HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
May 29, 2025 Tuesday 1:00 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
1:00 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Community Reinvestment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 315
(See separate agenda)
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: 08:25:11
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 2025-26.
1.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Non-Departmental ~ 1:00 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Non-Departmental budget for
Fiscal Year 2025-26, which accounts for transfers to other funds, grants, and other
special revenue funds that do not belong to particular City departments. The briefing will
also include the workload needs within the City’s court system, specifically the Legal
Defenders, Prosecutor’s Office, and Justice Court budgets. The City's contract with the
Legal Defender Association is reflected in the non-departmental budget.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 29, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3,
2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
2.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Police Department ~ 2:00 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Police Department budget for
Fiscal Year 2025-26.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 29, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3,
2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
3.Tentative Break ~ 2:45 p.m.
20 min.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment -
TENTATIVE Council Action -
4.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Community and Neighborhoods
Department ~ 3:05 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Community and Neighborhoods
Department budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 29, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3,
2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
5.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Unresolved Issues ~ 3:50 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about unresolved issues relating to the proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 29, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3,
2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
6.Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget: Human Resources
Department Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed Human Resources
Department budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26.
For more information visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY26.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Thursday, May 29, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 20, 2025 and Tuesday, June 3,
2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD
Standing Items
7.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
8.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.
9.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 9:30 am on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, 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.
KEITH REYNOLDS
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@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Austin Kimmel
DATE:May 29, 2025
RE: PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
NON-DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: p. 54-58, p. 265-270
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: May 29, 2025
Budget Hearings: May 20, June 3
2024
Potential Action: June 10 or 12 TBD
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Non-Departmental budget is the City’s largest in the General Fund. It accounts for transfers to other funds,
grants, and other special revenue funds that do not programmatically belong to particular City departments. The
total proposed Non-Departmental budget pertaining to the General Fund is $132 million, a 3% increase from
FY2025. Including all special revenue funds, which includes some pass-through funds, the total amount for the
Non-Departmental budget for FY 26 is $367 million.
Because of the volume of line items in this department, the format of this staff report is to orient the Council,
starting at the general level and moving towards more specifics at the end.
Non-Departmental Expenditures are organized into the following general categories (see p. 265-270 of the
budget book) – see background section for detail:
Category FY 26 Proposed Description
Governmental Transactions $ 7,296,106 Contracts with & funding for other governmental or
quasi-governmental entities
Intergovernmental Transfers $ 109,299,646
General Fund support of other City funds (Golf,
Sustainability). Also includes funding for PD and Racial
Equity in Policing Commission funding.
Sales Tax Option - Transit $ 10,032,000 UTA contract for key bus routes, service for additional
routes, and On-Demand ride program
Municipal Contributions and Civic Support $ 5,110,517
City funding for memberships or support for various
community organizations, note that some are subject to
contractual/legal requirements
Total General Fund $ 131,738,269
Page | 2
There are also non-general fund categories such as Special Revenue Accounting (for CDBG/E-911/Grants
Funds), Debt Service Funds for repayment of General Obligation (GO) Bonds, and the Capital Projects Fund for
consolidating CIP funding and impact fees.
POLICY QUESTIONS
Justice System Capacity and Workload - Is the Council interested in increasing funding beyond the
proposed inflationary adjustment of $68,993 for Legal Defense Assistance (LDA)? Additionally, should
the Council consider the potential $1.86 million investment for a sixth judge and associated support
staff? What is the Council's timeline preference for addressing these capacity issues - waiting for the
Administrative Office of the Courts' workload study and space needs assessments, or moving forward
with interim solutions?
Across all three parts of the City’s court system, case filings are increasing,
which directly increases the number of hearings, caseloads, and length of time
for closure rates.
Criminal filings, excluding parking and small claims matters, are showing a
significant increase. Naturally this is reported as not sustainable in the long
term.
While this is creating a current workload impact, the Administration’s
recommendation is to wait until more information is available to address the
issue holistically.
The proposed budget includes immediately necessary funding, including
software upgrades and two new victim advocates (grant funded).
Space in the Court building is limited, and it would be difficult to juggle judge
hearing calendars and the necessary new support staff.
The City is conducting space needs assessments, which are not complete, and
would require budget discussions to address building renovations.
There is a city ordinance that would need to be amended to allow for a sixth
judge.
There is a pilot program run by the County that should reduce the number of
people routed through the criminal justice system.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is conducting a historical workload
study, which will provide useful data for this evaluation.
Justice Court LDA Prosecutor’s Office
FTEs Cost FTEs Cost FTEs Cost Total
Judge
1
$125,000 to $260,000
(part-time vs. full-
time)
Attorney(s) 2 $ 306,000.00 3 $535,000.00 $ 841,000.00
Page | 3
Support
Staff 5 $ 555,000.00 1 $ 63,000.00 2 $ 140,000.00 $ 758,000.00
$ 815,000.00 $ 369,000.00 $ 675,000.00 $ 1,859,000.00
2.Economic Development and Healthcare Innovation Investment – The proposed $100,000 for
Healthcare Innovation/Biohive represents continued investment in technology and healthcare
innovation industries. The Council may wish inquire further about the benefits of this investment /
program and how strategic partnerships are evaluated. Note: this investment is managed via the
Department of Economic Development and staff has inquired with them regarding this investment.
3.Transit Investment – The proposed budget increases Westside on-demand ride service funding,
continues significant investment in frequent bus routes, and funding for HIVE passes. The Council may
want to ask the administration how it assesses the effectiveness of these various transit investments and
uses ridership data to guide future budget allocations.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS
The Administration has provided additional sub-line-item details on the following Intergovernmental
Transfers on pages 259-262 of the budget book for the sake of transparency and since they are sometimes items
of more detailed interest. Most of these areas will have their own independent budget staff reports and
independent Council discussions.
The following are highlights of the proposed FY 24 budget for each of those areas:
Transfer to FY 26 Proposed budget highlights
Capital
Improvement Fund
The proposed budget has a General Fund transfer to CIP at 6.2% of ongoing General Fund revenues
or $24.7 million, not including Funding our Future, a slight decrease from FY 25 investment.
However, when transportation funds, impact fees, and class C funds are factored in, the total
investment is approximately 7.8%.
Fleet Fund $15.1 million - Funding for various vehicles needed relating to new employees in the Clean City
team, as well as funding for maintenance and replacement. Note: the Council approved $5 million in
BA #5 of FY 25 for fleet vehicles that would have typically been in the annual budget in order to get
ahead of potential tariff impacts.
Golf Fund $1.8 million - Details the General Fund’s subsidy of the Golf Enterprise Fund, including debt
service for previous irrigation projects, administrative fees, and transferring $500,000 for Rose
Park Infrastructure renewal.
IMS Fund $31.4 million - Shows contractual and inflationary changes totaling almost $1.5 million, transfer
and reflecting transferring systems used by various departments to be centrally managed in IMS.
$1.6 million is from Funding Our Future.
Insurance and Risk
Management
$3.5 million – Reflects premium increases and includes $200,000 to cover excess liability for
take-home vehicles.
Public Utilities and
Street Lighting
funds
$1.5 million - Continues $100,000 to help assist lower-income residents with Public Utilities rate
increases, funding street lighting utilities on City-owned properties, and covering the cost for
proposed Public Utilities rate increases.
Public Utilities –
PMAA Gun Range
Remediation
$500,000 – Corrects an oversight from the prior fiscal year when this funding from FY24 was
inadvertently omitted from the FY25 budget. For context, this funding is related to the remediation
project at the former Police Mutual Aid Association (PMAA) Gun Range, which has experienced
Page | 4
unanticipated delays. The City maintains an 85% general fund/15% water fund cost-sharing
agreement for this remediation work, with Public Utilities continuing to cover other associated
costs, and final cost estimates are pending.
Note: this is listed as a “recapture” from FY24 in the budget book. However, in separate
correspondence, the Administration notes this might not have been an accurate description.
Instead, it was meant to indicate the funding was added back in for FY26, as described above.
Redevelopment
Agency Fund
$24.4 million – Reflects the overall RDA (CRA) increment pass-through as required by State law,
in addition to the proposed $2.59 million from Funding our Future for affordable housing
development. The tax increment is projected to increase by $2.1 million for FY 26.
Sustainability Fund $1.2 million total – The proposed transfer for FY 26 is flat from the amount transferred in FY 25.
Police Department
and Racial Equity in
Policing Funding
$5.7 million – This is where the City tracks funding for the PD social worker program and
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing Holding Account. The FY 26 budget proposes to spend the
remaining balance of the holding account on several PD-related alternative response models,
including a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) and a drone pilot program. The REP Commission
reviewed this proposal and voted unanimously to support it. If the REP commission has budget
recommendations in the future, the Administration/Council could consider those on an as-needed
basis. The FY 26 budget also continues several of the trainings that were specifically recommended
by the REP commission last year.
Transit Plan – Sales
Tax Option
$10 million – This is where the City tracks the transfer to the Utah Transit Authority for key bus
route service ($6.5 million total) On-demand Ride Service ($3.4 million, a $125k increase from FY
25 due to inflation). It also includes $100,000 for extending the outreach for the City’s transit
program, which includes soliciting public opinions on needed investment and barriers to using
transit. That item was originally added in FY 24.
For a listing of every item funded by the Non-Departmental budget, please refer to pages 265 to 266 of the
budget book. Pages 267-270 include short descriptions of proposed changes in some of those line items. Council
Members may wish to ask the Administration about any of the proposed changes on those pages and listed in
this staff report such as what differences the public may see, why a new line item is proposed and how city
priorities are advanced by continuing existing line items.
