HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2025 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
May 22, 2025 Tuesday 2:00 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
2:00 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: 10:12:05
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: Department of Public Lands ~ 2:00 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Department of Public Lands
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 22, 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: Golf Fund ~ 2:45 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed Golf Fund 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 22, 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 ~ 3:30 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: Department of Economic
Development ~ 3:50 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about the proposed budget for the Department of
Economic Development 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 22, 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: Office of the City Attorney Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposed General Fund portion of
the Attorney’s Office 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 22, 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
6.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair -
-
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
7.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director -
-
Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and
announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to
City Council business, including but not limited to scheduling items.
8.Tentative Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health
of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements
of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 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.
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
SLC Budget FY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland
Public Policy & Budget Analyst
DATE:May 22, 2025
RE:UPDATED FY2026 BUDGET – DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
- Key Changes, 52-53; Department Overview, 223-230; Staffing, 305-309
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BELOW WAS CORRECTED
The proposed Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget for the Department of Public Lands, including the Golf Fund,
would reach nearly $60.1 million, which is 20% ($9.9 million) higher than in FY25. The increase would be due
primarily to a $6.1 million (30%) jump in Golf expenditure, using accumulated CIP funds from previous years.
The Parks Division would add another nearly $2.3 million (14%) to the overall Department increases.
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Golf Parks Trails and
Natural Lands
Urban Forestry Public Lands
Administration
Planning and
Design
FY24 Actual
FY25 Adopted
FY26 MRB
Trends in Public Lands Divisions
Item Schedule:
Briefing: May 22, 2025
Budget Hearings: May 20, June 3
Potential Action: June 10
Department of Public Services
3
Increases in Capital Expenditures would be, by far, the largest change among the different types of spending
proposed for the Department in FY26, at 69% of the total increase for the second straight year (see chart below).
Golf CIP spending would combine with the expansion of work funded by the 2022 General Obligation Bond to
push this total so high. At the same time, DPL’s Charges & Services category would also see a 20% price increase,
echoing rapid growth in this category in previous years, due to the combination of increased rates for utilities,
contracts, and general inflation. Relative to FY25, the FY26 Personal Services increase (including pension and
merit changes, salary adjustments, and insurance rate increases) would be relatively flat, increasing by 5.5%, to
$26.2 million. Operations and Maintenance spending is expected to grow by $205,000 in FY26, recovering
some of the amount it fell in FY25, with a 4.7% increase. See Section B, below, for additional information on
concerns about public land maintenance levels.
Because the Golf Division is an Enterprise Fund, whose budget is supported primarily by revenue for services
offered, it is analyzed and briefed separately from other divisions in the Department of Public Lands. Those
divisions are supported by the general fund, the Funding Our Future sales tax increment, and the 2022 GO
Bond. The remainder of this staff report focuses on them.
PUBLIC LANDS GENERAL FUND BUDGET
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Personal
Services
O & M Charges &
Services
Capital
Expenditures
Equipment
Expense
Debt
Principal
Debt
Interest &
Fiscal
Charges
FY24 Actuals
FY25 Adopted
FY26 MRB
Shifts in Public Lands Expenditures
Department of Public Services
4
Among the five Public Lands Divisions, the Parks Division would continue to receive the lion’s share of the
general fund budget in FY26, at 56% of the total, or $18.9 million (see figure below, and additional information
on each division in section E). Parks also would see the largest increase from FY25, to $2.3 million. Its 13.6%
growth would be exceeded only by the Public Lands Administration Division, at 23.9%--though this $897,575
increase represents a much smaller budget amount.
Proposed Funding Changes Among Divisions in the Department of Public Lands
FY22 Actual FY23 Actual FY24 Actual FY25
Adopted
FY26
MRB
FY25-26
Change
Parks 11,019,015 12,247,383 14,184,321 16,621,580 18,884,099 13.6%
Public Lands
Administration 3,598,566 5,473,498 4,934,978 3,752,082 4,649,657 23.9%
Trails and
Natural Lands 1,403,976 3,886,105 3,243,640 3,819,230 4,183,047 9.5%
Urban Forestry 3,006,927 3,141,141 3,486,435 3,734,071 4,004,802 7.3%
Planning and
Design ----1,380,069 1,781,361 1,776,020 -0.3%
Total $19,028,484 $24,748,127 $27,229,443 $29,708,324 $33,497,625 12.8%
STAFFING LEVELS
District Supervisor but the Department confirms that Maintenance Supervisor is the
correct title.) Other proposed staffing changes include: one Constituent Services and Office Coordinator who was
transferred from the Mayor's Office to Public Lands Administration in FY25 BA#5, and the .15 Operations
Manager in Trails and Natural Lands which be shifted to the Parks Division, to be reunited with the .85
Operations Manager there.
