please specify:4
s_religion.What, if any, is your religious preference? (n=624)
Protestant 4%
Catholic 7
Latter-day Saint / Mormon 15
Jewish 1
Eastern Orthodox <1
Muslim *
Other religion, please specify:5
No preference / No religious affiliation 59
Prefer not to say 8
s_income.What do you expect your 2024 family income to be? (n=624)
Under $25,000 5%
$25,000 – 39,999 6
$40,000 – 49,999 4
$50,000 – 74,999 18
$75,000 – 99,999 12
$100,000 – 124,999 13
$125,000 – 149,999 8
Over $150,000 25
Prefer not to say 8
Page 21 of 21
s_quality.Finally, for quality control purposes, please rate your experience taking this poll. Would you consider the experience:
(n=626)
Excellent 21%
Good 47
Fair 25
Poor 4
Don’t know 2
oe_comments.Thank you for completing the survey. If you have any comments about this survey or Salt Lake City in general, please
enter them here: (OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES VERBATIM IN APPENDIX)
Page 1 of 19
APPENDIX
oe_comments.Thank you for completing the survey. If you have any comments about this survey or Salt Lake City in general, please
enter them here: (n=268)
Can it be improved....... yes!! Salt Lake City is a great place to live!!!! I hope those in charge will keep working hard to keep it that way
& always try to make it better for it's residences!!
Every time that the city says that their going to make something better, they make it worse. The city is not friendly to the older crowd!!!
3rd West has too much large vehicle traffic and the use of Jake brakes should be reduced. There is only a single sign on east bound 600
N restricting the use of jake brakes on trucks. Forcing these types of vehicles to 4th West would reduce this excess noise, dust and
vibration on 3rd west.
600 NORTH PROJECT, FIX THE SURFACE, LEAVE IT CURRENTLY THE WAY IT IS. STOP WASTING TAX PAYER MONEY FOR TRIVIAL
BEAUTIFICATION AND LANE REDUCTION
A progress bar to help show how many more questions would be nice
A progress bar would be helpful. I wondered if I should just leave the survey because it was so lengthy. Having some expectation of the
length would be nice.
Affordable housing and sustainability of homeless programs is critical to the success of SLC. While the city is clearly improving more
needs to be done.
Closing of schools is making it difficult for families. While I would feel safe walking alone in daylight there is no way I’d let my 11 year
old walk to school on their own. Much can be done around affordable after school programs for students.
After taking this survey I'm persuaded that it isn't asking the right questions. There are many assumptions being made that are not
reflective of reality. For example, the assumption (and nudging via the questions) that social workers are better equipped to deal with
volatile situations than law enforcement. In addition, the survey assumes that a much larger segment of the population than the actual
number is using bikes to travel and is implying that narrowing downtown streets to one lane to accommodate the nearly nonexistent bike
traffic is necessary and appropriate. The huge increase in downtown housing is creating a population density that can't possibly be
supported with one lane roads throughout the city. I and many people I know avoid traveling downtown if possible because the traffic
has become so much more congested in recent years. For example, try driving South Temple during the morning or afternoon busy times.
Guaranteed frustration. The survey is also assuming that for so-called "improvements" to be made taxes must be raised - while ignoring
the fact that more efficient use of existing tax revenue would go a long way toward providing ample funding. The survey appears to be
designed to guide or influence responses to provide the results its creators desire in order to justify their own views and agenda, and that
won't provide objective, unbiased, or even honest results.
Allow more late night nightlife! Approve new bars and nightclubs. Run a few extra trains and buses after bars close (until 2am) to help
reduce drunk drivers. Keep allowing electric scooters, they are a great asset. Also please consider implementing the Rio Grande plan! We
love trains and using our historic train depot with Amtrak and Frontrunner would be great, and having less trains above ground running
through our city would be ideal. Less dangerous trains please and more pleasant train travel. Rio Grande plan sounds great.
An indication of how many more questions are coming would be helpful!
Appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback, hope something good comes out of it.
Appreciate the outreach in doing this survey. Happy to participate in more. Very concerned about the over development, especially in
Sugarhouse and the impact of building large condo/apartment complexes it will have on traffic in the area. As well as not enough
walkable streets with access to local restaurants and stores.
Be less political! Be more open and respectful towards differing views.
Biggest issue is homelessness. Had a man living in his car outside my house. Police were great, but they were hamstrung because they
couldn't do anything legally for 48 hours while the guy was parked there. I work on [REDACTED] and it feels like an open air drug market
at times. Additionally, over the last year (particularly the fall semester) the partying in our neighborhood from college kids got out of
Page 2 of 19
control. Along with the noise issues, beer cans and other trash are all around the neighborhood. My understanding from a community
organization is that U of U cracked down on fraternities, so parties moved into off campus neighborhood. These issues (homelessness
and behavior/trash in the neighborhood) have us convinced we should get out of the city once we have our first child.
Build more legitimate mountain bike trails and bike parks. We are sad in comparison to other sized cities and it is a large user base. Also
don't move the jazz stadium thx
Building apartments on every vacant property throughout the city many very unattractive.
Call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Stop Utah from sending $30mil+/yr to Israel. We’re living in a genocide and you are refusing to
acknowledge or do anything about it. Stop creating barriers for your community members who want to speak in city council meetings.
Separately, stop using policing with the unsheltered population. Your efforts in this area (homeless services) are appreciated but need to
be 10x as much. At minimum.
Defund the police.
City leaders are following the playbook used by other large cities that will lead to higher crime, urban rot, and individuals like myself
taking our income and moving elsewhere.
Consider the environment, sustainability and density in planning growth.
Could you please stop building housing that NO ONE CAN AFFORD!!!!!
Defund the police
Fund public transit (please make it free for all)
Build more and better bike lanes
Even though I selected my answers about whether the state, city, or county should homelessness the survey acted as though I had not
made a selection. Hope you got my answers, if not, as a general rule I think all these levels of government need to be involved.
Experienced some initial technical issues with not being able to advance the survey.
Fayette Ave needs help! off 9th S in between 2nd and 3rd W speeding ,can't park in front of your own house, very dark
Fix and maintain the street. Increase police funding.
Fix our potholes, no more speed bumps or bicycle lanes
Fix the roads!!! We have enough bike lanes, start paving and repairing the roads!!! Charge these construction companies a .5% tax to
clean up all the trash on the side of the freeways. The debris is coming from their construction sites. For the love of Pete don't close Main
Street, and if you do, don't close down the roads that intersect it going East and West bound. The city will be gridlocked, like it's starting
to happen.
Focus on the basics. Streets and sidewalks need serious attention. Helping the homeless is a must - I don't think it will be "solved", but
we can do much to help people. Property crimes are a big problem. There does not appear to be any consequences, so it goes on.
Question: If I have a clear camera images of someone stealing from my property, will anything be done about it?
For the Survey, On the questions asking about traffic being too fast, the choices didn't match for a response to that question.
About Salt Lake City in general, I am very concerned about the light pollution and the lack of concern about it.
I feel the city works for developers and not for the citizens.
Generally, the city is well-run and a great place to live. However, the cost of living, specifically housing for our civil servants, is a
problem. I'd like to see Salt Lake City offer housing as a benefit to police, social workers, City employees, teachers, and childcare
providers to ensure those who serve our communities can live in our city.
Homelessness is a big problem, but it should not be Salt Lake City's sole responsibility. The state should mostly address the larger issues
and ensure resources are well distributed and available. The city can then supplement the state's efforts as needed.
I appreciate the Community Response team and the work Salt Lake City is doing to provide safety and security throughout the city. Our
homeless population has many mental health and hygiene concerns, and providing resources for these folks is essential and challenging.
Mental health and violence among the homeless are the most significant concerns, and I know many people who now feel unsafe in areas
of the city due to these folks. We need institutions to provide housing and services for these challenging populations, but again, I don't
necessarily think this is the responsibility of the City.
Page 3 of 19
I'd love to see you invest in more accessible and convenient transit and stop spending money on speed humps and ridiculous
roundabouts that will cause more harm than good in our neighborhoods.
I also hope that the closing of Salt Lake City School District schools can be turned into daycares, community centers, multi-generational
centers, and parks to serve the community and allow them to return to schools as needed.
Thanks for the chance to take the survey and share my feedback.
Get construction under control. The developers are tearing up roads with trucks spewing debris and dirt, continually violating parking/
road obstruction laws, polluting our environment with noise at all hours, and building haphazard with shoddy buildings. These developers
do not live here and show disrespect for our neighborhoods with massive eyesore projects.
Get your act together. Stop embezzling and putting off what needs to be done for the future. Stop the MLB from ruining the West Side with
an unwanted ballpark
Give us a Police Chief Whos not a Puppet to the Mayor.
Glendale neighborhood doesn't get enough attention and funding from the City. We don't feel safe allowing our children to spend time in
their public library. Public libraries have been overwhelmed by vagrants and RV dwellers needing homeless shelter services. Public
Libraries aren't homeless shelters!! Our Library used to be clean & safe. We didn't worry about allowing our children to roam the library,
and use the services including the restrooms, but now it is a matter of great concern!
We need safety from vagrants. homeless, drug users and drug dealers.
1439 W and 1345 W California Ave are two known drug houses. What are you going to do about them?!
The street sweeping has become far too infrequent.
Good survey
Good survey
Have some free parking event days.
Have someone with significant writing skills and experience in effective survey construction compose questions and proof read them in
future surveys. Instances of poorly phrased questions, poor grammar and misspellings I found off-putting.
Help make the city safer for citizens, clean the air, fix pedestrian lights and make crosswalks safer.
Homeless encampments and problems with homeless in the city parks need to be addressed. I love the parks but do not feel as safe there
as I did just a few years ago.
Homeless need to be moved out of public parks, neighborhoods, under viaducts, private property.
One more Fire Department ladder truck for the city at Station #3.
Homeless panhandlers and residential tents and sleeping on the parkng strips and garbage needs to stop. North Temple homelessness
is awful, ugly and embarrassing to visitors coming to the city
Homelessness continues to be a big problem that impacts downtown SLC, while other areas turn a blind eye to it. Everyone needs to
support these programs, and not all of them should be concentrated in downtown SLC.
The Mormon church has too much influence in Utah, Utah's liquor license is too strict.
More shops and stores should be open on Sunday.
Honestly, some of the questions were confusing. I was not sure what was being asked. on some questions.
Housing our unsheltered neighborhoods is my highest priority. I hate to see the City investing in more police to handle people who are
unsheltered rather than in housing and providing resources to people experiencing homeless. Come watch some salt lake City justice
court trials to see how the police treat people who are homeless and people having mental health crisises (with force and often, disgust).
I love things like the Homeless Resource Fairs, but I'd love even more to see more permanently supportive housing, more beds in
treatment centers, more housing vouchers. One more comment: make transit free! Why can it be free for people going to sporting events
and concerts but not for our neighbors who don't have $2.50 to their name?!
I accidentally hit the "continue without answering" button a couple times, it wouldn't have been an issue if the slideshow questions used
the arrow button.
I am glad I live in Salt Lake City.
Page 4 of 19
I am so disappointed in the way Sugarhouse has been ruined by the sky scrapers, apartments and road construction. It used to be a
quaint wonderful place to live, and that has been destroyed. It is no more a quaint, desirable place to live but a traffic congested, over
populated town with overpriced housing and no quaint anything. I moved from out of state to Sugarhouse because of the charm but that
is gone.
I appreciate being surveyed. Thank you for all you do.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice my input.
I believe some officials are sometimes opportunistic, raising fees, including excess government and restrictions. Letting us live free of
this makes us less like communists, and much happier.
I challenge the executive branch of our government to take an hour or two or three and drive around the west side and pay attention to
the road conditions, how dirty the neighborhoods are, how run down the housing is, the homelessness and camps and the trash they
leave behind. The embarrassment of the pan handling that goes on especially on off ramps. The building downtown is obstructing the
view of the mountains. Take care of the existing infrastructures (roads, sidewalks, buildings) before sucking more of our tax payer money
into unnecessary projects. You've lost our vision.
I couldn't attend the meeting to discuss this, but please extend the 700N improvement all the way to I-215. Don't end it at Redwood
Road.
I do love the city maintenance here, though my wish is for more environmental/eological funding for maintaining watersheds and
ecological health in the canyons.
I do no like the lane restrictions for bike lanes.
I do not approve of Erin Mendenhall or the job she's done. We need public housing, not $500K condos everywhere. She wants to blame the
state rather than get her hands dirty and do real work and makes the police take the brunt of her poor decision making.
I don’t believe that my tax dollars should go to provide cleanup after the homeless. They should be recorded, and supervised to clean up
their feces, needles, and other garbage they leave behind in their wake. I also believe that the city has provided more than adequate
bicycle lanes. Eliminating traffic traveling lanes, in my opinion, makes the air quality in the city much worse. You have condensed traffic
in single lanes that idle for long periods of time during traffic lights. I don’t believe that adding additional bike lanes will solve our
pollution problem.
I feel this poll or survey, guided you in a direction that favors how the city government performs. I also feel that the quality of life in Salt
Lake City has gone downhill. I have lived in Salt Lake City all of my life. Therefore, I have a good idea of what I am seeing happening
within the city. I believe that we have gone too far in allowing the homeless situation to take over the way that it has. Once upon a time,
all of the homeless was located in one part of downtown around the second south district. Removing so many of the resources downtown
forced the homeless to move into neighborhoods such as the rest of downtown, midtown, Rose Park, Fair Park, Liberty Park. I also believe
that the current administration has done a horrible job at taking care of our city.
I have asked for help for years from my city councilman, several city agencies and the mayor's office to address public safety issues in
my neighborhood with minimal response. It's been a frustrating and disappointing experience.
I have no comments.
I have only lived in Salt Lake for around 5 years. I have to travel through Sugar House regularly and the roads are terrible and have been
the whole time I have lived here. It’s awful— traveling from point A to B and being forced to take 3-4 detours. I’m increasingly
dissatisfied by the school related laws that are being forced upon SLC public schools, where my daughter attends. The alcohol laws are
ridiculous. I love community gatherings and festivals and shouldn’t be made to feel like a terrible person if I want to have a beer. The
homeless situation is out of control. We use Fairmont pool 2-3 times a week and I can’t even drop my daughter off because there are too
many homeless camps. I love the parks by my house and am appalled the city is allowing the U to build a giant baseball stadium in
Sunnyside, especially after saying that would never happen. I believe in preserving green spaces and historic places and am
disappointed in how many are being destroyed, especially older homes to put in McMansions. It’s disgusting. You are allowing the city to
be turned into a giant strip mall. I heard about the project for a downtown corridor but the city has a lot of clean up to do before creating
another mess— ROADS, HOUSING, HOMELESS.
I know the issue is huge, what I do not understand is how it is ok for the street people to hang out, sleep, gather, leave all of their
garbage etc. [REDACTED]. It is shameful that one block north of their property homeless are allowed to camp out there. Main street
Page 5 of 19
appears neglected. I walk it almost everyday. It is truly disappointing to see what I see on a given day. I support the efforts of all
municipalities. I have used the app to report, they get cleared an return. :(
I like SLC, I think it is a good town. But I would like to see more efforts to address socioeconomic inequality. I know there are constraints,
much of which is not within the power of the SLC government to address. I know that both SLC and SL county do the best they can, I
think the state should have less power within SLC and the county - but I guess that would need to be addressed at the state level.
I like living here, but the roads are a mess.
I [REDACTED] and the homeless situation here is out of control. there is an open drug market on north
temple between 1000w and Jordan River that must be addressed.
Bike lanes are impending traffic flow and parking. 1300 s 900 w has huge traffic after implementation of the bike lane impeded the
ability to turn right at a red light.
I [REDACTED] where there was a lot of street work to get people to drive slower around [REDACTED]. Has anyone evaluated those efforts? I
do not see any change in speed on our road. could we have just put in stop signs on the trail? You test before but do you test after. It
feels like a huge waste that stole parking spots. Additionally, I love living in SLC but I don't feel like I know anyone. I don't have a
community here. I would love for the city to help with that.
I love SLC and appreciate all the services that I receive. So many men and women work hard to make the city function and I never take
that for granted. I think our big problem is with the amount of growth that SLC is experiencing. How to solve all the complexities or
problems that this involves. I feel that businesses come in to make money and then leave the aftermath of problems for the government
to address, like air quality, water issues, roads, transportation issues, etc. I've lived in SLC for many years and am stunned with what is
happening as far as apartments that are springing up almost daily, the amount of traffic, scooters, huge trucks, etc. This all adds to
congestion, pollution, water issues, etc. We will survive and I am sure these issues are trying to be addressed, as per this survey. Thank
you for letting me voice my concerns and comments.
I love Salt Lake City and have lived here since college. Currently it seems to be experiencing rapid change and growth, and along with it
the challenges that come with a large city. Safety is my biggest concern. I want everyone regardless of sexual orientation, religion,
ethnicity, and politics to feel safe. While I believe the police are doing everything within their power and resources I feel less safe than
any time that I have lived here. It is the most likely issue that would motivate me to move. Homelessness is an ongoing challenge that
must be addressed from a state, county and city level. Salt Lake City cannot handle it on its own. The cost of housing continues to rise
and I hope we, as a city can find ways for young people, new families and lower income to live here as well to ensure we have a balanced
and vibrant city. Thank you for including me in this survey. I love this town!
I love Salt Lake City. One of the good things is the ability residents who care do have good access to City operations.
I love our city. I want to thank my representative Chris Wharton and Mayor Mendenhall for working so hard to make our city a vibrant,
welcoming place for all!
I love this city but the homeless situation worries me! Especially in parks.
I now understand why social workers complemented the response to a death in my building last week. I think the addition of this service
in person can deescalate highly emotional cases and relieve the burden on police. Full support and hope it grows.
I realize the Little Cottonwood Gondola is a UDOT project. But, it is really stupid. Please add busses and parking???? One bus every 30
minutes in not nearly enough and there is no place to park to catch the bus. Same goes for Big Cottonwood and Park City.
I really hope for a better public transport, art events and better parks that is walkable in downtown area where it is possible to enjoy the
nature.
I stated that I think SLC is on the wrong track. It's not because of city government which is pretty good, but because rapid growth has
destroyed what was nice about SLC. Nowadays there is a traffic jam everywhere, terrible air quality, and crowding in the Wasatch
Mountains and other open spaces. Housing is so unaffordable that my adult children won't be able to live in SLC unless they inherit my
decrepit tiny house. If the Great Salt Lake ecosystem collapses, nobody will want to live in SLC. Bright spots are Jordan River restoration,
scaling back Foothills trails development from initial poor planning, and projects to make fast roads more narrow and create connectivity
for bike paths. But I guess I've just been in SLC too long because I have Solastalgia -- feeling homesick for a smaller place that no longer
exists. I feel like SLC is losing its soul on the way to becoming one huge air bnb for out-of-state skiers.
I suspect the feedback from this survey will be files in the trash unless it provides the current information with the feedback they want.
Stop wasting my tax dollars on art and baseball stadiums. For the first time in my life I am contemplating selling the home my family has
owned since [REDACTED] due to the direction of the city and the increase in property taxes. Just STOP. This is not your money or your little
Page 6 of 19
empire. You are so disconnected from reality.
I think Salt Lake City is headed in a great direction and would love to see more resources for making it more livable for ALL, including
providing resources to the homeless/unsheltered population. I would also like to see a stronger emphasis on Vision Zero - it feels like
there have been compromises made with recent street redesigns that do not reflect a serious approach to Vision Zero.
I think salt lake is a great place to live but my main concern is the growing homeless population near my work, my child's school and my
home. The decisions being made are not helping and something does need to be done about it quickly.
I think the city should do way more to help homeless people, don't clear encampments or RVs, etc. without providing somewhere safe for
them to go. I think the city gives too much attention to especially wealthier neighborhoods' complaining about homelessness and not
enough attention to people actually experiencing homelessness. If it's a matter of my property value decreasing or people sleeping on the
street, please build a shelter next door to me.
I think the city should get rid of a lot of the zoning laws, red tape, and permits/at least lower the cost of permits to build housing. This
would make housing significantly less expensive and it would also help provide more housing for the homeless. This is exactly what has
happened in Houston, a city that doesn't even have a zoning board but has some of the lowest homelessness rates in the country.
I think the condition of the road in the Salt Lake Cemetery look like the pioneers came thru there with all the ruts and potholes. We should
take pride in our predecessors. It is my understanding it is the largest public cemetery west of the Mississippi. I think it is a disgrace and
embarrassing for people coming to see the graves of historical figures and loved ones with the condition that it is in. The grass has so
many weeds it is hard to tell it is grass.For years I have wanted to call this to anyone's attention that would listen, but it falls on deaf
ears. I guess the powers that be consider that the dead won't complain. Well I am complaining. When is the last time it has been
completely paved rather than patching a hole. I have [REDACTED] for almost 50 years, I have never seen it completely paved and it
continues on a perpetual decline.Have a little respect for all those that have gone before us. I have enough plots for my entire family and
I continue to hope it will get better. What is it going to take?
I think the survey is skewed. The question need a section for feedback as to why we are answering the way we did.
I think this was a well-put-together survey. Thank you!
I wanted to elaborate as to why I think the state is responsible for the homelessness. They migrate to SLC because of the services. So
other counties shirk their duties and then look at us and scoff, blaming us for our homeless population. We should be proud in a way that
people feel comfortable coming here. Who would want to be homeless in some podunk craphole like Eureka? Maybe they were gay and
grew up in some rural sinkhole and left and now they are here. The problem is the more services we provide the more likely it is Kaysville
will shove their problems into our locality. It isn't just a SLC problem it is a national problem and a housing problem (costs are too high)
and needs a more bird's eye view. We need to ALL take responsibility for it and be kind to those who have less. Also, we have limited land,
we should be using brown spaces to create solutions but unless Panguitch wants us to ship them in buses with 100$ in their pockets to
them - they all need to help pony up for a global UTAH solution.
I was concerned by some conversations I had with police officers who made derogatory comments about black lives matter movement. I
was also very concerned and distressed when there were tanks stationed around city hall. Salt Lake City should be a place where diversity
is welcomed. Engagement through coordination rather than confrontation is a better solution. In recent years, Utah has become
increasingly conservative and less welcoming to those who do not share their morals, ethics, and values, so I am glad to live in SLC
where there is a more inclusive and engaging environment.
I wish SLC would prevent, or better regulate the purchase of residential land to investment groups that build ugly, unaffordable
apartment complexes, instead of resources that benefit Utahns.
I wish our votes would be head about the gondala. the homeless can not live in the park, many get food stamps,SS,GA,ect, Case workers
that can look at what they get so they can be helped.
I wish that the city would get a little stricter laws about noise ordinances.
I would like to be more engaged in the city, and I am not sure how to get information in a timely manner. It would be nice if there could be
some sort of city update that was delivered electronically--maybe there is and I don't know about it?
I would like to see ZERO tolerance for homeless camping in our open spaces
I would like to see more equity in HOA fees between individual condo owners and investor-owners who are non residents. Non-resident
investors care little about rising costs or fees, since they can pass them onto their renters or deduct them from their taxes.
Page 7 of 19
I would like trax closer to my house in sugarhouse. I have had my car and house broken into. I would like fewer apartments in my
neighborhood.
I would love to see more action/motivation about water and air quality! I love SLC and the air is my biggest concern/reason I would ever
consider moving away
I would love to use public transportation but they have taken all but one route off the Avenues. I can only used public transportation if I
drive somewhere, park, and then get on a bus, Trax or FrontRunner.
I would really appreciate if my current cost of living was lowered so that I didn't feel like I was being driven out of my home state to live
in another part of the country that is "cheaper". I feel like though Utah is a huge anomaly (nationally speaking) I have enjoyed growing up
here, and have a list of reasons that I'd like to stay here but the economic pressure feels too great.
In general, I feel very safe walking around SLC. The times when I feel unsafe are almost always connected with encountering homeless
encampments or folks who are acting erratically and obviously need help.
In general, I think SLC is improving. There has been a lot of infrastructure work in the city in the past couple years that I have really
appreciated including the speed bumps in the Capitol Hill area and the new cycling infrastructure on 300W and 900S. Transit could use
some expansion. My neighborhood is a bit awkward with regards to getting to the rail system. The buses that go through the West Capitol
neighborhood don’t directly connect to Trax or FrontRunner and the North Temple station is a bit too far to walk to in a reasonable amount
of time. The planned Davis Community connector will improve this a great deal, though I would prefer it to be a light rail line. I’m looking
forward to what the green loop may contribute to downtown to help it feel less hostile to non-car transportation. The Rio Grande plan
would be a major platform on which the city could build into the future. A lot of interesting stuff on the far horizon. Hopefully we’ll be able
to bring that horizon a lot closer.
In my dream version of Salt Lake City there are only beg buttons at HAWK crossings; normal crosswalks show a pedestrian signal and
countdown with every light cycle all over town, not just downtown.
In my opinion mental health is the number one problem in the nation. I've worked 30+ years in Behavior Health and l am afraid we
haven't put a dent in a pack of butter. I would like to brainstorm with City officials and law enforcement how we can reach out to more
people. [REDACTED]
It is insane that I can't afford a home, a townhome, or a condo in Salt Lake County with the income range of $125,000-$149,000. Every
place I have put in an offer has been bought cash to be turned into a rental property or an airbnb by a rental conglomerate. Zoned Single
family Homes should not be used this way.
It would be very helpful to have parking lots at Salt Lake City Trax Stations, i.e. 400 South 900 East, and Front Runner - North Temple
Station. There are parking lots for people coming into Salt Lake but none for people living downtown.
I’m shocked that affordability, specifically housing affordability were not part of this survey. This represents a huge problem for the state
moving forward as many young people may never be able to afford a home
Lack of attainable housing is the number one issue in Salt Lake, not the lack of baseball. End single family dwelling ordnances across
salt lake and lets get our people sheltered. Until we can do that focusing on Olympics or baseball is cruel and repugnant.
Leave Donner Park Alone and stop building in Heritage Park. It's called green space.
Leaves and debris clog city street drains resulting ponding and nearly flooding property with any significant rain, already once this year
in March, corner of 800 E and Princeton Ave, more drains please or reroute waterflow
Let's not forget the air we breathe.
Homeless. I can only imagine how degrading and hopeless "their" life must be.
Lights at Hermann Frank's dog park
Loud cars & trucks on the road are not to be allowed.
Love it here in general! All things considered, you are all doing an awesome job.
The other day, seven police cars lined up at a traffic stop and they dug through some teenager's bag for like an hour with the result of the
stop on the blotter being "Marijuana Possession" - can we like... not waste our police time and budget on something that's not even
illegal in most of the country? Surely we have bigger things to worry about, no?
Many of these questions are surface questions and don't get into depth in regards to how these "items" will be funded. Not to mention
how many people are completely unaware of the many issues that residents of SLC deal with daily which include but are not limited to
Page 8 of 19
the lack of affordable housing (rental and ownership), homeless camps and aggressive or altered homeless, concerns about safety for
pedestrians. I am concerned that my taxes continue to increase annually and yet the problems that should be addressed with these taxes
continue to get worse.
Maybe more effective to have multiple surveys that are each five minutes long sent out over different periods instead of one survey that is
15 to 20 minutes long
Mayor & City Council are doing far too much to improve our roads without actually improving them (i.e. narrowing, reducing lanes, adding
speed bumps & unnecessary traffic circles, & stop signs). This does not improve air quality with all the stopping & starting necessary.
More parks and open space, less golf courses and cemeteries
Most improvements are overshadowed by homeless camps everywhere and the inability to use the open space and amenities we already
have. Raise taxes if needed to help people, but start enforcing the basic rules of civilization.
My biggest concern about living here is the high cost of housing. It will likely take us years to be able to afford a house, and I have a good
income.
My biggest concern with Salt Lake City right now is the MASSIVE OVERDEVELOPMENT of the downtown area. Developers are destroying the
charm that the city once had and the overbuilding of huge boxy apartment buildings on every block is making the city ugly. I feel sad
about this every single time I go downtown.
I blame this on Mayor Mendenhall marrying a developer, although that may not be fair. And I did vote for her, but only because Rocky
Anderson is crazy.
If you ever did a survey addressing this concern, I feel confident that a huge majority of people who live downtown would share my
feelings about the overdevelopment.
My greatest concern for SLC right now is the peril of the Great Salt Lake. I fear the state will not do enough to save the lake and it will be
an ecological disaster, ruining our property values and forcing a mass exodus. I am also opposed to the self-dealing money-grabbing
inland port and the increased pollution it is going to cause. My only complaint about SLC is the inversion and our horrible air quality. I
generally think the local government is doing a great job, Mayor Mendenhall does the best she can with the circumstances. I think the
State should step up funding to help with the homeless problem instead of sticking it to the city due to political differences. I love Salt
Lake City and hope to live here long-term, but I will be forced to leave if the government doesn't protect the Great Salt Lake.
N/A
Night lights are bright blue.
This is disorienting and give me and others headaches.
Please use warm color lights for the street lamps.
The blue "daylight" hue is terrible.
No city is perfect, and Salt Lake City is no exception. However, compared to other cities around the country I'd say Salt Lake City is very
safe and clean with lots of friendly helpful people. I hope we manage our growth well enough to keep it this way.
No questions addressing accessibility for disabled persons with regard to all of the questions
Nobody could do poll in 20 min much less 10
Non Governmental organization such as UCA, Housing Connect, etc.
None, thank you.
Not that I want to say. I do be leave that we are being lied about the statement that crime is down in the city.
On the wording of some of the possible answers to some of the questions I didn't quite like how it fit with the questions.
Other than the immediate need for affordable housing - Sim Gill is the only part I hate about living here.
Out of control housing costs and inflation create greater poverty, and poverty is tied directly to quality of life, health, homelessness and
violent crime rates. Affordable housing is the greatest method to improve peoples lives and create a safer community. Do something
about it!
PLEASE address the creep of homeless people, and associated breakins, in the Rosepark/Fairpark areas N. Temple up to 10th N and
Redwood. I'm tired of being asked for money every time I go to the grocery store or local stores along [REDACTED], and [REDACTED].
Page 9 of 19
Planning and code enforcement need to be on the same page. Planning says it's OK for me to do something and code enforcement comes
along and makes me undo what planning said was OK. Parking enforcement is revenue generation and not service maybe downtown they
are useful but not in the neighborhoods. I would have moved away from SLC years ago if I didn't have other circumstances keeping me
chained here.
Please address AIR QUALITY. I am leaving the state for this issue. I really wish I could stay but I can't relocate my dad here because he is
a 9/11 first responder with compromised lung function.
Please make SLC a safe place for LGBTQIA+ people. The queer and trans community here is incredible and they deserve to enjoy their
lives and purse happiness.
Please HELP THE UNSHELTERED COMMUNITY here. I see people crying on the sidewalk. I see people with young children. These people
matter just as much as any other resident and they need your help. Please fund recovery programs for people suffering from addiction.
Social services are incredibly important. The people here are what makes SLC the wonderful place it is.
Please support Salt Lake County Animal Services. Fund community cat programming. Fund LOW-COST SPAY AND NEUTER SERVICES and a
pet food pantry.
Please improve the public school system. Provide children with healthy school lunches. Teach sexual education.
Please hire, retain and train police officers that are aware of mental health issues, prioritize de-escalation, are not racially biased, and
who are respectful and genuinely care about protecting ALL members of the community.
Please address road visibility when it rains/snows. It is incredibly dangerous to drive in these low-visibility conditions, as the line
markers are practically invisible, and there isn't enough street lights to see them. Use reflective markers
Please address the homeless issue!! The garbage they create at their campsite and then leave behind is HORRIBLE!!! I have to pay taxes
to have my garbage hauled away. I didn't know it was ok to just dump garbage anywhere I please, especially along the Jordan River
Pkwy. The Mayor has violated the social contract by not enforcing ordinances covering camping in public spaces. It's not only the mayor
who is involved in the process. Part of the problem is the DA's lack of prosecuting illegal campers. I get it - it's a complex issue with no
single solution, but the direction the city is going in is not right. The homeless people walk around screaming at the air and being very
aggressive towards right minded people just minding their own business. I'm furious that these people are being allowed to walk around
and harass people. I had to get a job at the age of 16, and I've been working ever since. I put myself through college with absolutely no
help from family. I've had to work extremely hard for every penny I have!!!! I just infuriates me that the homeless people get to sit
around all day and the mayor pays their expenses. I'm like - how can I get on that same program? Why aren't homeless people paying
property taxes for the space that their tent takes up. I mean, if I refuse to pay my property tax, I suffer immense consequences. I just
don't understand why homeless people are not held accountable. Do you know how many times I've been asked if I want drugs when I
ride my bicycle along the Jordan River Pkwy? It's clearly obvious when you drive by there that nothing good is happening. Please, get
down there and clean up the area where Jordan River flows under N Temple. It's a cesspool down there!!!!
Please do follow up and reporting of survey results and the expected outcome of changes. There usually is no follow-up to surveys in
results or solutions created, if you know what I mean
Please do not allow a 305' building to be built on the corner of 21st & 11th. 105' is high enough. I understand we have a housing crisis,
but building thousands of apartments in the heart of Sugarhouse has ruined our neighborhood.
The STATE should be 100% responsible for our homeless crisis. Let's use our billion dollar surplus to create government housing to HELP
people instead leaving it up to city and county leaders who have zero support from the state.
Please pave our roads and quit spending money on bike lanes and traffics control. Our roads are in TERRIBLE condition
Please start taking care of parks that we already have. Bring back a localized place with services for our unhoused population. Have
people in positions that actually email back ie your Transportation team does not interact with the general public well. Get out of big
developers pockets and quit ruining downtown.
Please stop allowing luxury housing to be built in favor of affordable housing and businesses/recreation. The city has tons of fancy empty
buildings and nothing to do.
Please support completion of the trails in the foothills and public transit to and from all the other open spaces. Millcreek, park city, big
and little cottonwood.
Page 10 of 19
Please stop letting homeless do whatever they want wherever they want.
Thank you!
Please take action to provide affordable housing and better public transportation. I do not trust the public-private partnership of UTA and
I do not think it is going well. Salt Lake should be moving to a more sustainable and just future.
Pretty long. Good luck
Qualified Immunity for police officers should be examined and likely reduced or eliminated.
We like it here but may move from Utah if the lake level is not addressed seriously and soon.
We very much appreciate the long history of progressivism in City politics, but feel frustrated that it is the rural interests that drive State
legislative decisions. In general, we appreciate the higher level of services we as residents of the City have over residents of Salt Lake
and nearby Counties.
Kudos for beginning to address mental health emergencies on the street. More publicity – and examples of emergency response and
results – would be helpful.
Regarding the new resolution passed by the city council on artificial turf- on a personal call to Chris Wharton he said they have 'outlawed
' artificial turf in front yards but it is ok for sideboards and backyards because 'backyards are smaller than front yards" which negates
any ability to make a scientific decision !!!
SLC could be a better city if it, and the State, were not controlled by a gerrymandered majority. As you know, City programs or policies can
be overridden by the State. Downtown restaurants and events are tightly controlled. Schoolchildren are segregated by religion within
public schools. Adults are condescended to as though they are schoolchildren. Women's healthcare is compromised by men who have
little or no knowledge of the topic.
Transportation routes are predetermined by special interests. (It would be great if one could park their car near the train stations. It
would be so convenient to get downtown). Land use is predetermined by special interests. The skiing is great, the mountains are
spectacular. These have all been my experiences. Thanks.
SLC does not have the population to support an NHL and/or MLB team. Come on, most of us can't afford a Jazz ticket (during a winning
year). Why should we spend our tax dollars for what a few can afford? That's just the rich making the bulk pay for it, so they can go to a
ball game.
SLC is too focused on growth and not enough on maintenance.
SLC is too prone to let investors/developers have their own way.
SLC school district attendance is rapidly decreasing while the cites population is growing like gang busters, this is not sustainable. A
community with no children is not a community. Why are families feeling SLC? The homeless and property crime are the main reasons
why my five year plan has me leaving Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City School District needs to work better with the city as it develops master plans for the use of soon to be empty buildings. It
also needs to work with city planners to develop long term best placement of schools based on city planners immense knowledge of how
cities are best structured for the best interest of citizens. Please share this with the District. The District does not have logistic or city
planners and needed their important when they recently made decisions to close schools.
Salt Lake City encourages homeowners to repair and beautify their homes. Unfortunately, when they do, the county assessors raise the
assessment of the home and we pay more taxes. I have been fighting the county on this issue for two years to no success. My home (after
repairs) is assessed at 50% higher than any other home on my street. The advice I've received from my neighbors is "do not repair".
"They'll raise all of our taxes'"
Salt Lake City has suffered severely under the gentrifying policies implemented within the past 5-10 years, with homelessness, drug
problems, police violence, economic shortfalls, wage stagnation, runaway housing cost increases, urban decay, and general city
maintenance noticeably and rapidly worsening during that time. All of those problems have been exacerbated dramatically during Erin
Mendenhall's terms as mayor. It is not completely clear whose fault all of these problems are, but it is at least certain that it happened
under the current administration's watch.
I have a deep love for this city and have no desire to leave but it is profoundly saddening to see how much private financial interests
have taken over the operation and planning of our day-to-day.
Page 11 of 19
Salt Lake City is a great city surrounded with a hostile state. I'm actively trying to find a job elsewhere so I can leave the state. I have no
interest in making Utah my forever home and it pains me that the city is in such a terrible state because I feel like the people here are
great and are making a lot of great improvements to life here, but the state is constantly trying to interfere and make things worse.
Salt Lake City is overbuilding certain areas like Sugar House. It should value quality or air and water more than it does.
Salt Lake City is wonderful city, please keep it like this and take care of homeless people,
Salt Lake City leadership needs to step it up to address homelessness. They (particularly the mayor) spend too much time complaining
about the state not giving them enough resources or sending homeless people here, and not enough time rolling up their sleeves and
addressing the problem. Erin Mendenhall should be ashamed that several homeless people die each winter on her watch and that she
funnels more money to the police instead of actually facilitating housing/shelters being built. It's so embarrassing being a citizen of this
city and watching city council be in lockstep with her and not actually have the guts to push back and address the issue head on. It's
shameful how leadership in this city addresses the issue. Also, they need to be better about filling in potholes.
Salt Lake City should focus on basic government services. Stop trying to change the city. Improve street maintenance, stop trying to make
streets difficult to use. Bike lanes are of little value to most citizens. ADUs have the potential to ruin neighborhoods, not improve them.
Speed bumps are contrary to the purpose of streets, which is to make it possible to drive on them.
Salt Lake city police lying and corruption is the biggest harm being done to citizens.
Salt Lake has become a very expensive place to live. If there is anything government can do to reduce the cost of living here I hope it can
be done.
Salt Lake has increased taxes above those of surrounding cities. I will often shop on the way home from work or other places just to shop
in areas with lower taxes. It makes a difference when life on a budget is already hard.
Seems SLC government is more concerned with homeless, high density housing, generating economic growth vs preserving the
neighborhoods and quality of the folks who actually pay gov salaries. SLC is congested, getting overpopulated, high density housing
more people and cars, main travel arteries have been downsized to accommodate bike lanes, although few bikers, people driving way to
fast on freeways and in town and through residential neighborhoods with it seems like little enforcement except in extreme incidents,
crime…….you call it progress, many I know call it sad.
Several typos, and a whole section of questions that didn't correspond to the answer choices.
Since the police were a focus of this survey, I'll share an opinion. The police should focus on crime prevention and public safety, but not
on traffic enforcement. The city should install speed and parking cameras and issue tickets automatically. This would free officers to
focus all of their time on what they do best, patrolling the city to prevent crime and aiding those in urgent need of law enforcement
assistance.
Some of the questions are leading -- making it difficult to voice an objective opinion. And I'm thinking you should proofread your content
for errors (there were several).
Some of the questions do not provide sensible answers; for example, most of the homelessness problems should be the responsibility not
just one government jurisdiction. Also, how can one answer concerns about speeding when the choices range from not well to extremely
well? What does that mean? Finally, this survey was very slanted towards telling you how great things are with little room for criticism;
not very balanced.
Some poorly worded questions in some sections
Some questions, the answers that are provided aren't really proper way to answer those questions, thus causing the answers to be
skewed. I'm betting this is by design.
Predatory parking enforcement in neighborhoods should STOP.
Something needs to be done about the excessive and dangerous noise from motorcycles. It’s completely uncontrolled and can damage
your hearing if they get too close to you. There has to be a limit on the noise level for vehicles!
Stop giving so much money to cops and developers, it's destroying our city
Stop over developing the city causing low income individuals to not be able to afford the cost of living here. Governor Spencer Cox and the
legislature should be ashamed of themselves for approving a 900 million text subsidy for a major league baseball stadium when they
only spend 17 million for low income housing and 90 million roughly for homelessness in the state of Utah. Economic expansion at the
Page 12 of 19
cost of its loyal native citizens. I'm looking to move out of the state just so I can afford a home because Utah is now in the top most
unaffordable states in the country.