OTHER NON-DEPARTMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS RELATING TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Staff has noted the several line items in the Non-Departmental budget relating to the Council’s recent priorities:
Taking care of current City assets – The following are specific line items included in the Non-
departmental budget relating to this priority:
o CIP – Facilities Capital Replacement - $350,000
o CIP -Parks Capital Replacement - $250,000
o CIP – Public Lands transfer to CIP for maintenance - $683,152
o CIP – Street Lighting on Jordan River
o Golf – Rose Park Infrastructure renewal
o There are several Mayor-recommended projects in the CIP log that also align with this policy
goal:
Street Reconstruction 2026 $4,390,676
Public Way Concrete $ 750,000
Liberty Lake Dredging and Aeration System
Replacement
$1,000,000
Irrigation system replacement (Sustainability and
Maintenance)
$1,017,515
Bridge Preservation Program $1,000,000
Page | 5
Sugar House Park – Critical Infrastructure cost share
($102k impact fees)
$ 1,107,117
Facilities – replacement/renewal $ 1,980,868
Traffic signal replacements/upgrades
($400k impact fees)
$4,000,000
Street Overlays 2026 $3,500,000
1200 East Re-pavement $ 303,000
Sport Court Repair/Replacement $ 630,000
Playground Replacement $385,000
Riverside Basketball Court Repair/renovation
($450,500 impact fees)
$ 530,000
Rose Park Lane Trail Improvements $ 680,000
Total $ 21,274,176
Transit/Transportation – the FY 26 proposed Non-Departmental 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 $3.1 million), and
continues funding for Frequent Bus Routes on 200 South, 900 South, and 2100 South ($6.5 million) via
Funding our Future.
Housing – The proposed budget continues the practice of transferring $2.59 million from Funding our
Future to the CRA/RDA for affordable housing development, adding to the amount allocated in the FY
26 CRA budget, bringing the total investment in housing to almost $9 million.
Community Outreach and Engagement – The Non-Departmental FY 26 budget proposes the
following relating to outreach and engagement:
o Arts Culture and Events (ACE) Fund for events - $300,000 total
o Open Streets (Main Street) for Summer 2027 - $400,000 – shifting to ongoing funding
o Various community memberships – see complete list on pages 57-58 of the budget book
Legal Defenders Association (LDA) – The Administration proposes an increase of $68,993 to
cover inflationary increases in the contract with LDA. See above policy question.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Governmental Transactions
The Governmental Transactions section includes:
A centralized account of $696,000 to cover retirement payouts (same as was allocated in FY 25)
that aren’t covered with City department budgets
o Note: this is not sufficient to cover all retirement-eligible employees – departments
sometimes allocate additional funds within their department depending on employee
notifications/timeline.
The agreement with Salt Lake County for the operation of the Sorenson Center -- $1,136,000.
The figure is $121,200 higher than last year, due to inflationary increases.
$852,882 to support the Tracey Aviary, a $38,709 increase from FY 25
Contract with the City’s Washington DC lobbyist - $75,000
The tuition aid program for City employees - $320,000.
The Animal services contract with Salt Lake County -- $2,594,453. (A $525,273 increase from FY
25, largely due to inflation).
o Note: The City negotiates with the County for this contract but to a certain extent the
cost of this program is determined by the County.
Apprenticeship Program - $130,000
HIVE pass program - $350,000 for the base resident program, $150,000 to provide passes to
local nonprofits for their clients, and $214,648 for bus passes for public school children, parents,
and caregivers.
B. Inter-Governmental Transfers
Page | 6
See the chart on page 2 to see what one can find in the Inter-Governmental Transfers section.
C. Municipal Contributions/Civic Support
The Municipal Contributions/Civic Support section contains proposed allocations for City memberships
in public groups, financial support for non-profit organizations, and funding that falls outside the realm
of City departments. Specific line items can be found on the Recommended Budget Pages 57 and 58).
City Programs or Program Support
Legal Defenders (Legally required program) --
$1,793,810. See policy question on Page 2 for more
context on this item.
(a $68,993 increase from FY 25)
Diversity Outreach (City Program) -- $3,000
Salt Lake City Arts Council (City Program) -
$1,000,000
Note: this is separate from the staffing budget which is
proposed to move to the CAN budget for FY 26.
Healthcare Innovation – Biohive (City Program)-
$100,000
Sister Cities (City Program) -- $30,000
Note: this is separate from the staffing which is found in
the Economic Development Department budget
ACE Fund (City Program) -- $300,000 – to offset
costs for events in the City
Dignitary Gifts/Receptions/Employee Appreciation
(City Program) -- $20,00
Cultural Core Funding - $250,000
Jointly funded with matching amount from SL County.
Contract with Downtown Alliance
Rape Recovery Center -- $30,000 YWCA Family Justice Center Wraparound Services --
$45,000
Additional information:
The Diversity Outreach allocation is to support minority communities’ chambers of
commerce in the City.
The Arts, Culture, and Events, or ACE Fund originally was called the Signature Events
Fund. The fund is used to help organizations stage events often involving art and performance in
Salt Lake City. Groups apply for money from the fund in an open and competitive process.
As an economic development priority, the budget proposes $100,000 for Healthcare
Innovation (BioHive) to support the City’s technology and healthcare innovations industries.
The program serves two primary purposes: brand promotion and marketing, and strategic
partnerships in BioUtah, BioHive, and several smaller supports to other organizations. Each of
these organizations provides services to innovation businesses that cannot be provided by the
Economic Development Department in-house.
City Memberships in outside Organizations
Suazo Membership -- $45,000 Sugar House Park Authority -- $287,770.
($51,173 increase from FY 25)
Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce -- $55,000 Utah League of Cities & Towns -- $245,669
($2,322 increase from FY 25 – automatically updated by ULCT
based on formula)
National League of Cities & Towns -- $12,797
Note: the FY 26 budget includes a one-time allocation of
$250,000 to support the NLC convention hosted in SLC in
2025
U.S Conference of Mayors -- $14,242
Jordan River Commission -- $16,000 Economic Development Corporation of Utah --
$108,000
World Trade Center -- $50,000.
Additional information:
Sugar House Park Authority - Salt Lake City appoints a City representative to the Sugar
House Park Authority Board of Trustees. Salt Lake County also appoints a representative. The
Page | 7
remaining seven Board Members are volunteers. The City and County jointly subsidize
maintenance and operations of the park.
Utah League of Cities and Towns – the membership dues paid by Salt Lake City (and all
member cities) to the Utah League of Cities and towns is based on a formula that includes sales
tax, population, and property tax. Dues increase when those line items increase for the City.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.LDA, Justice Court, and City Prosecutor’s Office FY26 Budget Council Questions
ACRONYMS
CRA - Community Reinvestment Agency
FTE - Full-Time Equivalent
FY - Fiscal Year
GO - General Obligation (bonds)
IMS - Information Management Services
LDA - Legal Defenders Association
NLC - National League of Cities
PD - Police Department
PMAA - Police Mutual Aid Association
RDA - Redevelopment Agency
REP - Racial Equity in Policing (Commission)
RTCC - Real Time Crime Center
ULCT - Utah League of Cities and Towns
UTA - Utah Transit Authority
YWCA - Young Women's Christian Association
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Mary Beth Thompson, CFO
OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUND CHANGES
Current Proposed Total
$128,917,176 $3,293,093 $132,210,269
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
HIGHLIGHTS OF KEY CHANGES
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
HIGHLIGHTS OF KEY CHANGES
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
THANK YOU
For questions contact department
FY2026 Budget
Context:
Justice Court,
City Prosecutor’s
Office,
and
Legal Defenders
Association (LDA)
Where we are
Total case filings at the Justice Court have rebounded since
the pandemic but remain below pre-pandemic levels.
FY2026 budget
includes:
$56,356 to replace legacy prosecutor software
system that’s past useful life. It’s anticipated to reduce
workload through more efficient processing of cases, and
Two new victim advocates in the City Prosecutor’s Office
domestic violence program are pending Victim of Crime Act
or VOCA grant award notifications. Would free up prosecutor
time to work on other matters. There is currently a single
victim advocate for DV in the office.
Comparison of January through
April from 2014 to 2025. The
Justice Court has seen a
significant increase in the
number of hearings typically
held during the first four months
of the calendar year.
Increased criminal case filings
appear to be a contributing
factor.
For comparison, the Third
District Court’s monthly
hearings volume has remained
flat since September.
Total case filings for
FY2025 could be 41,010;
3,500 case filings per
month (average over the
past 12 months)
Not all cases are equivalent;
some cases have multiple
hearings and take longer to
reach resolution.
The criminal case clearance
rate shows a significant
decrease from 102% in
2023 to 77% in 2024
meaning more cases are
being filed than resolved.
45,794 43,401
32,385
15,805 16,859
24,039
33,412 30,570
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Justice Court Case Filings by Fiscal Year
Justice Court cases involving
the Legal Defenders
Association (LDA) are a
subset of total case filings
and seeing an increase
during the first quarter of
2025. Judges and
prosecutors touch every
criminal case. The LDA
doesn’t get involved in cases
that are resolved before
appointment and are not
usually appointed on cases
that involve only infraction
level charges.
LDA Cases by Calendar Year
2025 is January - March
Prosecutor’s Office
reports that core criminal
filings (excluding parking
and small-claims
matters) are significantly
increasing; 39% from
FY2023 to FY2024, and
January 2025
arraignments were
double January 2024,
that is, ~2,000 vs ~1,000
City Prosecutor’s Office Cases
by Fiscal Year
Temporary or Trend?
It remains to be seen whether the recent increase in case filings and hearings will plateau or is a persistent trend.
A Sixth Judge?