At the same time, the title and salary grade of a large number of FTEs would change as a result of the FY25
CCAC (Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee) market pay adjustment funding. The aim of these changes
are to ensure appropriate compensation for the work functions and responsibilities that staff currently perform
(see individual division descriptions below for details). Taken together, these changes represent about $106,000
(7%) of the FY26 proposed personal services increase.
Proposed Staffing Changes in Department of Public Lands Divisions
FY22
Actual
FY23
Actual
FY24
Adopted
FY25
MRB
FY26
MRB
Change
FY25-26
Parks 78.00 81.00 84.85 84.85 78.00 -6.85
Public Lands
Administration 17.35 15.35 17.85 19.85 21.00 1.00
Trails and Natural Lands 7.00 29.00 37.15 32.15 32.00 -.15
Department of Public Services
5
Urban Forestry 15.00 18.00 18.00 18 18.00 0
Planning and Design ------11.00 11.00 0
Total 117.35 143.35 157.85 165.85 159.85 -6.00
BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1.Vacancies and Seasonal Staff. In contrast to recent years, the Department reports success in
hiring seasonal and part-time positions this year, with 195 positions already filled. Recruiting will
continue through the summer. According to DPL, “The positive change can be attributed to a
healthy job market and the increase to the seasonal minimum wage adopted by City Council in
FY23.” The Parks Division also noted that it has the capacity, in terms of vehicles, equipment, and
supervisory support, to hire 10-15 more positions but currently does not have the budget to do so.
“While these positions could lead to modest improvements, such as quicker response times and
additional cleaning in select areas, the primary benefit would be reduced workload for existing
staff.” The Division would need approximately $249,600 for the equivalent of 12,480 hours (or 10-
15 seasonal positions).
2.GO Bond Staffing. The Public Lands Department proposes two staffing changes to begin in late
summer or early fall, 2025, with the second tranche of GO Bond funding. The affected full-time
planning, design, and construction management FTEs are listed below.
a.Reclassification to Senior Landscape Architect. The Department of Public Lands
requests that the Council approve a reclassification from Associate Landscape Architect II
(Grade 29) to Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34) to reflect the qualifications and
experience of the project manager hired in this role. DPL states, “Further reclassification
would align their qualifications, job description, and pay. We wish to retain these time-
limited staff for as much of the remainder of the Parks GO Bond as possible.”
b.Funding Increase for Three FTEs. Since July 1, 2023, the salaries, benefits, and operational
costs for three full-time employees who work exclusively on Parks GO Bond projects are reimbursed
with bond funds at the beginning of the following fiscal year. However, the estimates for these
personnel costs were developed in early 2023 and were initially very conservative. Some savings in
the first tranche will continue to fund their personnel costs into FY27, and the second tranche will
fund the remainder of that fiscal year and the entirety of FY28. The Department proposes that an
estimated $296,000 balance from the first tranche go toward reducing the second tranche’s FY27
and FY28 salary, benefits, and operation costs for these employees.
1.Spring Concerns. In spring 2024, Council Members expressed serious concerns about how the
Department of Public Lands was balancing its substantial number of new projects with the need for
day-to-day maintenance at existing properties. For example, Council Members were receiving
complaints from the public about overflowing trash containers, and poor lawn maintenance. Some
improvement has been reported this spring, but concerns remain. For FY26, Public Lands
Operations and Maintenance would receive an additional $205,184 (4.7%) for this work, bringing
the total to $4,559,825. (See, also, section A, above.)
Department of Public Services
6
Policy Question: The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how
their constituents perceive the results of the Department’s additional
maintenance expenditures so far this spring.
2.Adequately Maintaining SLC’s Public Lands. In May 2023 the Department prepared and
presented an analysis titled Adequately Maintaining SLC’s Public Lands in response to an FY22
Council Legislative Intent. It estimated what would be needed to fully fund ongoing maintenance for
all its properties (including those in the Golf Division) and concluded that $35.4 million would be
needed for one-time costs, along with $10.2 million and 54 new FTEs on an ongoing basis. This
analysis is not expected to result in immediate budgeting for these amounts, but rather to aid the
City’s elected officials in annual budget considerations and inform incremental steps in coming
years.