Stop raising taxes and providing fewer services
Survey too long.
More pickleball courts please
Survey was too long, became difficult to focus halfway through.
Survey was way too long.
Take care of the homeless issue at the city level. This is a CITY issue and needs to be taken care of by the mayor and city council.
Thank you for continued work and leadership on issues around homelessness. It is making a difference. My biggest frustration across the
country is the impact on public spaces and sense that permissiveness is compromising everyone’s safety. Keep up the hard work.
Thank you for making the survey available. There are many resources I didn’t realize were available. The only thing I wish I could stress
(and I realize the city and county are working on it) is the cost of housing. I will likely have to move soon because of rent increase and
there seems to be no end of rent increases in sight even with all of the new apartments being offed. Nothing is affordable anymore when
it comes to renting. I love living in Salt Lake but so many wonderful people are being priced out and we are being turned into another New
York City. I wish I could have my old Salt Lake back.
Thank you for soliciting my input. It takes a whole community to make things better. I wish our legislators would try to understand this
concept.
Thank you for your service. I've interacted quite a bit with city staff and found them to be capable and courteous.
Thank you for your work!
Thank you!
Thank you. Upon reflection, my assessment that SLC is headed in the wrong direction is more a concern about overpopulation, climate
change, and societal change generally than it is about SLC itself. I think the city government does a good job generally within the
constraints imposed on it.
Thanks! I love surveys. SLCPD does not need another cent from taxpayers. Focus on air quality, mental health services, and bike
lanes/public transit are huge. I love SLC but the air quality and cost of living will drive me out soon :(
The City, County and State need to value humans and residents and not focus on economic development at all costs. Build side walks,
neighborhoods, bike lanes and better public transportation before you bring more businesses and people to the state. Elected official just
think of themselves and not the long term benefits to the people of the state.
The SLCPD is a tremendously overfunded, bloated, organization that is taking desperately needed money from important projects like
public housing and transit improvements. Defund them in stead of constantly increasing their budget.
The Utah State Legislature does not represent the opinions or concerns of Utah citizens. The City Government is much more aligned with
the people who live, especially, in the City. Clean air and water are priorities, and yet the UT Leg prefers to file lawsuits against the EPA
instead of improving the air quality. Keep doing the hard work of fighting the developers that make up a huge percentage of the UT Leg.
And fight against the Inland Port!
The answers provided in the how-safe-are-your-streets section of this survey were not clearly given—I believe there is an incredible
amount of reckless driving on SLC streets due to speeding and ignoring traffic signals (running red lights, 4-way stops, not watching for
pedestrians or non-automobile users of the street) and I’m not sure my answers (“not very well”) will be indicative of how unsafe I feel on
the streets here as a motorist and as a pedestrian.
The biggest issue I have is the homelessness issue is getting out of control. I am often confronted in the stairwell of my apartments or
the on the streets on state street with them on drugs, carrying weapons while high. many times they have been belligerent and
threatened me. When calling the police to have them escorted off the property, they are just told to leave and they promptly come back an
hour or two later.
The budget section was too comprehensive and overwhelming. I would have provided fewer categories and condensed them a bit. Some of
the questions also felt too large to answer on a survey. I answered that I'd pay $100 more on my property taxes but I would most likely be
willing to pay more if I knew it was going to services that improved the quality of life in Salt Lake City.
Page 13 of 19
The city and state have ear marked Millions of dollars to support bringing major league sports to the city when the city has neglected its
infrastructure. If we have the money available to support private enterprise we should also have it available to support current and
deferred community needs.
The city forced me to move my family out of downtown, [REDACTED], because of its gross inability to address the homeless, drug
proliferation, and housing control from the nearby buildings. Jackie and Erin’s governments ruined downtown and destroyed my former
home.
The city is improving and moving in the right direction. This is contrasted with the state, which is moving in the wrong direction
The city should be most concerned about the operations and maintenance of the city properties and less concerned about every little
social issue. Be fair and honest with all.
I am most upset that the city government appears to be fostering a city of single people that will have little to no long term ownership in
the city. This is witnessed by the closing of schools, and building apartments, and not fostering a place where family's can grow and feel
safe. just look at how Liberty Park, and others have changed, not first class parks.
Too much is emphasised on cramming more dense housing on the same property for the benifit of increasing city property taxes on the
same land.
I can see where this city is going. I suggest putting the same energy and time where the current property owners and residents can feel
safe and enjoy where they live and do business.
Lastly....don't farm out your city billing service to a company outside the state. keep jobs here with that responsibility.
Thank you
The homeless problem in SLC/state problem. The needs of the homeless can be improved if there is a combined effort. Although I don't
have the data to know for sure - but it probably true that the homeless in SLC come from communities outside of SLC including many
from rural areas of Utah. We need to work together with nonprofits and all government entities.
The homeless situation in Salt Lake City is a crisis. I can no longer go to the store or a gas station without being approached for a
handout. The situation on North Temple at the fairgrounds is a disgrace, and it's a gateway to the city from the airport.
The huge speed bumps that you put in our neighborhood are too big and hurt my car and my back!!!
Please reconsider maki g them less intense.
The new organization of bike lanes and reduction of traffic flow on 9th south is disconcerting, this does not allow adequate space for
parking. The homeless situation needs to be handled by each organization state, county, and city. The untrammeled growth in the city
and county is unsustainable, and poorly planned causing more congestion and poor air quality. The new combination of parking and bike
lanes needs bumpers as it is hard for drivers to determine the edge of the stall.All of the recent laws passed by the legislature are
embarrassing, undignified, and in contravention of my first amendment rights, which take precedence over state laws. This state has
become too expensive, too polluted without adequate care or thought to how to preserve the lake, and seems to be motivated by financial
greed, and backward, conservative thought processes that undermine the dignity, and choice of the intelligent, hardworking people who
have invested in the community and made Salt Lake their home.
The question about Traffic too fast "well vs not well" was a little confusing to answer. Not sure if this will skew your results, but
something to consider based on the wording of the question.
But yes traffic is too fast in my area and Salt Lake City. Why do we cater so much to cars? Six lane roads with homes on them makes no
sense? State street, 700 east, 1300 east as examples. 1300 East has a speed limit of 40 and we all known people drive 50-60+ mph. It's
insane. It's just too dangerous and loud.
Please bring the speed limit down and/or reduce the lanes of traffic on these major roads that have homes and apartments on them. We
wouldn't put a home on I15 or I80 with a sidewalk, which these roads have turned into the same width... It's too loud and dangerous to
walk on the sidewalks where there are businesses, let alone homes on these streets.
The new 1300 East "walkable" bridge over I80 is a joke... no one wants to cross there because cars don't stop to yield to pedestrians. It's
Page 14 of 19
chaos at those intersections and the city allowed it by catering so much to cars. I just do understand how the city can implement these
things without the neighborhood residents having a say in the construction. I live here and see it every day, which I doubt anyone on the
project plans understand.
I understand my comments won't do anything, but just wanted to share my disappointment in the city and state for the terrible car
focused developments without any insight from residents.
The question on how to spend $100 seems pointless, absent context
The reason I stated that the State and County should be doing more with Homelessness is because it seems like the current mayor will
not enforce laws to keep the city cleaned up and safe from the threats which widespread homelessness causes in terms of safety and
public health. As such, some government agency should step in to protect the quality of life and the safety of the citizens of the city.
Only time it seems there is a clean up is if there is a mayoral election approaching. Look at all the camping along the folsom trail and
other public parks/trails now versus right before the election. It seems like the philosophy of the city is that you can't arrest your way out
of anything, whether it is traffic enforcement for speeders, zoning complaints for violations, or homeless encampments.
The recent re-engineering of 900 South was a huge disappointment in several ways, made worse by the hideous "whale" that has become
the focal point of the 900 South community, and resulted in the misuse of the 900 South and 1100 East roundabout (people using the
apron of the center of the roundabout as a track, which is not safe, and the roundabout itself as a velodrome.
And in general the major thoroughfares are in the process of being made less user-friendly for drivers (to some extent even creating
safety hazards) while not improving them in terms of pedestrian safety. And an awful lot of money has been wasted on these projects
while allowing the roadways to continue to deteriorated throughout the city.
Also, the proliferation of electric scooters has become a public nuisance.
The roads beat by truck. Front end of a Toyota Tacoma broke after 65000 miles should have made it to 300000
The roads here suck.
Hugs for Thugs didn't work in 2020 and it still doesn't work in 2024. Mendenhall and her ilk conflate compassion for success. The
lawlessness allowed in 2020 is in part, responsible for the lawlessness now. It's a dangerous open air drug-fest along the Jordan River
Trail. And many other places, especially on the West Side of the city. "Soft on Crime" Mendenhall and chief Brown are directly responsible.
Downtown SLC is also a dumpster fire. I wonder if Mendenhall goes anywhere downtown at night without her armed detail. Finally,
whoever is the "Homeless Czar" for the city or county or state needs to be fired. He/She is a total gd failure and tax money is being
flushed down the toilet.
Oh, and did I mention that the roads suck. Stop making excuses for a lack of professional craftsmanship in road repairs and learn how to
patch them.
(I'll end now before I delve into the public getting railroaded into funding things like a baseball stadium and olympics and a new
basketball arena and helping create Gail's and Ryan's dynasties. Ugh
The "leaders" in SLC are selling out for a few pieces of silver (and their own ego-driven legacy) the future of what was once a beautiful
place. (With of course plenty of problems. If we allow it "leaders" will create a strip mall and high density dwelling concrete jungle nooks
and crannies filled with tent cities and drug addicts mingled with sports fans crowding a filthy urban landscape. Remember, all the
high-rollers have drivers and guards and live in gated communities with advanced security systems. And we the people will be the fools
that allowed it to happen. It's time to "Slow the Grow," take a breathe, and really plan the future here. There is absolutely NO hurry. Good
luck.
Fire "Complete Streets"
The roads in my community are horrific. There is no maintenance, my car is literally being beaten to death on the streets. I have no idea
what my taxes pay for because I receive zero benefits from those dollars. Perhaps this is the city's way to try and force everyone onto a
bike or public transit, but it's embarrassing for the city and the state of Utah that every street is in disrepair, full of potholes and the
pathetic efforts the city makes to slop some asphalt into the potholes just makes the problem even worse. At this point it is so bad, it's
the primary issue on my mind.
The speed bumps in my neighborhood were the wrong decision to install and have caused more traffic problems than they are solving-I
would love to see them removed.
Page 15 of 19
The survey had some typos and things that didn't work right. It could have used some more QA/QC review.
The survey is (I hope) a good way to assess citizen’s feelings on these complex topics.
The alternative is the media and social media, which both favor simplistic or absolutist approaches.
Side note - I think Mayor Mendenhall is fantastic. She’s the only public servant/politician I follow on instagram.
The survey took 30 to 40 minutes which was misleading when you said 15 min.
The survey was a bit long for the record.
Abatement is the most important priority when it comes to homelessness in the greater salt lake area. Enforcement of camping and
vagrancy laws must be the highest priority for the police department. Taking Seattle, WA into account, growing up there it reminded me
much of Salt Lake City today; a small number of unhoused individuals but not a visible, systemic problem. Now, going back to Seattle,
entire neighborhoods are unrecognizable and dangerous due to the rampant disregard for the rule of law. Please do not let that happen
here. Open air hard drug use, visible crime like stolen bicycle chop-shops, RV registration delinquency must NOT be allowed. Dedicate a
full time position to target expired registration and 72 hour parking/visible trash and you'll see a visible improvement in "rough
neighborhoods"
The survey was a little long, but I hope the info obtained is deemed detailed and useful.
The survey was sometimes glitchy
There is talk of making Main Street downtown SLC into a pedestrian plaza. An absurd idea due to presence of light rail. If no light rail,
this might be a good idea. But it cannot be with the trains. I you want a ped plaza, remove both the cars and the trains. Otherwise, let
cars continue to use the street.
There was no disabled box under employment status. Medical retirement came closest.
Please please please, clean up the air.
There were a couple typos like 'somewht' and sometimes it auto advanced and sometimes it did not but overall decent. I am not clear
about the different roles in city/county/state government levels so those questions were pretty off the cuff. Though I think all levels of
government need to be involved with something as important as the homeless/housing/cost of living crisis which effects everyone
There’s a reason why so many people have been moving here over the last few years. Covid aside this is an amazing place with loads of
potential, we all just need to continue to work together to keep it the amazing place we all know and love.
These questions were so broad that I'm not sure of the value. It's like asking a bike rider if they want bike lanes on every road. They say
yes & then we have bumper to bumper traffic & not enough street parking for all those living in the area. Poor parents that can't afford to
live in SLC have to hurry after work to jump on a freeway to pick up kids & get to soccer, ballet classes. Public transportation can never
fit their needs & schedules. The city has a dream world vision instead of focusing on basic roads, lowering taxes & homeless.
Oh, and mayor Erin canceled equal pay water. I can't afford my water bill even with equal pay. They keep raising our taxes to fund pet
projects. The folks at the Capitol even tax Social Security. The average person struggles. I'm grateful to be better off than many. Silly
survey. It feels like a message that they want to again raise taxes & we are pretending to care how you want it spent.
This helps me know what issues the state/city/county deal with. It's gratifying to know that citizens are listened to, presumably.
This seemed a bit skewed in several areas to answer the way you want us to. There were several questions where I had an opinion about
homelessness or unhoused persons & there was not a response defined for that. Also, there wasn't North SLC options for parks, such as
the Warm Springs Park area which I wish to see developed and refurbished ...
This survey feels, in many ways, like it is designed to enable y'all to be able to say you are addressing the issues identified by the public.
The problem is that "issues" will now be addressed by a bunch of committees that the public has long since stopped trusting of believing
in and will, as a result, be as unrepresentative as ever. We don't trust that you have our interests at your core- why should one survey
change that?
This survey took a long time and was not very intuitive in its formatting.
In general, the city is far more concerned about being aesthetically pleasing as opposed to offering social services for it's denizens who
are struggling to find housing. My brother and sister-in-law who rent here can barely afford it with 2 incomes that are nearly double
Page 16 of 19
minimum wage. A fifteen dollar minimum wage could help. Investing in affordable housing options may help. There are many roads to
improvement. When I am nice to the homeless population in my neighborhood (allow them to use the spigot on my house for water, allow
them to use the outlet on the outside of my house to charge devices), my neighbors routinely call the police and civil enforcement to make
sure my grass is no longer than 6 inches and my friends in an RV don't stay in my driveway (fully on my property) for a couple months in
the summer. The city could take time to educate people that homeless folks are just people like you and me. They could have fallen on a
single hard time or had a consistently hard life of poverty. Most folks in my neighborhood see homeless people as a blight and don't even
really see them as human (as evidenced by the drunk gentleman who tried to run some over with his truck outside my home). My brother
(a pedestrian) was hit by a car whose driver had no car insurance and now is responsible for all of his medical bills and as far as I am
aware the man who hit him was not even ticketed. City money would be much better spent in my opinion paying medical bills for
pedestrians and bikers hit by vehicles with uninsured drivers to incentivize the city to make more meaningful improvements to pedestrian
safety.
This survey was longer than I expected / wanted. Many of the questions I have no opinion or preference on simply because I do not have
regular interaction with those services. Consider structuring the survey to allow me to select the areas or services that I would like to
provide feedback on.
This survey was way too long and had too many redundant questions.
Also the elimination of utility equal pay is ridiculous. All other utilities are able to offer equal pay. A solution should have been identified
before sunsetting the program. The ending of this program will make it difficult for many households to budget for the summer spikes in
utilities.
This took WAY longer than estimate in the letter. Also many questions could have used a "no opinion" option. I feel like I was forced to
provide answers with no background knowledge in the subject which is only going to make the data you receive less valuable.
To our government, FREE PALESTINE!!! Call for an immediate ceasefire!!! The blood of innocents are on your hands
Too long
Too long!!!
Too long. Need to understand where in the process of answering questions I am. Am I halfway or only a couple left? Way too long and
unclear if survey saved and can come back later
Too long. I want to contribute but this took 30 minutes of my time. It would be appreciated if the questionnaire was more concise
Too many apartment complexes are being built in the city.
Too much focus on useless road designs as other roads are in complete disrepair. Homeless should be handled by the state. Tougher
enforcement of laws and the police need an east side presence. We have been asking for it for many decades. Poor management of the
parks make them unsafe. Countless requests to have homeless camps and fires removed from under bridges have been made with no
response from fire, policy or city. Ridiculous we have someone on a Segway checking recycling pins as we allow human waste in our
parks. The green loop is a horrible idea. it's just another reason not go downtown. We need buy open space and open up city creek again.
turf on asphalt will make the downtown better. We need to stop with all the hopes of bike lanes. It's too cold for 4-6 months and too hot
4-6 months. We can do better with the funds to parks, traffic flows and sidewalks, not bike lanes. Main Street needs to be closed from
South Temple to 4th south to traffic. The high schools are a joke at best. Old dumpy buildings with horrible administration. West high
the darling for some reason. It needs to go. We could us a mayor that doesn't tell us to stay a part during covid while sending her
daughter to birthday parties and private school. SLC has really fall apart the last 50 years. Then add the U is all about out of state
students with no regard to in-state students. Randell Taylor's own daughter goes to BYU. The attitude and focus of the city and school
are aligned and failing.
Trash collection and street maintenance really need improvement
Turn into ai interactive chat that has a conversation like i do with chatGPT with the paid membership right now.
Use directed street lighting to mitigate light pollution. Turn off building lights at night to mitigate avian death and migration
disorientation. thanks
Use of fossil fuels was not addresses. Air quality is terrible. I live on [REDACTED]. Dust that settles is black and greasy when I try to
wipe it. Need to use soap and water. The refinery purging their stacks every morning until the exhaust changes from black to white is
dangerous for my health. Thank goodness my condo has a treadmill.
Page 17 of 19
Very happy with the new bike infrastructure (300 west, 900s, 1100 e) and hope the improvements keep coming. Would also like to see
more traffic calming measures in residential areas
Very thorough survey and I liked how it forced you to pick an answer for some of the questions. We need more housing options!! More
affordable and deeply affordable housing. We also need more down payment assistance programs! Most of us are paying more in rent
than in a mortgage but cannot afford a down payment and are stuck in inadequate housing with questionable landlords. There needs to
be more awareness and action on predatory housing scams; literally most of KSL ads are scams that prey on people in need of affordable
housing and nothing is being down about these ads!
WAY to long of a survey.
We NEED affordable housing, both for renting and owning. The fact that I’m a college graduate, military veteran, and work a mid-level
corporate job and still can’t even come close to affording a home in Salt Lake City is insane. I can’t even comfortably afford to rent a
place on my own and have been forced to live with roommates to offset the crazy rent increases. No wonder homelessness is such an
issue in SLC!
We got the survey mailer late. Hope our response is still used.
The growth in the city/county is too much. Densification is not desirable. Automobile traffic drives way too fast and people use cell
phones way too much while driving - SLPD must give more traffic citations.
We have lived in SLC for [REDACTED], with 95% of it in downtown SLC and the last 6 months in Sugarhouse. We are concerned about the
hollowing out of SLC and the loss of families with kids in the city. We are frustrated by dogs outnumbering kids at parks and playgrounds
that should be dog-free. Our kids have been attacked by dogs in Memory Grove and Sugarhouse Park in areas where dogs are required to
be on leash. We also are frustrated by irresponsible dog owners who don't clean up after their pets. Our daughter's kindergarten class
had to remove their shoes because kids stepped in dog poop at their SLC school which doesn't allow dogs at all but dogs are there all the
time. Additionally, we are frustrated by the homelessness situation. We lived at [REDACTED] and observed drug deals regularly. There
were times that we couldn't walk in and out of the building because people were passed out in the doorway. We regularly stepped in feces
in our entrance and had people yell at our kids. We recognize that homeless people need treatment and housing but it is not humane to
allow them to loiter while stoned on the streets. Downtown and Sugarhouse need more owner-occupied condos and not just rental
properties and fewer surface parking lots. Library Square would be a great place for a playground for kids and hopefully the public safety
building proximity would ensure that the playground was safe. We also wish the relationship between the city and the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints was stronger. We appreciate the city's emphasis on multimodal transportation and investment in transit. UTA
needs to expand bus service so that routes come more regularly. The S Line also needs to continue further east and connect up to
Millcreek Common. We appreciate the planned rebuild of 1300 E to make it more pedestrian and bike friendly. Please finish the curb and
gutter on some of the adjacent streets to 1300 E such as ours (Atkin Ave). Please remember that being pedestrian/bike friendly also
means being accessible for strollers, wheelchairs, and kids on bikes and not just commuter cyclists. We love the Peace Gardens which
are a neglected treasure in the city. We love SLC and want SLC to be a place where people can live, work, and play and that is family-
friendly. SLC has been losing kids and families at an alarming rate and we chose to stay here when we bought a house. We love the
diversity of the city, we love the access to nature, we love the trees, we love the cultural amenities, we love the restaurants, we love being
able to walk places, we love the shopping, we love the U., and we love how SLC has "grown up" in recent years (airport, trains, cuisine,
Eccles Theater, etc.). We want to be a resource to city leaders to achieve that family-friendly city vision. Thanks for doing the survey.
We need to encourage more multi family housing - particularly in the wealthy neighborhoods
We need to stop this crazy Marxist crap, start seeing people as people and not as a color.
We put too much emphasis on historic preservation in residential areas. The planning department is bogged down with applications from
history neighborhoods where applicants are doing every day maintenance and upkeep. This makes living here more expensive and
challenging to update existing housing to modern tech. I believe in preservation but it’s too burdensome, there has to be flexibility.
Weird person to ask for the survey cause I don't really care how things go and how things are I just survive work pay taxes sleep eat do it
all again I can care less how things go
What do you plan to do With the east-west divide Are you still planning on putting in a train box It would definitely help the divide
[REDACTED]
What is happening to our green space downtown? Nothing but a concrete jungle! Buildings are erected and parking is a problem.
Housing is expensive so multiple people have to live in one unit which increases the number of vehicles pertaining to that unit.
Page 18 of 19
What is the city doing about pollution - air, water and noise? What is the city doing about the water level in the Great Salt Lake?
What is the opposite of pragmatic? That is what this city is. You spend so much time talking about crap that doesn’t do the vast majority
of us any good. All we want are good roads and sidewalks, no homeless, and nice parks.
Why are divorced and single separate? If you are divorced you are single.
There were not enough chances to explain why for an answer. The quality of parks in Rose Park is inferior to parks in other areas of the
city. The city urban forest department is very friendly but underfunded. It takes too long to get city trees trimmed, even when the dead
branches pose a hazard.
Worried about affordable housing for the upcoming generations.
Would be useful to allow a general comment section since many available answers are not specific to my opinions
You can tell Government put ths out as there is no answer to hold POLITICIANS (CITY LEVEL) especially accountable
You have not questioned the problems of increased population, lack of water for this population, and poor air quality.
You need to preserve the quality of life people used to have here & why people even started moving here 10-20 years ago. People wanted
easy casual access to nature, not congested with people & cars, affordable for people to live & not having to watch our fellow SLCers
becoming homeless before our eyes or being forced to leave the state to find a quality of life near nature again. Our officials keep
courting being a "big city", when "big cities" come with "big problems" we, actual SLCers don't want. Nobody wants more crime, more
congestion, smaller & fewer affordable rental options, diminishing trees & *NATURAL* green spaces. You're ruining what special aspects
SLC had because you don't value it.
Why isn't the Great Salt Lake crisis being taken more seriously? Why are you constantly building art instillations the people who've been
there for decades & who have to live near them think are ugly when you could put that money into a community art space? Why aren't you
doing more to preserve local & loved long time businesses from being pushed further & further out fin the city because their building
owner is more concerned with fulfilling their own greed than the value of culture that business has contributed to? Why would you do
nothing to reverse the sale of the Pantages when that could have been an incredible spot for our arts & events community? Why aren't
you prioritizing community gathering spaces in your building aspirations? What are you doing to ensure that the residents of Rose Park &
Glendale aren't going to be gentrified & pushed out? What are you doing to actually create affordable housing so our homeless issue
actually gets solved again (remember when we used to make national news for how we had nearly eradicated homelessness in SLC & now
its the opposite)? How are you going employ developers who focus on affordable housing- because you categorically have not so far, you
just make the ones you hire set aside 1 out of 70 units as "affordable". Why aren't you doing anything to keep our venues since they keep
disappearing like In the Venue? What are you doing about the looming water crisis since we wont have enough water for the current
population in 2040 let alone the influx you are trying to cram in here? Why haven't you learned any lessons from how San Francisco ruined
it's culture? Why exactly does our mayor have so many connections to developers in her personal life that seem to go uncontested when
our city keeps telling her *AFFORDABLE HOUSING, NOT ANOTHER LUXURY APARTMENT BEHEMOTH"?
I've gotten to watch the neighbourhood I currently live in (which I lived in during middle school/high school) go from being a quiet street
where you could just sit outside & enjoy the relative peace to constantly having traffic & actually getting hit & rolled over the hood of a
car outside my apartment because some POS decided to speed in a residential neighbourhood coming out of downtown. My street is now
crawling with people every single time there's an event downtown or its past 10AM especially on weekends - then there's drunk people
from the bars & sports events everywhere including pissing next to our community garden? We've had someone set our trash bin on fire,
neighbours have had multiple bikes stolen from the parking lot in the last 2 years, & had to yell at 2 white kids with spray cans trying to
tag my goddamn apartment while I was taking my dog out one night. You're making SLC worse, not better.
Also, please for the love of god put up signs that there are deer & people need to slow down when driving on Foothill Drive near the Mario
Capecchi intersection. There's been 5 deer hit there in the last 2 months & it's fucking depressing to have to walk past considering I've
never seen that many dead deer in 1 year in that area.
Nobody needs literal examples of our City prioritizing courting an influx of people while our natural surroundings suffer.
Your all doing a great job.
Your website is ineffective and difficult to navigate
Page 19 of 19
an opinion of train routes... all aspects
i am begging someone to address the issue of the various businesses blasting music in their parking lots to keep away homeless people.
i live near a walgreens that does this and i had to buy a noise machine to try to drown out the music, and i can still hear this music. they
also have a robot cop surveillance system that makes announcements all nights and shines a blue light directly in my window.
i am very disappointed in the building of so many unattractive high rise buildings every where around the city and suburbs. the buildings
have no architectural appeal whatsoever! it reminds me of housing in communist countries! It make me wonder who would want to live
in them, and how do we get water to supply them? It feels like every square inch of open land now has a high rise apartment sitting on
it. As far as I'm concerned, the once beautiful City of Salt Lake has been ruined!!!!!! The Sugarhouse area, especially, breaks my heart!
It is a total disaster!!! I very sad. It doesn't feel like the citizens had andy say or input into what has happened! It doesn't seem fair!
less construction. The amount of construction, specifically in Sugarhouse, at the same time is outrageous. It leaves no room for getting
around. It would be helpful to space out some of these large projects.
please help the homeless. lower rent prices by 50%. raise minimum income by 100%
please improve the air quality to the extent that the city can
re: Homelessness
The city county and state should be ruthlessly cynical about establishing and funding non-profits and/or homeless advocacy groups. We
have seen such groups prolong and increase the problem of homelessness. At the same time, the number of such NGOs and the amounts
they are funded and the wages paid to the people who administer them always seem to steadily increase with the increase in the number
of homeless individuals.
It would be good to avoid the cycle where homelessness increases at the same rate funding for NGOs does.
right direction/wrong direction is meaningless without some context
some questions about traffic speed made no sense with the responses provided.
for the love of god do NOT expand I-15. Every successful modern city has 2 things in common: abundant medium and high density
housing and robust public transit. plan accordingly.
survey - some of the questions were not worded well (the city streets/not at all likert scale didn't really make sense?)
Salt lake city - lack of public transportation, safeness for pedestrians and bikers, overcrowding of canyons, recreations spaces (parks),
etc. is a major issue, along with environmental concerns (great salt lake, bad air quality). The air quality and transportation elements
need to be addressed.
the big issue is homelessness - how to decriminalize it and provide mental health services and help residents and business owners feel
safe. Liberty Park has become a homeless camp and this doesn't feel safe for the neighborhood.
the city has wasted time by not improving water and wastewater facilities. Now SLC is paying the high price of keeping rates low and not
maintaining and rebuilding this infrastructure. Get it!
this survey didn't give any place to add written comment for each of the different subjects. I have a whole lot I would like to share with
someone who cares. I have lived here for a long time. I get the air issue with bikability etc but with that airport, magcorp , refineries,
quarries give me a break.2100 south is a mess, 900 south is a mess. We need those arteries!!!!!!!!!! Don't do anymore. Use that
money to figure out the homelessness, potholes and the filth all over the city. Build, build, build how about taking care of what and who
all ready exist here. I walked on main street around 400 south use to be vibrant now it is filth. a mattress, huge pile of diarrhea looks
like it had been there for ages. Used to be different offices not emptiness. Most of the people walking are homeless. There is more, but I
go to go.
time to complete this survey was about 30-40 minutes (sheet said 15)
OFFICIAL 2024 BIANNUAL COMMUNITY SURVEY
RESIDENT ATTITUDESSALT LAKE CITY
SURVEY RESPONDENTS –
DEMOGRAPHICS
§10,000 SLC households were sampled from a list of resident contacts gathered from a
USPS residential address database.
§653 residents within the boundaries of Salt Lake City participated in this survey.
§Survey responses were collected between March 28th and April 7th, 2024.
§Invitations were sent via mailed letter and interviews were completed online.
§Data have been weighted to reflect population statistics from the U.S. Census’ American
Community Survey to better approximate a representative sample of the City as a whole,
specifically regarding age, city council district, race, gender, and home ownership.
§Margin of error +-3.8 percentage points
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
SAMPLING, MODE, & MARGIN OF ERROR
DEMOGRAPHICS: TENURE, CHILDREN, HOMEOWNERSHIP
0
5
10
29
5
9
14
27
1
More than 80 years
60 - 80 years
40 - 60 years
20 - 40 years
15 - 20 years
11 - 15 years
6 - 10 years
1 - 5 years
Less than 1 year
Residency Tenure (n = 624)
%
85
5 7 2
None 1 2 3+
Children in Household (n = 649)%
48
Own
53
Rent / Other
%
Census Estimate
Own 48%
Rent 51
Homeownership (n = 625)
DEMOGRAPHICS: AGE, GENDER, RACE, MARITAL STATUS
Census Estimate
Men 51%
Women 49
Census Estimate
White 77%
BIPOC 23
Census Estimate
18-34 42.5%
35-44 17.8
45-54 12.4
55-64 12.6
65+14.7
Census Estimate
Married 41.2%
Single 43
Divorced 11
Partner 1.4
Widowed 3.4
42
17 13 13 15
18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Age (n = 617)
%
23
85
4
BIPOC White Other
Ethnicity (n = 616)
%
41
5 2
17
34
Married Divorced Widowed Partner Single
Marital Status (n = 622)
%
50
Male43
Female
7
Gender (n = 625)
Other
%
DEMOGRAPHICS: EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, INCOME
5 6 4
18
12 13
8
25
10
Under $25,000 $25,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $124,999 $125,000 - $149,999 Over $150,000 Prefer not to say
Income (n = 624)
%
C
e
n
s
u
s
M
e
d
i
a
n
Prefer not to say
1
2
3
9
14
71
Student
Homemaker
Unemployed
Self-employed
Retired
Employed
Employment (n = 624)
%
0
8
1
17
42
31
Some high school or less
High school graduate
Vocational or technical school
Some college
College graduate
Post-graduate degree
Education (n = 625)
%
C
e
n
s
u
s
M
e
d
i
a
n
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
COUNCIL DISTRICTS
N size
Unweighted
Sample %
Weighted
Sample %
Census
Estimate %
54 8%12%14%
27 4%12%14%
108 17%15%15%
117 18%15%15%
112 17%15%14%
110 17%15%14%
118 18%15%14%
OBJECTIVES &
TAKEAWAYS
1.Residents enjoy a high quality of life.
On a scale from 0 to 100, SLC residents offer an average quality of life rating of 72, which is three points higher than last year’s
evaluation from email panelists. Quality of life is highest in Districts 5 and 6, with a 76 out of 100 for both. 59% of residents also say
the city is headed in the right direction, while 45% believe that their city tax dollars are well-spent.
2.SLC Constituents rate social workers, golf course maintenance well.
911 dispatch and fire/paramedics are also highly rated. Homeless engagement and street maintenance are the lowest-rated services.
Given the opportunity to fund city services, residents are the most likely to give money to street/road surface maintenance and city
parks/open spaces.
3.Neighborhoods are walkable and well-connected.
Residents tend to express positive perceptions of their neighborhood’s access to key amenities such as parks, shopping, and parking.
The thing that SLC residents most enjoy about the city are its restaurants, and nearly 60% of residents prefer to eat at restaurants in
the City over anywhere else.
4.Police generally trusted while residents support the initiative to have social workers handle various
emergencies.
63% trust the police ”a great deal” or “a moderate amount” and almost 90% of residents believe law enforcement should build
relationships with community members. 92% believe that social workers should be dispatched for various emergencies. The vast
majority who believe this express confidence in social workers’ specialized training.
5.Bare majority of residents express satisfaction with contacting the city.
54% of those who contacted the city in the last year were satisfied with the response they received. Of those who contacted the city,
most did so over the phone. Residents would prefer to contact the city through this avenue or via email. Residents would prefer to
receive news or updates from the City by email, although many currently do not.
5 KEY FINDINGS TO REMEMBER
SURVEY OBJECTIVES
RESEARCH GOALS
§Gauge attitudes towards city services and public safety.
§Gather perceptions about neighborhood quality and community.
§Understand what draws residents to and keeps residents in SLC.
§Gauge attitudes towards transportation options and maintenance.
§Examine from which communication channels residents most commonly receive
information about the city and which modes they would prefer.
§Evaluate how residents feel about and utilize community councils.
PANEL RESIDENTS –
KEY METRIC COMPARISONS
TO PRIOR SURVEYS
Very few residents rate their quality life in Salt Lake below 50. The average rating among SLC residents is 72, up 3 points from 2023.
Average: 72
Q: All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n = 653)
OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE IN SALT LAKE CITY
QUALITY OF LIFE BY CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
Residents in District 5 and 6 report the highest average quality of life (76) and those in District 1 report the lowest average quality of life (65).
Average: 65
Average: 67
Average: 74
Average: 67
Average: 76
Average: 76
Average: 75
Q: All things considered, on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being very low and 100 being very high, how would you rate your overall quality of life in Salt Lake City? (n = 650)
LESS THAN HALF SAY THEIR TAX DOLLAR IS WELL-SPENT
In 2024, 45% of respondents said that the service they receive for their tax dollar was “good” or “excellent”, while 55% say the service is “fair” or “poor”. Residents rate the
tax dollar consistently with how they did in 2023.
Q: In general, how do you rate the service you receive from Salt Lake City for your tax dollar? (n = 653)
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Resident rating of tax dollar
TOP 10 RATED CITY SERVICES
Social workers are the highest-rated service among residents, followed closely by the city golf courses, the highest-ranked service in 2023. 911, Fire/EMS, and park rangers
also received high ratings this year.
Q: Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following government services in Salt Lake City? If you have
no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable." (n = 645-648)
2023
Δ from 2023
—
6.9
⇩ 0.2
6.4
⇧ 0.2
6.6
=
5.2
⇧ 1.4
—
6.2
⇩ 0.1
5.5
⇧ 0.5
6.0
⇩ 0.1
5.5
⇧ 0.3
BOTTOM 10 RATED CITY SERVICES
Street maintenance is among the worst-rated services for the second year in a row, and the homeless engagement and response team, assessed for the first time this year,
is among the lowest-rated city services.
Q: Using a scale of 1-7 with ONE meaning POOR and SEVEN meaning EXCELLENT how would you evaluate the following government services in Salt Lake City? If you have
no experience with a service, just select "Not applicable." (n = 645-648)
5.0
=
2023
Δ from 2023
5.4
⇩ 0.4
5.2
⇩ 0.4
4.7
=
4.7
⇧ 0.1
3.6
⇧ 0.6
4.1
⇧ 0.1
4.2
=
—
3.6
⇩ 0.1
NEIGHBORHOODS
& INITIATIVES
RESIDENTS FIND NEIGHBORHOODS WALKABLE, CONNECTED
Respondents have differing views on various aspects of their neighborhoods. The majority think that their neighborhood is walkable, connected to the city and
aesthetically pleasing. Only 37% think their neighborhood schools are important gathering places and only 26% think things have gotten better since they moved in.
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood? (n = 649)
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Neighborhood aspects – everyday life
70%
⇧ 5%
% agree
in 2023
61
⇧ 6%
—
40
⇧ 5%
26%
⇧ 8%
58
⇧ 4%
RESIDENTS FEEL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE ACCESSIBLE
Over 60% of residents agree that their neighborhood has good park, shopping, parking, and transit access. Just under 60% think their neighborhood has the right mix of
business and housing. Of the options that were asked last year, agreement is up across all three.
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your neighborhood? (n = 647)
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
—
% agree
in 2023
61
⇧ 3%
49
⇧ 8%
—
Neighborhood aspects – accessibility
58
⇧ 11%
SLC RESIDENTS FEEL SAFER DURING THE DAY
Respondents were more likely to say they felt safe during the day (88% in their neighborhoods, 82% in downtown SLC) than at night (69% in their neighborhoods, 51% in
downtown SLC). Even so, over half of respondents feel safe in downtown at night, which received the lowest safety rating.
Q: How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE DAY? (n = 649)
Q2: How safe do you feel when walking alone in the following places DURING THE NIGHT? (n = 650)
Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
D
a
y
A
t
n
i
g
h
t
Feelings of safety
CONSTITUENTS ENJOY SLC’S RESTAURANTS AND FOOD OPTIONS
80% of residents enjoy Salt Lake’s restaurants and nearly 60% prefer the restaurants in SLC over anywhere else. The arts/performances and events/festivals in Salt Lake
City are also popular, with around half of residents enjoying these areas in Salt Lake over anywhere else. Constituents tend to find places to bike, go to parks, and attend
sports games in places outside of the city.
Q: Which of the following aspects of Downtown Salt Lake City do you appreciate or find enjoyable? Select all that apply. (n = 653)
Q2: For which of the following activities or aspects do you prefer to do in Downtown Salt Lake City rather than anywhere else? Select all that apply. (n = 647)
Aspects of SLC that residents find enjoyable Prefer in SLC over anywhere else
PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE RECEIVE A GENERAL LEVEL OF TRUST
63% of respondents trust the police a “moderate amount” or ”a great deal”. Less than one in six don’t trust the police at all, although nearly a quarter only trust the police
“a small amount”.
Q: How much do you trust Salt Lake City police? (n = 634)
Amount of trust in the Salt Lake City Police
A great deal A moderate amount A small amount Not at all
9 IN 10 BELIEVE THE POLICE SHOULD BUILD COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS
3 in 4 also believe that it would be valuable for the police to interact with residents outside of law enforcement. Residents are least likely to agree that additional funding
will make their communities safer or improve law enforcement in their communities.
Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about local law enforcement? (n = 629)
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Statements about Salt Lake City Police
EMERGENCY CALL INITIATIVE HAS NEARLY UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
The City’s new initiative to allocate resources to social workers and social services for some emergency request calls has 92% support despite having relatively low
awareness (32%).
Q: Recently, Salt Lake City made some changes in how emergency request calls are routed to the appropriate response teams. Specifically, the city has allocated resources to social workers and
social services to respond to many emergency calls that would previously have been dispatched to the police department. Emergencies of this sort include mental health emergencies, or
attempted suicide or suicidal ideation, among other things. Before reading this, were you aware that the city had made these changes? (n = 634)
Q2: Which of the two following statements regarding social services and responses to mental health emergencies comes closer to your view, even if neither one fully represents how you feel? (n =
628)
32%
Aware
Awareness of changes
to emergency request calls
92%
Agree
Belief that social workers should
handle these sorts of emergencies
SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD HANDLE THESE CALLS DUE TO SPECIALIZED TRAINING
When asked why they believed that social workers should handle certain emergency calls, almost all agreed that social workers’ specialized training allowed them to be
successful in these situations. Their access to specialized resources was also seen as important.
Q: Which of the following reasons describes why you feel mental health emergencies should be handled by social service professionals and social workers? Select all that apply (n = 560)
Why social workers should handle these emergencies
THOSE WHO PREFER POLICE SUPPORT CONCERNED ABOUT VIOLENCE
Those who do not support the new emergency call initiative oppose it primarily because they believe that the situations that social workers would handle are too
dangerous for them. Some people said that social workers should be brought to these calls with police but that police should respond first due to the possible violent
nature of these calls.