Adding a sixth judge at the Justice Court has domino effects potentially $1.7 Million:
o Support staff of three judicial assistants and potentially a court manager
o LDA assigns two attorneys and one legal assistant per judge
o City Prosecutor’s Office may need three attorneys and two assistants
Other Considerations:
Justice Court is at capacity; two studies underway: 5th floor buildout at City Hall, and overall spacing needs
Explore ordinance amendment to City Code 2.84.020; limit of five full time judges and three part time judges
Studying case loads and staffing
Increasing dedicated County jail beds and pilot program for high repeat offenders
2025 Salt Lake Legal Defender Challenges
Constitutional Obligation
Administrative Impacts
Constitutional Deficiency
•Class Action Lawsuit
•Reduction in Services to the Court
•Reduction in Services to the Jail
•Increased Jail
•Refusing Cases
Funding
+
Increased Case Filings City Justice Court
+
Justice Court Case Increase Predictions
Increased Filing Types
Crime Category 2024 January-April
Filings
2025 January-April
Filings
145 227
Criminal Mischief 54 73
Criminal Trespassing/Park
Curfew/Camping 216 978
DUI 114 76
Drugs 120 604
False Identity/Docs 24 32
Loitering/Disorderly/Public Intox 79 360
Theft 188 456
Increased Filing Types
Crime Category 2024 TOTAL Filings 2025 Predictions
Assault/Battery/DV 599 681
Criminal Mischief 267 219
Criminal Trespassing/Park
Curfew/Camping 974 2934
DUI 346 228
Drugs 583 1812
False Identity/Docs 84 96
Loitering/Disorderly/Public Intox 359 1080
Theft 688 1368
Caseloads
2024 Total Filings
•4,757 filings
•476 case assignments
per attorney
•Over 2x the caseload
standard for Public
Defenders
2025 Filing
Predictions
•10,609 expected filings
•1,061 assignments per
attorney
•Over 6.5x the caseload
standard for Public
Defenders
2024-2025 Funding
Salt Lake Legal
Defenders
•1.7 million
•10 attorneys
City
Prosecutors
•5.5 million
•33 FTE
Additional Projects
Familiar Faces
Homeless/Kayak Court
Jail Arraignments
Out of Custody Arraignments
Expungement Clinics
Project Rio
Assessments for Top 50
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
www.slc.gov/council/
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Michael Sanders
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 29, 2025
RE: FY26 BUDGET – POLICE DEPARTMENT
Budget Book Pages: Key Changes - 52, 57; Department Overview - 217-223; Nondepartmental
Overview - 269; Staffing Document - 301-304
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE:
The Police Department (PD) includes the Office of the Police Chief and three bureaus. There are several teams,
divisions, and task forces with these bureaus. For more information, page 217 - 218 of the Budget Book.
The FY26 proposed budget increases the PD budget by 12.41%, about $14,980,749, from about $120
million to $135 million. A large portion of the increase is related to new positions added mid-year, however
there are no new full time equivalent (FTE) requests. The Staffing Document indicates that the Department
currently has 779 FTEs including 12 added in budget amendment #2. There are 630 sworn officers and 149
civilian staff positions. The Department budget is summarized below.
Page | 2
$13,379,246 Increase for Personnel Services
The total personnel services budget is proposed to increase by 12.09%, about $13,379,246, to $124,023,678,
many of the items are negotiated as part of the union agreements. Personnel costs represent 92% of the total
Department budget. The increases related to personnel are summarized in the chart below.
The proposed budget includes three initiatives related to alternative response, totaling $735,980. These
initiatives are supported by a combination of one-time funding from the Public Safety Reform Holding Account
Fund and ongoing funding from the General Fund Police Budget:
1.Real Time Crime Center (RTCC)
This initiative supports the integration of public safety cameras into a centralized technology and
information hub, enhancing real-time situational awareness during emergency responses and calls for
service. It also facilitates call diversion, alternate response, and case resolution. The initiative includes a
one-time cost of $519,350 and ongoing annual costs of $35,325 for camera expansion and maintenance.
2.Drone as First Responder (DFR)
This initiative enhances patrol, investigations, and emergency response capabilities through the
deployment of drones. The program aims to reduce response times, divert calls for service, and allow
officers to prioritize high-urgency incidents. It includes a one-time cost of $95,000 and ongoing annual
costs of $53,550.
3.Civilian Overtime
One-time funding of $32,755 is proposed for civilian overtime to support the PD’s alternate response
programs. The need for civilian overtime is evaluated annually based on staffing levels, operational
demands, and other factors. While this specific funding is not guaranteed in future years, the
Department will assess the need and adjust future budget requests accordingly.
On May 13, 2025, the Racial Equity in Policing Commission submitted a letter fully endorsing these proposals
and the use of one-time funding from the Public Safety Reform Holding Account. If approved, these allocations
will fully expend the remaining balance of the Public Safety Reform Holding Account, reducing it to $0.
The PD noted that these investments directly support the Public Safety Plan’s priority objectives to:
Improve public safety by removing guns and drugs from the street,
Expand the City’s capacity for proactive policing and targeted enforcement,
Increase visibility, responsiveness, and accountability within law enforcement.
Page | 3
$864,454 of continued funding related to COPS and State Homeless Mitigation equipment
17.5 FTEs are supported by the State Homeless Mitigation Grant, with associated costs for supplies, equipment,
and technology totaling $498,692. 12 FTEs are supported by the COPS Hiring Grant, with related support costs
totaling $365,762.
There are currently 78 sworn and 2 civilian positions assigned to the airport. The proposed increase is related to
supply, and contractual inflation needs. As the Airport enterprise fund fully reimburses the General fund for PD
operations at the Airport, this request is effectively budget neutral.
Cost related to items such as protective gear, uniforms, digital tools, and investigative supplies have been
impacted by inflation. This increase is proposed to maintain current level of service.
There are various PD related expenses in the nondepartmental section of the budget book. Notable expenditures
are listed below, for more information see pg. 57 and 269 of the Budget Book. Please note that the
nondepartmental expenses related to the RTCC and DFR have been discussed previously in this report on pg. 2.
The proposed increases are related to salary and inflationary increases regarding City Hall police
presence, security, and protective detail. Please note that there is a $34,830 impact to the General Fund
that was not listed on the key changes worksheet on pg. 57 of the budget book. This will be corrected in
the final budget.
This is an inflationary increase to the contract for body cameras and vehicle integration.
Body cameras are planned to be integrated into the RTCC to enhance officer safety through real-time
location tracking and direct communication during critical incidents. Body camera footage will also
support non-generative AI tools to assist with police report writing.
The proposed FY26 budget includes a $545,099 increase to support the Social Worker Program and
expanded mental health response efforts. This increase reflects salary adjustments and inflationary cost
pressures. Of the total, $172,885 is allocated to the Social Worker Program, and $372,214 to the Mental
Health Response Program.
In FY25, three new police trainings—Arbinger, Leadership in Police, and School Resource Officer (SRO)
Training—were funded. For FY26, contractual cost increases total $23,930, including a $23,430
increase for Arbinger training and a $500 increase for Leadership in Police training. The cost for School
Resource Officer training remains flat.
Usership rates for each training are as follows: Arbinger (25 employees), Leadership in Police (36
employees), and School Resource (100% of School Resource Officers).
These funds were first introduced in FY25 to cover therapy sessions for the families who experienced a
negative police interaction. Funds carry over from year to year if unspent—ensuring support remains
available as needs arise. To date, three individuals have accessed this resource and received multiple
Page | 4
sessions of culturally responsive treatment. The Department plans to continue monitoring utilization
and will reassess the ongoing funding level after several years of program activity to ensure the budget
aligns with demonstrated community need.
The Department has provided an update on the 2024 Racial Equity in Policing Commission
recommendation to define “negative police interactions” be defined and privacy policy be updated to
align with Utah Rules of Evidence Rule 512.
The Victim Advocate Program developed a draft policy that defines “negative police
interactions” and incorporates language aligned with Utah Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule
512 regarding victim communications. This policy is reviewed following each use of Culturally
Responsive Therapy funds to assess whether further revisions are necessary. The Department
will continue to evaluate whether elements of the Victim Advocate policy should be formally
integrated into broader Department policy in the future.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. FTE staffing projections - The Council may wish to ask the Administration what the PD’s five-year
staffing projections are related to (1) proactive policing, (2) RTCC support and (3) DFR support.
2.Social Workers – Both the Fire and Police Departments employ social workers to support their
alternative response initiatives. In the vacancy information below, it’s noted that with two current
vacancies in the social worker team, the Administration may do some evaluation of the team structure.
a. The Council may ask about whether the evaluation of the team structure presents an
opportunity for any other restructuring or streamlining of the alternative response team. Given
the importance of the team (including teams in other departments) and its integration into
emergency response, the Council may share support for considering changes or improvements
the Administration recommends based on the last few years of operations.
b. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether there is any duplication of effort
between the Police and Fire departments and if opportunities exist for improved coordination or
potential consolidation.
c. The Council may also wish to ask about the process to establish metrics across the alternative
response teams throughout the City.
3.Negative Police Interaction Definition – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what the
current status of the Department’s efforts are to formally define “negative police interactions,” and what
next steps being considered for integrating the Victim Advocate Program’s draft policy into broader
Department policies?
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Reorganization
The PD has restructured its operations by consolidating Field Operations I and II into a single bureau, as
reflected in the organizational chart on page 217 of the budget book. Please note that the division budgets still
list Field Operations I and II separately due to ongoing data mapping and system updates related to the
Workday implementation. This discrepancy will be corrected in future budget cycles. For details on the
personnel transfers previously assigned to Field Operations II, please refer to pages 303–304 of the budget
book.
Vacancies
The Department is currently managing several extended vacancies in key positions, including:
Two social worker positions
Approximately 45 sworn officer positions (for a two-year summary of police vacancies see attachment 1)
One youth support specialist position (now reclassified as a youth intervention advocate)
Page | 5
The Department is prioritizing the filling of these vacancies and has initiated a refinement of its sworn
recruitment strategy. Including expanding the recruitment team, streamlining the hiring and onboarding
process, and allowing candidates to begin onboarding immediately following successful background checks.
Growing demand for proactive policing
The PD continues to face rising expectations from both the public and intergovernmental partners to expand
proactive policing, enhance community outreach, and broaden the use of alternative response models. Of these,
proactive policing is currently in the highest demand and the most under-resourced.
Increased patrol presence in high-crime areas,
Additional resources for the Community Impact Division (CID),
Expanded special operations targeting drug trafficking and gang activity,
Enhanced enforcement of quality-of-life concerns, including transient-related activity and disorder.
Drone as a first responder
Page | 6
The program remains in a preliminary phase and will be limited by a lack of dedicated staffing. To fully
implement and expand the program, the Department anticipates requesting a supervisor-level position along
with additional operational support staff. Sustaining the program will also require ongoing investments in
training, drone maintenance, record-keeping, and regulatory compliance.