Policy Question: The Council may wish to consider requesting a progress update
on the Adequately Maintaining SLC’s Public Lands analysis in time for the FY27
budget discussions.
1.New-Property Maintenance Funding. In the past, certain DPL divisions had to take on new
maintenance responsibilities each year as properties were added to the Department’s roster
throughout the City. Beginning with the FY23 budget, Funding Our Future revenues have helped
close this gap. In the FY26 MRB, for the first time, there is a specific line-item in the Department’s
proposed budget for this purpose, funded at $710,329. Of this amount, $478,579 is proposed to
come from new FY26 FOF funds. No new FOF-funded employees are proposed for FY26, which
means the total would remain at 21.5 FTEs. The amount of Funding Our Future revenue allocated to
Public Lands in FY26 would dip by about 11% to $2.26 million, compared to $2.55 million the year
before.
Note: The Intergovernmental Transfers section of the MRB (page 267) shows a reduction in the
FOF transfer to CIP for capital maintenance of parks assets. An equivalent increase from FOF
appears in the Public Lands Department for contracting services for operational maintenance
with a focus on medians, UDOT-adjacent properties, and smaller assets. Staff is confirming the
actual amount of transfer, since it appears elsewhere in the MRB as $487,579.)
A.Consolidated Fee Schedule (CFS). The Public Lands finance team works with the City Finance
Department to ensure that the CFS has been fully vetted, including coordinated cost analysis and adjusting
charges as appropriate.
B.Utilities, Operational, and Contractual Charges. Public Lands is the only general-fund City
department that pays the utilities fees on its infrastructure, including watering and lights in parks, as well
as some park strips, roundabouts, and traffic islands. As the figure below shows, Utility charges have
sharply increased from FY22 to FY26. Contractual also have generally increased, though more unevenly.
The reasons for these changes include overall inflation and price increases, but DPL’s needs also vary from
year to year, depending on weather conditions, the City’s new asset purchases, contractual changes, and
more. The annual budget requests for these items are estimates based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
plus the proposed rate increases for public utilities.
Public Lands Increases in Utilities, Contracts, Operations and Fuel
Actual
FY22
Actual
FY23
Actual
FY24
FY25
Adopted
FY26
MRB
Utilities Increases 162,500 332,157 451,800 549,300 950,091
Department of Public Services
7
Contractual Increases 79,000 391,468 159,000 197,200 177,429
Operational Increases 0 0 0 0 94,184
Fleet Fuel 0 162,938 38,700 50,300 0
Total $241,500 $886,563 $649,500 $796,800 $1,221,704
E.Division Details.
1.Parks Division ($18,884,099; 78 FTEs). The Parks Division is charged with oversight and care of
all City Parks, the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and the Regional Athletic Complex. The Division reports:
“We will be saving costs through equipment upgrades, turf-care strategies resulting in
cost and water savings (purposely holding back on this year’s irrigation start-dates,
leaning into leak and spray head repairs in the pre-season), lighting upgrades to energy-
efficient fixtures, and anti-vandalism related strategies designed to lower repair and
replacement costs. Furthermore, security enhancements from fencing, lighting, and
security camera installation will be a net gain due to the deterrent effect they will provide
against what has been some very expensive theft and vandalism lately.”
a.Staffing Changes. As noted in the Overview section above, six Graffiti Response Field
Technicians and one Parks District Supervisor, along with the responsibility for graffiti cleanup,
are proposed to be transferred to the Public Services Department as part of the Mayor’s Clean
City initiative. (Note: This position is listed in the Staffing Document as a District Supervisor
but the Department confirms that Maintenance Supervisor is the correct title.)