Q: Which of the following reasons describes why you feel mental health emergencies should be handled by police? Select all that apply (n = 62)
Why police should handle these emergencies
”Police should also bring
social workers to these
calls.”
“Response time is critical.”
“It depends on the
situation.”
[Police] can hand off the
situation to a trained social
worker, but you don’t want
to send a social worker into
a potentially dangerous
situation.”
“Social workers cannot
enforce laws or arrest.”
FAMILY FOCUS
62% DO NOT PLAN TO HAVE KIDS IN SALT LAKE
Residents who do not want children in SLC primarily do not because they do not want children at all or are concerned about air quality or affordable housing in the City.
Q: Do you plan to have and raise children, or have and raise additional children while living in Salt Lake City? (n = 650)
Q2: Which of the following, if any, are reasons you do not want to raise children in Salt Lake City? Please select all that apply. (n = 434)
28%
Yes
62%
No
Plan to have kids in SLC
“I already have adult children.”
“I’m too old to raise children.”
“The political atmosphere at the
state level.”
“Housing construction focuses on
apartments that are not conducive
to family living.”
Reasons for not having children in SLC
<1% prefer
not to answer
TRANSPORTATION &
ROADS
RESIDENTS AGREE THAT TRANSPORT SHOULD RUN LATER
Nearly half agree that buses and trains do not run late enough into the night but that public transport is affordable (48% and 49%, respectively). Residents are less likely to
agree that bus routes go to where they need them to go (32%) or that trains go to recreation they enjoy (30%).
Q: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about public transportation in Salt Lake City? (n = 640)
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree Neither Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree Not applicable
RESIDENTIAL ROADS HAVE MIXED REVIEWS
Residents are pretty evenly divided between positive, neutral, and negative attitudes towards traffic and lighting in their neighborhoods. However, they are less likely to
have positive attitudes towards the roads being safe for cyclists or well-maintained. Most are neutral to negative on both of those points.
Q: How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads in the neighborhood where you live? (n = 641)
Extremely well Very well Somewhat well Slightly well Not well at all
How well do the following statements describe roads in the neighborhood where you live?
CITY ROADS NOT SEEN AS WELL MAINTAINED
51% said that they do not think the roads in the city are well maintained. Across the board, SLC residents do not feel positively about the roads they use frequently around
the city. The highest % of positive support (35%) is for the roads being well-lit.
Q: How well would you say that each of the following statements describe the roads you use daily around the city? (n = 635)
Extremely well Very well Somewhat well Slightly well Not well at all
How well do the following statements describe roads you use daily around the city?
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
RESIDENTS WANT PARKS IN DOWNTOWN, SUGARHOUSE
Residents most enjoy being outside in Sugarhouse (73%) and City Creek Canyon (60%). The places where they enjoy being outside do not always line up with where they’d
want to see parks, however. 29% want to see more parks in Downtown and 27% want them in Sugarhouse, while only 13% want more parks in City Creek Canyon. Another
popular spot for new parks would be the University/Foothill area, with 21% of resident wanting parks here.
Q: In which of the following areas of the city do you enjoy being outside or in open spaces? Select all that apply. (n = 645)
Q2: In which of the following areas of the city would you like to see more parks and open spaces? Select all that apply. (n = 627)
Locations where residents enjoy being outside Locations where residents want parks
CITY COMMUNICATION
CHANNELS & WEBSITE
JUST OVER HALF OF CITY RESPONSES ARE SATISFACTORY
About 2 in 5 residents of the city have contacted city offices in the past year, down 10% points from 2023. Those who contact the city are satisfied 54% of the time, which is
down 12% points from 2023.
23
23
28
26
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
SATISFACTION WITH CITY RESPONSE
%
42%
⇩ 10% from 2023
CONTACTED CITY OFFICES
Q: During the past year, have you contacted a Salt Lake City government office to get information, file a complaint, or obtain services? (n = 642)
Q2: Overall, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city’s response? (n = 316)
54%
SATISFIED
⇩ 12% from 2023
46%
DISSATISFIED
X MOST POPULAR SOCIAL MEDIA OUTLET FOR SLC CONTENT
Nearly 70% of residents who use X or Nextdoor see the City’s content on those platforms. However, only 44% of Instagram or Facebook users (the two most popular sites
for residents) see the City’s content on those platforms. For those who see the city’s content, over half find the content “somewhat useful”.
Q: Which, if any, of the following social media platforms (i.e., websites or apps) do you use or visit? Select all that apply. (n = 639).
Q2: Do you happen to see or read Salt Lake City's content or posts on any of the following social media platforms? (n = 59-257).
Q3: How useful are the posts or updates you currently receive from Salt Lake City’s social media accounts for you, personally? (n = 235)
18%
% who
use site
16%
40%
50%
25%
16%
48%
25%
Platforms where residents
see SLC social media content
Yes No Not sure
Usefulness of posts
MAJORITY DO NOT ATTEND COMMUNITY COUNCILS
When asked if they have attended a community council in the past year, 84% of residents said that they have not. Of those who have, only 12% attend regularly.
Q: In addition to the Mayor and City Council, another way to engage on City issues is through community councils. These councils are neighborhood level advocacy groups that listen to
presentations about City issues, gather neighborhood feedback, and gather concerns to share with the City Council and Mayor. In the past year, have you attended a meeting of your local
community council? (n = 531)
Q2: How many times have you attended a community council meeting in the past year? (n = 91)
14
Yes
84
No
Community Council
Participation
Unsure = ~1%
%
%
Frequency of participation
THANK YOU
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/5/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/5/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 4/5/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board.
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory
Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Miranda Bradsahw member of
the Transportation Advisory Board.
.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 5, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Transportation
Advisory Board.
Miranda Bradshaw to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council
advice and consent and ending on Monday, September 27, 2027.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/1/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/1/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 4/1/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Stacee Adams member of the
Sister Cities Advisory Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 1, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Sister Cities
Advisory Board.
Stacee Adams to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice and
consent and ending on Monday, July 3, 2028.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/24/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/24/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 4/24/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Natalie Moldover member of
the Library Board.
.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 24, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Library Board.
Natalie Moldover to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice
and consent and ending on June 30, 2027.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/19/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/19/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 4/19/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Gabriella Huggins member of
the Arts Council.
.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 19, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Arts Council.
Gabriella Huggins to be appointed for a three year term starting from date of City Council advice
and consent.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________ Date Received: 4/1/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 4/1/2024
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 4/1/2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Bryce Wurtsbaugh member of
the Business Advisory Board.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
April 1, 2024
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Council Member Petro,
Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for the Business Advisory
Board.
Bryce Wurtsbaugh to be appointed for a four year term starting from date of City Council advice
and consent and ending on Monday, December 25, 2028.
I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY24
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno,
Kira Luke, and Sam Owen
DATE: May 14, 2024
RE: Budget Amendment Number 5 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024
NEW INFORMATION:
On May 7, the Council received a briefing about five-time-sensitive items for which the Administration requested straw
polls be considered. The Council unanimously passed straw polls for the five items at the briefing. Later at the formal
meeting, the Council closed the public hearing and adopted the same five items as listed below. The budget amendment
is still open, and the Council is scheduled to continue reviewing the remaining items on May 14. The next potential
adoption vote is scheduled for May 21.
Council Partial Adoption Vote on May 7 for Five-Time-Sensitive Items
- A-3: 2100 South Utility Upgrades between 700 East and 1100 East Capital Improvement Program Project ($7
Million one-time from General Fund Balance, Transferred to the CIP Fund, Repayments from Property Owners
as a Connection Fee at TBD Times)
- A-8: North Temple Bridge Over the Jordan River Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement, Fencing, and Scope
Expansion ($320,000 one-time from General Fund Balance)
o Note the motion included seeking reimbursement from the Utah Fairpark Area Investment and
Restoration District
- A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to CIP Holding Account ($15 Million one-time from General Fund Balance to
CIP Fund)
o Note: the Council would need to release the funds from the holding account and allocate to specific
projects before the funds could be used
- D-5: City Housing Authority Payment In Lieu Of Taxes or PILOT Check ($40,000 one-time to and from the
General Fund; revenue in and equivalent expenditure out)
- I-1: Micro-shelter Community Site Preparation Costs and Electricity through June, and $100,000 Additional to
Address Unexpected Costs Related to Homelessness ($393,791 – One Time from Holding Account)
Withdrawn Item I-2: Funding to Catchup on Expungement Backlog ($300,000 one-time from General
Fund Balance to Non-departmental)
This Council-added item is withdrawn because it’s being considered in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2025.
Approving the appropriation in Budget Amendment #5 would leave only five weeks for it to be used or encumbered
under a contract otherwise it would lapse back to General Fund Balance. Funding in the FY2025 annual budget provides
more time for the Administration to determine how best to use the funding whether in IMS for a technology solution, in
the Police Department for overtime hours, in Non-departmental for a contracted third-party solution, etc.
City Code Clarification on Connection Fee Tool for A-3: 2100 South Utility Upgrades
The connection fee repayment to the General Fund for the $7 million of water and sewer utility upgrades is based on two
sections of Salt Lake City Code: section 17.16.337 for culinary water main extensions and 17.44.210 for sewer main
extensions. Both sections authorize the City to collect any expenses it advanced for water and sewer lines from property
owners connecting lateral lines to those upgraded utilities. The City enforces this authority to collect the charges by
requiring connection agreements of adjacent property owners as they seek to tie into the upgraded utility lines. The
resulting connection fee is proportional to each property’s front footage per the ordinances. The connection fee
obligation is also recorded against the adjacent properties so current and future owners are notified of it.
Project Timeline:
Set Date: April 16, 2024
1st Briefing: April 16, 2024
2nd Briefing: May 7, 2024
Public Hearing & Partial Adoption: May 7, 2024
3rd Briefing: May 14, 2024
Potential Adoption Vote: May 21, 2024
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
The Administration has forwarded a Second Revised Budget Amendment No. 5 transmittal which includes a Fund
Balance update and several changes including:
- Revised funding requests for two items:
o A-3: 2100 South Utility Upgrades between 700 East and 1100 East and
o A-8: North Temple Jordan River Bridge Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement and Fencing
- Two new administrative items:
o D-9: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement and Funding Source Change, and
o E-1 Utah DNR, Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Grant
- Two new Council-added items, I-1 was requested by the Administration after the second revised transmittal was
sent and I-2 is a proposal from Council Member Puy:
o I-1: Micro-shelter Community Site Preparation Costs and Electricity through June ($293,791 – One Time
from Holding Account)
o I-2: Funding to Catchup on Expungement Backlog ($300,000 one-time from General Fund Balance to
Non-departmental)
Sales Tax Revenue and Fund Balance Update:
At the April 16 briefing, the Council received a sales tax revenue update from the Finance Department. To date, overall
revenues are trending slightly above budget. Finance staff are projecting revenues to remain consistent with current
estimates for the remainder of FY 2024. Modifications have been made primarily to sales tax revenues, resulting in a
decrease of approximately (-$2.6 million) to regular sales tax while an increase of $3.7 million is projected for the
Funding Our Future additional ½% sales tax.
The updated fund balance is estimated to be 25.5% of the FY 2024 adopted budget or $55,558,724 above the 13%
minimum target. Three changes resulted in this updated estimate. First, $10 million is no longer anticipated in revenues
later this fiscal year largely driven by sales tax projected to be flat instead of growing. Second, the $7 million expenditure
in item A-3 for 2100 South utility upgrades is changed to no longer be a loan with time certain repayment to the General
Fund. Third, the Council voted on April 16 for the last remaining item in Budget Amendment #3 (downtown parking pay
station replacements) to fully fund the $1.612 million cost to avoid $291,895 of interest expense under an alternative
seven year debt repayment schedule.
Responses to Council Member Questions about item A-2: Police Recruitment and Retention (Total of
$1,423,875 from General Fund Balance of which $1,159,375 one-time and $264,500 ongoing)
At the April 16 briefing, Council Members asked several questions about item A-2. The questions and responses from the
Police Department are below.
- Improving Retention Question: Could the Administration please provide a comparison of police officer retention
before and after the $8,500 bonus program began?
o Response: The Police Department had a 27% reduction in separations over the last year and a 40%
reduction versus the same period 2 years ago.
- Comparing Recruitment Bonuses Question: If available, how much do other law enforcement agencies provide
for lateral hiring bonuses? It would be helpful to understand how the $8,500 bonuses for lateral police officer
hires compare to the City’s major talent competitors. Staff note: this is not a direct apples to apples comparison
because of differences between programs such as repayment requirements if an officer leaves before the
employment commitment period, whether income taxes and the pensionable portion is paid by the agency or
the officer, and whether the bonus is based on performance or years of service. The responses below indicate
that Salt Lake City offers the most generous bonus program in the Wasatch Front, which is $3,500 more than
the closest competitors based on 18 agencies with whom HR was able to confirm amounts.
o Response: HR provided the following local law enforcement agencies comparisons. The following
entities have no police officer bonus program: Bountiful City, Davis County, Draper City, Farmington
City, Lehi City, Murray City, Orem City, State of Utah Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol,
Summit County, Taylorsville City, Unified Police Department, and Utah County. The following entities
do offer police officer bonus programs:
Layton City: $2,000 if a minimum of one year of uninterrupted full-time experience as a police
officer with a similarly sized agency. Increases to $3,000 for two years of experience. Both bonus
amounts come with a two-year employment commitment. Leaving employment before the two-
years requires full repayment to the City. Salt Lake City’s bonus program only requires
repayment of a prorated share of the bonus when the employee leaves before the two-year
employment commitment ends.
Ogden City: $5,000 is offered only to lateral hires.
Provo City: $5,000 is offered only to lateral hires and split into two payments; $2,000 at time of
hire and $3,000 at completion of a one-year probationary period.
Sandy City: 1% of annual salary bonus depending on performance or 3% for officers at the top
out (maximum) pay scale.
South Salt Lake City: 4% of annual salary bonus one-time.
Weber County: $4,000 split into two payments; $2,000 after first six months and another
$2,000 after competing one-year of employment.
o Response: The Police Department noted that agencies outside of the Wasatch Front sample listed above
offer recruitment bonuses of $5,000 - $10,000 based on a review of 2023 media articles.
- Bonus Program Participation Question: It was mentioned during the briefing that approximately 92% of current
police officers have participated in the bonus program. Could you please confirm if this percentage is correct?
o Response: As of 4/19 the retention participation was at 94.9%.
- Need for Ongoing Lateral Hiring after Full Staffing Question: Why is providing bonuses for lateral hires
recommended to continue with ongoing funding after the Department reaches full functional staffing levels?
o Response: In order to maintain staffing levels, especially as the retention commitments begin to end in
June of 2025, the Department needs to continue to be proactive in recruiting top candidates to fill
vacancies. Hiring a lateral officer (an officer who already has police certification) is the fastest way to fill
the Department’s vacancies. These employees can complete the Department’s in-house academy and be
on the street providing services to community members much faster. Recently the Department took
steps to expedite lateral officers into the field.
- ARPA Dollars Question: Are there any ARPA funds budgeted but not spent that need to be obligated by the end
of calendar year 2024 and could be used for the bonuses?
o Response: We have $195,325 in ARPA funding that must be spent by June 30, 2024.
- Vacancy Savings Question: Could you please share the results of the vacancy savings analysis for the Police
Department?
o Response: The below charts shows potential vacancy savings are estimated to be $857,669 in the Police
Department through the end of the current fiscal year.
Policy questions:
Use ARPA Dollars to Reduce Drawing Down Fund Balance – The Council may wish to consider using
$195,325 of ARPA funding that was previously budgeted but not spent and needs to be obligated this year
under the U.S. Treasury’s guidance. This option would reduce the amount of Fund Balance needed by an
equivalent amount.
Use Vacancy Savings to Reduce Drawing Down Fund Balance – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the option of using some vacancy savings in the Police Department. Historically, the
Department has considered vacancy savings to be an important part of the budget to cover unexpected
overtime in case of major public safety incidents occurring in June when the current fiscal year ends but
before the new fiscal year and those budget authorizations begin. The City has not identified an amount of
vacancy savings to be available for this potential risk. The Council could ask the Administration to
evaluate alternative budget options to address this annual potential need instead of relying upon vacancy
savings which fluctuate and are not guaranteed to be available each year.
REVISED A-3: 2100 South Utility Upgrades between 700 East and 1100 East Capital Improvement
Program Project ($7 Million one-time from General Fund Balance, Transferred to the CIP Fund,
Repayments from Property Owners as a Connection Fee at TBD Times)
The Administration is requesting a straw poll for this item because of contractor supply ordering constraints
A $7 million capital improvement project is proposed to upgrade utilities in tandem with the current street
reconstruction of 2100 South from 700 East to 1100 East. Upgrading utilities while the street is already open for
reconstruction is expected to reduce disruption to the neighborhood, potentially be lower cost, and better protect the
public investment to avoiding new pavement needing to be cut into later.
The Administration originally proposed the $7 million as a market-rate loan subject to reaching a loan agreement with
The Thackeray Company representing several entities developing adjacent properties. The revised proposal removes the
loan and rather treats the project as a General Fund capital improvement project where the property owners would repay
the City at a TBD time when the developers are ready to connect to the upgraded utilities. The repayment would be a
prorated connection fee with accrued market-rate interest. The obligation could be set in a connection agreement and
recording a notice of the agreement against the property. The $7 million and interest could be identified as a receivable
owed to the General Fund, however, the timing of repayment is uncertain and not guaranteed. Release of the funds could
be contingent on the City negotiating a connection fee agreement with the developers that would include the market rate
interest accrual and prorated share for repayments.
Policy questions:
Timing of Repayments – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about options to require
repayments by a certain time, and what is the risk the General Fund would not be repaid if a property
owner chose not to proceed with development?
Coordinating Utility Upgrades with Street Reconstruction Projects – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to include coordinating street reconstruction project planning and utility upgrade project
planning in the upcoming Capital Asset Plan (a 5-year CIP plan). Recently, the City successfully used this
approach consolidating 10 projects across five departments along the 900 South corridor.
REVISED A-8: North Temple Jordan River Bridges - Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement and
Temporary Fencing ($320,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Administration has updated this request to an increased amount of $320,000, and requests a straw poll to enable
timely contract execution.
This increase adds $34,500 to extend the rocks 50 feet on either side of the bridge, $60,000 to reflect an updated project
scope from the contractor after assessing the site, and another $60,000 for fencing. The fencing is anticipated to be a
combination of permanent and temporary, depending on the location. None of the fencing is intended to inhibit access to
the Jordan River Trail itself.
Permanent:
- Area abutting Archuleta Bridge (1206 W 200 S) - replacing existing fencing and adding new
- Northeast corner of the North Temple Bridge (approximately 1200 W North Temple) - repair/replacing damaged
fencing
Temporary (up to 120 days):
- West side of the Jordan River Trail between the Archuleta Bridge and North Temple
- Gadsby Trailhead (1223 W North Temple). This includes closing the boat ramp during bridge rock installation and
another 90 days after for riverbank remediation. Authorized Rocky Mountain Power or City staff will still have
access. The Administration reports that Rocky Mountain Power, who owns the parking lot land, is supportive of
the closure. The Administration also reports that since the trailhead is not a City park, the City isn't required to
undergo the legal process a temporary park closure needs. The City has an easement at the site
- Northwest corner of the North Temple Bridge (approximately 1200 W North Temple). This closes access from the
sidewalk to the bank adjacent to the bridge, the west bank of the Jordan River from the bridge to the footbridge,
and the west bank of the footbridge
- West side of the second footbridge (between 180 and 200 N)
- South end of Constitution Park (1300 West 300 North)
- North side of Folsom Trail (between South Temple and 100 South) between 900 and 1000 West, and the West
side of 1000 West. Note: this is not a river-abutting site, but the fencing is intended to limit persistent camping
and drug traffic in that area
New Policy Questions
Area Safety Plan – The Administration's writeup references this proposal as a critical element of the safety plan
for this neighborhood. The Council may wish to ask for more details on the safety plan, in closed session if
necessary.
Permanent vs. Temporary Fencing – Most of the fencing planned is temporary. The Council may wish to hold a
policy discussion considering what factors could determine areas that might be candidates for longer-term
fencing.
Duration of Administrative Closure – The Council may also wish to ask, if parts of the Folsom Trail are being
closed with fencing, at what point would that closure require legislative authorization?
D-9: Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement and Funding Source Change ($6,943,500 from
Streets Impact Fees to General Fund), and ($7,018,500 from Streets Impact Fees to CIP Fund.)
This is a request for excess capacity reimbursement to be paid out of Streets Impact Fees to the General Fund in the
amount of $6,943,500. It would also transfer these funds to streets impact fees to change the funding source of existing
CIP project appropriations from streets impact funded to General Fund funded CIP Projects. These changes will allow the
City to comply with the Impact Fee Act, the Impact Fee Facilities Plan, and to more efficiently utilize restrictive funding
sources. The result of the eligibility of these funds has been the need to refund $58,826 plus interest of ~ $16,174 from
streets impact fee funds.
NEW E-1: Utah DNR, Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands Grant ($30,000 from Misc. Grants)
The Utah Department of Natural Resources; Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands has rewarded the City with a grant
for the Jordan River Water Trail Tree & Debris Removal project, which consists of the removal of certain trees and other
organic matter and debris waste from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor to enhance safe and accessible nonmotorized
watercraft navigation while minimizing bank erosion and strengthening bank stability. This grant was not acquired
through an application but an offer of $30,000 communicated via email as it supported a previously funded project that
requires ongoing maintenance.
NEW I-1: Micro-shelter Community Site Preparation Costs and Electricity through June ($293,791 – One
Time from Holding Account)
The Council may consider a straw poll on this item since the micro-shelter community’s operations were extended
beyond the expected April 30 end date
This item would provide $263,791 for site preparation and private security costs incurred last calendar year by the City for
the RDA owned property temporarily hosting the micro-shelter community (note it has also been called a temporary
sanctioned campground). It would also provide $30,000 to cover the electricity bills for operating the site through June.
On April 16, the Council approved a temporary land use regulation extending operations of the micro-shelter community
through July 31. The Administration stated sufficient funding exists to cover July operational expenses so those would not
need to be added to the FY2025 annual budget (for July as the first month of the next fiscal year). The monthly electric
bills are between $3,200 - $3,800 and may increase during hotter summer months.
A breakout of the site preparation costs is listed below:
- $188,356 for new electrical service lines to the site
- $44,506 for ground preparation
- $21,127 for private security during site preparation work
- $6,907 for temporary fencing
- $1,595 for plumbing
- $1,300 for electrical line to a portable restroom trailer
The Council put a total of $1.5 million into a holding account for expenses related to the micro-shelter community. On
February 6, the Council found that the conditional appropriation was satisfied and approved releasing from a Non-
departmental holding account $500,000 one-time in Budget Amendment #3 for a reimbursement to the State for general
operating expenses at the temporary sanctioned campground (not reimbursement for specific incurred expenses). At the
time, the total estimated cost to operate the campground was $860,000 from December through April. The $860,000
operating cost didn’t include the City’s expenses to prepare the site (itemized above) such as utility upgrades, SLCPD and
SLCFD public safety expenses, and the State’s cost to purchase the Foldum micro shelter units.
Policy questions:
Additional Funding Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether additional funding
requests related to the micro-shelter community are anticipated. The Council could provide additional funding
from the holding account (such as $100,000) as part of this budget opening for unexpected costs related to the
micro-shelter community and/or homelessness more broadly. The additional funding would provide the
Administration flexibility to more quickly respond since Budget Amendment #5 is the last budget opening of
FY2024 otherwise responses might need to wait for budget availability in the new fiscal year (July 1).
Coordinating Closure of Temporary Site and Opening of Permanent Campground – The Council may wish to ask
the Administration what preparations are underway to coordinate tenants moving from the temporary site to the
State’s permanent campground.
New I-2: Funding to Catchup on Expungement Backlog ($300,000 one-time from General Fund Balance
to Non-departmental)
This item is proposed by Council Member Puy to provide one-time funding for catching up on an expungement backlog.
Recent changes to state law and the courts system processing of expungement requests has significantly increased the
number of pending expungements. The funds would be placed in Non-departmental to give the Administration flexibility
to determine how best to implement processing the documents. The funds could be used for an outside contract, in-house
resources such as overtime, technology improvements, and/or a combination of approaches. Appropriating the funds in
Non-departmental recognizes that multiple departments could be involved including the Police Department, IMS, and/or
Finance. Some Council Members have mentioned that faster processing of expungements helps people access housing and
jobs by removing a criminal record which can be identified during a background / security check. Criminal records can be
a barrier to a landlord approving a rental application or a potential employer hiring the job candidate. The funding would
need to be used or encumbered under a contract before the end of fiscal year (June 30) otherwise the appropriation would
lapse and return to General Fund Balance unless the Council adds it to the FY 25 annual budget in Non-Departmental.
Policy questions:
Additional Resources Needs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration is the volume of expungement
requests anticipated to continue increases and might additional resources be needed in future fiscal years?
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Budget Amendment Number Five includes 23 proposed amendments, $32,633,928 in revenues and $70,351,358 in
expenditures of which $24,404,465 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to seven funds. Item A-3 is a
request for $7 million of one-time General Fund monies which would be used to negotiate a loan with the Thackeray
Company, representing several businesses, who are or will be developing property adjacent to 2100 South in the Sugar
House Business District. A fact sheet and additional info was pending at the time of publishing this report.
Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs for the Next Annual Budget
(See Attachment 1 at the end of this staff report)
The chart of potential new ongoing General Fund costs for the FY2025 annual budget is available as Attachment 1 and
included at the end of this document. If all the items are adopted as proposed by the Administration, then the FY2025
annual budget could have $380,882 of new ongoing costs. The total new ongoing costs from Budget Amendments 1
through 5 would be $7,568,554. It’s important to note that $3.1 million of that could be covered by the Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant assuming the Legislature continues to appropriate sufficient funds under the
current formula and law.
Fund Balance
If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 28.12% which is $67,210,724
above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. It’s important to note that while Fund Balance at
this level is healthy the FY2025 annual budget (like the FY2024 annual budget) is anticipated to have a relatively large
structural deficit necessitating use of one-time Fund Balance.
The Administration has requested straw polls for the following items:
A-3: 2100 South Infrastructure Loan for Utility Upgrades between 700 East and 1100 East ($7 Million one-time from
General Fund Balance and Transferred to the Loan Fund)
D-5: Housing Authority PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) Check ($40,000 to General Fund)
Revenues Update
The Finance Department plans to provide a sales tax revenues update to the Council at the April 16 briefing. Overall
revenues have improved since Budget Amendment #4 when total General Fund revenues were forecast to be $1.4 million
below budget which was mostly driven by sales tax underperforming. The updated table shows total General Fund
revenues are trending slightly above budget partly because of the Funding Our Future 0.5% sales tax coming in higher.
The Department provided some additional details on revenue line items with significant changes:
-Sales Taxes: The regular sales and use tax is $2.7 million below budget while the local option Funding Our Future
(FOF) 0.5% sales tax is $3.7 million above budget. The two sales taxes have different exemptions and percentage
splits between which government entities receive the resulting revenue. This is why the two sales tax revenues do
not always trend in the same direction at the same time. The City took a conservative approach to budget
projections for the FOF sales tax since it was enacted in 2018. The historical is being used to refine FOF sales tax
projections for the FY2025 annual budget.
-Charges from Services: The $1.2 million (25%) increase from charges for services is caused by police off-duty
security (offset by an increase in actual police overtime). Also contributing is an increase in building civil
enforcement revenue as those accounts have been turned over to the collections unit.
-Franchise Taxes: The $925,203 (7.5%) increase from franchise taxes continues a recent trend after several years of
multi-million dollar decreases in this revenue source. The increase is due to water rate increases of about 22%
over prior year that are now impacting city revenue. This trend should continue as Public Utilities is requesting
another rate increase in FY2025.
-Rental and Other Income: The $419,599 (62%) increase is from facility rental revenue due to increased demand for
city facilities and increases in city costs for water, gas, and power utilities which are passed through. There is an
offsetting increase in these utility expenditures.
Fund Balance Chart
The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been
updated to include proposed changes for Budget Amendment #5. Based on those projections the adjusted fund
balance is projected to be at 25.86%.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The
Administration requests that document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A.New Budget Items
B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C.Grants for New Staff Resources
D.Housekeeping Items
E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F.Donations
G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I.Council Added Items
Impact Fees Updates are pending further implementation of the City's new financial system (Workday) and
integration with Accela that handles building permit records.
The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as
of 7/20/23. The table below has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of
the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have
no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated
in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $273,684 More than two years away -
Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away -
Police $1,402,656 More than two years away -
Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Section A: New Items
Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items.
A-1: Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases for Fire Hydrant Rentals ($133,250 one-time from
General Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $133,250 to cover fee increases on maintenance costs on fire hydrants in the City. While
Public Utilities refers to this as “rental” fee, it is not renting hydrants in the traditional sense of rent. The fee covers
maintenance costs and use of the hydrants. Public Utilities increased this fee in FY 24, but it was overlooked while putting
together the Fire Department budget that year. For FY 25, Finance is recommending that this cost be shifted to non-
departmental as it is a City-wide expense for a City-wide benefit.
A-2: Police Recruitment and Retention (Total of $1,423,875 from General Fund Balance of which
$1,159,375 one-time and $264,500 ongoing)
In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023, the Council approved $5.5 million to offer $8,500 one-time bonuses to all police
officers, except executive level (e.g., deputy chief and above), with a two-year employment commitment. The bonuses also
included the City paying the pensionable cost of approximately $3,000 on average to the Utah Retirement System for the
employee’s pension. If an officer left employment with the City before completing the two-year commitment, then they
would need to repay a prorated share of the cost to the City. The date of the bonuses are staggered based on an employee’s
hiring anniversary date. This item is requesting funding to continue providing bonuses to new hires using this same
framework.
The Administration is requesting $264,500 to provide 23 lateral hire bonuses. A lateral hire is when a police officer
working at another law enforcement agency is hired to work at the Salt Lake City Police Department. A lateral hire is
already POST certified and needs significantly less training than a new entry level hire. The estimated cost is $125,000 -
$150,000 for a new entry level police officer from date of hire to completion of all trainings so they can fully operate as an
officer out on patrol. The funding would be ongoing so bonuses could continue to be provided to lateral hires in future
fiscal years.
The Administration is also requesting $1,159,375 one-time to provide bonuses to new entry level and lateral hires expected
in May and retention bonuses to existing officers that haven’t yet participated in the bonus program.
The Department has relied on mandatory overtime to maintain minimum patrol staffing levels at times during recent
years. The Police Chief stated this approach helps in the short-term but is unsustainable in the long term. The bonus
program was designed to incentivize longer retention of officers and faster hiring of new officers. The program goal was to
stabilize staffing levels and help the Police Department reach full staffing within two years. The Department reports a high
participation rate by officers in the program and improved staffing levels.
In March, 34 funded sworn officer positions were vacant and two additional vacancies were anticipated. Depending upon
the completion rate of planned upcoming hiring classes, the Department could reach full functional staffing in 2024. Note
that there are many unknowns outside the City’s control when projecting when the Police Department could reach full
staffing such as the number of qualified candidates applying, the state of the Wasatch Front metropolitan and national
economies, officers on leave, crime rates, etc.
Policy questions:
1. Availability of Vacancy Savings is Pending – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on
available vacancy savings in the Police Department that could be used instead of General Fund Balance to cover
some of the costs for bonuses. An analysis of vacancy savings was pending at the time of publishing this staff
report.
2. Limit of One Bonus – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to confirm that only a single bonus is
offered. For example, if a sworn employee left, then would they be eligible for a second bonus upon returning in
the future?
3. Need to Continue Lateral Hire Bonus Program after Reaching Full Staffing – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration why providing bonuses for lateral hires is recommended to continue with ongoing funding after
the Department reaches full functional staffing levels?
4. Unused ARPA Funds – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to check if there are any unused ARPA
funds that were budgeted but not spent that should be recaptured and obligated for use by the federal deadline at
the end of this calendar year.
A-3: 2100 South Infrastructure Loan for Utility Upgrades between 700 East and 1100 East ($7 Million
one-time from General Fund Balance and Transferred to the Loan Fund)
The Administration may be requesting a straw poll for this item (pending the fact sheet and updated info).
In order to facilitate a faster, less disruptive, and less costly reconstruction of 2100 S from 700 E to 1100 E, the
Administration proposes negotiating a market-rate loan of up to $7 million to The Thackeray Co. as the representative of
several entities in the area that are or will be developing property adjacent to 2100 S. This funding would be put toward
needed water and sewer upgrades in Sugarhouse and allow the City’s contractor to replace the infrastructure in
conjunction with the road upgrades instead of in subsequent phases that would necessitate re-opening the road over the
next several years. Release of the funds will be contingent on the City negotiating a loan agreement with the developer that
would include a market-rate interest rate and adequate collateral should the development not take place for some reason.
Additional information and a fact sheet will be shared with the council in the coming days.
At the time of publishing this staff report the fact sheet and additional information was pending. The funding is proposed
to be transferred to the Loan Fund for better tracking and so the funds don’t lapse to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal
year recognizing that more time might be needed to negotiate loan agreements. One option the Council could consider is
approving the funds contingent upon later approval of the proposed loan terms.
A-4: State Funding for Avenues Cemetery Road Reconstruction and Irrigation System Upgrades ($3
Million one-time State Appropriation to the CIP Fund)
This budget amendment is requesting approval to receive additional $3,000,000 in State appropriated funds to be spent
on the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation CIP bond project. This request will permit the Summer 2024 bidding and
contracting to proceed without delays for the construction of the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation project. Funding any
later than June 30 may delay bidding and contracting or add cost to the project PRJ-230007 8323213 - BD Cemetery.
The project is funded by three sources: City's 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond (approx.$11,200,000); a state legislative
appropriation ($3,000,000, this request); and by a private donor ($1,000,000, received through a donation agreement
and budget amendment). Bond and donation amounts are combined in Row 20 of "Grant Information". The legislative
appropriation can be given to the City in no fewer than two separate issuances once money is spent down (i.e., a
reimbursement). However, the City needs the funds upfront to bid and award the construction contract. This funding
will be reimbursed by the State once the City spends it (even partially) and reports on performance outcome
measurements (likely FY 26/27). The funding allocation for the $3,000,000 from the state will not be recognized until the
contract is complete, which is anticipated to happen by April 16th. The final “Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery
Preservation” request for appropriation (RFA) from the legislature is also attached.
The request for appropriation states that unused funding should be returned to the State at the end of FY2025 (June 30,
2025). The actual deadline will be determined in the funding agreement between the City and State which could be later.
The total available funding for the Avenues City Cemetery road reconstructions and irrigation system upgrades is $15.2
million (from the bond, private donation, and state appropriation). This would significantly improve those aging assets
but not fully fund the estimated need of $14.1 million for irrigation system upgrades and $20 million for road
reconstructions.
A-5: Traffic Signal for 2200 West and 2100 North Intersection ($450,000 one-time from General Fund
Balance to the CIP Fund)
The Administration is requesting $450,000 to add traffic signals at the 2200 W /2100 N intersection. This is currently a
2-way stop sign controlled intersection in a high growth area of the City. There is a worsening safety concern at this
intersection that a traffic signal would address. Traffic at this intersection has increased faster than anticipated in recent
years, and drivers turning off 2200 West onto 2100 North are finding it challenging to identify safe gaps in traffic. This has
resulted in an increase in traffic accidents at this location including severe injuries. This issue is exacerbated by the
relatively high speeds (45 mph) on 2100 North that makes it harder for drivers to accurately judge gaps in traffic. In past
CIP discussions, the Council has expressed a willingness to fund capital projects to address legitimate and serious safety
issues instead of waiting for the annual CIP process. Some Council Members have also commented that serious and urgent
safety issues should not be forced to seek funding through the competitive CIP process.
A-6: Police Impact Fee Refunds ($47,592 one-time from Unappropriated Police Impact Fee Balance in
CIP)
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not
work for the police precinct. Disencumbering of these funds has resulted in the required refund of impact fees plus actual
interest earned on the funds (as required by state law) due to their expiration. This refund will be funded with proceeds
from unappropriated Police Impact Fees. $38,464 (principal)+ Approximate Interest $9,128 = Total $47,592. At the time
of publishing this staff report, the option of using excess capacity to reimburse the General Fund for past eligible expenses
was being explored.
A-7: Update of the Transportation Section in the Impact Fees Facilities Plan ($29,817 rescope from last
IFFP update and $30,184 from Unappropriated Transportation Impact Fees)
The City is in the process of updating the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) for Police, Fire and Parks. Updating the Streets
IFFP at the same time will not only be cost efficient but is needed for the efficient CIP planning of Streets and
Transportation. The Transportation bond is nearly complete and updating the Streets IFFP will aid Capital Asset Planning
(CAP) in the preparation of the CAP 10-year Plan. One hundred percent of the cost is impact fee eligible and the scope
includes Streets/Transportation Study and Preparation of the IFFP. The full request of $60,000 is to be funded by a
rescope of the remaining $29,816.67 from the 2020 IFFP appropriation, with the remainder to come from unallocated
Streets Impact Fees.
A-8: North Temple Jordan River Bridge - Riverbank Deterrent Rock Replacement ($165,500 one-time
from General Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $165,500 to replace the rocks on the riverbank underneath the North Temple Jordan
River Bridge. The project entails removing the existing rocks and replacing them with larger boulders considered
uninviting for human activities. The request is framed as a reimbursement, but to date, the project is still in the permitting
process and has yet to begin.
In addition to discouraging unsanctioned access under the bridge, the rock replacement is anticipated to have a positive
environmental impact. The Administration has worked with the State's stream alteration division to ensure that the
project follows requirements to improve riverbank erosion control and will reduce scour (soil erosion around bridge
supports, which threatens bridge stability).
The North Temple Jordan River Bridge is currently the only location prioritized for this type of project. The rock
replacement project is one of several complementary approaches to reduce illegal activities in the area. Other efforts
include: a nearby trailhead parking lot closure, temporary fencing to limit access off the paved trail, targeted law
enforcement and overall increased police presence - including a Mobile Control Center on the Fairgrounds parking lot and
addressing limited lighting in the area (some of which is privately-owned).
Policy questions:
Need at other Bridges over the Jordan River – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how much this
approach would cost at other bridges over the Jordan River that are also impacted by illegal activities. For
example, public complaints and comments have noted campfires under bridges that caused wooden parts of the
bridges to be damaged.
Coordinating with the Folsom Trail – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on any
impacts this project may have on the planned completion of the western portion of the Folsom Trail from 1000
West to the Jordan River.
A-9: Additional Funding for 7 Days a Week Service from Advantage Services’ Mobile Clean Team Contract
($130,649 one-time from General Fund Balance)
In the FY2024 annual budget, the Council approved a $598,000 increase to the $802,000 ongoing base budget for
Advantage Services’ Mobile Clean Team contract. The new ongoing budget is $1.4 million. The Administration is
requesting a one-time increase of $130,649 as a result of two changes that were made this fiscal year. First the Clean
Team’s services were made immediately available to requests from the Police Department, and second, those services were
expanded from five to seven days a week. These changes were made to reduce duplication of clean up requests, increase
response times, and align the services hours with the seven days a week operating hours of the Police Department’s Camp
Mitigation Squads. Without the additional funding the Mobile Clean Team would reduce services to five days a week to
stay within budget.
Services include cleanup of abandoned camp materials, voluntary trash removal from active encampments, and biowaste
removal. The mobile clean team works with the City’s Rapid Intervention Team. Services are provided on public property
except for biowaste removal which is available on private property. In limited circumstances trash removal is also
provided on private property.
Policy questions:
1. Clean Team Funding in the FY2025 Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to evaluate whether
another ongoing funding increase is needed to meet demand for the Clean Team’s Services. The Administration
stated some services are seeing less demand such as the Rio Grande Clean Team and bathroom attendants. The
Council may also wish to ask what is reducing demand for those services and if the need actually reduced, moved
elsewhere, or perhaps there are opportunities for a more proactive cleaning approach.
2. Metrics – Would the Council like additional information about metrics for the Mobile Clean Team?
A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to CIP Holding Account ($15 Million one-time from General Fund Balance
to CIP Fund)
The Finance Department is requesting a one-time transfer of $15 million from General Fund Balance to a CIP holding
account for capital maintenance. This item is to ensure adequate fund balance levels, while also focusing on the financial
need for capital maintenance across the city. The Administration is considering reconvening the CIP resident advisory
board to help determine how best to use these funds in development of the FY2025 CIP budget. The funding
recommendations would come to the Council for approval and release of the funds from the CIP holding account.