Real Time Crime Center
The RTCC is envisioned as a centralized intelligence hub that leverages real-time data to enhance proactive
policing, threat detection, and emergency response. By integrating data streams from public safety cameras,
drone footage, and other analytical tools, the RTCC will support smarter deployment decisions, more effective
threat assessments, enhanced response times, and improved patrol planning across the city. It directly supports
the goals outlined in the City’s Public Safety Plan
Metrics for Police Community Response Program (PCRT)
Total calls for service (July 1, 2024 – April 21, 2025): 5,507
Calls diverted from Patrol: 4,762
Share of 911 hang-up calls handled by PCRT: Approximately 13%
Community engagement minutes logged: 3,149 minutes
Direct citizen contacts recorded: 440
Additional activities performed:
o Business and property checks
o Problem area patrols
o Special event coverage
o Crossing guard assistance
o Park presence
o Business outreach
Community Feedback
Page | 7
In November 2024, the Department introduced two additional surveys to capture more targeted feedback. The
first is an Investigations Survey, which focuses on the public’s experience with follow-up investigations and has
received approximately 100 responses to date. The second is a Victim Services Survey, designed to evaluate how
well support services are meeting the needs of victims; this survey has collected around 1,000 responses.
Beyond formal surveys, the Department is working to strengthen how it monitors and incorporates feedback
submitted through its website and social media platforms. Comments, concerns, and commendations shared by
residents are regularly reviewed and considered alongside survey results as part of the Department’s broader
efforts to improve service delivery and community trust.
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing
Funding has been removed for facilitators and outside consultants working with the Commission on Racial
Equity in Policing. The Commission will continue to be supported by members of the Mayor’s Office.
Part Time Position funding
The PD heavily relies on attrition savings to fund part time positions. Eight part-time positions within the
Department are funded through attrition savings. Currently, this includes seven Police Specialists and one Crime
Analyst. The Department also utilizes grant funding to support certain part-time roles, including Victim
Advocates and Youth Specialists.
HSA Discrepancy
The FY26 budget reflects a $567,752 decrease and a $182,000 decrease in Health Savings Account (HSA)
contributions for the City.
The written descriptions however indicate an increase. The narrative reference to an increase is standard
language used throughout the budget book; however, the Department is specifically budgeting for a reduction in
insurance rate changes and HSA costs. This reflects actual projected savings in these areas for the upcoming
fiscal year.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Two-year vacancy summary
2. Annual report on Sexual Assault Evidence (Code R) Kit DNA Testing
Attachment 1
Page | 9
Two-year vacancy summary
***Please note that in January 2024, the Department had 22 vacant sworn positions out of an authorized
strength of 608. Between January 2024 and May 2025, the Department’s authorized sworn staffing has
increased to 630. As a result of this growth, the number of vacant positions has also increased, reflecting the
ongoing challenge of recruiting to meet expanding personnel needs.
Attachment 2
Annual report on Sexual Assault Evidence (Code R) Kit DNA Testing
Page | 10
Page | 10
Page | 11
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Police Chief Brian Redd
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
OVERVIEW OF FY25-FY26 CHANGES
FY25 Proposed Total
$120,001,456 + $14,980,749 $ 134,982,205
FTEs: 767 FTE: + 12
(FY 25 COPS HIRING GRANT)FTE: 779
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
OVERVIEW OF BUDGET REQUESTS
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Request Title Budget Request
Overtime Increase $1,500,000
Alternate Response Initiatives:
•Crime Monitoring & Response Technology
Non-Departmental
Ongoing GF $35,325
One Time* $519,350
•Increase Alternate Response Program Drone as a First
responder
Non-Departmental
Ongoing GF $53,550
One Time* $95,000
Inflationary Increase – Operating Supplies $277,160
Airport Division Budget Increase $ 317,014
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
* Non-Departmental - Police
POLICE OVERTIME INCREASE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Item Cost Total FY 26
Overtime – MOU, increased calls for service,
increased FTE
$1,500,000 $7,946,346
Total $1,500,000
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME MONITORING AND RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Item Cost
Maintenance/Enhancements/Repair - Ongoing $35,325
Supplies/Equipment – One-time (Non-Departmental)$519,350
Total $554,675
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME MONITORING AND
RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY
•Centralized technology and information hub.
•Integrates public safety cameras, license plate readers (LPRs),
drones, and other information.
•Provides real-time situational awareness for officers in the field.
•De-escalation tool
•Supports call diversion, faster response, and case resolution.
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION
•$35,325 Ongoing request for cameras, LPRs, and maintenance.
•$519,350 One-Time Non-Departmental request for supplies and
equipment.
•Transitioning from technology planning to implementation phase.
•Current SLCPD inventory: 61 public safety cameras, 50 LPRs.
•Supports real-time information, call diversion, officer safety.
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION
Benefits
•Improves coverage in high-crime areas and public spaces.
•Improves investigation and incident response.
•Improves preparedness for major events (Events, Emergencies, and 2034 Winter Olympics).
•Provides advanced technology support for patrol resources
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
ALTERNATE RESPONSE - DRONE AS A FIRST RESPONDER (DFR)
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Item Cost
Supplies/Repairs/Maintenance/Licensing/3D Mapping $53,550
Supplies/Equipment – One Time Non-Departmental $95,000
Total $148.550
POLICE DEPARTMENT
•$53,550 ongoing requested for drone, repairs, and software.
•$95,000 One-time Non-Departmental requested for Supplies
•1,800+ flights since July 2023.
•Supports patrol, investigations, and emergency response.
•De-escalation tool
•Drone as First Responder (DFR) can help reduce response times.
•Frees officers for high-priority calls.
•Component of City’s Diversified Response Model.
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
DRONE FIRST RESPONDER PROGRAM (DFR)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
•Improves coverage, especially at night or along the Jordan River Trail.
•Decrease reliance on OT and outside agencies.
•Improves equipment reliability and readiness.
•Ability to scale up for DFR program launch.
•Provides support to Fire, Emergency Management, and Public Utilities.
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Benefits
DRONE FIRST RESPONDER PROGRAM (DFR)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
INFLATIONARY INCREASE – OPERATING SUPPLIES
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Item Cost
Inflationary Increase – Operating Supplies $277,160
Total $277,160
POLICE DEPARTMENT
INFLATIONARY INCREASE – OPERATING SUPPLIES
•$277,160 requested to maintain current supply and service levels.
•Includes protective gear, uniforms, digital tools, investigative supplies.
•Impacts of inflation to law enforcement supplies.
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
AIRPORT DIVISION – INFLATIONARY INCREASES
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Item Cost
Airport Division – Budget Increase $371,014
Total $371,014
AIRPORT DIVISION – INFLATIONARY INCREASES
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
•Requesting $371,014.
•Budget-neutral request to support critical supply needs for the SLCPD’s Airport Division, such as ammunition, Airport K9 supplies, technology and operational needs.
•Supports operational effectiveness of one of SLCPD’s highest-profile deployment areas.
•Reflects inflation in contracts and equipment.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE BUDGET SUMMARY
Request Summary Budget Request Summary
Crime Information and
Response Technology
$35,325
$519,350 One-time
Supports expansion and maintenance of public safety cameras
and LPRs critical to crime prevention
Drone Expansion $53,550
$95,000 One-time
Funds the Drone as First Responder (DFR) program to enhance
response efficiency
Inflationary (Supplies)$277,160 Adjusts for rising costs in essential equipment and materials
Police Overtime $1,500,000 MOU, increased calls for service, increased FTE
Airport Supplies $ 371,014 (Budget Neutral)Maintains operational readiness
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
Police Non-Departmental Policy Issues
Police Body Camera Program $127,438
Social Work Program $172,885
Alternate Response – Holding account (one-time)$647,105
Mental Health Responders $372,214
Commission on Racial Equity in Policing ($120,000)
Arbinger Leadership Training $23,430
Leadership in Police Organizations $500
City Hall Police Presence $38,505
City Hall Protective Detail $10,440
POLICE DEPARTMENT
All items are cost increases to continue existing levels of service except for Alternate Response and CREP
CLOSING REMARKS
POLICE DEPARTMENT
•SLCPD is building future-ready public safety infrastructure.
•FY26 requests allow us to increase alternate response related to
public safety.
•Investments today reduce risk, increase efficiency, and improve outcomes.
•Funding is critical to providing officers tools, resources, and
motivation to do their jobs safely and effectively.
•This funding ensures readiness for growth and large-scale events
like the 2034 Winter Olympics.
•Your continued support and partnership in keeping Salt Lake City
safe is very appreciated.
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
THANK YOU
Chief Brian Redd
Investing in Safety. Advancing Our Future.
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
SLC Budget FY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland
DATE:May 29, 2025
RE: FY2026 BUDGET – DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
KEY ISSUES AND POLICY QUESTIONS
General Fund Budget. The Community and Neighborhoods Department’s (CAN’s) proposed budget for
FY26 is $41.4 million, which is over $6.7 million (19.4%) higher than in FY25. This is the result of
incorporating two new divisions, Engineering and the Arts Council—though each of these would be smaller
than they were in FY25 (see chart below). One reason is that Engineering's budgets for FY24 and FY25
included some staff and projects that will remain in Public Services. The Arts Council was previously housed
in the Department of Economic Development, and will be briefed separately, in the June 5 Council Work
Session.
Item Schedule:
2
Apart from the addition of these two divisions, CAN would shrink by over $500,000 in net terms, notably,
with Housing Stability dropping from $9.8 in FY25 to $8.3 million proposed for in FY26. However, this
reduction mostly reflects the shift of neighborhood cleaning-related services to the Public Services
Department, with the Advantage Services contract of $1,315,000. The other three long-standing CAN
divisions—Planning, Transportation, and Youth and Family Services—would grow in varying degrees (see
individual division sections below for additional information). Still, the Department states that “The vast
majority of CAN’s proposed budget increases are either budget neutral or attributed to inflationary
contractual increases.”
Staffing Levels. The net number of CAN FTEs would grow by 49, to 244, primarily driven by incorporating
the two new divisions, Engineering (37 FTEs) and the Arts Council (9 FTEs) (see respective Division sections,
below). Beyond these new divisions things are a bit more complicated: two of the six the FTEs that were
transferred from the Mayor’s Office to CAN as part of FY25 Budget Amendment #3 (BA #3) would return to
the Mayor’s Office, and one would move to the Human Resources Department, leaving a net gain of three for
CAN. Increased costs in the Personal Services category—mostly associated with salaries and benefits for the
49 new FTEs—would be the biggest proposed type of spending in CAN’s budget, amounting to an additional
$7.1 million over FY25.