The other proposed changes are mostly in the title or grade of existing positions, some of which
are the result of the FY25 CCAC (Citizens’ Compensation Advisory Committee) market pay
adjustment funding mentioned in Section A, above.
i. The Parks Division would gain .15 FTE moved from the Trails and
Natural Lands Division, which would result in one Parks Operations
Manager shifting from .85 to 1 FTE.
ii. One Office Facilitator II (Grade 22): Changed from Office Tech II
(Grade 15).
iii. Sprinkler Irrigation Tech I-III (Grade 16 to 20): Changed from
Plumber II (Grade 21).
b.Vacant positions. Parks has had trouble hiring some skilled labor positions at the pay grades
available. The Division cited the example of a Cemetery Equipment Operator position which
remained vacant for more than two months in FY25 and was just filled in early May. A similar
situation has occurred with some Parks Maintenance Technicians.
c.Increased Security. A new Parks security contractor is expected to provide higher-quality
security patrols, nightly park closures, and restroom security. Also in FY26, additional security
cameras, better fencing, and nighttime lighting will be installed, along with pruning or clearing
some vegetation to improve sightlines.
Regional Athletic Complex (RAC). Since the facility opened, revenues have consistently
failed to keep pace with expenses. The general fund subsidy is estimated to grow to nearly
$1,100,000 in FY26. Staff note: When the RAC was approved by voters in 2003, the City
Department of Public Services
8
estimated it would need some sort of ongoing general fund subsidy. The amount identified at
the time was $200,000.
In response to Council staff questions, the DPL stated:
“The operational increases are due to inflationary costs, not new
equipment or amenities. Since opening in fall 2015, the RAC has operated
under a reservation-based model and was never intended to be a self-
sustaining venue. Its primary value lies in the economic impact of hosted
events.
As of 2024, the RAC is Utah’s second-largest multi-sport complex,
generating over $120 million in economic impact over nearly 9 years.
This figure is calculated using Destinations International's Sports
Calculator and provided by Visit Salt Lake. (A list of estimated impact by
year since 2016 is available; the 2024 figure is $18.4 million.)
The economic impact reflects direct ROI to Salt Lake City through visitor
spending on hotels, dining, shopping, car rentals, and travel. Most
tournament guests stay and spend within city boundaries, with only the
largest events requiring lodging outside the city. Reservation revenues
are not included in these totals.”
The Council may wish to request a full briefing on the Regional Athletic
Complex for a future work session, including the strategies the
Administration is pursuing to help manage the general fund subsidy.
d.Other Parks Division Changes. The Parks Division mentioned two additional changes
which residents may notice in FY26. First is a greater focus on gopher and vole control in
response to fast-growing populations in recent years. Problems are not limited to holes and
mounds in turf and flatwork. In addition, they are increasingly destroying infrastructure with
tunnels that undermine headstones and paths, and by chewing on wiring and other
underground work.
$0$200,000$400,000$600,000$800,000$1,000,000$1,200,000$1,400,000$1,600,000$1,800,000$2,000,000
FY
1
7
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY
1
8
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY1
9
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY2
0
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY2
1
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY2
2
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY2
3
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY2
4
A
c
t
u
a
l
FY2
5
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
FY
2
6
M
R
B
Revenue
Expenses
General Fund Subsidy
Regional Athletic Complex
(figures not adjusted for inflation)
Department of Public Services
9
The second change is to weed abatement on City properties. This service will now be addressed
through contractual services. The Division believes constituents will likely receive quicker
response times to their complaints and requests with this shift.
2.Public Lands Administration ($4,649,657; 20.85 FTEs).
a.Staffing Changes. The size of the Public Lands Administration office increased by one FTE
mid-year in FY25 as the result of Budget Amendment #5, which transferred a Constituent
Services and Office Coordinator (19) from the Mayor's Office to this office. In addition, for FY26
many grade and salary changes are proposed, in line with the FY25 CCAC market pay
adjustment recommendations (see Staffing Levels section, above).
i. The title of the existing “Public Lands Deputy Director” (38) would be
replaced with Deputy Director of Public Lands, resulting in two of these
positions at the same title and grade.
ii. Finance Manager II (34) would be changed to Finance Manager III
(35).
iii. Public Lands Event Manager (25) would be changed to Salt Lake City
Event Manager (27).
iv. One Civic Engagement Program Specialist (24) would be changed to
Communications Coordinator (25).
v. Special Project Assistant (21) would be changed to Community
Partnerships & Engagement Coordinator (25).
vi. Office Facilitator II (22) would be changed to Civic Engagement
Project Specialist I (23).
vii. Office Tech I (15) would be changed to Office Facilitator II (22).
b. A list of Citywide events organized by the Department of Public Lands can be found here.