The Council’s recent deliberations at the annual retreat, financial risks and reserves analysis briefing, and budget letter to
the Mayor identified deferred maintenance as a top priority for the one-time Fund Balance tens of millions of dollars over
the City’s 13% minimum target. Some specific examples include life and safety projects, energy efficiency, fleet vehicle
replacements and maintenance, traffic safety infrastructure and signage, pavement maintenance, and the large 400 South
bridge project. This proposal would seem to be in line with the Council’s recent retreat discussions about ways to prioritize
one-time money.
Policy questions:
Council role - The Council may wish to confirm with the Administration that the Council will be involved in
decisions about how funds are spent from this account.
Prioritizing capital maintenance – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether other ongoing,
underfunded City needs were considered for this transfer, and how the administration arrived at capital
maintenance as a priority. The Council may wish to understand further the Administration’s definition of “capital
maintenance” to better understand the types of projects this could fund.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
(None)
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Adding Budget for Finance Grant Position – Correction (Transfer of $14,548 from Misc. Grants Fund
and $46,643 from CDBG Fund to General Fund, and $3,000 to IMS Fund)
In Budget Amendment #3 of this fiscal year, budget was added to CDBG and Miscellaneous Grants funds for a Grants-
related position within the Finance department. However, there was a miscommunication, and the budget should not have
been added to CDBG and Misc. Grants. Both of those fund classes already have the maximum amount of budget added for
personnel at the beginning of each fiscal year. What should have happened is the budget and FTE should have been added
within the Finance department as a general fund funded FTE. The expenditures for this position would be periodically
reimbursed by the CDBG and Misc Grant funds after a time-tracking report is submitted justifying a reimbursement.
D-2: Recognizing Overtime Revenue in Budget ($1,736,505 from General Fund)
The Police Department is requesting a budget appropriation for overtime that has associated revenues from special events,
overtime staffing, contracts and task force reimbursements. The amount being requested is based on what has been
received through February conservatively projected through the remainder of the fiscal year.
D-3: Relocate CAN CRAG Funds ($100,000 from General Fund)
On March 19, 2024, during their review of the annual HUD grant awards for FY 2025, Council asked the administration to
evaluate other existing City rental assistance funding sources and return to the Council with options in relation to a
funding gap for Housing Connect's HUD HOPWA program.
This item provides recommendations and potential adjustments to reallocate the unused CAN CRAG funds to address
Housing Connect's funding gap, and to fund another HUD applicant that was ineligible for FY 2025 HUD funds.
- Housing Connect/The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County, HOPWA Program: $27,800
- Neighborhood House, Early Childhood Education Program: $72,200
Both recommendations are eligible activities per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee: Eviction Assistance &
Rent Relief and Expanded Educational Opportunities.
Note: Per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee, all CAN CRAG funds need to be spent by December 31, 2024.
D-4: HOME Dormant Income Transfer (Transfers $3,463,696 from Housing Fund to Misc. Grants Fund)
This housekeeping item moves the remaining HUD HOME dormant program income in the amount of $3,463,696.23 to
the correct fund. Budget is currently posted to the Housing fund. Due to federal grant tracking purposes, as well as
Finance wanting like to consolidate all grants in the grant fund, the department is requesting to move the HOME dormant
program funds to the grant fund. This budget amendment would move existing budget/funds and will have a zero-sum
budgetary impact.
D-5: Housing Authority Payment In Lieu Of Taxes or PILOT Check ($40,000 one-time to and from the
General Fund; revenue in and equivalent expenditure out)
The Administration requested a straw poll for this item to facilitate affordable housing rental assistance
The expenditure budget in the Non-Departmental Housing cost center currently sits at $85,000 while a total of $125,000
in expenditures is expected. This amendment will increase the budget to the appropriate level.
D-6: Airport Interest Budget Adjustment ($21,933,876 from Airport Fund)
The Airport initially budgeted $121,528,000 in interest expense based on the gross amount rather than the net value. The
actual forecast amount of interest expense is $142,900,000. This will adjust the Airport’s interest expense budget to
match interest in our debt service schedules rather than net debt service (interest less capitalized interest). This
amendment will budget the $21,933,876 difference from the Airport fund.
D-7: Open Streets 2024 at TBD Location and Times ($250,288 rescope of unused funds from prior year
Downtown Open Main Street events)
The Economic Development Department has identified a total of $250,288 available to be rescoped for Open Streets
events this year. The location, dates, and times are TBD. The Department stated that a different business district would be
selected outside of downtown and the events would likely be held in the fall. The events would be smaller than the
downtown Open Main Street events of the past three years and have a lower total cost. The Department anticipates no
additional funding will be needed. There are three sources for the funding from the past two fiscal years of Open Main
Street events:
- $57,000 remaining from $500,000 approved in Budget Amendment #5 of FY 2023 for the 2023 Open Streets
program
- $69,128 remaining following the completion of the Open Streets 2023 event
- $124,159.60 remaining from the $250,000 approved in Budget Amendment #1 of FY 2024
Policy Questions:
Plans and Total Budget Need for Summer or Fall 2024 Open Streets – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration for an update on plans and total estimated budget needed to operate Open Streets at a new TBD
location. In prior years, the summer events would be run for 15 weeks from Memorial Day to Labor Day, on Main
Street from South Temple to 400 South, and from Noon to 2am on Fridays and Saturdays. Prior year events had
significantly higher costs than $250,000 (double that amount).
Summer vs Fall Timing for Open Streets – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and
cons of holding open streets events in the summer vs the fall. Public feedback from prior years suggested some
businesses and attendees preferred summer events over fall events because of the warmer weather such as more
comfortable outdoor dining arrangements, and the coordination with the greater number of special events
happening at the same time which bring more people (attendees and performers) to the area.
Final Report of Pedestrianizing Main Street Downtown – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an
update on when the final report will be available about options and recommendations to permanently
pedestrianize parts of Main Street from South Temple to 400 South. The study website is www.mainslc.com
Rotating Locations – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether Open Streets events could
be rotated around the city at different business districts.
D-8: Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up ($3,675, 752 from General Fund – One-time)
In late March, staff received an updated memo from the Salt Lake County Auditor. After receiving this memo (Pursuant
to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act”) staff are increasing the revenues and
expenses by $3,675,752 accordingly to account for the final annual distribution. The corresponding memo is attached for
additional detail.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
(None)
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda No. 4
G-1: Department of Environmental Quality – State of Utah – Service Line Inventory ($100,000 from
Misc. Grants Fund)
Department of Public Utilities (DPU) received $100,000 to conduct a service line inventory and produce a lead service line
replacement (LSLR) plan for an estimated 13,894 water line connections in qualifying disadvantage census blocks meeting
the Hardship Funding Criteria of Utah Department of Environmental Quality. On December 16, 2020, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Act that went into effect on
January 16, 2021, and has a compliance date of October 16, 2024. DPU must complete a service line inventory that
includes publicly owned and customer-owned portions of the service line and develop a lead service line replacement plan
between 2023 and the LCRR compliance date. A public hearing was held May 16, 2023.
Section G: Grant Consent Agenda No. 5
G-1: Safe Streets For All ($953,600 from Misc. Grants Fund)
The Office of the Mayor requested $953,600 for the TravelWell Schools demonstration project on behalf of the nonprofit
Children’s Media Workshop. The project tests and refines a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an
educational campaign to deliver multi-disciplinary messaging aligned with the Safe System Approach targeting
underserved populations, citizen behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment.
The anticipated outcome is transformational change through real-time identification of travel behaviors, problems, and
solutions resulting in zero deaths on Salt Lake City roadways. Children’s Media Workshop and Mapps Lab LLC developed
the TravelWell Schools digital mapping tool that the project will test on a small-scale to gauge effectiveness and assess for
inclusion in the Safe Streets for All Action Plan under development by Wasatch Front Regional Council. Children’s Media
Workshop has committed to providing the full $238,400 worth in non-federal match, which is often required for grants.
This amount is strictly for the City’s grant match; however, it will not pass through or need to be budgeted for by the City.
A public hearing was held November 7, 2023.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum – Drone Funding ($4,532 from Misc. Grants Fund)
Funding will provide for the purchase of a drone to train first responders and prepare for an emergency response. The
public hearing was held January 16, 2024.
G-3: Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Grant ($600,068 from Misc. Grants Fund)
This funding is for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force. This contract is for salaries and fringe for existing Salt
Lake City PD K9 officer and Task Force Finance Manager/Grant Administrator. Funding will also support overtime for
outside agencies that participate in the task force. Other expenses: travel, K9 contracts, supplies, equipment and other
administrative costs. The public hearing was held March 5, 2024.
G-4: Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant ($9,280 from Misc. Grants Fund)
The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The
state’s application includes $9,280 for the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Lab 2023 Annual Accreditation Fee
through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020. The public hearing was held June 6, 2023.
Section I: Council-Added Items
(None)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Potential New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments (Chart)
ACRONYMS
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
ANAB – ANSI National Accreditation Board
CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund
CRAG – Community Recover Assistance Grants
DNR – Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands
DPU – Department of Public Utilities
FTE – Full Time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
FOF – Funding Our Future
GF – General Fund
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids
HUD – Department of Housing & Urban Development
IFFP – Impact Fee Facilities Plan
IMS – Information Management Services
Misc. – Miscellaneous
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RFA – Request For Appropriation
RFP – Request For Proposal
SAA – Special Assessment Area
UBFS – Utah Bureau of Forensic Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Request:
Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new
FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget
costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded
by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund
but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential
Cost to
FY2025
Annual
Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-1:
Homeless
General Fund
Reallocation Cost
Share for State
Homeless
Mitigation Grant
$53,544
0.5 FTE Community
Development
Grant Specialist for
Homelessness
Engagement and
Response Team
(HEART)
This position is proposed to be half
funded from the State Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant and half
by the General Fund for FY2024. The
$107,088 reflects the fully loaded
annual cost for the FTE.
#2
Item A-5: Create
a Public Lands
Planning &
Design Division $12,113
Reclassify an existing
FTE to a higher pay
grade and director of
new division. Request
position be appointed
in a future budget
opening.
Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape
architect positions and associated
operating budget ($543,144) from the
Engineering Division (Public Services
Department) to this new division in the
Public Lands Department. Returned as
item D-1 in Budget Amendment #4
#2
A-6 Sorenson
Janitorial and
County Contract -
Senior
Community
Programs
Manager
Budget
Neutral
(see note to
the right)
1 Senior Community
Programs Manager
This item requires amending an
existing interlocal agreement with the
County. At the time of publishing this
report, staff is checking whether the
amendment could result in additional
funding needs to maintain current
levels of service. The item might not be
budget neutral depending on the
agreement changes.
#2
A-7: Economic
Development
Project Manager
Position
$122,000
1 Economic
Development Project
Manager
Would be focused on the creation of
Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for
business districts and renewal every
three to five years.
#2 A-9: Know Your
Neighbor
Program
Expenses
$6,500
Program expenses were inadvertently
left out of the last annual budget
#2 A-10: Love Your
Block Program
Expenses
$55,750
Program expenses were inadvertently
left out of the last annual budget
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential
Cost to
FY2025
Annual
Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item E-3:
Homeless Shelter
Cities Mitigation
Grant Award
$3,107,201
13 Existing FTEs:
- 2 Police sergeants
- 10 police officers
- 1 Business &
community liaison
4.5 New FTEs:
- 1 Sequential Intercept
Case Manager in the
Justice Court
- 0.5 Grant Specialist in
CAN (half grant funded
and half by the General
Fund in item above)
- 1 Police sergeant
- 2 police officers
Admin expects to apply for grant
funding annually to cover these costs.
General Fund would not need to cover
costs if the State grant is awarded to
the City to fully cover the costs.
Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the
City’s contribution towards
implementation of the “Miami Model”
of diversion out of the homelessness
system.
#2
G-1: Greater Salt
Lake Area Clean
Energy and Air
Roadmap
Coordinator
Position
$482,915
(funding is
to cover
four years
of new FTE)
1 Coordinator
Four years of salary and benefits. The
position would be responsible for
facilitating the sustained involvement
of jurisdiction partners, managing
consultants, assisting with community
engagement, coordinating stakeholder
and public engagement activities and
presentations, and tracking task
completion and achievement.
#3
A-1: Fire
Department (4
New FTEs)$292,638
4 New Medical
Response Paramedic
FTEs
Annual cost; this assumes the Fire
Department requests two new entry
level firefighters to replace the two that
were converted into civilian paramedics
#3
A-4 City
Attorney’s Office
Legislative
Division (4 New
FTEs)$594,441
Legislative Affairs
Director (E34) • Senior
City Attorney (E39) •
Special Projects Analyst
(E26) • Administrative
Assistant (N21) Focus
on legislative affairs,
with special emphasis
on the legislative
session
Annual cost
#3 A-9: Adding
Multimodal
Specialized Road
Markings
Maintenance
Funding into the
Streets Division’s
Base Budget
$200,000
#3 A-10: Downtown
Parking Pay
Station
Replacements
$271,985
Would be paid annually over six fiscal
years from FY2025 – FY2030. The
Council left Budget Amendment #3
open to consider this item later
#4 A-2: Short-term
Rental $49,000
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential
Cost to
FY2025
Annual
Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
Identification
Software
#4 A-4: Liberty Park
Greenhouses $62,500
#4 A-7: Increase
Fleet
Maintenance
Capacity $312,585 3 New Mechanics
3 new FTE mechanics,
education/training,
software/hardware, maintenance from
outside vendor. Request to finish this
fiscal year is $399,909.
#4 A-8: Police
Officer Overtime $1,829,000 This item would double the annual line
item for police officer overtime
#5 A-2: Police
Recruitment and
Retention
Ongoing
amount of
$264,500
#3 & #5 D-1: Adding
Budget for
Finance Grant
Position -
Correction
$116,382 1 FTE
Budget was mistakenly added to CDBG
and Misc Grants. The General Fund
will front the cost for the FTE and later
the grants will reimburse the General
Fund for eligible expenses
TOTALS $7,568,554 33 FTEs of which 20
are New
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
Date Received: 04/23/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 04/23/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 23, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:FY24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
SPONSOR:NA
STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $12,456,948.96 $39,800,222.69
AIRPORT FUND 0.00 21,933,876.00
CIP FUND 32,393,500.96 17,546,276.29
IMS FUND 3,000.00 3,000.00
CDBG FUND 0.00 (46,643.00)
MISC GRANTS FUND 1,697,480.10 5,146,628.33
TOTAL $46,550,930.02 $84,383,360.31
Gregory Cleary
Gregory Cleary (Apr 23, 2024 15:16 MDT)
April Patterson
April Patterson (Apr 23, 2024 15:20 MDT)
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
rachel otto (Apr 23, 2024 15:24 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024.
FY23-24 Amended Amended Variance
Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget Budget New Projection Favorable/(Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 131,752,713 131,752,713 131,752,713 0
Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 114,465,900 (2,663,100)
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 13,273,330 925,203
Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 259,491,943 (1,737,897)
Charges For Services 4,745,443 4,745,443 5,938,036 1,192,593
Fines & Forfeitures 2,561,547 2,571,547 2,607,446 35,899
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0
Interfund Service Charges 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,041,511 (89,702)
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,159,621 25,000
Licenses 18,434,301 18,434,301 18,438,665 4,364
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,958,012 2,948,012 2,966,118 18,106
Parking Meter Revenue 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0
Parking Tickets 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,499,955 (45)
Permits 22,445,026 22,445,026 22,487,608 42,582
Property Sale Proceeds ---0
Rental & Other Income 681,604 681,604 1,101,203 419,599
Gain on Property Dispositions ---0
Operating Transfers In 9,938,944 10,130,410 10,130,410 0
Total W/O Special Tax 105,331,800 105,523,266 107,171,662 1,648,396
Sales Tax Addition 1/2%49,084,479 49,084,479 52,800,000 3,715,521
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,837,585 419,463,605 3,626,020
To date, revenues are trending slightly above initial budget. At this time, Finance staff are
projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024.
Modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately
$2.6 million, while an increase in revenue is projected in the Sales Tax Additional ½ % by an
estimated $3.7 million.
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment #5.
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2023 Budget Projected FY2024 Budget
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 24,825,461 178,695,454 202,575,741
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608)(20,736,262)(22,836,870)(3,657,641)(29,211,158)(32,868,799)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300)(17,260,909)(20,423,209)(2,592,884)(18,663,765)(21,157,931)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 18,574,936 130,820,531 148,549,011
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 22.79%25.00%24.85%35.49%33.36%33.42%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes ------
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.)(2,257,746)(2,257,746)(2,484,423)(2,484,423)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 18,574,936 128,336,108 146,064,588
Final Fund Balance Percent 22.79%24.46%24.37%35.49%32.72%32.86%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment -(475,000)(475,000)---
BA#1 Expense Adjustment ---(204,200)(204,200)
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment ------
BA#2 Expense Adjustment ----763,950 763,950
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment -6,000,000 6,000,000 ---
BA#3 Expense Adjustment -(6,538,000)(6,538,000)-(1,434,220)(1,434,220)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment -194,600 194,600 ---
BA#4 Expense Adjustment -(7,584,328)(7,584,328)-(2,890,480)(2,890,480)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment -----12,456,949
BA#5 Expense Adjustment -(5,940,349)(5,940,349)--(39,800,223)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment -19,120,198 19,120,198 ---
BA#6 Expense Adjustment -(11,719,731)(12,219,731)--
Change in Revenue ----
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase --------
Adjusted Fund Balance 21,928,113 157,840,137 178,933,386 18,574,936 124,571,157 114,956,364
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%38.05%38.05%35.49%31.76%25.86%
Projected Revenue 57,634,742 414,859,025 470,299,454 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will adjust to 25.86 percent
of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget.
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $46,550,930.02 in revenue and
$84,383,360.31 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six (6) funds, with no change
to FTEs in the city. The proposal includes ten (10) initiatives for Council review and additional
housekeeping and grant related items.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2024
(Fifth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2024.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2024.
Published: .
2
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Expenditure
Revenue Amount Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Section A: New Items
1 Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases GF -133,250.00 One-time -
2 Police Recruitment and Retention GF -1,423,875.00 One-time -
3 2100 South Infrastructure GF -7,000,000.00 One-time -
3 2100 South Infrastructure CIP 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 One-time -
4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation GF -3,000,000.00 One-time -
4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation CIP 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 One-time -
5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N GF -450,000.00 One-time -
5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N CIP 450,000.00 450,000.00 One-time -
6 Police Impact Fee Refunds CIP -47,592.00 One-time -
7 Update of the Streets IFFP CIP -(29,816.67)One-time -
7 Update of the Streets IFFP CIP -29,816.67 One-time -
7 Update of the Streets IFFP CIP -30,183.33 One-time -
8 North Temple Jordan River Bridge - Riverbank
Deterrent Rock Replacement GF -205,500.00 One-time -
9 Salt Lake City Public Cleaning Contract GF -130,648.73 One-time -
10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP GF 15,000,000.00 One-time
10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP CIP 15,000,000.00 -One-time
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -IMS
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -CDBG
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -Misc Grants
Correction
2 Recognize Overtime Revenue in Budget GF
3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Rape Recovery Center)GF
3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Housing Connect)GF
3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Neighborhood House)GF
4 HOME Dormant Income Housing
4 HOME Dormant Income Housing
4 HOME Dormant Income Misc Grants
5 Housing Authority PILOT Check GF
6 Airport Interest Budget Adjustment Airport
7 Open Streets Funding Rescope GF
8 Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up GF
9 Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement GF
and Funding Source Change
9 Streets Impact Fee Excess Capacity Reimbursement CIP
and Funding Source Change
61,191.00
-
3,000.00
-
-
1,736,505.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
40,000.00
-
-
3,675,752.00
6,943,500.96
6,943,500.96
58,191.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
(46,643.00)
(14,548.00)
1,736,505.00
(100,000.00)
27,800.00
72,200.00
(3,463,696.23)
3,463,696.23
3,463,696.23
40,000.00
21,933,876.00
-
3,675,752.00
6,943,500.96
7,018,500.96
Ongoing
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
1.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
1 Utah DNR, Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands
Grant Misc Grants 30,000.00 30,000.00 One-time -
Section F: Donations
-
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Consent Agenda #4
1 Department of Environmental Quality - State of Utah Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time -
Consent Agenda #5
1
2
3
4
Safe Streets for All
Marathon Petroleum
Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant
Misc Grants
Misc Grants
Misc Grants
Misc Grants
953,600.00
4,532.10
600,068.00
9,280.00
953,600.00
4,532.10
600,068.00
9,280.00
One Time
One Time
One Time
One Time
-
-
-
-
Section I: Council Added Items
Total of Budget Amendment
Items
46,550,930.02 84,383,360.31 --1.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
27,343,273.73
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Expenditure
Revenue Amount Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 12,456,948.96 39,800,222.69 --1.00
Airport Fund Airport -21,933,876.00 ---
CIP Fund CIP 32,393,500.96 17,546,276.29 ---
IMS Fund IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 ---
CDBG Fund CDBG -(46,643.00)---
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 1,697,480.10 5,146,628.33 ---
Total of Budget Amendment 46,550,930.02 84,383,360.31 --1.00
- -
2
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
- Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 0.00 0.00 130,275.00 12,456,948.96 461,102,141.96
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 -0.00 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00
Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 230,000.00 25,470,459.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 -3,925,000.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 33,853,855.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 9,000.00 3,000.00 36,293,357.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 -5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 7,349,950.66 1,697,480.10 35,870,471.55
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 1,100,000.00 33,441,586.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 410,177.00 1,415,400.00 32,393,500.96 90,122,727.21
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 3,103,054.79 10,967,534.66 46,550,930.02 1,726,268,502.72
3
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted
Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,730,731.89 2,890,480.00 39,800,222.69 492,376,602.58
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00
Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 21,933,876.00 542,372,873.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 230,000.00 28,493,792.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 165,793.00 3,966,178.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 48,668,629.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 406,688.00 3,000.00 43,657,942.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 (205,177.00)1,100,000.00 10,594,823.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 (46,643.00)5,597,762.50
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 7,349,950.66 5,146,628.33 39,848,392.28
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 6,133,511.00 16,345,554.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 5,777,784.00 1,100,000.00 41,772,763.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 1,545,675.00 17,546,276.29 74,504,130.54
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 15,090,714.68 21,655,006.66 84,383,360.31 1,946,591,215.60
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
4
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Section A: New Items
A-1: Fire Department Public
Utilities Cost Increases –
Fire Hydrant Rentals
GF One-time $133,250.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen and Chief Karl Lieb
Public Utilities has increased the rates the Fire Department and other municipalities must pay for fire hydrant rentals.
This increase was overlooked during the annual budget creation cycle. Unfortunately, this adjustment cannot wait or be
absorbed in the existing budget because of the size of the increase. Utilizing existing department funds to cover the
increase would potentially delay or jeopardize public safety services. The request is for $133,250 to account for the
increased expense. As part of the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, staff will factor in new rates and associated expenses. At this
time, the difference between the two required payments is $133,250 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (One-Time).
Public Utilities Costs (FY2023-24)
Hydrant Rentals $9,000 per month, or $108,000 annually
Public Utilities Costs (FY2024-25) - Ongoing
Hydrant Rentals $20,104.18 per month, or $241,250 annually
A-2: Police Recruitment and
Retention GF One-time $1,423,875.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown
In Fiscal Year 2023 the Police Department proposed a multifaceted approach to improving staffing while utilizing
overtime to provide and maintain operational readiness, employing a proposed lateral hiring bonus and a retention
bonus for current employees. The hiring bonus would provide additional sworn lateral staffing as a compliment to the
new hire recruit classes and allow the department to bolster the staffing numbers on an accelerated timeline. Providing a
retention bonus to existing sworn employees has provided incentives to retain staff at a higher level than is currently
being experienced, while also providing a commitment from the city to the sworn staffing to maintain their pay at a level
commensurate with their jobs and surrounding agencies.
In March of 2023 the police department had 34 funded vacancies and 2 pending vacancies as well as the 20 unfunded
positions. The department currently has a hiring class in May of 20 officers and 10 lateral applicants. It’s estimated that
those applicants will fill all funded officer positions as well as hiring 3 officers into unfunded positions by the end of the
fiscal year.
An ongoing amount of $264,500 is being requested to continue lateral hiring retention bonuses in order to maintain
necessary staffing levels.
A-3: 2100 South
Infrastructure
GF One-time $7,000,000.00
CIP One-time $7,000,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Rachel Otto
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, and Jill Love
The Administration proposes moving $7M from General Fund Fund Balance to CIP to perform water and
sewer upgrades as part of the street reconstruction project on 2100 S from 700 E to 1100 E. Funding this work
would be an investment of City funds that would be reimbursed by property owners when developing the
benefitted properties, with reimbursement agreements required as a condition of tying into the new
infrastructure. This proposal is intended to provide a substantial public benefit, as the City would be
1
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
performing the street reconstruction and the public utilities upgrades in tandem and avoiding the need to re-
open new streets for additional street construction in the next few years, and all the associated disruptions
and costs that would entail.
A-4: State Funding for
Cemetery Roads and
Irrigation
GF One-time $3,000,0000
CIP One-time $3,000,000
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker
For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Amy Dorsey, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith,
Mary Beth Thompson
This budget amendment is requesting approval to receive additional $3,000,000 in State appropriated funds to be spent
on the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation CIP bond project. This request will permit the Summer 2024 bidding and
contracting to proceed without delays for the construction of the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation project. Funding any
later than June 30 may delay bidding and contracting or add cost to the project PRJ-230007 8323213 - BD Cemetery.
The project is funded by three sources: City's 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond (approx.$11,200,000); a state legislative
appropriation ($3,000,000, this request); and by a private donor ($1,000,000, received through a donation agreement
and budget amendment). Bond and donation amounts are combined in Row 20 of "Grant Information". The legislative
appropriation can be given to the City in no fewer than two separate issuances once money is spent down (i.e., a
reimbursement). However, the City needs the funds upfront to bid and award the construction contract. This funding
will be reimbursed by the State once the City spends it (even partially) and reports on performance outcome
measurements (likely FY 26/27).
The funding allocation for the $3,000,000 from the state will not be recognized until the contract is complete, which is
anticipated to happen by April 16th.
The final “Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation” request for appropriation (RFA) from the legislature is also
attached.
A-5: Traffic Signal
Improvement – 2200 W /
2100 N
GF One-time $450,000.00
CIP One-time $450,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Jon Larsen
For questions, please include Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas and Brent Beck
$450,000 is being requested for a new traffic signal at the 2200 W /2100 N intersection. This is currently a 2-way stop
controlled intersection in a high growth area of the City. There is a growing safety concern at this intersection that a
traffic signal would address. Traffic at this intersection has increased dramatically in recent years, and drivers turning off
2200 West onto 2100 North are finding it challenging to find safe gaps in traffic. This has resulted in an increase in
traffic accidents at this location. This issue is exacerbated by the relatively high speeds on 2100 North, making it harder
to judge gaps in traffic, making crashes more severe.
A-6: Police Impact Fee
Refunds
CIP One-time $47,592.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not
work to be used for the police precinct. The ensuing disencumbrance of these funds has resulted in the required refund of
2
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
impact fees plus actual interest earned on the funds due to their expirationThis refund will be funded with proceeds from
unappropriated Police Impact Fees. $38,464 (principal)+ Approximate Interest $9,128 = Total $47,592.
A-7: Update of the Streets
IFFP
CIP One-time ($29,816.67)
CIP One-time $29,816.67
CIP One-time $30,183.33
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson / Jordan Smith
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson
The city is in the process of updating the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) for Police, Fire and Parks. Updating the
Streets IFFP at the same time will not only be cost efficient but is needed for the efficient CIP planning of Streets and
Transportation. The Transportation bond is nearly complete and updating the Streets IFFP will aid Capital Asset
Planning (CAP) in the preparation of the CAP 10-year Plan. One hundred percent of the cost is impact fee eligible and the
scope includes Streets/Transportation Study and Preparation of the IFFP. The full request of $60,000 is to be funded by
a rescope of the remaining $29,816.67 from the 2020 IFFP appropriation, with the remainder to come from unallocated
Streets Impact Fees.
A-8: North Temple Jordan
River Bridge – Riverbank
Deterrent Rock Replacement
GF One-time $205,500.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Andrew Johnston / Mark Stephens
For questions, please include Andrew Johnston and Mark Stephens
SLC Engineering has been working with the SLC PD, HEART, and the Mayor’s Office to find an intervention to decrease
the use of the riverbanks underneath the bridge to use and deal drugs and avoid law enforcement. They have a plan to
work with the State and replace the current rocks lining the banks on both sides, underneath the bridge with more
deterrent rocks and landscaping to deter use of that location. Due to the limited window of time in the winter to do the
work, the mayor’s office has been pulling together existing funds from departments and this budget amendment
allocation would mostly function to reimburse those funds.
The $205,500 would be to remove silt and existing rocks that allow for the unsheltered population to congregate and
camp under the bridge, and to replace with larger rocks/boulders of size and type that are ‘uninviting’ and greatly deter
the activities that are currently taking place. This new rock and grading would extend 50 feet out from the edge of the
bridge in both directions to assist in further deterrence and erosion control. This is something that is an industry
standard for communities across the nation encountering challenges with the unsheltered population under bridges. By
excavating down and putting back these new rocks/boulders, the existing cross section of the river and hydraulic
capacity remain the same and won’t require extensive hydraulic studies to ensure the hydraulic capacity is not
decreased. This has been discussed with the State stream alteration division staff and they are in concurrence with the
approach and don’t see any major difficulties getting the permit reviewed and approved.
What this also serves as is erosion control on the banks of the Jordan River as well as eliminating scour around the
bridge supports. This effort would check a few other boxes in addition to the deterrence of unfavorable activities by the
unsheltered population in, under, and around the N. Temple Bridge over the Jordan River. UDOT, as part of their bridge
inspections every other year (on even numbered years) measures and monitors scour so this would be an additional
measure that would also be beneficial for the bridge structure itself.”
A-9: Salt Lake City Public
Cleaning Contract
GF One-time $130,648.73
Department: CAN Prepared By: Andrew Johnston
For questions, please include Andrew Johnston
SLC Homeless Engagement and Response Team administers a contract with Advantage Services (AS), a private non-
profit, to provide cleaning of public streets, sidewalks and other locations, mostly in response to unsheltered
homelessness. Their work includes power washing of hardscapes, cleaning of biowaste, trash pickup, coordinating with
3
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Police when they are enforcing no camping situations, and working with SL County and on Encampment Impact
Mitigations and City Rapid Intervention Team on other cleanings.
This fiscal year, a change that was made to the services that Advantage provides the city was to offer the police
department immediate access to Clean Team services. Dedicated AS workers now accompany PD's Camp Mitigation
squad as they respond to camp locations throughout the city. This change was made because the HEART team was
processing an unusually high number of clean-up requests coming from the police department via SLC Mobile. PD would
have camps move or would come across an abandoned camp while on patrol and would submit a cleanup request to
HEART via the app, creating a duplication of efforts and delay in cleaning time that was remedied quickly by this change.
Several months ago, PD requested that AS’s services be expanded to provide 7-day coverage from 5 days, to match the
Camp Mitigation squads 7-day coverage. This is a key factor in the rate of spend down outpacing the awarded budget.
Without additional funds, AS will need to decrease the frequency of this work from 7 to 4-5 days/week, among other
potential changes to their service delivery model. In lieu of reducing service, the total amount is being requested to
ensure the current level of services will continue through the end of June.
A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to CIP (One
Time)
GF $15,000,000
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson and Greg Cleary
The Finance Department is requesting the transfer of $15 million from general fund fund balance to CIP to address
capital maintenance. This item is to ensure adequate fund balance levels, while also focusing on the financial need for
capital maintenance across the city, as outlined in the City Council and Mayoral goals. As the FY 2025 Capital Plan is
developed, staff will return to the City Council with proposed projects and/or funding uses: for authorization of the
funds. At this time, no direct expense is identified.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Adding Budget for
Finance Grant Position -
Correction
GF Ongoing $58,191.00
GF One-time $3,000.00
IMS One-time $3,000.00
CDBG One-time ($46,643.00)
Misc Grants One-time ($14,548.00)
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For questions, please include Randy Hillier, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson
In Budget Amendment #3 of this fiscal year, budget was added to CDBG and Miscellaneous Grants funds for a Grants
related position within the Finance department. However, there was a miscommunication, and the budget should not
have been added to CDBG and Misc Grants. Both of those fund classes already have the maximum amount of budget
added for personnel at the beginning of each fiscal year. What should have happened is the budget and FTE should have
been added within the Finance department as a general fund funded FTE. The expenditures for this position would be
periodically reimbursed by the CDBG and Misc Grant funds after a time-tracking report is submitted justifying a
reimbursement.
4
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
A$3,000 amount has also been included to cover the cost of the position’s technology related needs.
D-2: Recognizing Overtime
Revenue in Budget GF One-time $1,736,505.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown
The Police Department is requesting a budget appropriation for overtime that has associated revenues from special
events, overtime staffing, contracts and task force reimbursements. The amount being requested is based on what has
been received through February conservatively projected through the remainder of the fiscal year.
D-3: Reallocate CAN CRAG
Funds GF One-time ($100,000.00)
GF One-time $27,800.00
GF One-time $72,200.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Blake Thomas
On March 19, 2024, during their review of the annual HUD grant awards for FY 2025, Council asked the administration
to evaluate other existing City rental assistance funding sources and return to the Council with options in relation to a
funding gap for Housing Connect's HUD HOPWA program.
This item provides recommendations and potential adjustments to reallocate the unused CAN CRAG funds to address
Housing Connect's funding gap, and to fund another HUD applicant that was ineligible for FY 2025 HUD funds.
-Housing Connect/The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County, HOPWA Program: $27,800
-Neighborhood House, Early Childhood Education Program: $72,200
Both recommendations are eligible activities per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee: Eviction Assistance &
Rent Relief and Expanded Educational Opportunities.
Note: Per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee, all CAN CRAG funds need to be spent by December 31,
2024.
D-4: HOME Dormant Income Housing One-time ($3,463,696.23)
Housing One-time $3,463,696.23
Misc Grants One-time $3,463,696.23
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson
This housekeeping item moves the remaining HUD HOME dormant program income in the amount of $3,463,696.23 to
the correct fund. Budget is currently posted to the Housing fund. Due to federal grant tracking purposes, as well as
Finance wanting like to consolidate all grants in the grant fund, the department is requesting to move the HOME
dormant program funds to the grant fund. This budget amendment would move existing budget/funds and will have a
zero-sum budgetary impact.
D-5: Housing Authority
PILOT Check GF One-time $40,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson
For question, please contact Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson
5
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
The expenditure budget in the Non-Departmental Housing cost center currently sits at $85,000 while a total of
$125,000 in expenditures is expected. This amendment will increase the budget to the appropriate level.
D-6: Airport Interest Budget
Adjustment Airport One-time $21,933,876.00
Department: Airport Prepared by: Shaun Anderson
For questions, please include Brian Butler, Shaun Anderson and Lorin Rollins
The Airport initially budgeted $121,528,000 in interest expense based on the gross amount rather than the net value.
The actual forecast amount of interest expense is $142,900,000. This will adjust the Airport’s interest expense budget to
match interest in our debt service schedules rather than net debt service (interest less capitalized interest). This
amendment will budget the $21,933,876 difference from the Airport fund.
D-7: Open Streets Funding
Rescope GF One-time $0.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson
For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt and Jacob Maxwell
The Department of Economic Development is requesting a rescope of funds totaling $250,287.60 to extend the Open
Streets effort into the 2024 season. This amount will be derived from three sources; The first is $57,000 remaining from
$500,000 allocated in budget amendment #5 of FY 2023, which was meant for the 2023 Open Streets program. This
$57,000 was remaining after the City contracted with the Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance for Open Street 2023. The
second source of funding is the $69,128 that remains following the completion of the Open Streets 2023 event. The third
source of funds is $124,159.60 that remains from the $250,000 budgeted in budget amendment #1 of FY 2024. The
$250,000 budgeted in BA #1 was to cover costs related to the Open Streets 2023 effort. Open Streets will happen in a
different business district in Salt Lake City for 2024.
D-8: Community
Reinvestment Agency Act
True Up
GF One-time $3,675,752.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt / Greg Cleary
For questions, please contact Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, and Danny Walz
In late March, staff received an updated memo from the Salt Lake County Auditor. After receiving this memo (Pursuant
to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act”) staff are increasing the Revenues and
Expenses by $3,675,752 accordingly to account for the final annual distribution. The corresponding memo is attached for
additional detail.
D-9: Streets Impact Fee
Excess Capacity
Reimbursement and
Funding Source Change
GF One-time $6,943,500.96
CIP One-time $7,018,500.96
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Rachel Molinari, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson
This is a request for Excees Capacity Reimbursement to be paid out of Streets Impact Fees to the General Fund in the
amount of $6,943,500.96. We are also requesting to transfer these funds to Streets impact Fee to change the funding
source of existing CIP project appropriations from Streets Impact funded to General Fund funded CIP Projects. These
changes will allow the City to comply with the Impact Fee Act, the Impact Fee Facilities Plan and to more efficiently
6
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
utilize restrictive funding sources. The result of the eligibility of these funds has been the need to refund $58,826 plus
interest of ~ $16,174 from Streets Impact Fee Funds.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Utah DNR, Division of Forestry, Fire &
State Lands Grant
Misc Grants $30,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Tyler Fonarow
For questions, please include Tyler Fonarow, Aaron Price, Gregg Evans, Tyler Murdock
The Utah Department of Natural Resources; Division of Foresetry, Fire& State Lands has rewarded the City with a grant
for the Jordan River Water Trail Tree & Debris Removal project, which consists of the removal of certain trees and other
organic matter and debris waste from the Jordan River Water Trail corridor to enhance safe and accessible non-
motorized watercraft navigation while minimizing bank erosion and strengthening bank stability.
This grant was not acquired through an application but an offer of $30,000 communicated via email as it supported a
previously funded project that requires ongoing maintenance.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #4
G-1: Department of Environmental Quality –
State of Utah Misc Grants $100,000.00
Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Holly Lopez
Department of Public Utilities (DPU) received $100,000 to conduct a service line inventory and produce a lead service
line replacement (LSLR) plan for an estimated 13,894 water line connections in qualifying disadvantage census blocks
meeting the Hardship Funding Criteria of Utah Department of Environmental Quality. On December 16, 2020, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Act that went into effect on
January 16, 2021, and has a compliance date of October 16, 2024. DPU must complete a service line inventory that
includes publicly owned and customer-owned portions of the service line and develop a lead service line replacement
plan between 2023 and the LCRR compliance date.
A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023.
Consent Agenda #5
G-1: Safe Streets for All Misc Grants $953,600.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Joe Taylor / Jennifer
Newell
The Office of the Mayor requested $953,600 for the TravelWell Schools demonstration project on behalf of the non-
profit Children’s Media Workshop.
The project tests and refines a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an educational campaign to deliver
multi-disciplinary messaging aligned with the Safe System Approach targeting underserved populations, citizen
behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment.
The anticipated outcome is transformational change through real-time identification of travel behaviors, problems, and
solutions resulting in zero deaths on Salt Lake City roadways.
7
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5 - Retransmittal
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Children’s Media Workshop and MappsLab LLC developed the TravelWell Schools digital mapping tool that the project
will test on a small-scale to gauge effectiveness and assess for inclusion in the Safe Streets for All Action Plan under
development by Wasatch Front Regional Council.
Children’s Media Workshop has committed to providing the full $238,400 worth in non-federal match, which is often
required for grants. This amount is strictly for the City’s grant match, however, it will not pass through or need to be
budgeted for by the City.
Public Hearing was held November 7, 2023.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Misc Grants $4,532.10
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard
Funding for a drone to train first responders and prepare for an emergency response.
Public hearing was held January 19, 2024.
G-3: Rocky Mountain High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Misc Grants $600,068.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard
This funding is for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force. This contract is for salaries and fringe for existing Salt
Lake City PD K9 officer and Task Force Finance Manager/Grant Administrator. Funding will also support overtime for
outside agencies that participate in the task force. Other expenses: travel, K9 contracts, supplies, equipment and other
administrative costs.
Public Hearing is scheduled to be held February 20, 2024.
G-4: Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Misc Grants $9,280.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard
The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The
state’s application includes $9,280 for the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Lab 2023 Annual Accreditation Fee
through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020.
Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023.
Section I: Council Added Items
8
Attachments
A-4
Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation
Edit Reguest
Requester Information
Legislator: Weiler, Todd D.