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
Hou
s
i
n
g
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Buil
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Plan
n
i
n
g
Tran
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
You
t
h
a
n
d
F
a
m
i
l
y
CAN
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Eng
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
*
Arts
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
*
FY24 Actual
FY25 Adopted
FY26 MRB
Trends in Community and Neighborhoods Funding
* These divisions would be moved to CAN in FY26.
3
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A.Housing Stability Division ($8,253,392; 22 FTEs). The Housing Stability Division administers
housing support programs and has coordinated the City’s responses to homelessness, though this role is
proposed to change somewhat with the move of neighborhood clean-up responsibilities to Public
Services. Housing support programs are funded with both Federal and City monies, including the local
sales tax increment known as Funding Our Future. Housing and community development outcomes are
tracked through a public-facing dashboard, www.slc.gov/housingstability/housing-stability-dashboard/.
1.Changes to HEART. Several components of the City’s HEART team (Homeless Engagement
and Response Team), which has provided services ranging from direct aid for unsheltered people
to mitigation programs for residents and businesses affected by encampments, are proposed to
move from CAN’s Housing Stability Division to the Public Services Department. The Division
reports:
“To advance the goals of the City’s Public Safety Plan, cleaning related
efforts are proposed to be centralized in Public Services. This will include
moving the cleaning portion of the Advantage Services contract, as well as
any other cleaning-related contracts, and 3 FTEs from Housing Stability to
Public Services. In addition, this effort will include transferring the
management of homeless cleaning/encampment-related MySLC reports,
phone calls, and emails from Housing Stability to Public Services.”
Moving the three FTEs and their related operating costs would reduce the division’s budget by -
$325,218, and the Advantage Services contract would reduce another -$1,315,000, for a total of -
$1,640,218. At the same time, funding for 2.5 FTEs remaining in CAN and their related operating
costs would be moved from State Mitigation Fund funding to the General Fund.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Pla
n
n
i
n
g
Tra
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
You
t
h
a
n
d
F
a
m
i
l
y
Hou
s
i
n
g
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
CA
N
A
d
m
i
n
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
*
Art
s
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
*
FY24 Actual
FY25 Adopted
FY26 MRB
Staffing in Community and Neighborhoods (FTEs)
* These divisions would be moved to CAN in FY26.
4
FY26 Expenditures Related to Homelessness
FY23
Actual
FY24
Actual
FY25
Adopted
FY26
MRB
Day Shelter 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000
Clean Neighborhoods 777,000 1,375,000 1,346,601 32,601
Detox Program 84,000 84,000 84,000 84,000
Storage Program 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000
Overflow Fund (Motel Vouchers & St
Vincent)
360,000 360,000 300,000 300,000
Landfill Camp Abatement Fees 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000
Ambassadors Central City/Ballpark 1,288,101 1,384,101 1,581,500 1,682,000
Blackwater Vouchers -10,000 -
RV Repairs -100,000 -
Total $2,738,101 $3,542,101 $3,542,101 $2,327,601
The Division also stated:
“Housing Stability will maintain service agreements related to homeless engagement
and outreach, including the Downtown Alliance’s Ambassadors Expanding Coverage
Area to North Temple (800 W to I-15), Rio Grande, Central City, and Ballpark. Of note,
the Administration is evaluating Public Safety Plan components that Housing Stability
may support. We will engage the Council if and when the Administration has more
detail on proposed changes to the scope of homeless-related services carried out by
Housing Stability.”
The Council may wish to discuss whether there are specific metrics that could
be tracked this year to help evaluate the effectiveness of these programs.
2.Funding Our Future Housing Funds. The bulk of Housing Stability’s FOF funds are passed
through to community-partner organizations for service delivery. The FY26 proposed budget
would also provide $330,000 to Ivory University House to provide contractually obligated on-
campus housing to certain income-qualified students who graduate from Salt Lake City high
schools. Other FOF categories were updated in FY25 to align them with the current housing
plan, Growing SLC: 2018-2022 (see below). The FY26 MRB would allocate $2.9 million in FOF
revenue to affordable housing, through land discounts and financing, incentivized rent assistance
and service to the most vulnerable. See additional information below the table.
FY26 Funding Our Future Housing Allocation
FY24
Actual*
FY25
Adopted
FY26
MRB
Planner 115,872 127,827 134,427
Community Development Grant
Administrator
91,344 131,684 103,471
6
Tenant Housing Assistance*1,524,620 1,524,500 2,321,880
Equity and Ownership Assistance 350,000 350,000 350,000
Housing Innovations Programs*525,380 525,380
TIP Tenant Relocation Assistance*180,000 180,000
TIP Tenant Resource Center*92,000 92,000
TOTAL $2,879,216 2,931,511 $2,909,778
* Note on FY24 Actuals: In FY25, earlier programs were subsumed under new titles to correspond with
the Housing SLC: 2023-2027 plan. This table reflects the total of the FY24 Actual amounts for those
earlier programs, as follows:
-Tenant Housing Assistance: combination of Shared Housing; New House 20; Build a
More Equitable City; Expanded Housing Opportunity Program - Landlord Insurance;
Incentivized Rent Assistance.
-Equity and Ownership Assistance: combination of Mortgage Assistance; Marketing Home
Ownership Programs.
-Housing Innovations Programs: combination of Service Models for Most Vulnerable.
3.Proposed New FOF Allocation Process. In a Work Session sometime after FY26 budget
adoption, the Council will consider a resolution that would shift all of the City’s FOF housing
program funds into the same annual application process as the annual HUD block grant funds to
improve coordination and resource targeting (transmitted May 6, 2025). If the Council adopts the
“Salt Lake City Housing Program Funds Legislative Policy,” applications by community
organizations to administer these programs would instead be reviewed annually by the
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board (CDCIP Board),
and then by the Mayor. These funding recommendations would be submitted to the City Council
for final allocations. The Council was initially briefed on this proposal as part of the October 15,
2024, work session.
4.Repurposing HUD Grant Program Accounts. Since FY23, the Administration has worked
with the Council to repurpose dormant accounts which, at that time, had accumulated $12 million
in repaid loans that were originally associated with HUD Grant Programs. These funds are now
being used for affordable housing-related activities that comply with the original HUD Grant
guidelines. As part of the FY26 MRB, the Division proposes that $2.5 million in dormant funds be
allocated from Dormant Program Income for the development of new extremely low-income
housing units. An additional proposal for $200,000 of these funds can be found in the Youth and
Family Division section, below.
5.Fix the Bricks. The City’s current FEMA-funded Fix the Bricks funding is scheduled to conclude
in November 2025. Housing Stability intends to apply for future federal funding, but at the
Federal level the future of the program is uncertain. After November, the Division will review
current staffing levels for the Fix the Bricks program, based on approved program and
administration funding for the year.
B.Transportation and Transit ($5,029,450; 31 FTEs). The Transportation Division is responsible
for the City’s transportation system, as well as transit programs and projects. (It does not maintain
streets and gutters; these are covered by the Streets Division in the Public Services Department.) The
7
Transportation Division’s annual funding comes from several sources in addition to the General Fund
and Funding Our Future, including Impact Fees, Class C funds (from the State Motor Fuel Excise Tax;
these are split with the Public Services Department), and the County ¼ Cent, and 5th 5th Sales Tax Funds.
1.Staffing. As noted in the Department Staffing section above, the Transportation Division does
not plan any changes to the number of FTEs in FY26.
2.New Scooter Program ($91,000, 0.5 FTE). Improvements are proposed to the dockless
mobility program, including a new part-time employee ($50,000 per year) funded with related
fee increases on the consolidated fee schedule. The plan is to provide a quicker response to
devices that are a disruption and improve the level of accountability for the vendors, as well as to
install and maintain improved Downtown scooter parking options ($41,000 operating budget per
year).
3.Citywide Parking Policy. In a Work Session discussion on March 4, information was provided
to the Council about initial work on a revised Citywide Parking Policy. The Department plans to
return to the Council with updated recommendations later this summer. These will include
options for mitigating parking problems in congested areas that are related to Doordash-type
deliveries.
4.Hive Passes. The FY26 budget proposes to fund three different types of public transit passes in
the Non-Departmental section of the budget: the traditional HIVE pass ($350,000), the Human
Services Fare Program $150,000 (a new separate category that was previously included in the
traditional HIVE program) and the free Hive Passes for school children and a parent, guardian, or
faculty member ($214,648, with $114,648 from FOF and the remainder from the General Fund).
5.Transit Funding. Funding is proposed to increase by 2.2% ($110,328) for FY26. The Westside
On-Demand Ride Service would receive a $124,193 increase to cover a contractual increase from
UTA. This would raise the total amount to $3.4 million. In addition, for the Frequent Transit
Network (FTN) Key Routes would be reduced by -$500,000 from $7 million, “to better align the
budget with the actual costs of the Plan. These routes serve 200 South, 900 South, 1000 North
and South Temple, and 2100 South. (Council staff note: The On-Demand Ride Services and
transfer to UTA for Key Bus Routes appear in the “Non-Departmental” budget, not CAN.)
The Mayor’s Recommended Budget (page 57) lists $100,000 in FOF spending
for “Transit Plan - UTA Outreach.” The Council may wish to request additional
information on this item.
FOF Support for CAN Transportation and Transit Programs
FY24
Actual
FY25
Adopted
FY26
MRB
Transit Planner 118,080 113,730 117,866
Planner (Planning Division) 146,401 146,961 134,427
Transportation Engineer 147,436 174,196 179,602
Transit Key Routes 7,000,000 7,000,000 6,500,000
On-Demand Ride Services 3,000,000 3,307,807 3,432,000
8
Branding and Outreach 100,000 100,000 100,000
TOTAL $11,611,917 $10,842,694 $10,463,895
5.Effects of SB195. The Transportation Division notes that most of the projects planned for the
2025 construction season are able to move ahead, either because they advertised before the
moratorium deadline or are outside of the study area. They do caution that there are quite a few
projects in the pipeline that will require UDOT approval. The Division is hopeful that all or most
of them will receive that approval, but stress that there is no guarantee is will be the case.