3.Trails and Natural Lands Division ($4,183,047; 32 FTEs). The division focuses on advancing
the ecological health and biodiversity of the public lands system and improving natural lands and
resources for habitat protection and sustainable recreational use. The total FTEs within the Trails
and Natural Lands Division also includes 19 full time positions within the Park Ranger Program.
a.Staffing Changes. The Trails and Natural Lands Division would lose .15 FTE to the Parks
Division in FY26. The other proposed change to Division staffing is that the Recreation Trails
Project Manager (28) would be reclassified as an Operations Manager (31).
b.Foothill Trails Maintenance. In conjunction with the FY22 budget, the Council adopted a
budget contingency that halted construction in the Foothill Trails while community concerns
were addressed. Additional information on the budget contingency and subsequent Department
and community work related to this issue can be found in Attachment C1.
The Division also reported the following planned activities related to this area:
Department of Public Services
10
i.“Trails and Natural Lands has recently increased trail maintenance
capacity by selecting three on-call trail maintenance contractors to
assist work in the Foothills Natural Area. This will help reduce future
deferred trail maintenance. […] TNL has initiated a Foothills
Stewardship Program to increase our maintenance capacity for trail
and ecological maintenance in the Foothills.”
ii.“Maintenance of Existing Foothill Natural Areas and Trailheads:
Five major trailheads (includes off-street parking) and 25 minor
trailheads (residential access points) have been or will be renovated
to include amenities to support environmental and user safety in the
Foothills. "Welcome Stations” at each trailhead will include waste
bins, dog-waste bag dispensers, trail counters, and trail signage. All
of these amenities will require additional upkeep for maintenance-
related tasks. Additionally, we’ve requested additional part-time
staff for maintenance of the I-Street bike park in coordination with
the volunteer team of I Street Bike Park Stewards.”
c. Several FY26 goals of Trails and Natural Lands also would touch on aspects of the Foothill Trails
system, as well as other areas.
i.“Improve maintenance of existing soft surface recreational trails
within Salt Lake City, specifically in the Foothills Natural Area. The
Foothill Trails System Plan outlined both the design and construction
of new trails, repairing and integration of select pre-existing trails,
the maintenance of system trails, and the ecological maintenance of
surrounding natural areas.”
ii.“Make progress toward clearly defined restoration and enhancement
objectives through updated operation plans for specific natural lands
properties.”
iii.“Improve community awareness and appreciation of our trails and
natural lands properties and park through increased signage and
communication methods.”
Policy Question: Would the Council like to work with the Administration on
the timing of a potential discussion on the status of the Foothill Trails, and at
what point the terms of the FY2022 budget contingency might be considered
met?
4. Urban Forestry Division ($4,004,802; 18 FTEs). The Division specializes in maintaining city
trees including pruning, planting, removal, health evaluation, emergency response, project plan
review and permit issuance, storm cleanup, and hazard assessment. It coordinates with the Parks,
Natural Lands, and Golf Divisions to identify high priority/high value tree planting opportunities on
Public Lands properties and organizes volunteers to help with the planting. Currently, more than
90% of trees planted in City parks are planted by volunteers. At the same time, the Division is
upgrading irrigation systems on public lands so that trees can be watered more efficiently.
a.Staffing Changes. The Urban Forestry Division is proposed to remain at 18 FTEs in the MRB,
the same as in the past three years. However, several title and grade changes are proposed:
Department of Public Services
11
i. Urban Forestry Operations Manager (31): Grade changed from 28.
ii. Urban Forestry Program Manager (28): Changed from Urban Forestry
Services Supervisor (25).
iii. Operations Supervisor (27): Changed from Urban Forestry Field
Supervisor (24).
iv. Public Lands Project Manager (27): Changed from Forest Area Service
Coordinator (22).
v. One Forest Area Service Coordinator (22): Changed from Office Tech
(15).
b.Tree Removal Mitigation Funds. The Division is currently developing a strategy to use
existing funds collected from tree removal mitigation fees. The goals are to implement tree-
specific irrigation upgrades to city parks and begin updating its tree inventory data, which is
now more than a decade old. This special revenue account is funded by fees charged when
construction or development projects require the removal of street trees on public property, or
of protected specimen trees on private property. The fees are based on the quantity and size of
trees removed. The current balance in the account is approximately $700,000, and the Division
plans to spend about $100,000 in FY26. The total cost for upgrading tree irrigation in all City
parks is not known. For now, the account prioritizes locations where substantial recent tree
planting has occurred. In future years, the portion of the account balance used will depend in
part on the mitigation fees received.
c.Service Time Reductions. Urban Forestry has succeeded in reducing service-wait times
during spring and fall by transitioning its tree planting program to the dormant season
(November through April). This means tree planting services occur when fewer services
requests are received.
d.Sycamore Anthracnose Study ($150,000). The Division is working with Utah State
University and concerned residents to develop a treatment program study. The goal is to better
understand the effectiveness, challenges, and costs of a large-scale plant health care program.