Creation Date: 2023-01-23
Submission Date: 2023-01-23
Section 1: Request Details
Description:
In Utah, the Salt Lake City Cemetery stands alone in the extent of its historic value and is a reminder of
the settlement and rural community that was claimed in the 1800's by pioneers of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a place that reveals information about the state's historic events, religions,
lifestyles, and genealogy, more so than any other cemetery in the state. Unfortunately, the cemetery is
threatened by natural forces such as weathering, eroding historic retaining walls, an aged irrigation system
and roads that have decayed to a point they are becoming inaccessible for families traveling to visit their
forefathers. The City is doing everything possible to fund improvements at the Cemetery, including the
passage of a sales tax bond that will in part fund road and irrigation repairs, however, support from the
State of Utah is also needed to help preserve this invaluable historic resource.
Legislative designee contact information:
•Name: Keith Van Otten
•Organization: Salt Lake City Cemetery
•Position: Sexton
Section 2: ·Funding Information
How will the appropriation be used?
One-time Ongoing
Personnel Services
In-State Travel
Out-of-state Travel
Supplies and Equipment
Technology Purchases
Infrastructure/Capital
Investments
2024: $0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
3/12/24. 8:01 AM Requttt for Appropri3tions • Requttts Listing
Other Charges/Pass Thru 2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00 $0.00
Expenditure Total
One-time 2024
$0.00
Funding Sources:
General Fund
One-time 2025
$0.00
Ongoing 2025
S0.00
•Amount Requested 2024 (One-time) S0.00
•Amount Requested 2025 (One-time) S3,000,000.00
•Amount Requested 2025 (Ongoing) $0.00
Revenue Total
One-time 2024
$0.00
One-time 2025
$3,000,000.00
Ongoing 2025
S0.00
Should unused funding be returned to the state at the end of the fiscal year?
Yes
Is this project scalable if the Legislature does not fund the full requested amount?
Yes
A short explanation describing how the project might be scaled
Salt Lake City has allocated $11.2M toward the replacement of the cemetery irrigation system and
roadways and has a S1M donation toward design and construction documents for the roads, irrigation and
other projects identified in the master plan. State funding is needed to further work on the estimated
$14.1M irrigation project and S20M road project. If partially funded, SLC would prioritize irrigation systems
and roadways in greatest need of repairs.
Section 3: Agency Information
Subjects:
Agency:
710 / Cultural and Community Engagement
Type of entity to receive pass-through funding
•State Government
Section 4: Performance Outcome Measurement
Who would benefit from this request (who is the target audience)?
What is this project or program intended to accomplish?
The Salt Lake City Cemetery is the largest municipal cemetery in the United States and covers 122 acres
and has 9.5 miles of interior roads. Irrigation replacement will improve water efficiency, and provide better
water management in drought conditions. Repairing the roadways will enhance accessibility and improve
visitor experience. The SLC Cemetery gives Utah a sense of character and definition. This project is in
large part for the benefit of the living, and perpetuates the memories of the deceased. An investment in the
SLC Cemetery gives all Utahns a sense of character and definition by protecting our heritage and history.
Investments 2025: $0.00
Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation
Edit Reguest
Requester Information
Legislator: Weiler, Todd D.
Creation Date: 2023-01-23
Submission Date: 2023-01-23
Section 1: Request Details
Description:
In Utah, the Salt Lake City Cemetery stands alone in the extent of its historic value and is a remind
the settlement and rural community that was claimed in the 1800's by pioneers of The Church of Je
Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a place that reveals information about the state's historic events, re
lifestyles, and genealogy, more so than any other cemetery in the state. Unfortunately, the cemeter
threatened by natural forces such as weathering, eroding historic retaining walls, an aged irrigation
and roads that have decayed to a point they are becoming inaccessible for families traveling to visi
forefathers. The City is doing every1hing possible to fund improvements at the Cemetery, including
passage of a sales tax bond that will in part fund road and irrigation repairs, however, support from
State of Utah is also needed to help preserve this invaluable historic resource.
Legislative designee contact information:
•Name: Keith Van Otten
•Organization: Salt Lake City Cemetery
•Position: Sexton
Section 2: Funding Information
How will the appropriation be used?
One-time Ongoing
Personnel Services 2024: $0.00 $0.00
2025: $0.00
In-State Travel 2024: $0.00 $0.00 2025: $0.00
Out-of-state Travel 2024: $0.00 $0.00
2025: $0.00
Supplies and Equipment 2024: $0.00 $0.00
2025: $0.00
Technology Purchases 2024: $0.00 $0.00
2025: $0.00
Infrastructure/Capital 2024: $0.00 $0.00
3/ 2124. 8:01 Request for Appropriations - ◄
Other Charges/Pass Thru 2024: 0.00
2025: 0.00
Expenditure Total
One-·me 2024
$0.00
Funding Sources:
General Fund
One-time 2025
$0.00
Ongoing 20
0.00
ler- of
:!:SUS
iligiol'ls.
yis
1 syst,em
•Amount Requested 2024 (One-time) 0.00
•Amount Requested 2025 (One-time) 3,000,000.00
•Amount Requested 2025 (Ongoing) $0.00
Revenue Total
it their
ttie
11:he
One-·me 2024
$0.00
One-time 2025
$3,000,000.00
Ongoing 20
0.00
Should unused funding be returned to the state at the
Yes
Is this project scalable if the Legislature does not fun
Yes
A short explanation describing how the
Salt Lake City has allocated $11.2M toward the replacement of the
road ays and has a 1M dona·on toward design and construe·or
other projects iden·fled in the master plan. State funding is needei
$14.1 irrigation project and 20 road project. If partially funded
and roadways in greatest need of repairs_
Section 3: Agency Information
Subjects:
Agency:
710 / Cultural and Community Engagement
Type of entity to receive pass-through funding
•State Government
Section 4: Performance Outcome Measu
Who would benefit from this request (who is the targE
What is this project or program intended to accompli
The Salt Lake Ci Cemetery is the largest municipal cemetery in t
and has 9.5 miles of interior roads. Irrigation replacement will impri
........ ------------♦·--,I.--. .._....... ------.....1·..; □---·-·--- - ,,a• ._.._...
waier managemem in arougm conamons. Kepa1r111g me roaaways
visitor experience. The SLC Cemetery gives Utah a sense of char.
large part for the benefit of the living, and perpetuates the memori,
SLC Cemetery gives all Utahns a sense of character and definitio1
equests Listing
$0.00
125
125
! end of the fiscal year?
d the full requested amount?
project might be scaled
! cemetery irrigation system and
1 documents for the roads, irrigation and
d to further work on the estimated
I, SLC would prioritize irrigation systems
irement
wmennance access10111ry ana improve
acter and definition. This project is in
es of the deceased. An investment in the
, by protecting our heritage and history.
Attachments
D-8
CHRIS HARDING
CPA, CFE, CIA
Salt Lake County
Auditor
RICHARD JAUSSI
Chief Deputy Auditor
ROSWELL
ROGERS
Policy Advisor
OFFICE OF THE
SALT LAKE COUNTY
AUDITOR
2001 S State
Street, N3-300
PO Box 144575
Salt Lake City, UT
84114-4575 385-
468-7200 | TTY
711
RMarch 31, 2024
Salt Lake City
Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
451 South State Street Room 304
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Mary Beth Thompson,
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency
Act,” the Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor has prepared the enclosed reports
which include:
[1] The total assessed property value within each project area for the previous tax
year.
[2] The base taxable value of each project area for the previous tax year.
[3] The tax increment available to be paid to the agency for the previous tax year.
[4] The tax increment requested by the agency for the previous tax year.
[5] The tax increment paid to the agency for the previous tax year.
[6] Sufficient detail on the calculations performed by the county auditor.
For any questions or if you require further information, please reach out to
Brandon Grable at bgrable@slco.org or call 385-468-7194.
Sincerely,
Chris Harding, CPA, CFE, CIA
Salt Lake County Auditor
Enclosures
County Auditor Report
on Community Reinvestment Agency Act Project Areas
Salt Lake County Tax Year 2023
Community Reinvestment Agency Salt Lake City
Project Area
Assessed Property
Value Base Taxable Value
Available Tax
Increment
Tax Increment
Estimate on
Agency's Annual
Report
Tax Increment
(Entitled Amount)
Current Year
1 SLC CBD In 2,919,440,724 136,894,100 27,265,707 24,644,694 27,265,707
2 SLC CBD Out 926,676,340 0 0 0 0
3 Baseball Stadium 6,043,536 0 0 0 0
4 Depot District 867,431,325 27,476,425 6,071,665 5,422,435 6,071,665
5 Depot District - Non Collection Area 54,642,819 0 0 0 0
6 Granary 237,204,525 48,813,397 1,357,286 1,103,309 1,357,286
7 North Temple Viaduct Cmty Dev't 406,039,024 36,499,680 3,058,618 2,774,419 3,058,618
8 North Temple 294,046,112 84,073,572 1,513,475 1,008,715 1,513,475
9 Block 70 Cmty Dev't 329,362,729 58,757,937 2,133,992 1,829,228 2,133,992
10 Stadler Rail Cmty Dev't 59,174,218 3,710 157,991 141,298 157,991
11 State Street CRA 1,999,382,096 889,305,536 5,753,783 4,423,811 5,753,783
12 9 Line CRA 678,478,961 228,048,136 2,971,289 2,653,781 2,971,289
13 Northwest Quadrant CRA 1,104,786,297 735,791 2,451,087 1,398,548 2,451,087
14 Block 67 CRA 120,971,080 11,531,400 358,599 1 358,599
15
16
17
18
19
20
Totals 10,003,679,786 1,522,139,684 53,093,492 45,400,239 53,093,492
Report and Payment Notes:
Base taxable values of inactive projects are unavailable or have not been updated
Base taxable values of Community Dev't Areas vary for each participating Taxing Entity. Highest base value is shown on this report.
If there is no estimated Tax Increment Financing amount for a listed project in the Agency report, $ 1 is placed for an eligible tax area or tax entity
Final distributed amount determined by County Treasurer
Agency & Tax Entities are responsible for monitoring performance benchmarks & rebate terms
Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor 3/18/2024
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
Date Received: 04/02/2024
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 04/02/2024
TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 2, 2024
Victoria Petro, Chair
FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT:FY24 Budget Amendment #5
SPONSOR:NA
STAFF CONTACT: Greg Cleary (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2024 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $5,513,448.00 $32,816,721.73
AIRPORT FUND 0.00 21,933,876.00
CIP FUND 18,450,000.00 3,527,775.33
LOAN FUND 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00
IMS FUND 3,000.00 3,000.00
CDBG FUND 0.00 (46,643.00)
MISC GRANTS FUND 1,667,480.10 5,116,628.33
TOTAL $32,633,928.10 $70,351,358.39
Gregory Cleary
Gregory Cleary (Apr 2, 2024 16:31 MDT)
April Patterson
April Patterson (Apr 2, 2024 17:19 MDT)
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455
rachel otto (Apr 2, 2024 17:31 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2024 Budget Adjustments
The chart below presents General Fund Projected Revenues for FY 2024.
FY23-24 Amended Amended Variance
Revenue FY23-FY24 Annual Budget Budget New Projection Favorable/(Unfavorable)
Property Taxes 131,752,713 131,752,713 131,752,713 0
Sales, Use & Excise Taxes 117,129,000 117,129,000 114,465,900 (2,663,100)
Franchise Taxes 12,348,127 12,348,127 13,273,330 925,203
Total Taxes 261,229,840 261,229,840 259,491,943 (1,737,897)
Charges For Services 4,745,443 4,745,443 5,938,036 1,192,593
Fines & Forfeitures 2,561,547 2,571,547 2,607,446 35,899
Interest Income 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 0
Interfund Service Charges 26,131,213 26,131,213 26,041,511 (89,702)
Intergovernmental Revenue 5,134,621 5,134,621 5,159,621 25,000
Licenses 18,434,301 18,434,301 18,438,665 4,364
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,958,012 2,948,012 2,966,118 18,106
Parking Meter Revenue 2,801,089 2,801,089 2,801,089 0
Parking Tickets 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,499,955 (45)
Permits 22,445,026 22,445,026 22,487,608 42,582
Property Sale Proceeds ---0
Rental & Other Income 681,604 681,604 1,101,203 419,599
Gain on Property Dispositions ---0
Operating Transfers In 9,938,944 10,130,410 10,130,410 0
Total W/O Special Tax 105,331,800 105,523,266 107,171,662 1,648,396
Sales Tax Addition 1/2%49,084,479 49,084,479 52,800,000 3,715,521
Total General Fund 415,646,119 415,837,585 419,463,605 3,626,020
To date, revenues are trending slightly above initial budget. At this time, Finance staff are
projecting revenues to remaining consistent with current estimates for the remainder of FY 2024.
Modifications have been made primarily to Sales Tax, resulting in a decrease of approximately
$2.6 million, while an increase in revenue is projected in the Sales Tax Additional ½ % by an
estimated $3.7 million.
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages, based on the proposed changes
included in Budget Amendment #5.
Salt Lake City
General Fund
TOTAL
Fund Balance Projections
FY2023 Budget Projected FY2024 Budget
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 24,825,461 178,695,454 202,575,741
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,100,608)(20,736,262)(22,836,870)(3,657,641)(29,211,158)(32,868,799)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,162,300)(17,260,909)(20,423,209)(2,592,884)(18,663,765)(21,157,931)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 18,574,936 130,820,531 148,549,011
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 22.79%25.00%24.85%35.49%33.36%33.42%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes ------
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.)(2,257,746)(2,257,746)(2,484,423)(2,484,423)
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 13,132,752 101,473,105 114,605,857 18,574,936 128,336,108 146,064,588
Final Fund Balance Percent 22.79%24.46%24.37%35.49%32.72%32.86%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment -(475,000)(475,000)---
BA#1 Expense Adjustment ---(204,200)(204,200)
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment ------
BA#2 Expense Adjustment ----763,950 763,950
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment -6,000,000 6,000,000 ---
BA#3 Expense Adjustment -(6,538,000)(6,538,000)-(1,434,220)(1,434,220)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment -194,600 194,600 ---
BA#4 Expense Adjustment -(7,584,328)(7,584,328)-(2,890,480)(2,890,480)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment -----5,513,448
BA#5 Expense Adjustment -(5,940,349)(5,940,349)--(32,816,722)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment -19,120,198 19,120,198 ---
BA#6 Expense Adjustment -(11,719,731)(12,219,731)--
Change in Revenue ----10,000,000
Change in Expense
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase --------
Adjusted Fund Balance 21,928,113 157,840,137 178,933,386 18,574,936 124,571,157 124,996,364
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 38.05%38.05%38.05%35.49%31.76%28.12%
Projected Revenue 57,634,742 414,859,025 470,299,454 52,338,120 392,166,803 444,504,923
With the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will adjust to 28.12 percent
of the FY 2024 Adopted Budget.
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $32,633,928.10 in revenue and
$70,351,358.39 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in seven (7) funds, with no
change to FTEs in the city. The proposal includes ten (10) initiatives for Council review and
additional housekeeping and grant related items.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration
requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget amendment is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2024
(Fifth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2023-2024)
An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023 which adopted the
Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2023, and Ending
June 30, 2024.
In June of 2023, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2023, and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 29 of 2023.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2024.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on
Mayor’s Action: Approved Vetoed
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. of 2024.
Published: .
2
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Jaysen Oldroyd
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Administration Proposed Council Approved
umber/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Expenditure
Revenue Amount Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Section A: New Items
-133,250.00 One-time -
-1,423,875.00 One-time -
-7,000,000.00 One-time -
7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 One-time
-3,000,000.00 One-time -
3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 One-time -
-450,000.00 One-time -
450,000.00 450,000.00 One-time -
-47,592.00 One-time -
-(29,816.67)One-time -
-29,816.67 One-time -
-30,183.33 One-time -
-165,500.00 One-time -
-130,648.73 One-time -
15,000,000.00
1 Fire Department Public Utilities Cost Increases
2 Police Recruitment and Retention
3 2100 South Infrastructure Loan
3 2100 South Infrastructure Loan
4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation
4 State Funding for Cemetery Roads and Irrigation
5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N
5 Traffic Signal Improvement - 2200W/2100 N
6 Police Impact Fee Refunds
7 Update of the Streets IFFP
7 Update of the Streets IFFP
7 Update of the Streets IFFP
8 North Temple Jordan River Bridge - Riverbank
Deterrent Rock Replacement
9 Salt Lake City Public Cleaning Contract
10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP
10 Fund Balance Allocation to CIP
GF
GF
GF
Loan Fund
GF
CIP
GF
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
CIP
GF
GF
GF
CIP 15,000,000.00 -
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -GF
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -IMS
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -CDBG
Correction
1 Adding Budget for Finance Grant Positions -Misc Grants
Correction
2 Recognize Overtime Revenue in Budget GF
3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Rape Recovery Center)GF
3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Housing Connect)GF
3 Reallocate CAN CRAG Funds (Neighborhood House)GF
4 HOME Dormant Income Housing
4 HOME Dormant Income Housing
4 HOME Dormant Income Misc Grants
5 Housing Authority PILOT Check GF
6 Airport Interest Budget Adjustment Airport
7 Open Streets Funding Rescope GF
8 Community Reinvestment Agency Act True Up GF
61,191.00
-
3,000.00
-
-
1,736,505.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
40,000.00
-
-
3,675,752.00
58,191.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
(46,643.00)
(14,548.00)
1,736,505.00
(100,000.00)
27,800.00
72,200.00
(3,463,696.23)
3,463,696.23
3,463,696.23
40,000.00
21,933,876.00
-
3,675,752.00
Ongoing
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
One-time
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
-
1
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Consent Agenda #4
1 Department of Environmental Quality - State of Utah Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time -
Consent Agenda #5
1
2
3
4
Safe Streets for All
Marathon Petroleum
Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant
Misc Grants
Misc Grants
Misc Grants
Misc Grants
953,600.00
4,532.10
600,068.00
9,280.00
953,600.00
4,532.10
600,068.00
9,280.00
One Time
One Time
One Time
One Time
-
-
-
-
Section I: Council Added Items
Total of Budget Amendment
Items
32,633,928.10 70,351,358.39 ---
Administration Proposed Council Approved
27,303,273.73
Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Expenditure
Revenue Amount Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 5,513,448.00 32,816,721.73 ---
Airport Fund Airport -21,933,876.00 ---
CIP Fund CIP 18,450,000.00 3,527,775.33 ---
Loan Fund Loan Fund 7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00 ---
IMS Fund IMS 3,000.00 3,000.00 ---
CDBG Fund CDBG -(46,643.00)---
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 1,667,480.10 5,116,628.33 ---
Total of Budget Amendment 32,633,928.10 70,351,358.39 ---
- -
2
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2023-24 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
Revenue FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget
- Revenue BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue
General Fund (Fund 1000)448,514,918 0.00 0.00 0.00 130,275.00 5,513,448.00 454,158,641.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 -0.00 1,700,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,681,185 4,681,185.00
Water Fund (FC 51)176,637,288 176,637,288.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)289,941,178 289,941,178.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,865,892 19,865,892.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)403,513,000 403,513,000.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)25,240,459 230,000.00 25,470,459.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)12,710,067 12,710,067.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 -3,925,000.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,108,969 36,800.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 33,853,855.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)36,254,357 9,000.00 6,000.00 12,000.00 9,000.00 3,000.00 36,293,357.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 9,700,000.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 -5,597,763.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 1,705,700.79 7,349,950.66 1,667,480.10 35,840,471.55
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 62,416.00 462,416.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)14,659,043 14,659,043.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,341,586 1,100,000.00 33,441,586.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)30,199,756 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 410,177.00 1,415,400.00 18,450,000.00 76,179,226.25
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,888,581 3,888,581.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)60,932,137 60,932,137.00
Loan Fund -7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,623,631,451 263,800.00 41,751,732.25 3,103,054.79 10,967,534.66 32,633,928.10 1,712,351,500.80
3
Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Expenditure FY 2023-24 Adopted
Budgetg - Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense
General Fund (FC 10)448,514,918 204,200.00 (763,950.00)1,730,731.89 2,890,480.00 32,816,721.73 485,393,101.62
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,397,355 1,397,355.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 664,293.70 2,364,293.70
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)6,044,119 6,044,119.00
Water Fund (FC 51)177,953,787 177,953,787.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)301,832,622 301,832,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)22,947,474 22,947,474.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)520,438,997 21,933,876.00 542,372,873.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)28,263,792 230,000.00 28,493,792.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)17,938,984 17,938,984.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 165,793.00 3,966,178.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)32,498,750 14,461,793.00 975,177.00 732,909.00 48,668,629.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)38,702,171 9,000.00 6,000.00 4,531,083.00 406,688.00 3,000.00 43,657,942.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)9,700,000 (205,177.00)1,100,000.00 10,594,823.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,597,763 46,642.50 (46,643.00)5,597,762.50
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)8,919,917 16,197,423.00 2,234,473.29 7,349,950.66 5,116,628.33 39,818,392.28
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)400,000 65,472.00 465,472.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)500,000 500,000.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)10,212,043 6,133,511.00 16,345,554.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)34,894,979 5,777,784.00 1,100,000.00 41,772,763.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,708,286 218,000.00 25,485,893.25 1,545,675.00 3,527,775.33 60,485,629.58
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,370,012 3,370,012.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)63,574,655 63,574,655.00
Loan Fund -7,000,000.00 7,000,000.00
-
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,768,914,009 14,892,993.00 41,655,131.95 15,090,714.68 21,655,006.66 70,351,358.39 1,932,559,213.68
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
4
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Section A: New Items
A-1: Fire Department Public
Utilities Cost Increases –
Fire Hydrant Rentals
GF One-time $133,250.00
Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For questions, please include Clint Rasmussen and Chief Karl Lieb
Public Utilities has increased the rates the Fire Department and other municipalities must pay for fire hydrant rentals.
This increase was overlooked during the annual budget creation cycle. Unfortunately, this adjustment cannot wait or be
absorbed in the existing budget because of the size of the increase. Utilizing existing department funds to cover the
increase would potentially delay or jeopardize public safety services. The request is for $133,250 to account for the
increased expense. As part of the Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, staff will factor in new rates and associated expenses. At this
time, the difference between the two required payments is $133,250 for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (One-Time).
Public Utilities Costs (FY2023-24)
Hydrant Rentals $9,000 per month, or $108,000 annually
Public Utilities Costs (FY2024-25) - Ongoing
Hydrant Rentals $20,104.18 per month, or $241,250 annually
A-2: Police Recruitment and
Retention GF One-time $1,423,875.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown
In Fiscal Year 2023 the Police Department proposed a multifaceted approach to improving staffing while utilizing
overtime to provide and maintain operational readiness, employing a proposed lateral hiring bonus and a retention
bonus for current employees. The hiring bonus would provide additional sworn lateral staffing as a compliment to the
new hire recruit classes and allow the department to bolster the staffing numbers on an accelerated timeline. Providing a
retention bonus to existing sworn employees has provided incentives to retain staff at a higher level than is currently
being experienced, while also providing a commitment from the city to the sworn staffing to maintain their pay at a level
commensurate with their jobs and surrounding agencies.
In March of 2023 the police department had 34 funded vacancies and 2 pending vacancies as well as the 20 unfunded
positions. The department currently has a hiring class in May of 20 officers and 10 lateral applicants. It’s estimated that
those applicants will fill all funded officer positions as well as hiring 3 officers into unfunded positions by the end of the
fiscal year.
An ongoing amount of $264,500 is being requested to continue lateral hiring retention bonuses in order to maintain
necessary staffing levels.
A-3: 2100 South
Infrastructure Loan
GF One-time $7,000,000
Department: Finance Prepared By: Rachel Otto
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto, and Jill Love
In order to facilitate a faster, less disruptive, and less costly reconstruction of 2100 S from 700 E to 1100 E, the
Administration proposes negotiating a market-rate loan of up to $7 million to The Thackeray Co. as the representative of
several entities in the area that are or will be developing property adjacent to 2100 S. This funding would be put toward
needed water and sewer upgrades in Sugarhouse, and allow the City’s contractor to replace the infrastructure in
conjunction with the road upgrades instead of in subsequent phases that would necessitate re-opening the road over the
next several years. Release of the funds will be contingent on the City negotiating a loan agreement with the developer
that would include a market-rate interest rate and adequate collateral.
1
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Additional information and a fact sheet will be shared with the council in the coming days.
A-4: State Funding for
Cemetery Roads and
Irrigation
GF One-time $3,000,0000
CIP One-time $3,000,000
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker
For questions, please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Amy Dorsey, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith,
Mary Beth Thompson
This budget amendment is requesting approval to receive additional $3,000,000 in State appropriated funds to be spent
on the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation CIP bond project. This request will permit the Summer 2024 bidding and
contracting to proceed without delays for the construction of the Cemetery Roadways and Irrigation project. Funding any
later than June 30 may delay bidding and contracting or add cost to the project PRJ-230007 8323213 - BD Cemetery.
The project is funded by three sources: City's 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond (approx.$11,200,000); a state legislative
appropriation ($3,000,000, this request); and by a private donor ($1,000,000, received through a donation agreement
and budget amendment). Bond and donation amounts are combined in Row 20 of "Grant Information". The legislative
appropriation can be given to the City in no fewer than two separate issuances once money is spent down (i.e., a
reimbursement). However, the City needs the funds upfront to bid and award the construction contract. This funding
will be reimbursed by the State once the City spends it (even partially) and reports on performance outcome
measurements (likely FY 26/27).
The funding allocation for the $3,000,000 from the state will not be recognized until the contract is complete, which is
anticipated to happen by April 16th.
The final “Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation” request for appropriation (RFA) from the legislature is also
attached.
A-5: Traffic Signal
Improvement – 2200 W /
2100 N
GF One-time $450,000.00
CIP One-time $450,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Jon Larsen
For questions, please include Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas and Brent Beck
$450,000 is being requested for a new traffic signal at the 2200 W /2100 N intersection. This is currently a 2-way stop
controlled intersection in a high growth area of the City. There is a growing safety concern at this intersection that a
traffic signal would address. Traffic at this intersection has increased dramatically in recent years, and drivers turning off
2200 West onto 2100 North are finding it challenging to find safe gaps in traffic. This has resulted in an increase in
traffic accidents at this location. This issue is exacerbated by the relatively high speeds on 2100 North, making it harder
to judge gaps in traffic, making crashes more severe.
A-6: Police Impact Fee
Refunds
CIP One-time $47,592.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson
The City Council set aside funding for the purchase of property using Police Impact Fees. The intended property did not
work to be used for the police precinct. The ensuing disencumbrance of these funds has resulted in the required refund of
2
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
impact fees plus actual interest earned on the funds due to their expirationThis refund will be funded with proceeds from
unappropriated Police Impact Fees. $38,464 (principal)+ Approximate Interest $9,128 = Total $47,592.
A-7: Update of the Streets
IFFP
CIP One-time ($29,816.67)
CIP One-time $29,816.67
CIP One-time $30,183.33
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson
For questions, please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith and Mary Beth Thompson
The city is in the process of updating the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) for Police, Fire and Parks. Updating the
Streets IFFP at the same time will not only be cost efficient but is needed for the efficient CIP planning of Streets and
Transportation. The Transportation bond is nearly complete and updating the Streets IFFP will aid Capital Asset
Planning (CAP) in the preparation of the CAP 10-year Plan. One hundred percent of the cost is impact fee eligible and the
scope includes Streets/Transportation Study and Preparation of the IFFP. The full request of $60,000 is to be funded by
a rescope of the remaining $29,816.67 from the 2020 IFFP appropriation, with the remainder to come from unallocated
Streets Impact Fees.
A-8: North Temple Jordan
River Bridge – Riverbank
Deterrent Rock Replacement
GF One-time $165,500.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Andrew Johnston / Mark Stephens
For questions, please include Andrew Johnston and Mark Stephens
SLC Engineering has been working with the SLC PD, HEART, and the Mayor’s Office to find an intervention to decrease
the use of the riverbanks underneath the bridge to use and deal drugs and avoid law enforcement. They have a plan to
work with the State and replace the current rocks lining the banks on both sides, underneath the bridge with more
deterrent rocks and landscaping to deter use of that location. Due to the limited window of time in the winter to do the
work, the mayor’s office has been pulling together existing funds from departments and this budget amendment
allocation would mostly function to reimburse those funds.
The $165,500 would be to remove silt and existing rocks that allow for the unsheltered population to congregate and
camp under the bridge, and to replace with larger rocks/boulders of size and type that are ‘uninviting’ and greatly deter
the activities that are currently taking place. This is something that is an industry standard for communities across the
nation encountering challenges with the unsheltered population under bridges. By excavating down and putting back
these new rocks/boulders, the existing cross section of the river and hydraulic capacity remain the same and won’t
require extensive hydraulic studies to ensure the hydraulic capacity is not decreased. This has been discussed with the
State stream alteration division staff and they are in concurrence with the approach and don’t see any major difficulties
getting the permit reviewed and approved.
What this also serves as is erosion control on the banks of the Jordan River as well as eliminating scour around the
bridge supports. This effort would check a few other boxes in addition to the deterrence of unfavorable activities by the
unsheltered population in, under, and around the N. Temple Bridge over the Jordan River. UDOT, as part of their bridge
inspections every other year (on even numbered years) measures and monitors scour so this would be an additional
measure that would also be beneficial for the bridge structure itself.”
A-9: Salt Lake City Public
Cleaning Contract
GF One-time $130,648.73
Department: CAN Prepared By: Andrew Johnston
For questions, please include Andrew Johnston
SLC Homeless Engagement and Response Team administers a contract with Advantage Services (AS), a private non-
profit, to provide cleaning of public streets, sidewalks and other locations, mostly in response to unsheltered
homelessness. Their work includes power washing of hardscapes, cleaning of biowaste, trash pickup, coordinating with
3
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Police when they are enforcing no camping situations, and working with SL County and on Encampment Impact
Mitigations and City Rapid Intervention Team on other cleanings.
This fiscal year, a change that was made to the services that Advantage provides the city was to offer the police
department immediate access to Clean Team services. Dedicated AS workers now accompany PD's Camp Mitigation
squad as they respond to camp locations throughout the city. This change was made because the HEART team was
processing an unusually high number of clean-up requests coming from the police department via SLC Mobile. PD would
have camps move or would come across an abandoned camp while on patrol and would submit a cleanup request to
HEART via the app, creating a duplication of efforts and delay in cleaning time that was remedied quickly by this change.
Several months ago, PD requested that AS’s services be expanded to provide 7-day coverage from 5 days, to match the
Camp Mitigation squads 7-day coverage. This is a key factor in the rate of spend down outpacing the awarded budget.
Without additional funds, AS will need to decrease the frequency of this work from 7 to 4-5 days/week, among other
potential changes to their service delivery model. In lieu of reducing service, the total amount is being requested to
ensure the current level of services will continue through the end of June.
A-10: Fund Balance Allocation to CIP (One
Time)
GF $15,000,000
CIP $15,000,000
Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary
For questions, please include Mary Beth Thompson and Greg Cleary
The Finance Department is requesting the transfer of $15 million from general fund fund balance to CIP to address
capital maintenance. This item is to ensure adequate fund balance levels, while also focusing on the financial need for
capital maintenance across the city, as outlined in the City Council and Mayoral goals. As the FY 2025 Capital Plan is
developed, staff will return to the City Council with proposed projects and/or funding uses: for authorization of the
funds. At this time, no direct expense is identified.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Adding Budget for
Finance Grant Position -
Correction
GF Ongoing $58,191.00
GF One-time $3,000.00
IMS One-time $3,000.00
CDBG One-time ($46,643.00)
Misc Grants One-time ($14,548.00)
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier
For questions, please include Randy Hillier, Greg Cleary and Mary Beth Thompson
In Budget Amendment #3 of this fiscal year, budget was added to CDBG and Miscellaneous Grants funds for a Grants
related position within the Finance department. However, there was a miscommunication, and the budget should not
have been added to CDBG and Misc Grants. Both of those fund classes already have the maximum amount of budget
added for personnel at the beginning of each fiscal year. What should have happened is the budget and FTE should have
been added within the Finance department as a general fund funded FTE. The expenditures for this position would be
periodically reimbursed by the CDBG and Misc Grant funds after a time-tracking report is submitted justifying a
reimbursement.
4
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
A$3,000 amount has also been included to cover the cost of the position’s technology related needs.
D-2: Recognizing Overtime
Revenue in Budget GF One-time $1,736,505.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich
For questions, please include Shellie Dietrich, Laura Nygaard and Chief Brown
The Police Department is requesting a budget appropriation for overtime that has associated revenues from special
events, overtime staffing, contracts and task force reimbursements. The amount being requested is based on what has
been received through February conservatively projected through the remainder of the fiscal year.
D-3: Reallocate CAN CRAG
Funds GF One-time ($100,000.00)
GF One-time $27,800.00
GF One-time $72,200.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Blake Thomas
On March 19, 2024, during their review of the annual HUD grant awards for FY 2025, Council asked the administration
to evaluate other existing City rental assistance funding sources and return to the Council with options in relation to a
funding gap for Housing Connect's HUD HOPWA program.
This item provides recommendations and potential adjustments to reallocate the unused CAN CRAG funds to address
Housing Connect's funding gap, and to fund another HUD applicant that was ineligible for FY 2025 HUD funds.
-Housing Connect/The Housing Authority of Salt Lake County, HOPWA Program: $27,800
-Neighborhood House, Early Childhood Education Program: $72,200
Both recommendations are eligible activities per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee: Eviction Assistance &
Rent Relief and Expanded Educational Opportunities.
Note: Per City Code 2.20, Community Recovery Committee, all CAN CRAG funds need to be spent by December 31,
2024.
D-4: HOME Dormant Income Housing One-time ($3,463,696.23)
Housing One-time $3,463,696.23
Misc Grants One-time $3,463,696.23
Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner
For questions, please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson
This housekeeping item moves the remaining HUD HOME dormant program income in the amount of $3,463,696.23 to
the correct fund. Budget is currently posted to the Housing fund. Due to federal grant tracking purposes, as well as
Finance wanting like to consolidate all grants in the grant fund, the department is requesting to move the HOME
dormant program funds to the grant fund. This budget amendment would move existing budget/funds and will have a
zero-sum budgetary impact.
D-5: Housing Authority
PILOT Check GF One-time $40,000.00
Department: CAN Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson
5
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
For question, please contact Tony Milner, Brent Beck and Suzanne Swanson
The expenditure budget in the Non-Departmental Housing cost center currently sits at $85,000 while a total of
$125,000 in expenditures is expected. This amendment will increase the budget to the appropriate level.
D-6: Airport Interest Budget
Adjustment Airport One-time $21,933,876.00
Department: Airport Prepared by: Shaun Anderson
For questions, please include Brian Butler, Shaun Anderson and Lorin Rollins
The Airport initially budgeted $121,528,000 in interest expense based on the gross amount rather than the net value.
The actual forecast amount of interest expense is $142,900,000. This will adjust the Airport’s interest expense budget to
match interest in our debt service schedules rather than net debt service (interest less capitalized interest). This
amendment will budget the $21,933,876 difference from the Airport fund.
D-7: Open Streets Funding
Rescope GF One-time $0.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Lorena Riffo-Jenson
For questions, please include Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Roberta Reichgelt and Jacob Maxwell
The Department of Economic Development is requesting a rescope of funds totaling $250,287.60 to extend the Open
Streets effort into the 2024 season. This amount will be derived from three sources; The first is $57,000 remaining from
$500,000 allocated in budget amendment #5 of FY 2023, which was meant for the 2023 Open Streets program. This
$57,000 was remaining after the City contracted with the Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance for Open Street 2023. The
second source of funding is the $69,128 that remains following the completion of the Open Streets 2023 event. The third
source of funds is $124,159.60 that remains from the $250,000 budgeted in budget amendment #1 of FY 2024. The
$250,000 budgeted in BA #1 was to cover costs related to the Open Streets 2023 effort.
D-8: Community
Reinvestment Agency Act
True Up
GF One-time $3,675,752.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Lisa Hunt / Greg Cleary
For questions, please contact Mary Beth Thompson, Greg Cleary, and Danny Walz
In late March, staff received an updated memo from the Salt Lake County Auditor. After receiving this memo (Pursuant
to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency Act”) staff are increasing the Revenues and
Expenses by $3,675,752 accordingly to account for the final annual distribution. The corresponding memo is attached for
additional detail.
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
Section F: Donations
6
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #4
G-1: Department of Environmental Quality –
State of Utah Misc Grants $100,000.00
Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Holly Lopez
Department of Public Utilities (DPU) received $100,000 to conduct a service line inventory and produce a lead service
line replacement (LSLR) plan for an estimated 13,894 water line connections in qualifying disadvantage census blocks
meeting the Hardship Funding Criteria of Utah Department of Environmental Quality. On December 16, 2020, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency adopted the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Act that went into effect on
January 16, 2021, and has a compliance date of October 16, 2024. DPU must complete a service line inventory that
includes publicly owned and customer-owned portions of the service line and develop a lead service line replacement
plan between 2023 and the LCRR compliance date.
A public hearing was held on May 16, 2023.
Consent Agenda #5
G-1: Safe Streets for All Misc Grants $953,600.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Joe Taylor / Jennifer
Newell
The Office of the Mayor requested $953,600 for the TravelWell Schools demonstration project on behalf of the non-
profit Children’s Media Workshop.
The project tests and refines a multi-media and digital mapping tool augmented with an educational campaign to deliver
multi-disciplinary messaging aligned with the Safe System Approach targeting underserved populations, citizen
behavioral activities, and community engagement and empowerment.
The anticipated outcome is transformational change through real-time identification of travel behaviors, problems, and
solutions resulting in zero deaths on Salt Lake City roadways.
Children’s Media Workshop and MappsLab LLC developed the TravelWell Schools digital mapping tool that the project
will test on a small-scale to gauge effectiveness and assess for inclusion in the Safe Streets for All Action Plan under
development by Wasatch Front Regional Council.
Children’s Media Workshop has committed to providing the full $238,400 worth in non-federal match, which is often
required for grants. This amount is strictly for the City’s grant match, however, it will not pass through or need to be
budgeted for by the City.
Public Hearing was held November 7, 2023.
G-2: Marathon Petroleum Misc Grants $4,532.10
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard
Funding for a drone to train first responders and prepare for an emergency response.
Public hearing was held January 19, 2024.
G-3: Rocky Mountain High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Misc Grants $600,068.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard
This funding is for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force. This contract is for salaries and fringe for existing Salt
Lake City PD K9 officer and Task Force Finance Manager/Grant Administrator. Funding will also support overtime for
outside agencies that participate in the task force. Other expenses: travel, K9 contracts, supplies, equipment and other
administrative costs.
Public Hearing is scheduled to be held February 20, 2024.
7
Salt Lake City FY 2023-24 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
G-4: Paul Coverdell Forensic
Science Improvement Grant Misc Grants $9,280.00
Department: Police Prepared By: Amy Dorsey / Laura Nygaard
The Salt Lake City Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of
Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The
state’s application includes $9,280 for the Salt Lake City Police Department Crime Lab 2023 Annual Accreditation Fee
through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020.
Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023.
Section I: Council Added Items
8
Attachments
A-4
Historic Salt Lake City Cemetery Preservation
Edit Reguest
Requester Information
Legislator: Weiler, Todd D.
Creation Date: 2023-01-23
Submission Date: 2023-01-23
Section 1: Request Details
Description:
In Utah, the Salt Lake City Cemetery stands alone in the extent of its historic value and is a reminder of
the settlement and rural community that was claimed in the 1800's by pioneers of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a place that reveals information about the state's historic events, religions,
lifestyles, and genealogy, more so than any other cemetery in the state. Unfortunately, the cemetery is
threatened by natural forces such as weathering, eroding historic retaining walls, an aged irrigation system
and roads that have decayed to a point they are becoming inaccessible for families traveling to visit their
forefathers. The City is doing everything possible to fund improvements at the Cemetery, including the
passage of a sales tax bond that will in part fund road and irrigation repairs, however, support from the
State of Utah is also needed to help preserve this invaluable historic resource.
Legislative designee contact information:
•Name: Keith Van Otten
•Organization: Salt Lake City Cemetery
•Position: Sexton
Section 2: ·Funding Information
How will the appropriation be used?
One-time Ongoing
Personnel Services
In-State Travel
Out-of-state Travel
Supplies and Equipment
Technology Purchases
Infrastructure/Capital
Investments
2024: $0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
3/12/24. 8:01 AM Requttt for Appropri3tions • Requttts Listing
Other Charges/Pass Thru 2024: S0.00
2025: S0.00 $0.00
Expenditure Total
One-time 2024
$0.00
Funding Sources:
General Fund
One-time 2025
$0.00
Ongoing 2025
S0.00
•Amount Requested 2024 (One-time) S0.00
•Amount Requested 2025 (One-time) S3,000,000.00
•Amount Requested 2025 (Ongoing) $0.00
Revenue Total
One-time 2024
$0.00
One-time 2025
$3,000,000.00
Ongoing 2025
S0.00
Should unused funding be returned to the state at the end of the fiscal year?