6.Traffic Calming. The Livable Streets Program is proposed for CIP funding of $2 million, split
equally between Class C and ¼ Cent Funds. This citywide program uses a data-driven and
equitable prioritization process for the implementation of traffic calming improvements in the
areas most in need. The treatments are selected with input from the local residents and
businesses, and may include speed humps, mini-roundabouts, pedestrian bulb-outs, crosswalks,
and other similar infrastructure to support targeted safety needs that arise within the community.
The Transportation Division completed its Livable Streets Program report in Fall, 2021, and two
Transit Program Planners began implementation of the program in FY23.
Several street safety and traffic improvement projects were submitted for FY26 CIP funding. The
only one that was recommended is a request for Traffic Calming: Central City 600 East Byway
Safety Improvements, $855,724. In the MRB, the Division noted:
“This year's funding request is for three zones. This program is scalable;
additional funding would allow Transportation to move through the 113 total
zones more quickly. At the current rate of 3-4 zones per year, the program
will take around 25-30 years to address all the areas of the city.”
The Council may wish to ask what the first several years of the Livable Streets
Program has accomplished, and how a regular reporting mechanism could be
added to this program.
7.Other Transportation CIP. The FY26 projects in the Mayor’s proposed Capital Improvement
Program Budget (CIP) would total $12.2 million. This amount is drawn from $5.8 million in Class
C funds, $880,000 of Street Impact Fee funds, $900,000 of Funding our Future funds, and $5.2
million in ¼ Cent and 5th 5th Sales Tax funding. The proposed uses are programs like Vision
Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements, Traffic Signal Replacement, Transit Capital, Missing
Sidewalks & Bikeway Network Gaps, and Livable Streets. Projects funded include GREENBike
Federal Grant Match and Bike Rack Replacements, Pedestrian Safety and Byway Safety
Improvements. More information will be available on these projects during the upcoming CIP
discussions.
C.Youth and Family ($3,298,100; 22 FTEs). The status of Youth and Family Division programs has
become uncertain, due to cuts in Federal grants which traditionally have helped fund these summer and
after-school activities for school-age children. These grants are processed through the Utah Department
of Workforce Services (DWS), which has discontinued grants for summer youth programming. For the
short run, the Department has proposed using $200,000 of “dormant program income” generated from
past projects for 2025. These funds did not originate with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
9
Development, so their use is somewhat flexible. CAN has been working with the Council over the past
few years to determine appropriate uses for remaining dormant funds. A transmittal to determine the
uses of the remainder of these funds is scheduled to be considered by the Council after the FY26 budget
is complete.
The Division’s immediate goal is to maintain the current service level. It states:
“To cover summer 2025, the MRB includes a transfer from Housing Stability’s
Dormant Program Income to fund summer programming for this year. There is no
identified funding for summer 2026 but the division is searching for grant
opportunities. In addition, in May 2025, we are applying for federal grant funding
through DWS. If this grant funding is not awarded, the ability to provide
programming will be highly compromised beginning in August 2025. If the grant
funding is awarded, no reduction in service levels will occur for afterschool
programming during the school year.”
Cost-cutting measures reported for FY26 include reducing the number art teachers normally hired to
support the summer program, and the number of teen internships, along with shortening the summer
program by one week.
1.Staffing. The total number of FTEs proposed for the Youth & Family Division would remain the
same.
2.Strategic Plan. The Division is working on a three-year strategic plan, which will include goals
and benchmarks. It is scheduled to conclude in July 2026. The Division has partnered with The
Learning Agenda, a national consulting firm with local expertise, for a strategic planning process
aimed at enhancing community access to high-quality out-of-school time programs and family
resources. It includes conducting an environmental scan, along with developing programming
recommendations and a fiscal analysis of youth and family programming. The findings will result
in a 3-year strategic plan aimed at greater alignment, coordination, and sustainability across
agencies and organizations.
D.Planning Division ($5,937,941; 42 FTEs). The Division works on the goals of the City’s general plan,
while reducing zoning barriers to achieving those goals. This work is done in tandem with land use
application processing.
1.Staffing. Planning Division staffing would remain at 42 FTEs for FY26. The Division notes that
“Administrative positions can be difficult to retain because of the pay scale and lack of
opportunity for job growth.”
2.Walkable SLC. The Neighborhood Amenities study undertaken by the Planning Division last
year was recently completed and renamed Walkable SLC. This online tool, which is available to
the public, is likely most useful to land use planners “to better understand and visualize the City’s
current conditions and access to the amenities that support a high quality of life, like grocery
stores, parks, and schools.” By facilitating existing development and zoning patterns, planners
will be better able to determine what sorts of changes to land use policy or zoning regulations
would result in greater walkability. As mentioned in the FY25 CAN Budget staff report, the project
was completed using existing City resources and $100,000 funded for this purpose was not used.
10
3.Neighborhood District Street Signs. In response to a Council staff question about the new
neighborhood district street signs, which are part of an FY25 Legislative Intent, CAN affirmed
that the Streets Division, within the Public Services Division, is in charge of manufacturing and
installing street signs. While CAN does not have information of the progress of the Streets
Division on this project, it suggested that for wide-scale updates, the Council might want to
consider allocating funding for Engineering to hire a contractor to add or replace numerous signs
at once. The Planning Division has offered to advise on the design of these signs.
Would the Council like to request that CAN pursue this strategy for the
Neighborhood District Street Signs project?
E.Building Services Division ($8,551,437; 65 FTEs). The Building Services Division is home to
Building Permits, Inspections, and Civil Enforcement teams. The monthly newsletter contains a variety
of measures of the work of these teams, including the numbers of building permit applications received
and issued, the value of these permits, the number of open enforcement cases (including for boarded
buildings), and the number of inspections scheduled.
1.Staffing. The number of staff would remain the same in FY26, and the overall budget is expected
to drop by nearly $450,000 (-$4.9%). The Division notes, “There has been turnover with
Building Inspector positions because some employees are leaving for other municipalities due to
immense workload.”
F.CAN Administration ($3,269,852; 16 FTEs).
1.Staffing. Three of the six FTEs who were transferred from the Mayor’s Office as part of FY25’s
BA #3 would remain in the CAN Administration. They are Community Liaisons (grade 26;
$102,721 each). The three others would be transferred out, with two returning to the Mayor’s
Office (-$220,498), and one (-$127,093) shifting to the Human Resources Department. These
changes leave the Office of the Director at 16 FTEs.
2.Vacant Building Maintenance. The FY26 MRB lists the maintenance budget for vacant
buildings as $700,000 in the Non-Departmental section. Over 70% of this amount would be for
just two properties: Fisher Mansion and Fleet Block: Fisher Mansion would receive up to
$400,000 in historic rehabilitation and stabilization efforts, while up to $100,000 would be used
for Fleet Block predevelopment costs, general property maintenance, utilities, and security, along
with costs associated with the forthcoming community benefits agreement.
8. The Department notes: “…[T]he City owns numerous properties that require funding, from large
surplus properties like the Northwest Pipeline Building property, to random sections of right-of-
way that require mowing and weed removal.” It offered a list of properties which, while not
comprehensive, includes the majority of properties that would use the remaining $200,000 of
this amount. See Attachment C1 for detailed information.
B.Engineering ($5,723,974; 37 FTEs). Funding for this new division in CAN would be transferred from
Public Services, with both their FTE costs ($5,371,960) and operating costs ($212,086). Thirteen
members of the Architectural Group, whose work is more closely allied with Public Services, would
remain in that Department.
11
C.Arts Council ($1,366,707; 9 FTEs). Funding for this new division in CAN would be transferred from the
Department of Economic Development, with both their FTE costs ($1,245,717) and operating costs
($53,805). A separate Council budget briefing has been scheduled to provide additional detail on this
program.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Major City-Owned Vacant Properties.
Attachment C1. Major City-Owned Vacant Properties.
Fleet Block (RFQ to close by the end
of May, 2025)
850 South 300 West landscape services, utilities
Fisher Mansion (Stabilization on-
going, RFP to be released in 2025)
1206 West 200 South security services and
improvements
315-325 East 200 South landscape services, utilities,
security services and
improvements
Northwest Pipeline (currently under
design by HASLC and Xylem)
329 East 200 South
1350 South West Temple utilities, landscape services
1358 South West Temple utilities, landscape services
Ballpark adjacent properties to be
conveyed to CRA by the end of 2025
1370 South West Temple landscape services
Warm Springs. RFP to be issued by
the end of 2025
840 Beck Street security services and
improvements, utilities
223 East Colfax Ave utilities600 South City Campus (specific use
TBD)
625 South 200 East
(Former Odyssey House)
utilities
PD Community Connection Center
Lease
925 S West Temple utilities
315 South Post Street utilities, fencing, landscape
services
Infill Homeownership (RFQ to be
issued at the end of 2025)
439 South Cheyenne landscape services
Additional Infill Homeownership
(RFQ to be issued at the end of
2025)
927 & 925 S Navajo St
756 S Montgomery
1050 W 1300 S
815 W 1300 S
500 W 200 South landscape services
1050 W 1300 S landscape services
Others
815 W 1300 S landscape services
Unoccupied Community Land Trust
(CLT) Homes to be sold in 2025
Various addresses landscape services, utilities
Leased properties that may have maintenance responsibilities include:
- Car tow, 2150 W 500 S
- Memorial House, 375 N Canyon Road
- Path Behavioral, 1370 South West Temple
- Salt Lake Acting Company, 168 w 500 N
- The Leonardo, 209 E 500 S
Other active leased properties
- Crew – 1760 W California
- Neptune Divers – 2445 S 900 E
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Tammy Hunsaker
Department Overview
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
CAN
Administration
Building Services
Housing Stability
Planning
Transportation
Youth & Family
Arts Council
Engineering
Proposed
Existing
2024-25 Highlights
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Tenant Resource Center launched in October
•Nearly 1,000 people have reached out for help.
•Over 8,400 page visits to slc.gov/renters, the Tenant
Resource Center website.
A construction boom in 2024
•Building Services issued over 9,000 permits | Total project
value exceeding $3.3 billion | Another record-breaking year.
City investments in transit & active transportation paying off
•Weekday ridership on the 1 bus route up by 50% from fall
2022 to fall 2024
•Over 37,000 bicyclists and pedestrians used 9-Line at 9th
and 9th in April.