Such a program would require additional funding, in amounts to be determined.
5.Planning and Design Division ($1,776,020; 11 FTEs). This Division was created and initially
staffed in FY25 to support DPL capital projects and initiatives. It oversees site planning and design,
community engagement, construction document design, project management, and construction
oversight. In 2025, the Division reports that it is “also standardizing functional and productive
processes, specifications, details, and products to ensure consistency and higher quality across all
projects, phases, and project managers, and reduce the amount of time it takes to train new
employees.”
a.Staffing Changes. The division would remain the same size in FY26, with some adjustments
to titles and grades due largely to a July 2024 CCAC-funded market adjustment across the
“Licensed Architect” and “Principal Planner” job families Citywide. Also, two administrative
positions would be reclassified within the same pay grade (29), as follows:
i. Senior Planning Strategist (grade 32) would take the place of Senior
Public Lands Planner (31).
Department of Public Services
12
ii. One Landscape Architect III would change from grade 30 to 31, and a
second, who is currently a Public Lands Planner.
iii. Two of the Public Lands Planners would be become Associate
Landscape Architect IIs (one funded by the GO Bond), at grade 29.
iv. The remaining two Public Lands Planners’ grades would change from
28 to 29.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Summary of the FY22 Foothills Trails Budget Contingency & Forthcoming Foothills Plan
Evaluation and Recommendations Report.
Attachment C1. Summary of the FY22 Foothills Trails Budget Contingency & Forthcoming
Foothills Plan Evaluation and Recommendations Report.
Compiled by Austin Kimmel, City Council Public Engagement / Communications Specialist
In March 2020, the Council adopted the Foothills Trail System Plan. The following summer, Phase I trail
construction began, resulting in over 15 miles of newly built trails. In May 2021, concerns were raised about the
Plan’s planning process and construction methods, and Phase I construction was paused.
In the Council's adoption of the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) budget, the Council adopted a budget contingency
requesting the Administration work with various stakeholders to review the Foothills Trail System Plan and
subsequent implementation. The contingency outlined the Council's request to the Administration to hire
outside experts to evaluate the Plan's land preservation and stewardship strategies, respect for Tribal concerns,
and identify strategies for improvement. The contingency has been provided below for convenience:
2. Conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails–Existing and new
funds for the construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail
System Master Plan, Phase 1, will be placed on hold contingent on the Administration’s review in
collaboration with a broad spectrum of community stakeholders of:
a.the implementation to date of the master plan;
b.identification of adjustments or additional engagement as warranted; and
c.the Council’s authorization to move forward after the Council evaluates the results of
the process.
The City Council is willing to provide funding to the Administration for one or more outside experts who
can objectively evaluate the technical and public policy aspects of the trail changes and additions
completed to date and anticipated in the masterplan. That written evaluation should focus on, but not be
limited to, the extent to which trail planning and development have been consistent with the vision, goals,
and principles in the Master Plan, including best practices, strategies for the preservation and
stewardship of the land; and respect for Tribal concerns. In addition, the written evaluation should
include an analysis of how the process could be adapted to better meet the needs and desires of all users.
Existing and new funds for environmental studies will not be on hold, so long as such funds are not used
for construction or decommissioning of trails. Existing and new funds for maintenance or repair of
existing trails will be on hold, but may be released incrementally by the Council as information about
adherence to best practices and progress on community feedback is received.
Since the FY22 contingency was adopted, the Department of Public Lands hired three consulting agencies to
independently evaluate the 2020 Foothills Trail System Plan from three distinct areas of expertise:
1.SWCA Environmental provided a baseline pre-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)
ecological and cultural report to inform future areas for trail development, restoration, and
conservation.
Department of Public Services
14
2.SE Group evaluated the Plan and the subsequent Phase I trail construction. It also provided
several recommendations for the Administration.
3.DEA Inc. assisted the department with public communication efforts.