Yes
Is this project scalable if the Legislature does not fund the full requested amount?
Yes
A short explanation describing how the project might be scaled
Salt Lake City has allocated $11.2M toward the replacement of the cemetery irrigation system and
roadways and has a S1M donation toward design and construction documents for the roads, irrigation and
other projects identified in the master plan. State funding is needed to further work on the estimated
$14.1M irrigation project and S20M road project. If partially funded, SLC would prioritize irrigation systems
and roadways in greatest need of repairs.
Section 3: Agency Information
Subjects:
Agency:
710 / Cultural and Community Engagement
Type of entity to receive pass-through funding
•State Government
Section 4: Performance Outcome Measurement
Who would benefit from this request (who is the target audience)?
What is this project or program intended to accomplish?
The Salt Lake City Cemetery is the largest municipal cemetery in the United States and covers 122 acres
and has 9.5 miles of interior roads. Irrigation replacement will improve water efficiency, and provide better
water management in drought conditions. Repairing the roadways will enhance accessibility and improve
visitor experience. The SLC Cemetery gives Utah a sense of character and definition. This project is in
large part for the benefit of the living, and perpetuates the memories of the deceased. An investment in the
SLC Cemetery gives all Utahns a sense of character and definition by protecting our heritage and history.
Attachments
D-8
CHRIS HARDING
CPA, CFE, CIA
Salt Lake County
Auditor
RICHARD
JAUSSI
Chief Deputy Auditor
ROSWELL
ROGERS
Policy Advisor
OFFICE OF THE
SALT LAKE
COUNTY AUDITOR
2001 S State
Street, N3-300
PO Box 144575
Salt Lake City, UT
84114-4575 385-
468-7200 | TTY
711
RMarch 31, 2024
Salt Lake City
Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
451 South State Street Room 304
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Mary Beth Thompson,
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17C-1-606 of the “Community Reinvestment Agency
Act,” the Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor has prepared the enclosed reports
which include:
[1] The total assessed property value within each project area for the previous tax
year.
[2] The base taxable value of each project area for the previous tax year.
[3] The tax increment available to be paid to the agency for the previous tax year.
[4] The tax increment requested by the agency for the previous tax year.
[5] The tax increment paid to the agency for the previous tax year.
[6] Sufficient detail on the calculations performed by the county auditor.
For any questions or if you require further information, please reach out to
Brandon Grable at bgrable@slco.org or call 385-468-7194.
Sincerely,
Chris Harding, CPA, CFE, CIA
Salt Lake County Auditor
Enclosures
County Auditor Report
on Community Reinvestment Agency Act Project Areas
Salt Lake County Tax Year 2023
Community Reinvestment Agency Salt Lake City
Project Area
Assessed Property
Value Base Taxable Value
Available Tax
Increment
Tax Increment
Estimate on
Agency's Annual
Report
Tax Increment
(Entitled Amount)
Current Year
1 SLC CBD In 2,919,440,724 136,894,100 27,265,707 24,644,694 27,265,707
2 SLC CBD Out 926,676,340 0 0 0 0
3 Baseball Stadium 6,043,536 0 0 0 0
4 Depot District 867,431,325 27,476,425 6,071,665 5,422,435 6,071,665
5 Depot District - Non Collection Area 54,642,819 0 0 0 0
6 Granary 237,204,525 48,813,397 1,357,286 1,103,309 1,357,286
7 North Temple Viaduct Cmty Dev't 406,039,024 36,499,680 3,058,618 2,774,419 3,058,618
8 North Temple 294,046,112 84,073,572 1,513,475 1,008,715 1,513,475
9 Block 70 Cmty Dev't 329,362,729 58,757,937 2,133,992 1,829,228 2,133,992
10 Stadler Rail Cmty Dev't 59,174,218 3,710 157,991 141,298 157,991
11 State Street CRA 1,999,382,096 889,305,536 5,753,783 4,423,811 5,753,783
12 9 Line CRA 678,478,961 228,048,136 2,971,289 2,653,781 2,971,289
13 Northwest Quadrant CRA 1,104,786,297 735,791 2,451,087 1,398,548 2,451,087
14 Block 67 CRA 120,971,080 11,531,400 358,599 1 358,599
15
16
17
18
19
20
Totals 10,003,679,786 1,522,139,684 53,093,492 45,400,239 53,093,492
Report and Payment Notes:
Base taxable values of inactive projects are unavailable or have not been updated
Base taxable values of Community Dev't Areas vary for each participating Taxing Entity. Highest base value is shown on this report.
If there is no estimated Tax Increment Financing amount for a listed project in the Agency report, $ 1 is placed for an eligible tax area or tax entity
Final distributed amount determined by County Treasurer
Agency & Tax Entities are responsible for monitoring performance benchmarks & rebate terms
Office of the Salt Lake County Auditor 3/18/2024
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: Sylvia Richards
Policy and Budget Analyst
DATE:May 14, 2024
RE:Office of the City Attorney
FY25 Budget: Civil Division,
Legislative Affairs, Recorder’s
Office, Risk Management and
Prosecutor’s Office
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: June 1, 2024
Budget Hearings: May 21 and
June 4, 2024
Potential Action: June 11 or 13,
2024
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Office of the City Attorney includes four divisions: Civil Practice, Legislative Affairs,
Recorder’s Office, and Risk Management, as well as 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 FY25 budget from the General Fund requests $12,881,528 and 66.5 full-time
employees (FTEs). There is an increase of $2,390,684, or 22.79% as compared to the FY24
Recommended budget. The increase is mainly attributed to factors which include the
adjustment made in FY24 for salary increases requested by the Prosecutor’s Office, the
annualized cost of four new FTEs added in Budget Amendment Number 3 in 2023 to create
the Legislative Affairs Division, the proposed addition of two new FTEs, a 5% salary increase
proposed for all City employees, and ongoing personnel and operating costs for the
Legislative Affairs Division, and personnel adjustments in the Recorder’s office.
Page | 2
Information regarding the proposed budget is included on pages 20, 55, and 165 through 170
of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget Book FY 2025.
The primary increases to the budget include:
1.Request for two Additional FTE’s
a)One new Special Projects/Boards Compensation Analyst position for
the Recorder’s Office ($89,640 for ten months or $107,568 annually
including benefits)
The focus of this position will be managing board member onboarding and
compensation duties for the boards and commissions.
b)One new City Prosecutor Assistant position for the City Prosecutor’s
Office ($60,623 for ten months or $72,748 annually including benefits)
The Prosecutor’s office has changed the assignments for supporting each judge,
and this position will ensure additional staffing necessary to comply with the
model.
2.Ongoing Funding for Legislative Affairs Division
a) $594,440 is the full-year cost of the four new positions that the Council approved
mid-year.
b) $80,000 As mentioned previously, the Division was created during Budget
Amendment No. Three in 2023, and the ongoing operating costs were inadvertently
excluded from the budget.
3.Additional personnel and compensation items
$49,000 One-time funding for professional development
$82,36 Personal Services Base to Base Changes
$120,416 Insurance Rate Increase
$151,306 Pension Changes
$739,420 Attorney’s Office Portion of the Salary Proposal, plus Health Savings
Account increases and market adjustments
Performance measurements for the City Attorney’s Office are included as page five of this
report.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE – Civil Division
The Civil Division of the City Attorney’s Office is the in-house legal team for Salt Lake City
Corporation and engages in all the legal work for the City, from contract drafting, proactively
advising City leadership and departments, risk and liability analysis, ordinance drafting, and
litigation—all through creative and customer-service oriented legal advice. The City
Attorney’s Office is composed of the City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney, Division Chiefs (3),
and Senior City Attorneys (14), paralegals (3), and administrative staff (5). The Civil Division
of the City Attorney’s Office is currently fully staffed, with no vacancies.
Page | 3
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.
In addition to these functions, the Recorder’s Office has also assumed the role of Induction
Officer to manage the tasks related to bringing on newly elected Council Members, as well as
the coordination of the Induction Ceremony. To provide these functions to the various City
Departments, the Recorder’s Office has 12.00 full-time employees.
Responding to GRAMA requests is coordinated through the Recorder’s Office. The 2023
GRAMA statistics indicate the total number of requests was 15,620, and the projected 2024
number of requests will be approximately 15,000.
RISK MANAGEMENT
Although the Risk Management division’s budget presentation will be addressed in a separate
budget presentation, the division reports to the City Attorney. With 5.0 full-time employees,
the division supports citywide claim management, risk assessment, insurance compliance,
and workers compensation.
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
With 4.0 full-time employees, the recently added Legislative Affairs division is responsible for
monitoring state and federal legislation and engaging in advocacy, collaboration, and tracking
of legislative matters for the City.
PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
The City contracts with the District Attorney’s Office (DAO) to manage 36.5 full-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 contract between Salt Lake County and
Salt Lake City has been in place since 2015. Salt Lake City prosecutors and staff operate in the
same workspaces as other Salt Lake County District Attorney employees.
The DAO 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.
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 positive City team member.
Page | 4
3
Salt Lake City Office of the City Attorney
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Department Performance Measurements
Measure
Maintain an hourlbrate
for services rovided y
the City Attorneys
Office (CAO) to less
than 50% of the avera
e rates the City pays
for outsi e counsel
Maintain the number
of open liti ation holds
to less than a 10¼
increase from year to
year
Maintain the number of
open litigation cases to
less than a 10%
increase from year to
year
Maintain a disposition
rate of 85% or higher.
Have City Council Minutes
ap roved and available
to the pu lie within 30
days at least 95% of
the time.
Number of GRAMA
requests received by
the City annually
Annual percentage
increase in GRAMA
requests
Process, activate, and
digitize all contracts
entered into on behalf
of Salt Lake City within
three working days
100% of the time
Number of workers'
compensation claims
filed, based on date of
injury
Number of property
damage claims filed,
based on date of loss.
Number of bodily
injudi, claims filed,
based on ate of loss
167 Mayor's Recommended Budget FISCAL YEAR
2024-25
16% increase <10%<10%
2021 Actual 2022 Actual 2023 Actual 2024 Target 2025 Target
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
51% increase <10%<10%
85%97%>85%>85%
80%95%95%100%100%
15,976
>1%
16,435 15,620
>1%
15,000
>1%
15,000
>1%
95%98%98%100%100%
TBD 570 504 504 504
TBD 209 307 307 307
TBD 34 58 95 95
1
City Attorney's Office FY24-25 Budget
Presented by Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
1
ATTORNEY FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
Organizational Chart
22
ATTORNEY FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
BB
INSIGHT DESCRIPTIONS -
OPERATIONS
Leg Affairs – Operating Costs
•Professional development
•Lobby Lounge
•Should have been included in budget amendment
•$80,000 Ongoing
53
Attorney Dept: Professional Development
•Related to conference opportunities necessitated by the growth of the City and the
issues nationwide that require legal expertise
•Annual requirements for professional licensing
•Elevated service in building relationships and participating in training/conference
opportunities
•Developed collaborative partners
•$49,000 One Time *General fund
•$48,000 One Time *Governmental Immunity
ATTORNEY FY24-25 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Presented by Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
BB
INSIGHT DESCRIPTIONS – PERSONNEL FUNDS
Legislative Affairs
•Adjust one position to Deputy Director;
•Reclassify Leg. Affairs Director from E34 to E38
•Sum Total: $85,287 Ongoing General Fund
Recorder
•New FTE for Board Compensation Management,
Special Projects Analyst, E26
•$89,640 (10 months) Ongoing General Fund
•Reclassify of Deputy Recorders from E26 to E31
•Reclassify from special projects/board &
commission/RCO liaison to business systems
analyst (levels I and II); reclassification from E26 to
E28/E30
•Reclassify Recorder from E35 to E38
•Sum Total: $89,710 General Fund
Risk
•Reclassify Risk Manager from E35 to E38
•$25,015 Ongoing Insurance & Risk
Fund
84
Prosecutor
•New FTE Prosecutor’s Assistant
•$60,623 Ongoing General Fund
Dedicated Arraignment Judge Model
(Judge Baxter)
ARRAIGNMENT JUDGE (1 AJ)POST-ARRAIGNMENT JUDGES (4)
PTCs, L&M, BT, JURY TRIALS, PROBATION
PROSECUTOR ASSISTANT
(1)WAS ASSIGNED TO
PREPARE ARRAIGNMENT FILES
EACH WEEK FOR THE CASES
THAT APPEARED BEFORE
JUDGE BAXTER.
PROSECUTOR ASSISTANT
The same one was assigned
to follow-up on
ARRAIGNMENT FILES
after arraignment and route
to prosecutor assistants
assigned to
judges/courtrooms.
J1: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J1 PA’s
J2: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J2 PA’s
J3: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J3 PA’s
J4: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J4 PA’s
Total: 2+2+2+2 = 8 J* PA’s
Two PA’s were assigned to each
of the post-arraignment judges
for a total of eight, plus the 1
arraignment PA for a total of
nine (9).SLC PROSECUTOR’S
FY24-25
BUDGET PROPOSAL
s
Rotating Arraignment Judge Model
(all 5 judges move through week by week)
ARRAIGNMENT JUDGE (ALL 5)POST-ARRAIGNMENT JUDGES (ALL 5).
The judges now carry the cases that they
saw at arraignment that were not resolved.
PTCs, L&M, BT, JURY TRIALS, PROBATION
2 PROSECUTOR ASSISTANTS
ASSIGNED TO EACH COURTROOM
PROSECUTION TEAM PREPARE
ARRAIGNMENT FILES FOR THE WEEK THAT
THEIR PROSECUTORS APPEAR BEFORE
THEIR ASSIGNED JUDGE. THIS IS WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE
PROSECUTOR ASSISTANT
WHO IS CURRENTLY WITHOUT
A PA PARTNER AND CARRIES
THAT WORKLOAD SOLO USING
OVERTIME.
PROSECUTOR ASSISTANTS
The same PA’s are assigned to
follow-up on
ARRAIGNMENT FILES
after arraignment and further
prepare files for the
prosecutors assigned to the
specific judge/courtroom.
J1: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J1 PA’s
J2: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J2 PA’s
J3: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J3 PA’s
J4: 1PA + 1PA = 2 J4 PA’s
J5: 1PA (short one PA)
Total: 2+2+2+2+1 = 9 J* PA’s
Thus, the CPO is short 1 PA so that the
team can be fully staffed, the workload
is evenly divided, there is coverage for
time-off, increased efficiency, etc.
SLC PROSECUTOR’S
FY24-25
BUDGET PROPOSAL
THANK YOU
Presented Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
8
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
Salt Lake City CouncilVictoria Petro May 14, 2024
4
44
Victoria Petro җMay 1х, 2024 14ѷ0ф MҘ May 1х, 2024
Closed Session - Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2024-05-16
Created:2024-05-15
By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAhikCKji1o1WCHY2ISTd5naqVdchxHINa
"Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History
Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com)
2024-05-15 - 10:20:59 PM GMT
Document emailed to victoria.petro@slcgov.com for signature
2024-05-15 - 10:23:49 PM GMT
Email viewed by victoria.petro@slcgov.com
2024-05-16 - 8:05:18 PM GMT
Signer victoria.petro@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Victoria Petro
2024-05-16 - 8:05:38 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Victoria Petro (victoria.petro@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2024-05-16 - 8:05:40 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2024-05-16 - 8:05:40 PM GMT
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 9:35 Sarah Samore Keep Abravenel Hall!! Please do what you can to keep Ryan Smith from building the sports and entertainment district at the site of
Abrvanel Hall!! This is absolutely ludicrous!!! That’s one of the most beautiful buildings in SLC, it’s not that old and
would be a terrible waste of resources to destroy it! It’s an iconic space for musical Arts and should absolutely
remain in place!! Thank you. Sarah Samore
5/8/2024 10:05 AM Cael Crosby City Council Stance on Police Violence I am feeling sick, so I am unable to make it to tonight’s council, but I am a consistent from Dan Dugan’s district (I
believe it is district 6), and feel the need to say a few words nonetheless. I have been disturbed to see the recent
use of Riot-gear policing on UofU students who were peacefully protesting i have felt extremely unsafe given the 17
original arrests and the recent arrest of Deja, who is a black organizer. I think we see the repeating patterns in
history right? Black students and leaders in social change movements are targeted, then we pretend we supported
their right to peacefully protest in retrospect. I fear the lies they will write about how these now-traumatized
students were treated with respect and fairness. Please stand as a council against police brutality, which only
works to send the message peaceful social change is impossible. I believe it is. Thank you for your consideration.
5/8/2024 10:16 Valerie Garrison Comment from city council meeting Hello, I made a general comment at the May 7 city council meeting about how I oppose spending $1B on an NHL
stadium. I was fairly emotional after hearing other residents talk about their experience being homeless or at a
protest regarding Palestine, so I fear I did not present my statement well. Therefore, I’m writing this to provide the
information I wished to share and hopefully distill anyone from writing me off as some “crazed, irrational resident”.
This video from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver sums up the issues I have very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs In summary: - taxpayers don’t need to fund these, billionaire
owners have plenty of money to do it - it does NOT create additional economic development, especially when
compared to the other types of economic development that could be done with $1B Salt Lake and Utah is and can
be known for other things - skiing, the Olympics, Sundance, amazing national parks. We don’t NEED hockey, it
won’t help us, and it WILL cost us. Please reconsider. Please email back with a good, reason (validated by
research) why we should get an NHL team. If you don’t have one handy… maybe that’s saying something. Valerie
Garrison
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 10:20 Heather Severson Abravanel Hall Dear Ms. Petro, I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the future of Abravanel Hall as discussions
about its potential demise are circulating. I think it is a huge mistake to even entertain the possibility of
demolishing it in favor of a sports and entertainment district. There are so many reasons this should not even be on
the table: • It would lead to an entire group of musicians losing their livelihood without a suitable hall to play in. •
Even if a new hall was built, the best of the best musicians in Utah would go elsewhere in the meantime. • The
beautiful acoustics of the hall and the unique design cannot be replicated. • It would be a huge waste of resources
and money to tear it down and build something else. We should preserve the past, not try to replace it with the
newest, shiniest thing. • Having a world-class orchestra downtown is vital to being a true metropolitan center. If
you look at any of the major cities in the U.S. they all have a similar facility and organization. • We are fortunate to
have one of the most beautiful halls in the United States, especially compared to other cities of a similar size. I
could go on and on, but I suppose that will suffice. I invite you to attend a concert or two as soon as possible (might
I recommend the upcoming May 17-18 presentation of Scheherazade) so you can personally experience the power
of live music in a world class hall. It would be a shame to make a decision to tear down such a landmark without
having first done the research to understand its value and beauty. Thank you for your time. Please show the people
of Salt Lake and Utah that you support us and what we value and not just the all-too-powerful developers and their
big bucks. Sincerely, Heather Severson
5/8/2024 10:25 Savanna Shaw Abravanel Hall Hello, I know this email might not do much, but I figured if enough people reached out maybe there’s a chance we
can save Abravanel. The thought of it being torn down is devastating. We NEED to keep the arts alive. Please
consider my email along with any others writing in. Thank you! Savanna Shaw
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 10:27 Michele Medina-Ferrone 5th Grade Teacher and Abravanel Hall Dear Victoria: My name is Michele Medina-Ferrone and I am a native Utahn. My first experience at Abravanel Hall
was when I was in fifth grade. This was the culmination of my elementary education. All the fifth graders went. I am
currently a fifth grade teacher at West Kearns Elementary and I made sure that my fifth graders got to experience
the historic building and music. All the students loved it, including the newcomers from other countries. I am also
a free-lance violinist. When I was in high school preparing for college, I would go to the symphony with my sister. I
was also a second violin in Utah Youth Symphony under the direction of Barbara Ann Scowcroft, and in the
springtime, they always would play at Abravanel Hall. We performed Dvorak’s 9th Symphony “The New World” in
1999, my senior year. Performing there was always more than exciting – there is a certain peace about Abravanel
Hall. I rarely got nervous when I played with a group there, and it became a second home to me because I loved
attending nearly every weekend while I was a student. I would visit my then-violin teachers and newly found
musical community after concerts, and it was exciting to have a reason to commute from my home in West Valley
to downtown, to feel at peace. When the Trax came, I would share a train car with people attending the Utah Jazz,
and even though The Delta Center was not my destination, it was exciting to be a part of that fabric. People who
were dressed in elegance were surrounded by people in their sports attire, and everyone would get to their
destinations and go back home. Throughout the years, I found ways to keep going to Abravanel Hall and attended
concerts from Mahler’s Symphony #1 performed by The Utah Symphony to other genres like jazz and mariachi.
Most recently, since I’ve been married, seeing the symphony live downtown gives us a reason to dress up and go on
a date and go out to drinks and dinner before or after. We now have a family and were one of many to attend “Peter
and the Wolf”. The tickets sold out so fast, that they had to do a second showing, which is great! This weekend, I
plan on attending the Utah Youth Ensembles and Orchestras again. They will play Dvorak’s 9th symphony “The
New World”, which is what I played with them in 1999. Of course, I am taking the whole family. Please reconsider
the changes that are being discussed. It would be a shame to displace such an iconic treasure. The longevity of
Abravanel Hall ought to continue. Keeping Abravanel Hall in its location will not take away from the sports, the two
fields can just continue to coexist. Many concert-goers also attend sporting functions and the other riches that Salt
Lake City has to offer. Abravanel Hall has a legacy that can continue for decades. Abravanel Hall is part of Utah’s
heritage, and adds to our culture. Sincerely, Michele Medina-Ferrone Free-Lance Violinist & Educator Salt Lake
City, UT -- Michele Medina-Ferrone
5/8/2024 10:30 Lauren Barlow Letter to City Council re: safety problem at
1300 S 2100 E intersection
**Attachment 1 - 4 pages
Dear Council Member Petro, Please read the attached letter from the Bonneville Elementary Road Safety
Committee. There is a continuing pedestrian safety problem at the intersection of 1300 S 2100 E where Winnie
Wolfgramm was killed. This letter is also being sent to Mayor Mendenhall. Please reach out to me with any follow
up questions. Thank you, Lauren Barlow Chair, Bonneville Road Safety Committee
May 6, 2024
Dear Mayor Mendenhall and City Council Members,
As you know, on November 30, 2022, 11-year-old Winnie Wolfgramm was hit and killed by a
pickup truck as she was walking in a crosswalk at the intersection of 1300 S and 2100 E. While
we are grateful for the city’s swift action to make adjustments to the timing of the crosswalk
lights, the problem persists.
On March 19, 2024 a member of our Road Safety Committee witnessed another person almost
hit in the exact same way Winnie was killed, with the right of way to cross, saying by SMS
message:
“I was just getting gas at that infamous gas station (where
Winnie was killed) and an adult male was ALMOST hit by a van
on the SAME exact spot / corner!He was crossing the road while
the van was turning right. The driver looked to the left, saw no cars
and turned, nearly hitting that guy!
So whatever the city did to improve safety there, is NOT working!
Also that dude was at least 6 ft tall, if he was smaller, the van
wouldn’t see / stop.”
[Emphasis added]
This near-miss occurred in the same crosswalk where Winnie was killed. This 6-foot-tall adult
pedestrian was crossing according to crosswalk instructions and it was broad daylight –
mid-afternoon. This particular crosswalk remains a dangerous intersection for pedestrians, and
needs to be improved immediately.
Since the terrible day 17 months ago when Winnie was killed, the Bonneville community
(including parents, administrators and neighbors) continue to work together to improve safety for
pedestrians, cyclists and those on scooters.
We have partnered with the city’s Department of Transportation to alter the flow of Bonneville
car traffic before and after school to minimize congestion on 1900 E, an already busy
neighborhood thoroughfare. We lobbied for and were granted an additional crossing guard by
the city’s Compliance department to improve safety for students as they enter and exit school
Attachment 1 - Page 1
grounds from the field behind the school. This had historically been a dangerous and
unsupervised location. We have instituted a road safety curriculum at school to train children
how to navigate neighborhood roads safely as they walk, bike, and scoot to and from school.
(We are a walking school and have no busing.)
We have also reinforced safe driving practices among parents and are currently working with
Councilman Dugan and the city’s Livable Streets group. We are utilizing the Livable Streets
plan’s graphics and research to educate adults about why they should follow speed limits and
prevent distracted driving.
As a result of the March 19th incident, we reached back out to Jon Larsen. In emails between us
over the last month, Jon has indicated that pulling the crosswalk away from the intersection (i.e.
further south on 2100 E) would improve pedestrian visibility for drivers. When we inquired
about when the city could make this change, Jon stated:
“If we decide this is the best path forward, the next step would be
to ask for budget in the next round of Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) funds.
The next round for CIP asks opens up this fall for projects that
would be funded in the following year’s budget. We would
probably lump the ask in with a handful of other similar projects
around the city.”
We appreciate Jon’s accessibility and responsiveness. We also recognize that his department’s
options are constrained by budgets and annual cycles and this is why we are reaching out to our
city’s leadership.
Every moment the dangers of the subject intersection are not addressed puts a life at risk, which
is why we are reaching out to you, the Mayor and City Council. You have the power to decide
whether you want to swiftly change a deadly crosswalk or take more than a year to add it to the
CIP list for 2025.
Our Bonneville Road Safety Committee, as well as the community leaders and stakeholders
signed below, request that you do everything in your power to prevent another casualty in the
crosswalk at the corner of 1300 S and 2100 E by immediately changing the design of this
crosswalk and/or making additional signage/traffic flow improvements. Perhaps left turns
should be prohibited from westbound 1300 S. Perhaps this intersection should become a four-
way stop with raised crosswalks. Perhaps a median with horizontal deflection should be
installed. Maybe a curb extension/bulbout could be utilized. (see examples below)
Attachment 1 - Page 2
All options should be on the table and they should be considered today, not in three months, then
implemented next year. The crosswalk where Winnie was killed 17 months ago continues to be a
terrible safety hazard. There are emergency funds and manpower that could be summoned right
away to keep us, our neighbors and our children safe as we attempt to cross a neighborhood
street according to crosswalk instructions.
Please demonstrate Salt Lake City’s commitment to becoming the first Vision Zero city in Utah.
Please honor Winnie and save future lives at the intersection of 1300 S and 2100 E.
Respectfully,
Lauren Barlow, Chair, Bonneville Road Safety Committee
Julia Jacobs, Committee Member
Eddie Karasik, Committee Member
Julia Oleskey, Committee Member
Annie Leys, Committee Member
Rita Sharshiner, Committee Member
Dana Curtis, Committee Member
Karen Holman, Bonneville Principal
Rachel Day, Bonneville PTO Co-President
Cori Pugsley, Bonneville PTO Co-President
Brittney Bergen, Bonneville PTO Co-President
Jackie Krasne, Upcoming Bonneville PTO Co-President
Sara Bateman, Clayton PTA Co-President
Emily Waltman, Clayton PTA Co-President
Lauren Rigby, Clayton PTA Co-President
Heather Hayes, Clayton PTA Co-President
Kimball Young, Chair, Foothill Sunnyside Community Council
Attachment 1 - Page 3
1300 S & 2100 E Intersection Raised Crosswalk*
Median with Horizontal Deflection*Curb Extension/Bulbout*
*Source: www.slc.gov/transportation/toolkit
Attachment 1 - Page 4
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 10:38 Kate LITTLE Abravanel Hall tear down ?!?Hello Victoria: I write regarding the proposed downtown re-development district associated with the arrival of a
new NHL team. I understand that this re-development could include a tear down of Abravanel Hall. While I am pro-
sports, pro-development and pro-housing downtown, I am solidly against undermining our thriving downtown
professional arts community. Utah Symphony is the lynch-pin of our Utah arts scene. The acoustics-quality of
Abravanel Hall are as essential to the symphony as is ice-quality to a hockey team. If Abravanel Hall is torn down
we will lose the Utah Symphony as we know it, and losing this lynch-pin this will lead to a weakening and
deterioration of our vibrant downtown arts community. Professional sports are essential, and so are the
professional arts. For the audience, one provides competitive emotional release; the other sublime emotional
release: both essential qualities of human experience. If we support a sports mecca in an arts desert, we create an
imbalance of possible experience, and undermine the livelihood of our downtown. With a little compromise, we
could have a win-win situation. Carve out a few acres from the Smith request, preserve Abravanel Hall, and
support both professional sports and professional arts in downtown Salt Lake City. As re-development plans are
pursued, please question the need to destroy Abravanel Hall and vote to preserve it. Thank you, Kate Little
5/8/2024 10:41 Francois De la Giroday From Francois de la Giroday Dear Ms. Petro, In this proposed mega complex of Bars, Sports, and “Entertainment” over 100 acres In downtown
SLC, WHAT do you think will be the fate of Abravenal Symphony Hall and the Museum Of Contemporary Art…poor
second cousins to the mega millions that may come from Hockey and Basket Ball. And realistically into whose
pockets, really, will all this improvement and development flow ? The favor of a reply would be appreciated. Thank
you, Francois de la Giroday
5/8/2024 10:43 Carol Spackman Moss Abravanel Hall Hi Victoria, I read an article in the SL Tribune today that Abravanel Hall might be demolished to make way for the
Smiths’ entertainment district. I have been hearing from people who are shocked and alarmed, as I am, that it is
even being considered. Abravanel Hall is a Utah cultural treasure. I have attended concerts and programs there for
years and think it is a magnificent building with incomparable acoustics. Don’t you have a background in music?
I’m sure have attended concerts there, too. Would you let me know what you know about the proposed project?
Thank you, Carol Rep. Carol Spackman Moss Utah House of Representatives District 34,
5/8/2024 10:50 Marghie Mannos Sports District Disgusted that Ryan Smith can dictate the future of downtown slc. Keep Symphony Hall! Marghie Mannos - Long
time SLC Resident - Jazz Fan - Voter
5/8/2024 10:53 Erna Williams Land grab I'm a registered voter and pay taxes to SLC. I am against this land grab that is funded by the taxpayers. Do not allow
this to continue. Erna Williams
5/8/2024 10:54 Richard Steiner NHL entertainment district The proposal to have the city pay for a substantial part of a development which gives the developer access to all
tax revenue generated in the area is absurd. The loss of Abravanal hall in the deal makes it even more absurd.
Paying for the city's share with a sales tax hike, a truly regressive tax since it affects the lower income households
more than affluent individuals is an abomination. You are asking those least likely to enjoy the "benefits" of the
development to shoulder a financial burden to support it. And who will pay for the police and fire protection and
garbage services in the district. It seems our Mayor and city council are being blinded by the bright lights of
development and are not paying attention to the needs and desires of their constituencies. Richard Steiner Salt
Lake City
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 10:56 James Miska Opposition to Entertainment district rezone To whom it may concern, I want to be pointed toward what information is publicly available about the proposed
Entertainment district rezone that includes the possible destruction of Abravanel Hall. I have seen nothing in my
inbox from the City about this, nor about any current public comment period, though I am signed up for many
regular emails that usually do concern matters like these in Salt Lake City. Please respond as soon as possible.
Thank you. -James Miska District 4
5/8/2024 11:14 D Lee Thompson STOP, STOP, STOP THE NIGHTMARE OF
BUILDING! BEVER MIND UGLY
STOP, STOP, STOP THE NIGHTMARE OF BUILDING! BEVER MIND UGLY
5/8/2024 12:32 Sue Nelson Tracks Line to and from Little America to
Airport and Airport to Little America
I was appalled at the unsafe and statish of the trip from the North temple at first West out to the airport and back
what a disgrace to welcome persons to our city with the drug use and homelessness of our city. All the money
going to sports and we can not clean up the area. Welcome to your slums the signs should say. Is this truly how we
want to portray our city???? Let's get this area cleaned up! Take the golf course on 2100 South and make it a
homeless Neighborhood with restrooms and showers with a care center. Give them an address so they can get
jobs and the police present to keep the peace. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
5/8/2024 12:34 Janice Lew Ballpark Station Area Rezone and Text Amend May 7, 2024 City Council Members: As the Ballpark Community continues to grow in population and built
environment, it will be necessary for the city to address competing land use needs and increasing land scarcity.
The 2022 Ballpark Station Area Plan identifies the community’s need for additional park acres and equitable public
investment to serve current and future residents and visitors. This plan also identifies future uses and
neighborhood amenities if the city decides to make an operational change on the Public Utilities site at 1530 S.
West Temple. 2015 Plan Salt Lake sets a 2040 goal of every resident living within a half-mile of public lands.
Working towards this objective will require creative strategies for land acquisition and community investment. As
the Bees baseball team prepares to move to a new field, the City has already preserved the Public Land zoning of
the Ballpark and North parking lot. Since this property is city owned, please consider the unique opportunity to
create a space that celebrates the character of our neighborhood . Adaptive reuse of the site could transform the
site to create a sense of place and pride for our community. It is critical that our community’s park and public
green space needs are carefully considered and clearly articulated through the city’s planning processes.We have
an opportunity to create an attractive, innovative, and inclusive urban green space while adapting an existing
building. Janice Lew
5/8/2024 12:36 Aubree Shelley Save Abravanel Hall To the decision-makers of Salt Lake City: I plead with you to do the right thing and preserved Abravanel Hall in its
current location as the cultural treasure that it is. As a teen I got to play in this hall. It was an amazing experience
for a young musician. My children have attended concerts here as part of a well-rounded and full education on
public school field trips. Educating about the arts is so important. Sports for entertainment do not enrich us as a
society. They are a money maker, period. Please protect the Cultural Legacy of this building and the ensembles
that benefit our society. Thank you. Aubree Shelley Utah citizen
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 12:36 Susan KLINKER Opposition to Northpoint Area Annexation Plan Dear Council, I am writing to oppose the Northpoint Area Annexation Plan. This area includes environmentally
sensitive tracts of land that support wildlife, fragile ecosystems and wetlands. I am opposed to an increase of
industrial and distribution uses in this area along with its corresponding truck traffic which will further stress
riparian zones and migratory bird populations. These critical areas should be preserved as open space with a
minimum 300 ft buffer along the Jordan River. Alternative plans for increased density in other areas of the city
should be the priority. Based on Salt Lake's unique geography, and growing human populations, new industrial
uses should be responsibly planned outside of the Wasatch Valley's airshed. Thank you for your stewardship of our
critical waterways. Susan Klinker -- Susan Klinker
5/8/2024 12:38 Olivia Marron New Budget Hey there, I'm reaching out as a Salt Lake County resident in regards to the assault and aggression that was
displayed by "public servants". There are few times that I can say I have been more disgusted by police interaction
with community. We pay tax dollars into the public servant industry here & I can't imagine how much was thrown
away last Monday while students were being brutally attacked by police in riot gear. Shame on every single one of
you for priding yourselves on being the most progressive and diverse city council. Your ancestors are rolling in their
graves watching what side of history you're all putting yourselves on. The University of Utah is a disgrace because
of the university president, police, and board who are loud on silencing their students. They remain silent on a
genocide refuse to disclose and divest. No justice, no peace. May you make it on the right side of history. Y'all will
be voted out. In Disappointment, Olivia Marron
5/8/2024 12:40 Ambreen Khan Public comment 5/7/24 I meant 4/29 , 4/30 and 5/2 re: police brutality On Tuesday, May 7, 2024, Ambreen Khan wrote: Hello, I am writing
as a constituent from district 2 that I am VERY concerned about the increase in the budget for policing, especially
on the west side. I feel strongly that this will not protect our community and instead cause further gentrification of
our neighborhoods. I feel strongly that public has not been consulted on this increase in the police budget. I also
feel that public should be consulted on the equity trainings for the police since public input can be pertinent in
deciding the needs of those who have negative police interactions. For example, how violently the police showed
up at the University of Utah campus this past Monday 5/2 and brutalized the students and community members of
Salt Lake City. The use of our taxes should be a conversation with the constituents. Thank you! Ambreen --
Ambreen Khan (she/her)
5/8/2024 12:43 Krista Cook thank you from district 1 I tried to speak tonight but i guess time was too short. As a mother of little leaguers I wanted to say thank you for
your support of community rec baseball. It means everything to our Rose Park Community and I was touched to
see the letters that were written by our community visible at the meeting. Thank you, Community Council! -Krista
Cook
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 12:46 Alayna Gunn SAVE ABRAVANEL HALL!!! ❤To whom it may concern, I have such fond memories of attending and performing in concerts at our beloved
Abravanel Hall! These experiences have been some of the highlights of my musical journey. PLEASE do not destroy
such an incredible building. The arts and music mean so very much to me and my family and friends! So many of
my friends and family have expressed how devastating it would be to see Abravanel Hall gone. Music has played a
tremendous part in my life and shaped me into the person I am. Having an exquisite hall such as the Abravanel Hall
is an incredible way to have a rich cultural experience right here in Utah. Abravanel Hall is a building with rich
heritage and legacy and brings the wonderful arts to life in an incredible way. The Utah Symphony deserves an
outstanding home such as this and the people of Utah are edified by attending their concerts. Cultural experiences
such as concerts expand and edify the soul, bring communities together, help others appreciate live music, inspire
fellow musicians, celebrate extraordinary talent, and pay tribute to the creators of incredible works of art through
the ages. There has to be another solution rather than destroying Abravanel Hall. The arts deserve a meaningful
place in SLC and Abravanel Hall is such an incredible building! Destroying it would be senseless, wasteful, and an
utter disgrace and absolute tragedy. I plead with you and implore you to find a better solution so that we may
preserve the wonderful heritage of this historic building, honor the legacy of musicians present and past, and
continue to edify and enrich the lives of Utah citizens through the incredible cultural experiences found at our
beloved Abravanel Hall. 💗 Sincerely, Alayna Johnson
5/8/2024 13:18 Ira Hinckley NO, NO, NO to SEG!!!Dear Council, No to corporate welfare for the hostile takeover by SEG of our downtown! No to the destruction of
Abravenal Hall! No to NHL in SLC! I have zero interest in going and will not pay one penny in taxes for it!!! Don’t fall
for their lies about public benefits. We the taxpayers of this city don’t want to pay for Billionaires toys. Make them
pay it themselves or stay out of our city! Ira Hinckley Resident
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 13:26 Oswaldo Ponce de Leon Landa Concern Regarding Recent Limitations on
Public Comments During City Council
Meetings
Esteemed Members of the Salt Lake City Council, I am writing to you today as a concerned citizen regarding the
recent limitations imposed on public comments during the open comment period of City Council meetings. As a
fundamental aspect of our democratic process, the ability for citizens to freely express their opinions and
concerns to their elected representatives is paramount. Any measures that restrict or impede this essential avenue
of communication should be carefully reconsidered. Public participation in governance not only strengthens the
connection between the government and its constituents but also fosters transparency, accountability, and
inclusivity in decision-making processes. By allowing residents to voice their perspectives on matters that directly
impact their lives and communities, local policymakers gain valuable insights that can inform more equitable and
effective policies. It is with great concern that I have learned of recent changes that seem to curtail the opportunity
for meaningful public engagement during City Council meetings. Limiting the number of speakers, shortening the
duration of comments, or imposing restrictive criteria for participation may inadvertently silence voices that
deserve to be heard. While I understand the need to manage the efficient conduct of meetings and ensure that
proceedings remain orderly, it is crucial to strike a balance that upholds both procedural expediency and
democratic principles. I urge you to reconsider the current limitations on public comments and explore alternative
strategies that preserve the integrity of the public participation process. Furthermore, I encourage the City Council
to actively solicit feedback from residents on how to improve the accessibility and inclusivity of public comment
procedures. By engaging in dialogue with community members and soliciting their input, policymakers can work
collaboratively to develop solutions that better serve the needs and interests of all Salt Lake City residents. In
conclusion, I respectfully request that you revisit the recent changes to public comment protocols and take
proactive steps to ensure that the voices of the people remain central to the decision-making processes of our city
government. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to a continued dialogue on ways to
enhance civic engagement in Salt Lake City. Sincerely,
5/8/2024 13:29 Brian Charles Lord SLC FY 234-25 Budget Hello Council Member Mano, My name is Brian Lord and I am a constituent of yours in the ballpark/granary
neighborhood. I know the budget was just proposed last night so I'm sure you haven't had a whole lot of time to
dive into it. I haven't had time to get into the details but I do have concerns about the increase to the Salt Lake City
Police Department. I would love to chat with you about the $10 million increase- Why is it increasing? How is it
going to be applied? Who do you get information from suggesting/advising a 7.5% increase. I had a productive 30
minute phone conversation with Council Member Dugan about policing last friday and hope you can find the time
to talk. This is a part time job so I understand if that will be difficult. You'll be hearing from me either way. Thank you
for your time. - Brian Lord
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 13:31 Albert Lund Increasing the sale tax and plans Dear Council Members, As a citizen of Salt Lake City, I have the general expectation that the city council will listen
to me and act in the general positive interest. And believe me when I tell you I am opposed to any proposed plan of
the council that increases sales tax in Salt Lake City at the behest of Ryan Smith for stimulus. I am further opposed
to any action that will cause Abravanel hall to be torn down or lead to renovations that disrupt it's historical
character or alter the acoustic properties of the hall. I expect the city council to act in kind. I don't mind an initiative
that stimulates the downtown economy through business expansion. I don't mind if Ryan Smith or the Smith group
fronts the cash for such a proposal. I don't even mind a lease that constitutes an implicit tax break with a rate of
$1/year. I DO mind a blanket sales tax increase on the entire city that solely contributes to an initiative at the
request of the Smith Group, with any terms that state that the proceeds of the tax increase goes solely to the Smith
group. If this is the intention of the city council, then this is an asinine abuse of the public trust. If the tax is to be
levied, then the funds should go directly to public infrastructure or public initiatives that have the public's approval
by referendum, and not to the Smith group. You absolutely should not approve this tax increase as proposed.