Overview of Changes
Current Proposed Total
$34,846,348 $6,584,505 $41,430,853
FTE: 195.5 / PTE: ~60 FTE: 48.5 / PTE: 1 FTE: 244 / PTE: ~61
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Arts Council Transfer to CAN
Personnel Budget: $1,245,717 (9 FTE's)
Operating Budget: $53,805
Twilight Concert Series: $25,000 (to be added to the existing $1M
in nondepartmental)
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Public Services Transfer
to CAN
Engineering Personnel Budget: $5,371,960 (37 FTE)
Engineering Operating Budget: $212,086
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
CAN Transfer
To Public Services
HEART Personnel Budget: $314,416 (3 FTE)
HEART Operating Budget: $10,802
FY24-25 Advantage Services Homeless Contract
Amount: $1,315,000
Program Requests
Insights Description
1 Youth and Family Summer Program — Budget Neutral
2 Transportation Dockless Mobility Program (Scooters) — Budget Neutral
3 Dormant Unrestricted Income Programs — Budget Neutral
4 HEART Team — State Mitigation Grant to GF
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Youth and Family
Summer Program
Context
•Grant funding no longer available for summer programming.
•Summer programming provides kids with social engagement
and enriching activities.
•Majority of families enrolled in Youth City are low income.
•Cancelling summer programming could place social and
economic hardships on families.
Request
•Budget Neutral, $200,000 (existing fund transfer)
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Transportation — Scooters
Context
•883,733 scooter trips in 2024 totaling 952,315 miles travelled
•No dedicated resources allocated to manage e-scooter program.
•Resident concerns over use of scooters, particularly downtown.
•Proposed fee increases:
•Per device: $10 → $15
•Per trip: $0.10 → $0.20
Request
•$91,000 for program management
•$50,000 for a part time employee
•$41,000 for software/supplies, including installing and
maintaining parking areas downtown.
•Budget Neutral (offset by increased fees)
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Dormant Program Income
Context
•Housing programs have generated program
income over the years
•Approximately $8 million has accumulated but
has not been allocated to specific projects and
programs
Request
•$2,500,000 – Deeply Affordable Housing
•$500,000 – Home Repair Program
•$2,710,000 – Community Land Trust (CLT)
•$180,000 – Relocation Assistance Fund for
Tenants (RAFT)
•$2,074,000 – Line of credit pay off
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
HEART – State Mitigation
Context
•Requesting to move HEART team, funded by the Homeless
Mitigation grant, to general fund.
•2.5 FTE currently Mitigation-funded
•0.5 FTE already GF-funded
•Funding for salaries, benefits, communications, conference and
travel, and supplies.
Request
•Total request $265,117
•$254,315 – 2.5 FTE Salary and Benefits
•$10,802 - Operational Budget (travel, phones, supplies)
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Contract Increases
Item Cost Type
Youth and Family Sorensen County Contract $121,200 Ongoing - Inflationary
Homeless Services DA Ambassador Program $100,500 Ongoing - Inflationary
Nondepartmental Transportation UTA Westside On-Demand $132,000 Ongoing - Inflationary
Nondepartmental Transportation Hive Pass Program $150,000 Ongoing
Total $503,700
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Youth and Family - Sorenson County Contract
Current budget: $1,014,800
Inflationary increase: $121,200
Requested budget for FY26: $1,136,000
•No budgetary adjustment since 2018
•Average County invoices x 4 ($900,027) + janitorial
($235,648)
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Downtown Alliance
Ambassador Program
Current budget: $1,581,500
Inflationary increase:$100,500
Requested budget for FY26: $1,682,000
Increase of 6% to cover increased staffing and operational costs.
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
UTA Westside On-Demand
Current budget: $3,300,000
Inflationary increase: $132,000 (4% increase)
Proposed budget for FY26: $3,432,000
•Inflationary increase for popular on-demand transit
service for the Westside communities.
•For same price as local bus fare, users can travel
anywhere within this zone using on-demand
shuttles.
If this increase isn’t funded, service quality will degrade
and wait times will increase for riders.
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
Hive Pass and
Human Service Fare Pass
Current budget: $350,000
Increase:$150,000
Requested budget for FY26: $500,000
•Rapid program growth from FY24 to FY25
•Spent same amount during first half FY25 as
entire FY24
•Cover cost of increased demand, especially low-
income riders
•Inclusion of $8,500 to partner with GreenBike
•Free GreenBike annual pass to Hive Pass
holders
COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOODS
THANK YOU
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Kira Luke, Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 29, 2025
RE: Proposed FY 2026 Human Resources Department Budget
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: Key Changes on 53, Department Overview 197-202, Staffing Document 296-297
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Human Resources Department (HR) is internal-facing working with all departments to provide employee support
programs and administers benefits for the City’s 3,693 full time employees (FTEs). The HR Department is 92% funded
by the City’s Risk Fund and the rest from the General Fund. This staff report focuses primarily on the $5,410,276
General Fund budget proposal. Other budget changes are addressed separately in the Compensation & Benefits and
Insurance & Risk categories within the Unresolved Issues staff report(s) and briefing(s).
There are technically two new positions; one, a special projects analyst transferred from the Mayor’s Office, and a
Deputy Director level position, reclassified from a vacant tech position. If approved, total staffing levels (from both the
Risk Fund and General Fund) would be 39 FTEs, which includes the Police Civilian Review Board Administrator. The
Department includes an administrative team, benefits, compensation and classification, employee and labor relations,
employees’ university, HR information systems, Police Civilian Review Board, and recruiting and onboarding.
Increases
The majority of the FY26 increase is the new the FTE, and changes to personal services, as summarized in the table
below. These are the same compensation adjustments other City employees receive, applied to the HR staff. There are
several compensation adjustments which usually appear annually including base-to-base changes reflecting pay
adjustments such as reclassifications, insurance rate and pension changes, and the 4% salary increase proposed for all
City employees in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget. In addition to the 7% $350,553 increase in HR’s General fund
budget, the table below also includes funding from the Risk Fund for 4.6 FTEs. Those positions are in HR, but fully or
partially dedicated to administering benefits paid for by the Risk Fund.
Fund Item Amount
4% salary proposal $ 140,304
Base-to-base changes $ 76,462
Insurance rate changes $ 40
Health Savings Account (HSA) change $ (8,800)
Pension changes $ 15,454
General
Fund
FTE transfer from CAN $ 127,093
General Fund Total $ 350,553
Risk Fund Personal services cost share for 4.6 FTEs $ 87,601
TOTAL $ 438,154
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 29, 2025
Budget Hearings: May 20 and June 3, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: June 10 or 12, 2025
Page | 2
New positions
One new FTE has been requested, a Special Projects Analyst Grade 26 position transferred from Community and
Neighborhoods (CAN) for an annual cost of $127,093 (Attachment 2).
Another proposed position, a new Grade 37 Deputy Chief HR Officer is a reclass of a vacant Grade 19 HR technician
position. While not a new FTE, the reclass is a notable change in pay grades. The Department reports that this shift is
requested as part of a realignment of the reporting structure for HR Divisions, and will facilitate reorganization, focusing
on employee lifecycle and compliance functions. This would bring the HR Department to a total of two deputy chiefs. A
job description is attached (Attachment 3).
1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about the Department’s goals for reorganization and roles of
the Deputy Chiefs.
2. One of HR’s new goal and metrics for FY 26 is keeping the average time to recruit and fill a vacant position
under 40 days. The current average is 42.7 days. The Council may wish to have a discussion about hard-to-fill
positions, and what strategies are currently used to pursue that goal.
The Department provided the below status updates on two positions that were recently added by the Council in the last
two annual budgets:
- FY2024 project and policy manager
The project and policy manager has been actively reviewing, identifying, and suggesting updates for review for
outdated and inaccurate policies related to HR. Additionally, new policies have been introduced like the new
Parental Leave policy and one that is currently in review by the steering committee, Parental Bereavement
Leave. Additionally, with the potential for collective bargaining to be affected, an extensive comparison of all
MOUs is being conducted as it relates to impacted polices that would need to be updated or amended.
- FY2024 business partner
This role was filled through an internal promotion as an entry level HR Business Partner I. The individual in this
role has been instrumental in assisting our Workplace Compliance Manager conduct interviews and complete
workplace harassment claims. Additionally, this role coordinates and manages the appeal process for all
Hearing Officer level appeals and serves as an additional resource for all city departments as a second business
partner to act alongside the assigned HR Business Partner when needed.
The Department reports that the Workday Help module was successfully implemented in FY2025. The module added
self-service functions for employees to access knowledgebases of answers and step by step instructions for every day
tasks, leading to fewer calls for help.
No additional modules are planned for the current fiscal year.
1. Summary Comparison Budget Chart
2. Job Description: HR Special Project Analyst
3. Job Description: Deputy Chief HR Officer
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
HR – Human Resources
HSA – Health Savings Account
MOU – Memorandum of Understanding
I
Page | 3
SUMMARY COMPARISON BUDGET CHART
Y FUNCTION
Note: Some of the line items in the table below appear to have significant funding shifts that are the result of the
department cleaning up misaligned data where in prior years, personnel funding had been allocated to incorrect line
items. The net difference in the general fund is explained in the staff report above, while changes to the Risk Fund are
addressed in Unresolved Issues.