At a future meeting (date to be determined), the Council will be briefed on the steps the Department of Public
Lands has taken following the Council's adoption of the FY22 contingency, the findings by the hired consulting
agencies, and recommendations for future trail development and maintenance. The Council will also consider
the department's request that the City Council approve said findings and recommendations and remove the hold
on trail construction funding.
Approximately $380,000 remains in existing Foothills Master Plan Capital funding.
Budget FY 25-26
Presented by:Kim Shelley
Org Chart
PUBLIC LANDS
Public Lands Overview
PUBLIC LANDS
•ADMINISTRATIVE – 20.85 FTEs, 13.56 PT
•PARKS – 78 FTEs, 115 PT
(Including Regional Athletic Complex, Cemetery, and Greenhouse)
•URBAN FORESTRY – 18 FTEs
•TRAILS & NATURAL LANDS – 11 FTEs, 23 PT
•PLANNING & DESIGN – 11 FTEs
(Planners & Landscape Architects)
•PARK RANGERS - 21 FTEs
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
Insights Description
1 Inflationary and Contractual Services
2 New Property Maintenance
3 Contracted Park Security
4 Seasonal Staffing
5 Non-Dept Contract Increases
6 Graffiti Response Team - Transfer from PL to PS
Current Budget Proposed
Changes
FY26 Total
Dept Request
$29,716,013 $3,781,612 $33,497,625
FTE: 166.85
PTE: 125
FTE: (7)
PTE: 27
FTE:159.85
PTE: 152
PUBLIC LANDS
DEPARTMENT REQUESTED ITEMS
Insight Description FY26 GF
Ongoing
FY26 FOF
Ongoing
FY 26 GF
Non-Dept
Fleet Transfer
FY26 Total
Ongoing
1 Inflationary & Contractual
Services $1,371,704 $0 $0 $1,371,704
2 New Property Maintenance $490,852 $478,579 $333,450 $1,302,881
3 Contracted Park Security $515,000 $0 $0 $515,000
4 Seasonal Budget Increase $304,547 $0 $0 $304,547
5 Graffiti Team Trans to P/S ($768,398)$0 $0 ($768,398)
Total $1,913,705 $478,579 $328,650 $2,725,734
PUBLIC LANDS
1. Inflationary and Contractual
Item Cost Provided By:FY 26 GF
Ongoing
Public Utilities Inflationary Increase SLC Public Utilities $950,091
Operational Inflationary Department Internal $94,184
Sycamore Tree Pilot Study BA#3
Contractual Department Internal $150,000
Contractual Obligations Department Internal $177,429
Total $1,371,704
PUBLIC LANDS
Inflation and Contractual
Key Changes:
-Public Utilities Increases ($950k)
-Water, Stormwater, Sewer, Franchise
-Operational Inflationary Items ($94k)
-Urban Forestry Sycamore Study ($150k)
-Contractual Increases ($177k)
PUBLIC LANDS
2. New Property Maintenance
Item FY26 GF
Ongoing
FY26 FOF
Ongoing
FY26 GF Non-
Departmental
Ongoing
FY 26 GF One-
Time Trans to
Fleet
FY26 Total
Request
Contracted
Services Request
$0 $478,579 $0 $0 $478,579
Public Lands
Operations
$231,750 $0 $0 $0 $231,750
Seasonal Staff
(13,371 hours)
$259,102 $0 $0 $0 $259,102
Public Land
Equipment (Fleet)
$0 $0 $4,800 $328,650 $333,450
Total $490,852 $478,579 $4,800 $328,650 $1,302,881
SCOREPUBLIC LANDS
Marmalade Plaza Concept
9Line Trail
New Properties Maintenance
•16 New Properties and Amenities (FY 25)
•12 New Properties and Amenities (FY 26)
a.New Parks (4)
a.Glendale Park
b.Backman Community
c.Marmalade Plaza
d.Foothill Open Space Acquisitions
b.Parks New Amenities: (9)
a.Sunnyside Softball Fields
b.24 Foothill Trailheads
c.ROW/Medians Properties: (7)
a.300 West Bike Path
b.9 Line Trail (Central Ninth)
PUBLIC LANDS
3. Park Security (Contracted)
Item FY 26 GF
Ongoing
Eastside Security Detail $225,000
West side Security Detail $225,000
Bathroom Security Detail $65,000
Total $515,000
PUBLIC LANDS
Park Security (Key Locations)
West Side Patrol:
-Riverside Park
-Jordan Park, International Peace Gardens
-Cottonwood Park
-Glendale Park
-Key Areas along the Jordan River Parkway
East Side Patrol:
-Liberty Park
-Fairmont Park
-Allen Park
-Herman Franks Park
Bathroom Closures:
-27/39 Park Restrooms, Currently Serviced
-39/39 Park Restrooms, Proposed Services
PUBLIC LANDS
4. Seasonal Staffing
Item FY26 Ongoing
Request
Seasonal Budget Increase $304,546
Total $304,546
PUBLIC LANDS
Seasonal Staffing