Furthermore, this plan appears to have been executed in semi-secrecy of obfuscation. For at least 20 years the city
council and the mayor's office have acted with subterfuge on matters like this, you had a chance to change this on
this signficant plan and act in more transparent manner, but the public has had to hear about your plans at the last
minute through media sources, which makes you no better that your predecessors. You are abusing the public
trust in the most unethical way possible. Change yourselves and be better about communicating proposals to the
public, and enact policy that requires a referendum from the public on any proposal that looks remotely like this
insane proposal. As a purveryor and long time participant of the fine arts at Abravanel hall, I also feel personally
disrespected that the council would even consider touching Abravanel Hall as part of this proposal. The city
council needs to be absolutely clear about its intentions with this, and act in a manner that preserves Abravanel
Hall, instead of prioritizing sports entertainment over the fine arts. I have no interest in attending sports
entertainment in Salt Lake City, but I have a significant interest in attending performances and other events of the
kind held at Abravanel Hall, and I want to attend those events at Abravanel Hall, not another venue that replaces
the hall. Do this right. Consider your next actions carefully. Albert Lund
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 13:33 Henry Lund Abravanel Hall Hello, I am writing due to recent plans being put forth to demolish Abravanel Hall in the downtown area for a new
"entertainment district". Abravanel has been a part of this city's culture and arts for years- hundreds of musicians,
specifically young musicians and vocalists have benefitted from the presence of the Utah symphony, the Utah
Opera, and other music organizations that have utilized the incredible and historic space. It also houses one of our
most famous art installations- the Olympic Tower by Dale Chihuly, which pays homage to our hosting of the 2002
Olympics. It is a pillar- both literally and metaphorically- of the Arts Community. I myself have played multiple
times in the hall and the lobby as a musician, and it breaks my heart that the opportunities I was fortunate to have
in that space are slated to be ripped from up and coming music students. There are so many programs designed to
help musicians gain experience that are run by the staff at Abravanel hall- they are all in jeopardy with the
suggestion to demolish Abravanel. The plan to destroy Abravanel does not strengthen our community- it weakens
it, specifically the Arts Community.. Aside from the emotional, historic and cultural importance of this building- it
is actively being used by professional musicians. The destruction of this building will affect not only livelihoods but
life-long careers and passions. Some of the musicians in the Utah symphony have been playing in Abravanel Hall
since before I was alive- destroying the very place they have built their lives on is cruel and sends a message that
the city does not care for musical communities that have thrived and contributed to the city for years. We can have
both- there is no reason to destroy the beautiful Abravanel Hall to make space for the Hockey team. Find the
strength to do both, do not let Abravanel Hall be demolished. Thank you, Henry Lund
5/8/2024 13:37 Kasey OCONNOR annexation and zoom was inop for meeting Victoria is my councilwoman and she knows how adamant myself and neighbors are sick of the 70-80+db noise
from the traffic from I215, increased traffic from the soccer fields (which they NEVER did a proper survey of), how
they cannot even keep up what they have now, the eyesore and Deadbeat target abandoned home that the left
hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing with. They built massive warehouses right on the other side of the
interstate which acts like an echo chamber for all the increased traffic noise. To put it bluntly, till they "FIX" the
issues they now have and cannot take care of, they have no buisness expanding anything. Kasey O'Oconnor
5/8/2024 15:04 Denise Morgan Protect Abravanel Hall Dear Council, I am writing to demand that the sports and entertainment district deal include explicit protection for
Abravanel Hall. I am deeply outraged over the possibility of the destruction of Abravanel Hall. The preservation of
this building, with all its architectural and cultural value, should not be in question. The fact that you have offered
no assurances that it will be preserved is beyond understanding to me and to many of my friends and neighbors
who are dedicated patrons of the Utah Symphony. Maybe the symphony isn't really your thing? Maybe you think a
bright shiny new box would be a suitable location for the symphony to perform? For many of us, Abravanel Hall is
one of the crown jewels of our city. A beautiful building where you can immerse yourself in the arts. It’s something
we feel proud of. You can’t keep bulldozing the things that make our city special and expect people to keep loving
it. Economic development and historical preservation must be given equal consideration. This deal must include
protection of Abravanel Hall. Period. Sincerely, Denise Morgan
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/8/2024 16:26 Bim OIiver Oppose the tax increase Dear Council Member Puy: I'm writing to strongly encourage your opposition to the proposed sales tax increase
intended to finance the Smith Entertainment Group’s “revitalization zone.” The proposal by Smith Entertainment
Group is full of self-interest and entirely lacking in any understanding of the real needs of Salt Lake City and its
residents (e.g. “Allowing SEG to keep the money generated by the sales tax increase for 30 years…” Salt Lake
Tribune) SEG has presented no real plan—just some vague, idealized concepts—so any projections of economic
activity are, to say the least, speculative and certainly don’t justify public sector financing. Any serious
development proposal—i.e. one that projects valid and reliable returns—can and should be financed entirely by
the private sector. There are much more immediate public priorities in Salt Lake City that might justify a sales tax
increase. Roads throughout the city are in terrible condition, and congestion is worsening. We continue to grapple
with homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. And downtown development presents enough challenges
without the complexities of such a broad yet poorly defined “revitalization” initiative. For these and other reasons,
the proposed tax increase represents public policy at its worst—misguided and misdirected without substantive
public benefit—and I strongly encourage your opposition. I should note that I am writing you even though I don’t
live in your district, because the decision to approve the proposed tax increase will directly affect me, my
neighbors, and residents throughout the city—especially those for whom any tax increase will be a hardship. Thank
you for your attention. Bim Oliver Salt Lake City
5/8/2024 16:31 Sarah Richards Don't touch Abravanel don't hike my taxes Here is what over size stadiums have done to other cities: https://youtu.be/5F2Ra9FYYbw?si=9iiFM2V8pKlchVX8
https://youtu.be/rHErCY2PZNU?si=1xQd-CLUlUzlxt3T https://youtu.be/twmSsIStmIk?si=kITFxUq7wxxQI6CL
https://youtu.be/xcwJt4bcnXs?si=yKGbOV5QnL0Dg6k- I already pay for a bunch of crap in this city that I don't
want and disagree with. I DO care about and utilize Abravanel Hall. Tearing it down is the historical equivalent of
tearing down the Paris Opera house, or La Scala in Italy when it come to Utah history and the history of arts in the
west. And if you don't know what those buildings are, then you shouldn't be in charge of deciding the fate of this
historic concept hall. There is s wrong enough community surrounding Abravanel and its programs that if it needs
to be funding by the city, so be it. We'll keep it going ourselves. But don't use MY income to destroy it and build
something I don't want. Nothing about hockey. I'd love for them to have their hockey dreams come true. But it
shouldn't be at the expense of an already established and highly valued venue. Sarah Richards
5/9/2024 9:18 Tom Huckin Abravanel Hall Dear Chris: We are longtime classical music lovers and longtime patrons of Abravanel Hall. Yesterday we read
about billionaire Ryan Smith’s plan to create an “entertainment district” downtown that could include the
demolition of Abravanel. That would be disastrous! Abravanel Hall is one of the foremost symphony concert halls
in the entire country and is home to one of the nation’s foremost symphony orchestras. Set back from a busy
intersection, it’s also one of the city’s few attractive buildings. Inside, of course, it houses a unique Chihuly glass
sculpture. All seats have clear views of the stage and the acoustics are wonderful. Destroying such a beautiful
building just to satisfy the whims of a tech billionaire would be outrageous! It could never be rebuilt to its current
standard. It would forever be a blot on Salt Lake City’s national reputation. We urge you to do everything you can to
protect this unique city institution! Thank you. Sincerely, Tom & Christiane Huckin
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/9/2024 9:21 Elizabeth Mcknight Concerns about SLC Downtown plans Hi Chris! Thank you for the work you do on our behalf in Marmalade. I am hearing concerning rumors about the
plans to require SLC taxpayers alone to support expansion of the Salt Palace through a 0.5% tax increase, as
dictated by the anti-Salt Lake City State Legislature. I have also heard that Abravanel Hall is under threat of the
wrecking ball as part of this expansion. There hasn’t been an effort to connect with Salt Lake Citizens about the
downsides of this plan. Please address these concerns at the council meeting tonight. Thank you! Elizabeth
McKnight
5/9/2024 9:25 Barbara Cramer Abravanel Hall Dear Chris, It is ESSENTIAL that we keep the symphony and our wonderful Abravanel Hall in downtown. Please
don't allow the rich sports fanatics to take over. One of the reasons we love living in the Avenues is the proximity to
the arts. That hall belongs to the people, and unless a majority of us want to sell it to the hockey people, it should
stay! Please! Barbara Cramer
5/9/2024 9:35 Kerry Wickman Abravanel Hall Dear Councilman Wharton, As a side note to why I am writing, let me first mention that you took my daughter,
Elena Wickman to see Hamilton a number of years back when she won some sort of historical/political writing
contest at West High School. Thank you so kindly for that. It was an amazing opportunity for her. She's never
forgotten your generosity. Now for my other purpose in writing. I just received news that a major league NHL
hockey team is headed to SLC and that the team's new owner, Ryan Smith, is asking Salt Lake County for a 99-year
lease on 100-acres of downtown property, which would include a 0.5% Salt Lake City sales tax to re-develop the
property. Rumor has it that this project may well include the destruction of Abravanel Hall, with neither plans nor
funds to replace this incredible architectural and artistic icon in the heart of our beautiful city. Firstly, I believe that
a vigorous arts scene is essential to any vibrant city. Large sports arenas are not what we need. Secondly,
Abravanel Hall is still young, strong and incredibly useful. I've seen many amazing concerts, programs and
performances there, and hope to see many more. I see no reason to destroy it. Please speak out on this issue and
vote to stipulate that Abravanel Hall's 5 acres is omitted from Ryan Smith's 100 acre request. We paid for
Abravanel Hall and it is our to keep. I hope you feel the same. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Kerry Wickman
5/9/2024 9:40 David SCHEER Abravanel Hall Hi Chris- I’m very concerned about the plan for a sports complex that threatens Abravanel Hall. Abravanel Hall is a
gem of a building, both the handsome exterior that makes a great urban space, and the interior, which is not only
dramatic and beautiful but the hall itself which has among the best acoustics in the world. It received an national
AIA award for its 25th anniversary. The building is literally irreplaceable. Practically speaking, no one will be willing
to spend the money to build an equally beautiful and functional hall. Tearing it down to make room for a
commercial sports mall would be unconscionable. I hope you will do everything you can to make sure this doesn’t
happen. Best, David David Scheer
5/9/2024 9:43 Ali Barnes Abravanel Hall Dear Mr Wharton, While I am very happy to have downtown SLC become a center for sports, please do NOT let us
lose Abravanel Hall. We need both culture and sports to be a vibrant city. Please do not allow the five acres that
the Hall sits on to be included in Ryan Smith’s plan. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. We can have the best of
both worlds with creative planning. Thank you for your time and service. Alice Barnes
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/9/2024 10:30 Jonathan Ramras NHL impact on Abravenal Hall I am a member of the ECC. We sat down with EVA and discussed the impact of NHL Downtown. I am in agreement
with supporting the NHL deal but do not want to fully bend over and accept every part of what the Smith group
wants. Eva has a list of items ECC suggested. I am writing as an independent citizen on this message. Abravanel
Hall is an ICONIC Architectural landmark in the City and can be considered a national treasure. the acoustics in
the existing space to one of the best in the country if not the world. It is part of the history of the city in line with
other Church owned facilities and the City County Bldg to mention a few. This Bldg MUST NOT be torn down....!
Perhaps the arts space could be modified or moved but not the Hall. Thank you for your concidereation.
5/9/2024 15:10 Rick Glem Phone call to City Council I would like to express my feeling about the Utilities increase, You guys doing it every years, You are pushing us
who's living on the budget that event afraid to flush the toilet. This is abuse. You can use the money on adding the
bike lane but why don't you use that money on the utility issues and helping people. If you have any problems you
can contact me
5/9/2024 16:05 Marguerite Henderson Abravanel Hall I’m hearing a half dozen different stories on what the two mayors are in favor of doing with the Abravanel Halk? We
don’t want it torn down for a “sports & entertainment” facility! Where are we on this? SLTrib said you’re in favor of
demolishing it! Please give me a straight answer! Thank you! Marguerite Henderson
5/9/2024 16:07 Amanda Brown Abravanel Hall Must Be Saved Dear Council, We were season subscribers last year to the Utah Symphony and have attended concerts in
Abravanel Hall for decades. Tearing it down and replacing it with a hockey stadium is reprehensible and using tax
payers' money do so is unacceptable. Classical music lovers and supporters of arts and culture will stand up
against this action. In Sincerity, Amanda Brown Utah resident
5/10/2024 9:06 Krista Cook Rose Park Baseball League I must have had tech difficulties because I got on at 7 :( I just wanted to say thank you on behalf of rose park
baseball for efforts to help our league continue! It means everything to our community.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 9:10 Hannah Thomas-Hollands 5/7 city council work session concerns Dear Councilwoman Petro, I watched the livestream of yesterday afternoon’s city council meeting regarding the
downtown revitalization zone and was very disappointed with the lack of substantive questions for Mike Maughan
of SEG representative, Mayor Mendenhall, or Mayor Wilson. The majority of the council lauded SEG’s transparency
and benevolence to invest in our city, but I left with more questions than answers. First and foremost, as a tax
paying Salt Laker I am outraged that any portion of the sales tax increase would be funneled directly to SEG.
Municipal taxes should be administered by and for our government ONLY, and I struggle to understand how this is
even legal, let alone the best solution. I cannot believe that this anti-democratic scheme was not probed for further
explanation. Additionally, there were so few details given during the SEG presentation - but I fear that this was
strategic. If SEG is only selling lofty promises with no specificity, we as a city don’t actually know what we’re
buying. Hearsay of these plans has shifted many times in these past few weeks, and impacted organizations (like
the Utah Symphony) are affected TODAY by the loud churning of the rumor mill. This has become a very high-
profile issue for our city, and SEG is putting the cart before the horse. Their urgent demand for significant buy-in
does not match their preparedness in planning - or at least their willingness to share their plans. On top of this, I’m
wondering what keeps SEC (and their investments) at the table if the venture isn’t as profitable as they project. It is
not uncommon for franchise sports teams to be bought and sold - so what happens then? I realize it’s unromantic
to think about a prenup before the wedding, but when this amount of funding is at stake, precautions must be
taken. I’m sure it’s frustrating when government moves slowly. We live in a lightning-speed society of instant
gratification, and SEG’s promises are alluring. However, the size and scope of SEG’s vision for downtown demands
the plodding, thankless work that is democracy. We citizens of Salt Lake City deserve the thriving, interconnected
version of downtown that we heard about - but on our terms, not on the whims of a billionaire. Sincerely, Hannah
Thomas-Hollands Rose Park
5/10/2024 9:34 Bim OIiver Oppose the tax increase Dear Council Member Petro: I'm writing to strongly encourage your opposition to the proposed sales tax increase
intended to finance the Smith Entertainment Group’s “revitalization zone.” The proposal by Smith Entertainment
Group is full of self-interest and entirely lacking in any understanding of the real needs of Salt Lake City and its
residents (e.g. “Allowing SEG to keep the money generated by the sales tax increase for 30 years…” Salt Lake
Tribune) SEG has presented no real plan—just some vague, idealized concepts—so any projections of economic
activity are, to say the least, speculative and certainly don’t justify public sector financing. Any serious
development proposal—i.e. one that projects valid and reliable returns—can and should be financed entirely by
the private sector. There are much more immediate public priorities in Salt Lake City that might justify a sales tax
increase. Roads throughout the city are in terrible condition, and congestion is worsening. We continue to grapple
with homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. And downtown development presents enough challenges
without the complexities of such a broad yet poorly defined “revitalization” initiative. For these and other reasons,
the proposed tax increase represents public policy at its worst—misguided and misdirected without substantive
public benefit—and I strongly encourage your opposition. I should note that I am writing you even though I don’t
live in your district, because the decision to approve the proposed tax increase will directly affect me, my
neighbors, and residents throughout the city—especially those for whom any tax increase will be a hardship. Thank
you for your attention. Bim Oliver
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 9:35 Jeannine Marlowe Abravanel Hall tear down / D6 Mr. Dugan, there are rumors and suggestions that Abravanal Hall could be torn down to make room for the new
sports center in downtown SLC. If this is true it absolutely must NOT happen. Abravanal Hall is one of the few
treasurers in Salt Lake city and must be preserved at all costs and measures. I have very mixed feelings about this
whole proposed project--more construction downtown when it is already a nightmare down there to drive, walk
and park plus no use of tax payers money should be used to benefit the already wealthiest of our State. On my
opinion, Ryan Smith is out of control trying to be totally in control of the city. Also, last night I was so pleased to see
a police officer flagging speeder on 18th East by the school. As he said, people speed here. Yes they do and it's
getting worse. We need a neighborhood campaign to help with this. People are going to get hurt, again. Please let
me know of what you are aware of--Thank you, Jeannine Marlowe
5/10/2024 9:37 Mercedes Smith Abravanel Hall Dear Dan, The idea of a wrecking ball smashing into Abravanel Hall affects me so viscerally, so violently, that I had
to write to you directly. It feels reckless to propose so cavalierly the destruction of one of the few truly beautiful
structures in Salt Lake City. I fear that it’s taken for granted the rarity of having a hall that combines the tasteful
opulence, aesthetic balance, and pleasing acoustics of Abravanel. It feels calloused to so flippantly raze a building
that was built with money provided by county residents by ballot initiative. I have many questions. • If AH is rebuilt
within the revitalization zone exactly what money will be paying for the new hall? (the bond/tax?) • If the above
happens, will SEG be our landlord? Would there be county or city oversight? • If a new hall is built at a different
location downtown, where will the money come from? (are you going to make the symphony put forth its own
bill/request to voters for public funding AFTER citizens have already had the new tax burden upon them? •
Supposedly renovating AH may be more expensive than building new -based on what hard information? Do you
have renovation quotes or bids from multiple firms to prove this? • Have you considered that there may be more
community blowback than expected if it appears the city/county "let" a billionaire knock down a world-class
architectural gem that has outstanding acoustics, and was already built and paid for by the taxpayers? I'm all for
revitalizing the area between AH and the Delta Center, but even that revitalization (surrounding construction/our
temporary displacement) will have a negative financial impact on USUO (the State's largest performing arts non-
profit). Therefore, a significant portion of the funds from the bond/tax should be allocated to the renovation of AH
and ensuring that a billionaire's sports and entertainment district has no negative impact whatsoever on the
architectural treasure that is Abravanel Hall and its resident performers. I urge the city and county to: • Preserve
and renovate Abravanel Hall using a portion of the Revitalization Zone funds and do not allow SEG to become the
landlord AH • Make the east end of the revitalization district an Arts Complex (preserve Abravanel hall, museum,
adding a new Opera House, etc) equal in weight and importance to the Delta Center on the west end. The arena
and concert hall should anchor each end of the revitalized area. Thank you for your time. Onward, Mercedes Smith
Principal Flute, Utah Symphony
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 9:37 Jeannine Marlowe today's 3:55 meeting I am dismayed and more concerned than ever after viewing the meeting with SEG--I have never seen or heard so
much ass-kissing. Obviously, everything is a go and a done deal. I would like to comment on your very valid
comment about your constituents not feeling welcome in downtown. I so agree with you and it is a huge concern.
However, It is not buildings that keep people apart; it is attitudes, stereotypes and, frankly, racism that must be
overcome. I agree, that the opening up of the area would be helpful but I suspect that it is the other that will keep
your friends from this new mecca. The question is and always has been how to bridge the sides--it's not be tearing
down of building and building new ones. I am 75 years old and a forever resident of SLC and this issue has always
been a problem. Believe me, tearing down buildings and building mighty arenas will not be the answer. I wish I had
the answer. That's what we should be working towards as a community.
5/10/2024 9:39 David Porter Abravanel Hall and SEG / D6 Dear Councilman Dugan, Thank you for serving your District 4 constituents so ably and advocating for Salt Lake
City in general. My name is David, and I am a musician in the Utah Symphony, having played in the ensemble for
almost thirty years now. Like so many of us in the orchestra and in the community, Abravanel Hall has a special
place in my heart. At this point in my career, I have played thousands of concerts at this beautiful venue, a gift to
the community from Salt Lake taxpayers. Many of these concerts have been free concerts for children from all over
the valley, often their first concert experience. I love watching our young audiences experience the hall for the first
time, their eye full of wonder, captivated by Abravanel’s legendary acoustics and beauty. Our Salt Lake City
community needs a strong and vital arts presence in downtown, and our community illustrated the depth of their
commitment to the arts when they voted to pay for Abravanel Hall via ballot initiative. It feels reckless to propose
so cavalierly the destruction of one of the few truly beautiful structures in Salt Lake City. I fear that we take for
granted the rarity of having a hall that combines the tasteful opulence, aesthetic balance, and pleasing acoustics
of Abravanel. Money should be allocated for its preservation and refurbishment before any agreement is entered
into with SEG. It feels calloused to so flippantly raise a building that was built with money provided by county
residents by ballot initiative. All should not be at the mercy of expediency. I also have a separate question
regarding the agreement with SEG. Am I understanding correctly that SEG is required to keep only one professional
team in Salt Lake City to fulfill their agreement with the state and local government? So, hypothetically, it would be
possible to for SEG to sell the Jazz but retain the Coyotes? Beyond keeping a sports team here, are there any other
requirements regarding what they build and how, or a requirement for them to spend all the tax monies they
receive within a certain timeframe? Gratefully, David David Porter
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 9:41 Veronica Kulig Vote NO!Dear Mr. Dugan, My name is Veronica Kulig and I am a citizen of Cottonwood Heights, UT. I have been a resident in
the state of Utah since October, 1991 when I was hired as a violinist for the Utah Symphony following a national
audition. My previous residences were in Boston, Massachusetts and Bloomfield, Connecticut. I am a graduate of
Boston University and the New England Conservatory of Music. One of the marvelous things that I first noticed
upon arriving in Utah was of the appreciation for arts and culture. Salt Lake City is home to a full-time symphony
orchestra, an opera company and a ballet company to name a few. Stepping onto the stage of Abravanel for the
first time was an experience I will never forget. Abravanel Hall, which the symphony calls its home ranks as one of
the finest concert halls in the nation, both acoustically and aesthetically. The gentleman who was the acoustic
engineer, Cyril M. Harris is world renowned. Abravanel Hall opened in 1979 at the cost of twelve million dollars,
approximately fifty-two million today. The construction took three years. The design committee included Maurice
Abravanel, O. C. Tanner and Jack Tanner, among others. Abravanel Hall was designed strictly as a concert hall.
Abravanel Hall is a local and national treasure. The balconies inside Abravanel Hall and in the lobby are covered
with gold leaf, imported from Italy and purchased by O. C. Tanner. The brass chandeliers include 1,8000 hand cut
Bohemian crystals imported from Austria and Czechoslovakia. A beautiful glass tower by Dale Chihuly adorns the
lobby of Abravanel Hall. If you have never heard the Utah Symphony play a concert in Abravanel Hall or have never
experienced the pure aesthetic beauty of this treasure, I strongly urge you to do so. Upon hearing of the imminent
razing of this historical, iconic and gorgeous treasure, I thought it was a joke. Sadly, it is not a joke. Our politicians
are ready and willing to raze Abravanel Hall. This is a mockery of all that is great in Utah. Please consider the
people who you represent! Additionally, I do not want to pay a one-half percent increase in sales tax only to have it
go directly into the pocket of a billionaire who does not represent my values. The cost of living in Utah is already
exceedingly high for most families and citizens of Utah. This tax will cost Utah families approximately one-hundred
dollars per year. Please reconsider your choice to demolish this treasure! Sincerely, Veronica H. Kulig, Utah
Symphony Violinist (1991-present) ICSOM Delegate, Utah Symphony|Utah Opera
5/10/2024 9:43 Lily Martindale Concerns Regarding Abravanel Hall Dear Salt Lake City Council Members, My name is Lily Martindale. I am writing to express my concern about the
potential destruction of historic Abravanel Hall for Utah’s new NHL team. I grew up in Herriman, with music and
the arts playing a very influential role in my life. My mom is a classically trained pianist who studied at the
University of Utah, and I recall early memories of her performing solo or with the Utah Symphony at Abravanel Hall.
In high school, I joined my school’s orchestra and symphony club, which was an amazing opportunity for students
to attend performances downtown, including at Abravanel Hall. These performances inspired me and enriched my
life, fostering an appreciation for music and the ability it has to connect and empower people. Recently, I heard
about the potential removal of Abravanel Hall to make room for Utah’s NHL team. While I am excited for this team
and the opportunities it brings to our state, I am saddened to hear that it may come at the expense of the arts in
Salt Lake City. If this is the case, will Abravanel Hall be rebuilt? Where would that funding come from, when Smith
Entertainment Group has already requested a 0.5% sales and use tax to fund the new sports developments? I
implore you to please consider the community benefits brought by Abravanel Hall, the livelihood of musicians, and
the historic value of the venue when making your decision regarding Smith Entertainment Group’s proposal. Thank
you for your time. Sincerely, Lily Martindale Utah Resident
5/10/2024 9:44 Steve Boyer Abravanel Hall Please please please do everything possible to save Abravanel Hall!! This architectural jewel in the heart of our
city brings joy and culture to so many. It has been a beloved gathering place hosting a diverse array of events for
the community. We are begging you - Please do not let it be demolished!
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 9:55 Norm Ad Comment It's disheartening to learn that Ryan Smith wants to obtain the property east of the Delta Center where Abravanal
hall sits. One can only imagine what his plans are. My guess is it would be torn down to make way for something
that fits his vision of what our downtown Salt Lake should look like. From what I understand in five years the
property could not be touched. I assume this is why Mr. Smith would want the property now. it is all fine and well to
let him develop his entertainment district but we do not need his group to decide what all of downtown should be.
Can we please hit the brakes a bit? Respectfully Submitted, Marianne Campbell
5/10/2024 9:56 Denise Chancellor Entertainment redo Hi Dan, I am appalled that Abravanel Hall may be demolished to make way for a new “entertainment” swath in
downtown Salt Lake City, as envisioned by entrepreneur Ryan Smith. First, Abravanel Hall provides entertainment.
Second, the building is iconic. Salt Lake already has a dearth of new cookie cutter buildings; we don’t want or need
more of them. Third, I thought I could count on you to not waste resources. Abravanel Hall still has many years of
useful life. Why squander taxpayer money by ripping it down. Fourth, where are the funds to come from to rebuild a
new symphony hall and where will it be located? I am totally opposed to this marina about a new sports center.
Such venues have a proven record of being money losers. This pie in the sky dream at taxpayers’ expense will be
not exception. Denise Chancellor
5/10/2024 9:58 Shauna Sloan Save Abravenal Hall Mr. Dugan, I am extremely concerned about the proposal to renovate or replace Symphony Hall. This is a beautiful
structure with a critical function for our city. We cannot allow a local billionaire to destroy the arts in our city -- not
to mention forcing city taxpayers to pay for a new stadium for 30 years. If Ryan Smith wants a hockey stadium, let
him build it at the Fairpark! Leave Abravanel Hall alone! Sincerely, Shauna Sloan
5/10/2024 9:59 Paula Morris Abravenal Hall After reading Ryan Smith's application I, and thousands of others, want to know what will happen to Abravanel
Hall. The application mentions leasing the land where Abravanel Hall currently resides. It also mentions significant
alternations to roads, etc. There is now a petition on change.org started by a young man in the Utah Youth
Symphony. He posted it on Saturday and it now has 15,000 signatures. That's 15,000 signatures in only 3 days.
https://www.change.org/p/save-abravanel-hall Sign the Petition Save Abravanel Hall www.change.org I hope the
City Council recognizes the importance of Abravanel Hall. It would be an immeasurable loss for any changes to the
building or to move it. By the way, the Chihuly art piece cannot be moved by contract with Dale Chihuly. Someone
should look that up. Again, our family is opposed to the sales tax increase. SLC voters should get a chance to vote
on the issue, not just the City Council. Paula Morris
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 10:00 Heather Severson Abravenal Hall Dear Mr. Dugan, I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the future of Abravanel Hall as discussions
about its potential demise are circulating. I think it is a huge mistake to even entertain the possibility of
demolishing it in favor of a sports and entertainment district. There are so many reasons this should not even be on
the table: • It would lead to an entire group of musicians losing their livelihood without a suitable hall to play in. •
Even if a new hall was built, the best of the best musicians in Utah would go elsewhere in the meantime. • The
beautiful acoustics of the hall and the unique design cannot be replicated. • It would be a huge waste of resources
and money to tear it down and build something else. We should preserve the past, not try to replace it with the
newest, shiniest thing. • Having a world-class orchestra downtown is vital to being a true metropolitan center. If
you look at any of the major cities in the U.S. they all have a similar facility and organization. • We are fortunate to
have one of the most beautiful halls in the United States, especially compared to other cities of a similar size. I
could go on and on, but I suppose that will suffice. I invite you to attend a concert or two as soon as possible (might
I recommend the upcoming May 17-18 presentation of Scheherazade) so you can personally experience the power
of live music in a world class hall. It would be a shame to make a decision to tear down such a landmark without
having first done the research to understand its value and beauty. Thank you for your time. Please show the people
of Salt Lake and Utah that you support us and what we value and not just the all-too-powerful developers and their
big bucks. Sincerely, Heather Severson
5/10/2024 10:01 Lisette Gibson Abravanel Hall Hello Dan, Since you are our representative at the City, I am hoping you can shed some light on the Abravanel hall
articles and petitions that are popping up regarding its demise-destruction over hockey coming to Salt Lake. There
was a SLTrib article a day or two ago. I’m sure you saw it. Also, we strongly object and oppose to having Abravanel
Hall destroyed. It is a treasure. Also, Salt Lake City residents / taxpayers should not be hit up for paying for any of
the hockey team‘s future building. This includes the possibly removal of Abravanel Hall which we as residents
probably helped pay for. A prompt reply would be appreciated. Lisette Gibson Salt Lake City resident (District 6).
5/10/2024 13:27 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail call to City Council Re: SEG &
Homelessness
Hi, I am just calling to suggest that sometime in the near future the Mayor and her Council will actually do
something and will follow through with a proposal to actually do something for the homeless rather than the mega-
rich that want to build a sports dynasty.
5/10/2024 13:29 Sara Penny Please Save Abravanel Hall Abravanel Hall is a state jewel. It serves not just Salt Lake, but all of Utah. I have brought students from Cedar City
for performances over the years as well as purchasing tickets for my daughter's family that lives in northern Utah. I
am old enough that I was able to meet Maurice Abravanel when he came to Cedar City in the 60s. He was a
musical giant who left us a great legacy. This hall represents much more than a disposable building. It is absolutely
essential that it be preserved. Thank you for your service. Best wishes, Sara Penny
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/10/2024 13:33 Eric Povilus SLC Budget Thoughts / Opinions SLC Council Members: Here are my thoughts and input for the upcoming Budget cycle: (1) ROADS, ROADS, and
ROADS… we need some serious maintenance increase and attention to filling potholes and basic resurfacing.
Money has been robbed and taken away from street maintenance during the past years. We do not need elaborate
reconstruction of streets, we do not need new curbs/gutters, and we do not need new bike lanes… we do not need
to spend excess dollars on speed control mechanisms… we just need BASIC STREET RESURFACING
EVERYWHERE. (2) PARKS, PARKS, and PARKS… how about actually spending and funding BASIC Park
maintenance? Our parks stink. As a youth soccer coach it is day and night from 10 years ago to today. (3) I implore
you NOT to add additional funding to the Mayor’s pet projects of homelessness, social related staff, affordable
housing… spend what we have as last year’s baseline but do NOT increase… use those proposed increases to fund
and fix STREETS, ROADS, CRIME PREVENTION for the CURRENT RESIDENTS. It is not hard to see why the SLCSD is
shrinking and why middle/upper class families are moving out of SLC. (4) Lastly, I am AGAINST any tax increases
the Mayor is asking for. Our basic services are getting worse and stink… until the Mayor can figure out how to run
city basics (streets, parks, police, etc) and not prioritize pet projects I am against all additional taxes. Let’s get
back to managing and funding the BASICS and core infrastructure. Regards Eric Povilus
5/10/2024 16:45 Taylor Allan New Entertainment District With the new entertainment district coming to SLC it's imperative that we keep UMOCA as a part of it. Art brings us
together as a community and enriches the lives of everyone! UMOCA does so many positive things for the public
and for children. They give artists a place to exhibit and work and spark important discussions. They support local
artists and add so much value to the community. Please keep this all in mind while making decisions about this
new district. Thank you! Taylor Allan
5/10/2024 16:49 Sarah Blomgren Phone call to City Council Caller states: they are so sad to see that people may want to tear down Abravanel Hall. There are not many
symphonies left in the US but Utah has the best. I have been going to the symphony for 25 years. No one can re-
build how they use to with integrity. Everything uses cheaper materials and won't have the same historic feel.
Downtown is losing its history to newer buildings that are not built well. Please do not let this happen, it isn't good
at all.
5/11/2024 8:14 Anonymous Constituent I don't want this or a tax hike I find it unconscionable in an inflationary period headed towards stagflation that this is district, much less its
accompanying tax hike, is being proposed at all. Many people live in the city who are struggling - beyond the
incredible homeless problem! - and this project feels like an incredibly myopic dream of the out of touch - as in
poverty literally doesn't touch them or concern them, so raising up sports teams on the back of the whole city,
which again, still includes working class people like myself, at least until taxes like this shove me out! At least let
the affluent who shop and eat and overspend in the initial proposed blocks for the tax pay for it, although by
widening it to the entire city, I assume you don't want those who benefit and can afford it to pay for it alone! Shame
on you, etc., but it's clear you don't care for my type as a citizen, except to bleed my small paycheck. Won't repeal
the regressive food tax, but will add to the burden for sports!
5/11/2024 8:31 L c Guertin Capital City Revitalization Zone I am incredible enthusiastic about having an NHL team however, what is great about Salt Lake are the mountains.
To be able to see the mountains for every citizen is a gift. Currently there are vacant buildings that can house
businesses without taking away from the culture of the city and turning it into every other high rise city. Please
KEEP the building height restrictions in place. Thank you.
5/11/2024 8:34 Anonymous Constituent Building heights should be maintained We want open spaces and the ability to see the sky even downtown. Both for historic districts like Japantown and
for green spaces.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/11/2024 8:42 Erin Svoboda-Scott Save Abravanel Hall Please do everything you can to find a solution that includes Abravanel Hall, at least the interior hall, as it is, with
the scheduled renovations. I don’t know why, but building a concert hall with suburb acoustics seems to be a
nearly impossible thing to do, and we have one of the acoustically best halls in the country. That, with the beauty of
the hall and its rich history and tradition within the community give it a unique place in the culture of Salt Lake City.
A new hall that even comes close to the quality of Abravanel would be astronomically expensive and it would
undoubtably have worse acoustics, given that the science is so hit and miss. The Utah Symphony’s fate as a top-
tier orchestra is at stake. As a nonprofit, any time the symphony spends during the gap years of renovation or
rebuild will drastically affect the bottom line, which could have far-reaching affects for the organization. My very
real fear is that what you decide could either propel the Utah Symphony forward or cause it to decline, slowly
decreasing until it is no more than a community orchestra, as it was in the time before Maurice Abravanel and his
namesake hall. Please protect Abravanel Hall and the Utah Symphony. I understand that the hall is in the direct
path between the Delta Center and City Creek. Can the path be curved or diagonal to accommodate the hall? Can
a slice of the building be taken off while keeping the interior? I think there are many creative options here that
would be a win-win for all.
5/11/2024 9:31 Jenise Jensen Concerns about tax raise and downtown While I am not much of a sports fan (especially hockey), I am always excited about ways that SLC can find ways to
build its energy and connect with the world. For this reason, I have been a proponent of another Olympics here. I
have significant concerns, however, about proposals that will change the nature of our beautiful downtown for the
sake of one industry and one already very rich business man. The placement of this arena and complex downtown
does not make sense. The west side is much more open and vitally in need of some influx of such development.
Think about Denver did this with their sports arenas. I also do not support the idea of having to pay for something
that will not better SLC as it is currently proposed, but will certainly benefit Ryan Smith.
5/11/2024 10:36 Raquel Cook Ryan Smith's proposal Abravanel Hall should be renovated and kept as an integral part of the proposed development.
5/11/2024 10:57 Andrew HUFFAKER No tax increase for hockey A tax increase to pay for a billionaire’s arena is a bad idea in light of the many issues our city faces (affordable
housing, homelessness, ballpark neighborhood, air quality, etc). An even worse idea is to let a billionaire, who has
never lived in SLC to plan the future of our downtown.
5/11/2024 11:33 Mark Barone I-80 and I-15 Speed LImit 70 mph There are so any vehicles entering and exiting along I-80 and I-15 near urban centers. I think 70 Miles Per Hour is
too fast and unsafe ! Thanks for your help, Mark
5/11/2024 11:46 Elisha Condie Proposed downtown sports complex I am asking that the City Council give a RESOUNDING NO to the request by Ryan Smith to build a sports complex
where Abravanel Hall currently stands. Abravanel Hall is a landmark in this city, a beautiful building which serves
Salt Lake citizens so well. I'm not even much of a symphony lover but have been to many many events at Abravanel
with my family including film series and performances which we love. Utah has a long history of valuing the arts -
while we are one of the youngest states in the country we have the oldest state funded arts council in the whole
nation (turning 125 this year). Please, please do not throw away this beautiful space and years of history for a new
sports complex. It can be built anywhere. It does not need to be in the spot where something important already is.
5/11/2024 13:29 Anonymous Constituent Abravanel Hall Leave Abravanel Hall where it is! Don’t let Big Money tear it down to make room for a sports complex. That can go
lots of other places…
5/11/2024 17:11 Anonymous Constituent Abravanel Hall Please do not tear down Abravanel Hall!!! The last thing our downtown area needs is something that will add to
traffic and congestion. The layout of downtown Salt Lake isn't meant to accommodate that much traffic.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/11/2024 17:35 Wendy Blankenship Save the Symphony and Abravanal Hall Please vote to save the Utah Symphony’s performance space and the building that is central to our arts
community.
5/11/2024 19:28 Brandi Chase Proposed SLC Downtown Sports Complex I am opposed to a tax increase to fund this distasteful and wasteful project.
5/11/2024 20:43 Nicole Mihalopoulos Abravanel Hall and SEG Dear Council, I am writing in opposition to the plan to demolish Abravanel Hall to create space for an ice rink for
SEG. Abravanel Hall is acoustically wonderful for enjoying performances by the Utah Symphony as well as other
entertainers. The cost to build a comparable structure is far greater than identifying a different location for adding
another professional sporting space. I am also opposed to a tax increase to support building a new ice space. If
there will be a tax increase, it should support public education. Thank you for your consideration.
5/11/2024 23:04 Anonymous Constituent Development Ryan Smith Concern that this whole project says nothing about what gentrification means for the working class people how do
you address the unaffordable housing issues and shortage which would surely be a result me and my spouse love
downtown slc and the west side please don’t make it even more unaffordable-please address these issues!!!
5/12/2024 0:04 Kay Honaker Abravanel Hall is more important than a
sports complex
We have had a world-class symphony orchestra for decades. The very thought of destroying its home so Utah can
have even more sports (and who goes to hockey now? What makes you think a pro team will get more attendance?)
is ridiculous. I also resent a raise in my taxes to pay for a sports complex I will never use. If they can't be self
sufficient (and why can't the billionaire fund his own toys?) maybe they should go somewhere else.