Department of Human Resources
DifferenceDivision Budgets FTEs 2024-25
Adopted
2025-26
Proposed Dollars %
Administration 8.6 $ 1,136,726 $ 1,248,162.00 $ 111,436 10%
Recruiting & Onboarding 5.8 *distributed in other cost
centers in FY25 $ 932,337.00 NA
Classification and
Compensation 2 $ 1,701,873 $ 404,802.00 $ (1,297,071)-76%
Employees University 2 $ 415,745 $ 342,000.00 $ (73,745)-18%
Police Civilian Review
Board 1 $ 428,993 $ 198,428.00 $ (230,565)-54%
HR Information Systems 6 $ 380,448 $ 886,266.00 $ 505,818 133%
Employee Relations 9 $ 1,075,802 $ 1,398,281.00 $ 322,479 30%
Benefits (row labeled Risk
Management/Insurance in prior
FYs)
4.6 $ 59,932,186 $ 64,068,250.00 $ 4,136,064 7%
$ 4,406,753 7%
General Fund 34.4 $ 5,059,723 $ 5,410,276.00 $ 350,553 7%
Risk Fund 4.6 $ 60,012,050 $ 64,068,250.00 $ 4,056,200 7%
$ 4,406,753 7%
Operating Budget for Department of Human Resources
Difference
2023-24
Actual
2024-25
Adopted
2025-26
Proposed Dollars %
Personal Services $ 10,602,949 $ 5,464,208 $ 5,902,362.00 $ 438,154 8%
Operations and
Maintenance $ 20,156 $ 67,946 $ 72,644.00 $ 4,698 7%
Charges and Services $ 54,637,100 $ 59,539,619 $ 63,503,520.00 $ 3,963,901 7%
Equipment Expense $ 90 $ - $ - -
HR Special Projects Analyst
Job Code
002760
Job Profile Summary
Manages department projects and initiatives that involve extensive research and preparing
reports to present to various groups. Advances new initiatives from the HR department.
Responsible for designing, coordinating, and executing a variety of special projects that support
leadership development, employee engagement, organizational effectiveness, and data-informed
decision making. This position combines a passion for people with analytical thinking, project
management skills, and a proactive approach to problem-solving.
Job Description
TYPICAL DUTIES:
Collaborates with HR leadership to conceptualize, design, and implement leadership and
professional development programs. Assists in developing new training courses and
resources that support employee growth and organizational goals.
Leads the design, implementation, and analysis of key organizational efforts through
surveys, including 360-degree feedback, employee engagement, and exit surveys.
Translates survey data into actionable insights and tailored recommendations for
departments to support improved retention, recruitment, and employee satisfaction.
Conducts research and data analysis to support HR initiatives and projects.
Develops dashboards and visual reports that communicate trends, opportunities, and
impacts clearly and effectively to stakeholders.
Manages multiple cross-functional HR projects from inception to completion, ensuring
alignment with organizational priorities and timelines. Partners with internal
stakeholders to gather requirements, monitor progress, and deliver project outcomes.
Supports change management, policy development, and organizational efforts. Serves
as a thought partner on emerging HR issues and proactively proposes innovative
solutions to enhance HR practices.
Explores and develops creative concepts, ideas, plans, or processes to address project
issues. Develops project parameters such as project needs, time frames, funding
options, budget requirements, staffing needs, methods, procedures and schedules for
project implementation. Drives project progress to ensure tasks and applications follow
agreed upon decision path and time frames.
Will represent the department/division at community meetings, workshops, business,
and other government meetings.
Provides support on a wide variety of HR-related special projects as assigned by HR
leadership.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Bachelor’s degree in Public Administration, Political Science, Business Administration or
a closely related field plus four (4) years paid professional experience in project
management, customer relations, policy initiatives development, negotiation and
implementation. Education may be substituted for the experience requirements.
Preference will be given to candidates with public sector experience.
Ability to prepare and present project details using complex spreadsheet analysis, and
graphic presentations and technical reports to Division Managers, City Council, and
general public.
Demonstrated ability to work independently with initiative, self-reliance, and dependability.
Light physical effort. Intermittent sitting, standing and walking. Comfortable working
conditions.
Considerable exposure to stress resulting from complex problem solving, stringent
project deadlines, and liaison work between City departments, Mayor’s office, politically
powerful community groups, and the City Council.
Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer
Job Code
002081
Job Profile Summary
Under direction of the Director of Human Resources, incumbent serves as part of the HR
leadership team tasked with policy development, strategic planning, coordination and resource
allocation necessary to support the City’s Human Resources mission, vision and goals. Directs
employee training and development; HRIS functions; and, employee relations functions. Assists
with development of business practices, department metrics, performance measures, policies
and procedures. Advises and make recommendations to the HR Director, elected officials and
department directors on strategic organizational and human resource issues. Provides technical
assistance and consultation, as needed, to department management, agency directors,
supervisors and employees regarding human resource rules, policies, principles, business
practices and procedures. Serves as acting director in the absence of the Human Resources
Director.
Job Description
TYPICAL DUTIES:
Develops, directs, and/or evaluates assigned programs. Coordinates program activities,
services, and/or program implementation with private providers, other governmental
entities, program users, etc.
Reviews policies, procedures and methods used to deliver human resources services
and achievement of department goals; formulates, recommends and/or implements
actions for program improvement.
Oversees effective assessment of needs development and citywide training programs
that link learning with job performance and organizational goals. Ensures training
efforts effectively serve the City’s strategic direction, including employee & leadership
development and other relevant solution-oriented programs.
Assigns and reviews the work of the HR Office Manager. Directs general day-to-day
operational needs and delivery of excellent customer service.
Assigns and reviews the work of the Training Consultant. Provides guidance on the
development and delivery of innovative employee learning solutions. Tracks and
measures the overall effectiveness of training initiatives for City employees.
Assigns and reviews the work of the HRIS Consultant. Manages strategy and directs HR
operations needed to implement technology solutions and overall process
improvements and operational efficiencies.
Provides advice and oversight, as needed, on management of employee relations issues,
including: employee coaching and discipline; performance management; employee
assistance; and conflict resolution.
Serves as a customer liaison between Human Resources and all customer
agencies. Conducts assessments, as necessary, to determine if the Department is
meeting customer needs, providing excellent service; anticipates and prepares for
upcoming trends and business needs.
Recommends, advocates and/or implements, new and/or changes to existing, policies
and procedures, laws or regulations. Develops or modifies rules, policies, or standards,
etc. Reviews
proposed ordinances and state legislation to determine impact on city operations. Gives
recommendations regarding implementation of passed city ordinances and legislation.
Facilitates/Chairs work groups, teams, and/or meetings. Creates a positive
environment, evaluates group processes, recommends solutions or alternatives, etc.
Assists in preparation and monitoring of the department’s annual budget.
Serves on various boards, councils, committees, or task forces, as assigned, to coordinate
department activities and facilitate department goals and initiatives.
Performs other duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Bachelor’s degree in Human Resource Management, Business Administration, Public
Administration or closely related field plus eight or more years of progressively
responsible professional experience, including at least two years of supervisory or
management experience, in human resources. Directly related work experience may be
substituted for education on a year-for-year basis. A master’s degree in a related field or
Professional in Human Resources (PHR) certification may be substituted for up to two
years of experience (excluding supervision or management).
Advanced knowledge and ability to apply advanced human resource management
principles, practices, methods; knowledge of current human resource trends, best
practices, and techniques.
Strong human relations and leadership skills.
Effective oral and written communication skills; excellent interpersonal skills.
Ability to resolve highly complex issues; develop and communicate new policies and
procedures.
Ability to work effectively with individuals from diverse backgrounds and at various
levels of the organization.
Ability to establish and maintain effective professional working relationships with
elected officials, department heads, employees or other agencies.
DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
Master’s degree in Human Resources or Public Administration is preferred.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Generally comfortable working conditions requiring light physical effort. Intermittent
sitting, standing and walking. May require frequent travel between office and
department or meeting location.
Considerable exposure to stress as a result of human behavior and job requirements.
All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals
with disabilities.
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Dave Buchanan CHRO
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
Insights Description
FTE Transfer from CAN to HR
Current Proposed Total
$5,283,183 $127,093 $5,410,276
FTEs: 38 / PTE: 3 1 FTE Transfer FTE: 39 / PTE: 3
HUMAN RESOURCES
Parental Bereavement Leave
In the unfortunate circumstance a parent experiences the
loss of a child (under 18), a new leave option will be
available which provides 10 days of bereavement rather
than the current 5 days.
Policy will be introduced and added to the existing Leave
Policy in 2025.
Near $0 impact to budget
HUMAN RESOURCES
Benefit Enhancement
Improved Wellness Program
Transition from Wellright (Current) to ComPsych/WebMD.
•Lower operating cost
•All full-time & part-time employees covered
•Integration with existing EAP services
•Rewards/gift card program continuation
•Access to WebMD services
•Ability to sync fitness trackers
•Suggested activities based on goals and interests
Expected outcome is greater participation and more
seamless experience with existing services.
$0 impact to budget
HUMAN RESOURCES
Benefit Enhancement
BUDGET ASK
Item Cost Type
FTE Transfer from CAN to HR for Special Project &
Program Analyst
$127,093 Budget Neutral -
Ongoing
Parental Bereavement Leave $0 Ongoing
Enhanced Wellness Program $0 Ongoing
Total $127,093
HUMAN RESOURCES
Non-Represented Employees
Considerations: current market conditions, labor shortages,
increased cost of labor and inflation.
CCAC recommends an increase of no less than 4% to non-
represented employees or a 4% COLA .
HUMAN RESOURCES
City Wide Cost of Living
Significantly Lagging Employees
HUMAN RESOURCES
2024-25 Local Market Pay Comparison
Determined by any job that has a compa-
ratio less than or equal to 90% of market.
Non-Represented, AFSMCE and Public
Safety were evaluated. Only the Non-
Represented group identified lagging jobs.
Job Title Market
Comparison
Golf Professional 86%
Licensed Architect 86%
Purchasing Agent 88%
Cybersecurity Engineer II 89%
Principal Planner 90%
THANK YOU
For questions contact department
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Chris Wharton, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake City Council, which met on May 29, 2025 in a hybrid
meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the C ouncil's meetin g a s required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at l east a two-thirds vote, as deta iled in the minutes of
the ope n meeting, to close a portio n of the meeting t o discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual;
§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 andPublic 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
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic 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: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
Chris Wharton (Jun 26, 2025 13:01 MDT)Jun 26, 2025
May 29, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement
Final Audit Report 2025-06-26
Created:2025-06-25
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAV-Tcp8eEAeSoKKBsX19ION90_i8IzoM6
"May 29, 2025 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slc.gov)
2025-06-25 - 7:46:07 PM GMT
Document emailed to Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov) for signature
2025-06-25 - 7:47:15 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
2025-06-25 - 9:46:32 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Chris Wharton (chris.wharton@slc.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-06-26 - 7:01:17 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-06-26 - 7:01:17 PM GMT