5/12/2024 0:27 Charlotte Milker Public Restrooms While making changes find a way to provide public restrooms for people, including homeless people. Possibly
build a structure that contains basic toilets and sinks, with a security person available who could watch for
inappropriate use. People walking in the city would not have to find a store owner to allow them to use a restroom
and homeless people would not be limited to bushes, trees and corners creating odors, sanitary issues, etc.
Maintaining these toilets could be less expensive than the alternative if ignoring the need.
5/12/2024 0:35 Casey V Carrigan The secret sauce **Attachment 2 One image defines our understanding of this project. The dramatized delta center is incredibly welcoming, and I'll
tell you why: there is not a single car in the image. If you live in SLC you can really only comprehend this if you've
travelled internationally, because currently this type of environment can be found nowhere in the state! My
questions: If SLC can't even commit to closing its own main street to cars, how are we, the citizen funders of this
endeavor, to believe that this image is anything but a lie? What's the plan to make it real? A slick marketing group
decided that SLC residents want a huge car free pedestrian plaza in the center of downtown. What assurances do
we have that the result will resemble the image? Because I think they're trying to sell us Florence, Italy while
delivering mall-of-america nonsense.
5/12/2024 7:20 Karen Ellis Please don’t subsidize a stadium.I am opposed to the proposed tax increase to pay for a stadium. I do not think Salt Lake City residents (including
myself) should be forced to pay for stadium which benefits only its owner. If the sports team does not want to profit
share with residents- then residents should not be forced to pay its bills. It is unfair to place the burden of paying
for a billionaires new team on the residents - many of whom are already financially struggling and for whom
additional taxes are a material burden.
Attachment 2 - Page 1
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/12/2024 13:33 Louise Schenk Against Sport Entertainment District I have heard this idea before, if only we had more walkable areas in our city! Imagine what it could be! It’s the story
that was told around the development of the Gateway. It’s the story behind City Creek Mall. Main Street
revitalisation. Gateway is a ghost town. City Creek is a luxury playground. Ryan Smith’s idea is one person’s idea
that will remake our lives. My favorite cities in the world, and the best urban streets inside of them are owned by
lots of different people, and reflect the diverse ideas, lives and capabilities of those people. When we allow
wealthy individuals and developers to raze chunks of the city and redesign it in their own image, we lose the
diverse, interesting bubbling that makes cities fun places to live. Salt Lake’s best places, 9th South, Main Street,
are cozy streets where everyone can bring and contribute their idea of a good life. Too much of any single persons
idea… and we can’t find ourselves there.
5/12/2024 18:37 Paul Sampson Sports Entertainment District Dear Sir or Ma'am, Please don't raise taxes one penny to provide welfare to Ryan Smith and the Smith
Entertainment Group. If you do, my family and I will never spend another penny in that district again. History from
all over the country has shown that these deals turn out to be great for the developers and sports team owners and
terrible for the taxpayers and small businesses that lose customers to the developers who received the corporate
welfare. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Paul Sampson
5/13/2024 6:43 Becca Tollison Overfunding of police The current budget proposal shows that around $119 million is planned to go to policing. This is excessive and
more than double ANY other section on the proposal. I believe that policing should receive no more than $80
million, and the other $39 million should be reallocated to help improve our community in a more tangible way,
like: -paying off school lunch debt, and giving more access to school lunch for all students -improving our schools
and giving our educators more appropriate wages -creating more resource centers for displaced/homeless/lgtbq
youth -resources to rehabilitate the growing homeless population Again, I do not agree with the overfunding of
police and want those monies to be reallocated to serve the population in a better way rather than line the pockets
of a group that already receives too much and does not do enough to actually protect and serve the people.
5/13/2024 7:01 Darrell WILLIAMS Taxes Why would you put more of a burden on tax payers. With Biden screwing up the hole Country. Stop the madness
SLC.
5/13/2024 9:37 Ethan Ensign Hockey stadium Why on earth are the city council considering a sales tax increase and stadium giveaway project for a billionaire
developer? When I as a citizen requested the opportunity to rent space in the new (at that time) downtown city
library I was told that market rates applied and that I would have to provide special additional time and energy just
to be considered for the rental of 400 sq ft. Now I hear that a billionaire developer wants to build a stadium and use
our taxpayer money to pay for it. BULLSHIT. No special payoffs or financial arrangements for developers unless
they are providing low income housing or something that the city needs (rather than something that none of us
need buy that the wealthy want). I can't believe that we as a city are evening considering this. We should at the very
least have a city wide vote on the subject. I know that the mayor and my council member are very close to losing
my vote and many other votes from those that I know.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/13/2024 10:13 Anonymous Constituent Against Tax Increase for NHL/MLB/Downtown
Sports Zones
It is an absolute abomination for the dreams of some young rich man to be paid for by regular citizens of this city
and state. If Mr Smith would like an updated zone for his sporting dreams-and he can afford it (which he can) then
he should foot the bill. A vote to increase sales tax merely for his benefit and for his dreams to come to fruition
instead of an increase of sales tax being used to address our chronic homeless and unaffordable housing issues is
a misuse of public funds. I stand firmly against any sales tax increase for any NHL/Sporting development
downtown. Any threat to Abravanel Hall should not be tolerated by billionaire bullies.
5/13/2024 11:06 Ari Tepper Levying a public tax to pay for private
development is not the solution
When Utah was in the running for NHL and MLB teams to potentially go into the "Power District" at the Rocky
Mountain Power site, it was saif that Utah would not levy any taxes against its citizens to pay for the private
development that belonged to billionaire sports team owners. Why has that tune changed now that a SLC NHL
team is happening? Just because it's going to be downtown? It's been shown time and time again that taxes for
billion dollar stadiums do not work, no matter where they are they are never in the taxpayers interest. The burden
continues to be shared by the taxpayer (and potential future tax increases for maintenance costs) while the profits
go straight to the people that need it least. I am strongly opposed to any tax increase towards this development.
5/13/2024 11:43 Alex Churchward Abravanel Hall Hi Chris, I am concerned about a proposal by the Smith Entertainment Group to potentially tear down Abravanel
Hall for a sports and entertainment district. Although I welcome development and improvement to our city, it
should not come at the expense of such gems. This building could never truly be replaced. Additionally, the
Gateway is literally right across the street from the Delta Center and has plenty of empty space available for bars,
restaurants, and entertainment options if that is what Mr. Smith is seeking. Thank you, Alex Churchward
5/13/2024 11:50 Alec Wodowski Tax Increase Good morning! First, let me state that I am a huge hockey fan and absolutely love that we're getting an NHL team
here in SLC. This was not some large cultural shift that the people of Utah voted nor asked for from the NHL. This is
in the sole interest of the Smith Entertainment Group, and their interest alone. Please do not raise our taxes to fund
Mr. Smiths foray into professional hockey. If anything has shown, the HUGE support for this team already (in the off
season might I add) will pay countless dividends to the Smith Entertainment Group. They absolutely should not be
able to access a single cent of taxpayer funds. Please allocate that money to improving the infrastructure to allow
this new stadium to function downtown. Alec Wodowski
5/13/2024 12:12 Alan Mueller Sales tax increase I’ll keep it short: NO on the sales tax increase for SEG downtown plan. Alan Mueller SLC
5/13/2024 12:22 Catherine Free-Weeks Say no to tax increase for "Mayor" Ryan Smith Dear Council members: Add my name to the growing list of disgusted citizens who don't want to give our tax dollars
to a billionaire and his hockey stadium "improvement" project. We didn't elect Ryan Smith. We elected YOU to
ensure that grifters like him don't use their private agendas to roll over what's important to our city's legacy. The
downtown core should not be turned over to Smith so he can put in a garish, Vegas style boulevard with helicopter
pads and flashing electronic billboards. And to think that Abravanel Hall might be torn down for this disgusting
money grab makes my blood boil. I have never been more angry at our elected city officials. Anyone on the Council
who votes in favor of turning over our tax dollars to Smith deserves to be voted out of office. Please do the right
thing and tell Smith "No thanks!" He can do whatever he wants to the Delta Center, but he should keep his hands
off our downtown and its treasured landmarks. Sincerely,
5/13/2024 12:41 Cody Brown NO TAX MONEY FOR BILLIONAIRES Make them find their own business ventures. Thank you.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/13/2024 12:43 Dave Alderman Comment on Budget Amendment #5 As President of the Friends of the Salt Lake City Cemetery, I am writing in support of the appropriations regarding
the Cemetery in Budget Amendment #5. However, I have one minor request. This item should be labeled as Salt
Lake City Cemetery, not the Avenues Cemetery. The Cemetery is located in the Avenues, but it is a City-wide and
even State-wide treasure. Thanks Dave Alderman
5/13/2024 12:47 Fee Busby Downtown Development It seems easy to get excited about Ryan Smith's plans for downtown SLC development. People have gotten excited
about many of Elon Musk's plans only to be disappointed when he fails to follow through. I don't know Ryan Smith
but my father told me long ago to question things that seem to be to good to be true. I think my father would
question the development plan. I encourage the city council to do so as well. Fee Busby, Logan
5/13/2024 12:57 Gregory Glenn Protect Abravanel Hall
**Attachment 3 - 5 pages
I would urge the Council to take a both - and approach and preserve our incredible Symphony Hall while
supporting the developments that will be also good for civic life. Abravanel Hall is highly regarded throughout the
nation as a symphonic performance space, and it is recognized as an architectural icon for our city. Please protect
this important edifice! I have attached an article from The Atlantic last week which challenges the practice of
publicly funded sports arenas that house entities owned by wealthy private investors. I urge you to read it. (Please
see the attached)
5/13/2024 13:06 James Viney city taxes and sports give aways Dear Council members There has never been a publicly funded sports facility in the USA that has returned a
positive financial return to the public that funded it. They are hugely popular with millionaires and billionaires who
get to use public money to push their projects that make them money, but the public doesn’t get a return on its
money. I urge you to oppose using public money to support sports facilities.If you do so there has to be a
mechanism for the public to get a guaranteed return on its investment. Repeatedly sports teams owners have
demanded public monies for areas etc and then moved on to a different city when they get another offer. James
Viney wslc resident
5/13/2024 13:14 Janel VanDenBerghe Building heights I am in favor of maintaining limits on building heights in downtown SLC
5/13/2024 13:24 Janet Roberts SEG Proposal Dear SLC Council, I am writing in response to a recent article in the SL Tribune regarding Smith Entertainment
Group's downtown proposal in which you have asked for comments. I'm concerned about a half a percent rise in
sales tax to fund a billion dollar organization's personal dream. And, would this rise in sales tax apply to Salt Lake
City only or to the rest of the state? It would be a shame to sacrifice some of the stalwart structures in downtown
Salt Lake City that have been cultural icons such as a Abravenel Hall, the Museum of Contemporary Art, and the
Salt Palace Convention Center in favor of stadiums and helipads. The arts are still necessary despite our insatiable
need for expensive entertainments. Thank you for listening.
5/13/2024 13:45 Ryan Moran Sales tax increase for SEG stadium Dear Salt Lake City Council, My name is Ryan Moran and I am a resident in Salt Lake City. My representative is Dan
Duggan and I live in Bonneville Hills. I am writing to express my vehement disagreement in the sales tax for the
stadium. As Andy Larsen has reported in the Tribune, all major studies suggest that sports stadiums do not benefit
local inhabitants. If SEG wants a stadium downtown, they should pay for it. If not, residents of Salt Lake City
definitely should not. Moreover, raising this money via a sales tax disproportionately puts the burden of funding the
stadium onto the poorest residents of the city. At a point where many residents struggle with affordable housing
and the cost of food, funding this through a sales tax is a horrible idea. Moreover, I am want to strongly note my
dissatisfaction with attempts to raise height limits on buildings. Doing so will further decimate historic Japantown.
Sincerely, Ryan Moran
IDEAS
Taxpayers Are About to Subsidize a Lot
More Sports Stadiums
You would think that three decades’ worth of evidence would put an end to
giving taxpayer money to wealthy sports owners. Unfortunately, you would
be wrong.
By Dan Moore
Illustration by The Atlantic. Source: Getty.
MAY 8, 2024, 7:30 AM ET
Updated at 10:46 a.m. ET on May 8, 2024
Open a map of the U nited S tates. Select a big city at random. Chances are, it has
recently approved or is on the verge of approving a lavish, taxpayer-funded stadium
project for one or more of its local sports teams. This is true in Las Vegas, where
the team currently known as the Oakland Athletics will soon be playing in a new
ballpark up the street from the home of the NFL’s Raiders, also formerly of
Oakland. Combined, the two stadiums will end up receiving more than $1.1 billion
Attachment 3 - Page 1
in public funding, not counting tax breaks. Something similar is happening in
Chicago, where Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the White Sox, wants roughly $1 billion in
public funding for a new stadium in the South Loop, while the Halas-McCaskey
family, which owns the Bears, is requesting $2.4 billion for a new football stadium
on the lakefront. Likewise in Cleveland, which has one of the nation’s highest
childhood poverty rates, as well as in Phoenix, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. In
Buffalo, the Bills recently received $850 million for new digs, and in Nashville,
politicians approved a record $1.26 billion subsidy for the Titans.
Economic research is unequivocal: These subsidies are a boondoggle for taxpayers,
who have spent nearly $30 billion on stadiums over the past 34 years, not counting
property-tax exemptions or federal revenues lost to tax-exempt municipal bonds.
Stadiums do not come close to generating enough economic activity to pay back the
public investment involved in building them—especially when they’re coupled with
lease agreements that funnel revenue back to owners or allow teams to play in the
stadiums rent-free. Even as an investment in your city’s stores of community spirit,
stadium subsidies at this price are hard to justify. As the economist J. C.
Bradbury told the Associated Press, “When you ask economists if we should fund
sports stadiums, they can’t say ‘no’ fast enough.”
Read: Sports stadiums are a bad deal for cities
You would think that three decades’ worth of evidence would be enough to put an
end to the practice of subsidizing sports stadiums. Unfortunately, you would be
wrong. America finds itself on the brink of the biggest, most expensive publicly-
funded-stadium boom ever, and the results will not be any better this time around.
Until the 1980s, super-rich sports franchise owners generally did not seek or
receive extravagant public subsidies. Three events changed that. First, in 1982, Al
Davis, the Raiders’ owner, left Oakland for Los Angeles because officials refused to
fund renovations to the Oakland Coliseum, which the city had built in the ’60s.
(They would later cave on this; the Raiders returned to Oakland in 1995, lured by
public funds.) Second, in 1984, Robert Irsay, the owner of the Baltimore Colts,
moved the team to Indiana after being offered a sweetheart deal at the publicly
funded Hoosier Dome. Finally, a few years later, Maryland approved hundreds of
millions of dollars in public funding—along with a historically lopsided lease
agreement—for a new stadium for the Orioles, who were now Baltimore’s only
Attachment 3 - Page 2
remaining team. (The Ravens wouldn’t exist until 1996.) “If you want to save the
Orioles,” Maryland House Speaker R. Clayton Mitchell said at the time, “you have
to give them this kind of lease.”
Camden Yards turned out to be beautiful—a downtown shrine of hand-laid brick
and cast-iron gates that evoked the odd-angled “Golden Age” of American ballpark
design. Major League Baseball, sportswriters, and obliging local politicians were also
quick to credit Camden Yards with spurring a revival of Baltimore’s downtown—
and, with it, of inspired downtowns elsewhere. “No longer would communities
across America build stadiums devoid of character,” Major League Baseball
mythologized in a press release celebrating the park’s 30th anniversary, “but instead
would build them to flow seamlessly in existing and historic neighborhoods, playing
key roles in the revitalization of urban America.” This turned out to be a trap; now
politicians could convince themselves that capitulating to team owners was sound
public policy. Never mind that, in Baltimore’s case, Camden ultimately didn’t do all
that much reviving. (The neighborhoods surrounding Camden Yards actually shed
employers in the decades after the park opened, while unemployment and
crime rose, according to Bloomberg.) Owners have made the idea central to the way
they sell stadium projects ever since.
In the early ’90s, for example, boosters pitched Cleveland’s Jacobs Field in a
newspaper ad that promised “$33.7 million in public revenues every year” along
with “28,000 good-paying jobs for the jobless” and “$15 million a year for schools
for our children.” Now, here’s how Dave Kaval, president of the Oakland A’s,
described the benefits of the $855 million subsidy that the A’s were trying to extract
from Oakland, in 2021, before the team decided to relocate to Las Vegas: “Seven
billion dollars in economic impact. 6,000 permanent and mostly union jobs. 3,000
construction jobs. We’re building more than a ballpark here.”
Read: Stadiums have gotten downright dystopian
Stadiums don’t actually do these things. The jobs they create are seasonal and low-
wage. They tend not to increase commercial property values or encourage much in
the way of economic activity, besides a bit of increased spending in bars and
restaurants surrounding the venue—which is mostly being substituted for dollars
that were previously being spent elsewhere. Tax revenues attributable to stadiums
fall well short of recouping the public’s investment. Economically speaking, stadium
Attachment 3 - Page 3
subsidies mostly just transfer wealth from taxpayers to the owners of sports
franchises.
This became clear to economists early into the previous subsidy boom. For a time,
cities and states appeared to have wised up. Taxpayers covered 68 percent of the
costs of major sports venues built or renovated between 1992 and 2008, but only 31
percent of the costs from 2009 to 2020, according to research that Victor Matheson,
an economist at the College of Holy Cross, shared with The Athletic. Unfortunately,
this turned out to be just a lull. Team owners tend to demand stadium upgrades at
the end of their leases, which typically last 30 years. Camden Yards, which spurred
the last subsidy boom, was built 32 years ago. We are merely reentering stadium-
subsidy season.
This time, the costs promise to be even higher, the consequences even more
depressing. As the expense of stadium construction has gone up, so has the size of
the subsidies owners ask for—along with the shamelessness and determination with
which they seek them out. That’s one reason so many teams have threatened to
relocate in just the past few months. The American major leagues are all more
profitable than they’ve ever been—Major League Baseball alone made a
record $11.6 billion in 2023, the NFL $19 billion—while individual teams are more
valuable, thanks in part to subsidies. As Matheson told me in 2022, “Any time a
team gets a new stadium, you immediately see its valuation rise.”
The situation presents a classic collective-action problem. American cities would
all be better off if stadium subsidies disappeared. But individual political leaders
seem to be afraid to buck the trend unilaterally, lest they be blamed for the
departure of a beloved franchise.
The obvious solution is federal legislation. A good start would be to reverse the
existing, obscure statutory provision that helped make the stadium-subsidy cycle
possible. Congress made interest on municipal bonds tax-exempt in 1913 in order to
encourage public infrastructure spending. The intention was not to finance private
construction, and in the 1986 Tax Reform Act, Congress tried to cut off that form
of misappropriation. What the law should have done was simply revoke access to
tax-exempt bonds for use on private projects, such as stadiums. Instead, it left a
loophole. It enabled state and local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds for
private projects as long as they finance at least 90 percent of the cost of the project
Attachment 3 - Page 4
themselves and pay no more than 10 percent of the debt service using revenues
generated by the project. Essentially, a city could access the bonds only if it was
willing to drain its own funds for the benefit of sports-franchise owners. The
assumption was that no city would be stupid enough to accept such a bad bargain—
but that assumption turned out to be deeply mistaken. Lawmakers have introduced
bills seeking to correct the oversight several times over the years, but none has
become law.
In the meantime, change is up to sports fans. As beloved as sports are in America,
socializing stadium construction remains unpopular. Indeed, when stadium subsidies
are put to voters, many of them fail, as a referendum on a sales-tax extension to pay
for new stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals recently did in Kansas City. Some
groups, such as the Coalition to Stop the Arena at Potomac Yard, which organized
against a proposed $1.5 billion subsidy for Ted Leonsis, the owner of the
Washington Wizards and Washington Capitals, have recently even managed to stop
subsidized projects before that point. “Teams need a place to play, and if local
governments told them to pay a fair rent or go pound sand, owners would have little
choice but to go along,” Neil deMause, a co-author of Field of Schemes: How the Great
Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, told me.
Telling owners to pound sand, however, would require cities, and fans, to call a
billionaire’s bluff. That is no small thing. Teams don’t usually relocate, but when
they do, it’s painful; as an Oakland sports fan, I know this from experience. I
empathize with the impulse to tell politicians to do whatever it takes to keep a team.
Especially when I think of all the A’s games I won’t be able to take my son to.
But “whatever it takes” is an untenable stance, especially when the bill from last
time has not yet fully been paid, and the likelihood of a return on the investment is
so demonstrably dubious. In Alameda County, where I live, taxpayers are still paying
off the debt issued to renovate the Oakland Coliseum in 1995. When the tab is
finally settled, the subsidy will have cost us $350 million, paid for mostly out of the
general fund. In that time, Oakland has contended with several historic budget
shortfalls and struggled to address its competing crises, including homelessness and
rising crime. Giving $855 million to John Fisher, the A’s owner, would not have
solved these problems. The evidence suggests, in fact, that it would have only made
things worse. One wonders how much more evidence will have accumulated 30
years from now, when the next subsidy boom threatens to begin.
Attachment 3 - Page 5
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/13/2024 13:47 W David Smith SEG Proposals JUST SAY NO . . . Qualtrics? Quantricks? Our Indigenous people have a wonderful tradition of stories in which a
coyote appears as a character. He’s a trickster, you see? Causes lots of trouble, mostly, just trying to make a
living, a little like you and me, only without so much work. Likes to play games with what you know and what you
don’t. Arizona had an ice hockey team named “Coyotes.” Still have the name. “We” got the franchise with the label
peeled off. “We” actually didn’t. Something called the Smith Entertainment Group did. Darned if they didn’t bring
that famous coyote behavior along with them, though! Magnified! Into the greatest land and power grab Utah has
ever seen! “We’ll revitalize your city! Connect Eastside and Westside, make you famous hockey winners, brighten
your upcoming Olympics!” “All you have to do is give us a 99-year lease on the block of land under that broken
down old symphony hall—no sports in that place! Oh, no, we’ll keep it or—something! Same with those two
churches and culture hall the Japanese use—can’t see them anyway. We’ll also want the city height restrictions
lifted so we can put up some skyscrapers!” The coyotes cut a deal with our Utah Senate, always happy to stick it to
our capital city. The legislators created SB 272, never mind “unintended consequences.” Coyotes had made some
gesture toward leaving and taking those sports teams too, however unlikely that is, given simple economics. “Oh!
You don’t own that block between the symphony block and the Delta Center? Maybe you can condemn the owners
for us. Three blocks? We’ll just tuck that into this $3 billion we’ll pledge to the project. No need for you to see the
money. Just show us the $900 million in increased taxes. We’ll do good,” they said, but not for whom. In fact, the
overbuilding proposed will hurt both City Creek and the Gateway Center, both now having empty stores despite the
strength of Utah’s current economy. Moreover, and I’m serious, who wants a skyscraper and that dysfunctional,
ugly set of proposed structures, so rendered, anywhere near to the Temple Square so many are looking forward to
seeing completed? Well, the coyotes apparently do. What to do about all this? First of all, we urge a speedy
repentance. Give up on the nonsense tax increase Salt Lake County voters are likely to reject, anyway, under the
conditions you set forth. And the city and county leadership would be foolish to approve it without a vote. Utah has
one grand tradition we encourage you adopt. Utah is tops in the country in philanthropy per person. Make a
generous gift so that Abravanel Hall can update its infrastructure. Do it without tricks. It will only take a portion of
the funds you pay a single player you’ll be trading—and is tax deductible. The building represents the finest of
symphony halls of its period with outstanding acoustics for a musical experience few people elsewhere can have.
The thousands of people who created it financially and through gifted labor are the best of souls and don’t deserve
being so disrespected as the coyotes have done with their self-serving proposal. The Utah Symphony, as always,
will be generous in return with recognition of your gift, and no longer will you be seen as land- and power-grabbing
coyotes. Cartoonists a few decades ago animated a like coyote and a roadrunner that the coyote always wants to
catch and eat, or at least get rid of. He tried that for years! Roadrunner won.
5/13/2024 13:54 Jim Ngo Oppose Sales Tax Increase I am writing to oppose the sales tax increase and giving entire city blocks to Ryan Smith for 99 years. Salt Lake City
is already the highest taxed municipality in the state, and Utah has the 2nd highest tax burden in the west. I oppose
socialized risks for private profits for a billionaire that doesn't even live in Salt Lake. Sincerely,
5/13/2024 14:35 Marti s. Lythgoe Abravanel Hall Please do not include tearing down Abravanel Hall in your new downtown district plans! For me, and I’m sure many
others, it represents Salt Lake City as much as the LDS Temple. I have season tickets to the Utah Symphony and
have attended many other events there. My husband sang in the Symphony Choir. Update as needed, but don’t
tear it down!
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/13/2024 14:38 Michael King Questions on how the increased sales tax
proposal for downtown development helps
the average citizen
Hello, I have been reading up on the articles about proposals for the new downtown district. Can you help me
understand how increasing taxes on all of us, with many currently struggling, to help a billionaire control three
downtown blocks and increase his wealth makes sense? You can already see that most Utahns can't afford to live
in that area. The usual excuse of job creations and property values are listed Most people can't live in that area to
begin with. I feel also many of the smaller local businesses will be continued to push out too. We are seeing this
more and more where local businesses have to close or move away and chains start filling the spots. So - this
increases property value for the billionaire and also the other wealthy corporations. How much of this will actually
benefit all of us who are subjected to the tax increase? Why do we keep falling for large corporations same tactics
on taxing the struggling to increase their wealth with "job retention" and other excuses. We are seeing most of the
time that is not the case. Corporations care about their own bottom line. Anything altruistic they are trying to push
on how it benefits us all is just corporate-speak. I feel our government is thinking the same way - catering to the
wealthy and continuing to pass laws and regulations to hit the less powerful. Note: I don't care about things such
as building heights, but I am concerned about losing Japantown, losing small businesses that might have been
here for years, losing the entrepreneurial spirit of restaurant owners trying to share their cuisines from around the
world, the local bookshops and other small stores. We are doing this to fund a man who has a net worth higher
than he may ever be able to spend in his life. Can you please provide any data on how this will actually benefit Salt
Lake citizens, or Utahns as a whole? Please think about us bottom 80% while making decisions. Thank you for your
time, Mike
5/13/2024 14:41 Richard Melby FY25 Public Utilities proposed rate increases Good morning - I am unable to participate in the public hearings scheduled for May 21 regarding the proposed rate
increases for next year, so I'm emailing my feedback. First, thank you for soliciting public comment and providing
multiple avenues to provide feedback. Second, I'm very satisfied with the services and associated rates for the
services delivered by SLC Public Utilities. Third, my feedback. Rate increases are understandable and inevitable,
but I suggest more emphasis be placed to communicate what's being done to drive efficiencies and cost equity of
the services provided by SLC Public Utilities. Please consider: • Asking the community to place recycling bins out
for collection only when the bins are full. Doing so will make your driver's work more efficient and lower cost. I
suspect many of us with small households using 40 gallon garbage bins can go two or more weeks before the
much larger recycling bins need to be collected. • The Call 2 Haul program provides great value, so why not charge
for it versus asking your entire customer base to underwrite the service? Charging a reasonable fee for those that
use the service seems much more equitable, especially to those of us that do not use the service. With respect,
Richard Melby
5/13/2024 14:46 Ron Johnson Downtown entertainment district Good Day Council, I live very near the arena and future downtown entertainment district and i see no negatives as
long as thoughtful communication and action between the Japanese community and the symphony/arts
community are involved and represented. If done right, the Japan town area could really blossom (pun intended)
with culture, cherry tree-lined 1st south, and Japanese shops/restaurants in that same vicinity. The two existing
churches on 1st south could be integrated very well if thoughtfully executed. Abravanel Hall, although a treasure
to our community, needs some love. I see either a new world class hall built in the district, or thoughtful execution
to integrate the current hall into the plans for this amazing opportunity to link our community and further expand
our already world-class city. Let’s get this done! Thank you Ron Johnson
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/13/2024 14:48 Ross Woolf Downtown sports district It seems to me the simplest answer is to rework the Gateway that sits next to the delta center. It has struggled for
years. Make it so there is easy and flowing access between it and the dela center. It already has trax right in the
middle of it all. Leave Abravanel hall alone.
5/13/2024 16:34 Steven g. Schultz Abravanel Hall PLans Dear Council: I live in San Francisco and am a subscriber to our symphony. I have been to SLC many times and on
these trips I have always included a performance by your symphony. As a musician and frequenter of many
concert halls including those in Europe, I was alarmed at reading a possible fate for Abravanel Hall. Although we
have a beautiful hall in San Francisco, your hall has superior acoustics. It was built on the European model of a
rectangular concert space. This is why so many European halls have such great sound. PLease exhibit extreme
caution for any plans to alter such a space. Once done, there is no going back and future generations will regard
the decision with much regret. Sincerely, Steven G. Schultz
5/13/2024 16:36 Cody Brown NO TAX MONEY FOR BILLIONAIRES Make them find their own business ventures. Thank you.
5/13/2024 16:41 Anonymous Constituent Voicemail to City Council Hello, This is Kay and Kevin and We lived in the Cottonwood Height. And we've been to the Symphony hall for 50
years. It is the beautiful hall and I am a big Basketball Fan and Hockey Fan, But You can not Scarified the beautiful
hall for it. I would like you to reconsider on the relocate the hall. Thank you!
5/13/2024 17:21 Sterling Madsen The MESS that YOUR "Livable Streets traffic
CALMING program" has made of MY/OUR
neighborhood and surrounding streets !!!
I sent you my first message about the rediculous PROBLEM that YOUR prolific barriers have created in our streets
at least a week ago but you have chosen not to respond. I (and my meighbors ) want an answer as to WHEN you will
be starting the REMOVAL of this MESS that you've made with OUR TAX DOLLARS ! And if your answer is anything
remotely close to , "We will do whatever we want to YOUR streets" then YOU had better be looking for a different
job ! Because WE, the people that pay yoour salary are not going to take this CRAP any more.
5/13/2024 20:34 Jimmy Xiao Required Rent Fees Required rent fees (some call it "media fees" or "trash valet (no opt-out option)", "amenity fees" etc) are going
insane in SLC. Every apartment complex has them, and it is hard to compare apartment options when you have to
get a decent way down the process for each apartment to find out what the mandatory fees are for each complex.
~$300 in mandatory fees on top of rent is not uncommon at all. I'd appreciate if legislation would ban this practice
and force landlords to wrap all the required fees into the upfront rent sticker price. That way, it would encourage
more competition, perhaps bringing prices down and overall make the city a lot more tenant-friendly.
5/14/2024 6:01 Chris DAmico Smith Entertainment Group Downtown
Proposal Tax Increase
Hello! I'm writing today to oppose the proposed tax increase the City Council is considering to fund the Smith
Entertainment Group's downtown sports complex proposal. Time and time again, subsidies for sports teams have
not show to be profitable to the citizens who pay for them. Here's a quote from a St. Louis Federal Reserve article
on the subject. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/page1-econ/2017-05-01/the-economics-of-
subsidizing-sports-stadiums/ "In a 2017 poll, 83 percent of the economists surveyed agreed that "Providing state
and local subsidies to build stadiums for professional sports teams is likely to cost the relevant taxpayers more
than any local economic benefits that are generated." In their book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes, Roger Noll and
Andrew Zimbalist present a comprehensive review of stadium investments. In all cases, they find a new sports
facility to have extremely small (or negative) effects on overall economic activity and employment. Furthermore,
they were unable to find any facilities that had a reasonable return on investment." If we're going to increase taxes
to raise $900 million, we should be doing so to benefit the entire community with social programs. We should not
be funding professional sports. Thanks for your consideration! Chris D'Amico
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/14/2024 7:50 Lori Wagner Bathrooms and low cost housing Dear Mayor and Council members: I watched the last council meeting with dismay, as it seemed the topic of
homelessness was dismissed without any thought. The mayor mentioned she has a homebuyers program but how
will this program, which has a 450k cap, help the residents of Salt Lake, where no houses are for sale for that
price? A better strategy would be to require the many apartment buildings popping up around the city to make a
small percentage, perhaps 1 unit-1% of units, very low cost housing, i.e. 25% of income. I strongly support the
Nomad Alliance in their quest for bathrooms for the homeless. The idea of the thousands of homeless defecating
near the Jordan River and in alleys is clearly a public health risk, not to mention just plain gross. Not addressing this
issue and building bathrooms certainly adds to the air of an ivory tower mentality of politicians. Even if one does
not care about the homeless, please care about public health! Sincerely, Dr. Lori A Wagner
5/14/2024 10:31 Gordon Nelson NHL/MLB Taxes Hi Victoria, this is Gordon Nelson. I live in rose park and I am a supporter of you, my reason for calling is with all this
Utah jazz and hockey development going on in the city, I really don't feel comfortable paying taxes, uh salt lake
city's taxes going up to support that kind of thing, I used to think they build that stuff outside of salt lake so I'd
appreciate hearing from you, i just.. I don't know, we can't continue to observe all the problems from Utah such as
the prison and the taxes, so thank you. Bye.”
5/14/2024 11:26 John Costa Abravanel Hall I am a composer and faculty member at the University of Utah, and I am writing on behalf of saving Abravanel Hall
– one of our most cherished artistic institutions. As a composer, I have had the privilege of hearing two of my
orchestral works in that wonderful space. The experience was sublime, and the acoustics were among the best
that I have ever encountered. And as one whose experienced many different concert halls throughout the U.S., I
can attest that Abravanel Hall’s acoustics, space, and sheer elegance are among the best – this is a rarity. It is
more than just a concert hall; it is a living symbol of Salt Lake City’s tradition of excellence and a center for our
devoted artistic community that spans generations. Please do not allow this gem to go the wrecking ball. Renovate
it if you must, but please allow this living symbol – so vital to our community - to remain in place. Thank You. - John
Costa
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/14/2024 14:03 Victoria Walker Feedback on plan to make Main Street a mall I’d like to give you feedback on closing main street. I’ve heard it is a done plan. I’ve also heard it is in planning. If in
the planning stage, I would like to go on record that it is a terrible idea. As Chris Wharton knows, my husband and I
owned a home in Memory Grove from 1987 to 2023. Recently the area became overrun with homeless and the
City’s position, at least according to the police, was nothing could be done with the hillside encampments and we
finally chose to leave the area and have moved to Dan Dugan’s district. Nevertheless, I continue to love the city,
work in the city and represent clients in the City. Because I have an interest in the commercial real estate of the
City, I am particularly concerned with the plan to close Main Street. Also, because I am older, I personally
experienced the impact of the closure of Main Street from South Temple to North Temple when Ms Corridini sold
the parcel to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The traffic impact was large and the City has never
truly recovered from the congestion caused by its closure. Accidents increased at the corner of North Temple and
State and the corner of South Temple and State. And it became ever more difficult to get into the City from the
North. Those commuting from the North to the University of Utah now line up State Street, past the capital, along
Victory Road. As a commercial real estate person and you as a council, want people back to the office buildings so
we have a vibrant downtown. Workers live in the suburbs for a couple of reasons and (all of which you know) 1)
single family homes are more prevalent and less expensive ; 2) there is little to no homeless; 3) there is less crime;
and 4) they are surrounded by like-minded religious fellowship. Businesses are looking for ways to bring those
workers back into the downtown corridor, and this will only create another obstacle. Again, because I am older,
I’ve lived through the “downtown beautification” (actually 3) that killed downtown’s retail businesses. The first one
was in the 1970s when the City removed angled street parking, then there was the street beautification (planters
and new sidewalks) in the 1980s and lastly the TRAX install of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Only the TRAX install
was successful, but businesses did not return to Main Street; you only need to look [at] and smell [urine] Main
Street from 200 South to 300 South. As UTA has pointed out, by slowing the TRAX trains down, their schedules will
be greatly impacted. Once again an impediment to people using the systems. The ability for those to effectively
move about the city is what is crucial to bringing people into and out of the City and reduces air pollution. By
minimizing the number of traffic lanes such as what you have done on South Temple, 200 South and 300 South,
only pushes that traffic onto the City’s major 700 East and Foothill feeders on the East and adds to congestion.
Please use history for your lesson plan and do not do this just because this mayor wants to make a mark. Sincerely,
Vickey Walker
5/14/2024 14:05 Alan Walker Feedback on plan to make Main Street a mall I would like to echo what Vickey has said and amplify that restricting traffic lanes causes increased hazards in
other places. As pedestrians, we crossed North Temple and State frequently as commuting drivers were irritated
from the congestion which put bikers and pedestrians at greater risk. Be honest with the simulations and do not
force a favorable solution or ignore common sense for political reasons and DO NOT use California or Colorado as
models of success. Please do not exacerbate that situation by making more of downtown less accessible. Thank
you, Alan Walker
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/14/2024 15:25 Rusty McKinney 1/2 Save Abravanel Hall Dear Mayor Mendenhal and SLC Council Members, When I first heard that there was a plan to destroy Abravanel
Hall, I was sure that there was some mistake. That someone misunderstood. Or that I had misread the post on
social media from a former Utah Symphony colleague. But no, more of the same posts started appearing. I hadn’t
misheard or misread. There does indeed seem to be a plan to destroy one of the world’s great concert halls so that
a rich man can get richer and seem more important. Let me introduce myself a bit. I was a full-time member of the
Utah Symphony Orchestra (bass trombone) for 22 years from 1989-2011. I won a national audition that had nearly
100 applicants to be the bass trombonist of the Utah Symphony. During that time I taught music as an adjunct at
the University of Utah, Brigham Young University, Snow College, and Westminster College. Depending on which of
these we are talking about I gave private applied low brass instruction to both music majors and minors and I
directed large ensembles. I was also the Music Director at the historic First Presbyterian Church of SLC for eight
years. I have also played for varying lengths of time as a guest musician with the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra,
the National Symphony of Washington, D.C., the Kennedy Center Orchestra, the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra,
the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, and the North Carolina Symphony Orchestra to name the major orchestras.
And I have played in many notable regional orchestras as well. I continue to work in music here in my home state of
North Carolina as a full time Minister of Music for a large suburban Episcopal Church in the region around the state
capitol and I still regularly perform as a guest musician on bass trombone in the southeast region with upper tier
ensembles. Why should you care about that? Only if I can impress upon you that I have played (and continue to
play) at many great venues all over the United States and Europe with many great orchestras, so when I say that
Abravanel Hall is a fine hall both acoustically and visually, I am comparing it to Carnegie Hall, David Geffen Hall,
Kennedy Center’s Concert Hall, Powell Symphony Hall, Meymandi Hall, Davies Symphony Hall and Heinz Hall to
name just a few. And if you don’t know where or what any of those are, that in itself points to the biggest problem
with this harebrained idea that you can knock down Abravanel Hall and build another hall that’s just as good.
Abravanel Hall is a great musical venue and one of the best sounding in the world. It is easy to talk of the nostalgia
of all the great artists who have come through Abravanel Hall, and the amazing historical performances as I am
sure many who write to you will do, that is really not biggest loss to my mind. Granted, it would be a travesty for you
to discount all of that. But frankly, the notion that you can just knock down Abravanel Hall band build another hall
just as good is as ill-informed as it is asinine. The odds of anyone building a concert hall as acoustically fine as
Abravanel are very small. Even with the best acousticians, architects, and builders that money can buy there is
always a good chance that things won’t turn out as well in reality as they did on paper.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
5/14/2024 15:25 Rusty McKinney 2/2 Save Abravanel Hall And frankly, from the caviller attitude that I am picking up on from the “planners” of this travesty, I doubt you
would be working with a budget that would allow the best to be had. And you can’t get Cyril Harris to design the
sound for you, for he died 13 years ago. And guess what? He worked on the acoustics of several of the halls that I
listed earlier. Salt Lake City has a rare item in Abravanel Hall and there is no good reason to destroy it. That’s the
long and the short of it. You will not duplicate it and you probably can’t even afford to, even if you could. Do the
right thing. Leave Abravanel Hall where it is and take care of it for the generations of Utahns to come that will enjoy
great things there, be they youth ensembles performances, graduations or great performances from one of the
great orchestras in the country, the Utah Symphony. It will cost you much less to do that, than to let a sports mogul
call the shots. I have to wonder out loud if Larry Miller would have even thought of doing such I thing. I sincerely
doubt it. When Richard Eyre made his comment about it being a “generational blunder” to tear down Abravanel
Hall, he was being very generous. But I will go with his genteel language and urge you not to make this blunder.
Russell McKinney Minister of Music St. Paul’s Episcopal Church Director of Music Raleigh Convocation Choir
Episcopal Diocese of NC Artistic Director Oak City Voices Formerly, Bass Trombonist Utah Symphony Orchestra