Seasonal Market Improvements:
-FY23 Rate Increase from $13.00 - $17.85
-Year-Round Part Time Positions
-Spanish Translation Services
-Rehire Process for Returning
-New Seasonal Demand:
-Trash Removal Increase
-Increase use of Parks Overall
-Vandalism
-Irrigation Repairs
-Events Support Needs
-Illegal Dumping Mitigation
PUBLIC LANDS
Seasonal Staffing Trends
5. Graffiti Team Transfer to PS
Item FY26 Ongoing
Request
Graffiti Response Team - Transfer from Public Lands to Public Services - Personnel ($670,237)
Graffiti Response Team - Transfer from Public Lands to Public Services - Operating ($98,161)
Total ($768,398)
PUBLIC LANDS
SUMMARY
PUBLIC LANDS
Insight Description FY26 GF
Ongoing
FY26 FOF
Ongoing
FY 26 GF
Non-Dept
Fleet Transfer
FY26 Total
Ongoing
1 Inflationary & Contractual
Services $1,371,704 $0 $0 $1,371,704
2 New Property Maintenance $490,852 $478,579 $333,450 $1,302,881
3 Contracted Park Security $515,000 $0 $0 $515,000
4 Seasonal Budget Increase $304,547 $0 $0 $304,547
5 Graffiti Team Trans to P/S ($768,398)$0 $0 ($768,398)
Total $1,913,705 $478,579 $328,650 $2,725,734
THANK
YOU
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL BUDGET
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Allison Rowland, Senior Policy Analyst
DATE:May 22, 2025
RE:UPDATED FY2026 BUDGET – GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND
MAYOR’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PAGES:
Key Changes, 52-53; Department Overview, 223-230; Staffing 308
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SECOND PARAGRAPH BELOW WAS CORRECTED
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
SLC Golf operates six golf courses, providing greens maintenance; golf clinics, camps, lessons, events; and
retail pro shops, cafés, and cart rentals. The Golf Enterprise has 34.15 full-time employees assigned to
operations and plans to hire 47.64 seasonal/hourly employees for the 2025 season. Typically, Golf Fund
revenue is generated by user fees, including green fees, cart rental fees, range ball fees, merchandise purchases,
lessons, concessions and rental fees. The overall revenue per golf start (which factors in “playable days”) has
seen a steady increase since 2020, when workplaces and schools that were closed at the beginning of the Covid
19 pandemic, leading to a rise in the popularity of many outdoor activities, including golf. The Golf Division has
managed to sustain this growth over the subsequent years, according to the latest available data.
The Golf Enterprise fund collects the revenue generated by the activities of SLC Golf, a division of the
Department of Public Lands, and pays most of the expenses associated with it. In Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26), its
spending level would surpass its revenue budget by tapping into savings accumulated in the Golf Capital
Investment Projects fund (CIP). Doing so would help bring the recommended expenditure budget for the Golf
Fund to $26.6 million (a 30% increase), while the revenue budget would reach only $14.2 million, a $537,818
(4%) increase for FY26 (see section C, below, for the projects planned for FY26).
In recent years, the Golf Fund has relied on subsidies from the general fund for operational costs and debt
service, which is unique among enterprise funds. The practice has allowed Golf to dedicate its $2 per round
“CIP fee” to true capital investments rather than to offsetting operational costs. The FY26 recommended
budget would, for the first time, reduce the total subsidy to the Golf Fund compared to the previous year, to
Item Schedule:
Page | 2
$1.8 million from $2.1 million FY25. (See section B below for additional information, including indirect
benefits of Golf green space, justifying the investment from the general fund).
Funding $14.1 million in CIP improvements and continuing the $2-per-9 hole-round CIP fee to
help the Golf Fund catch up on years of deferred maintenance.
Completing the Rose Park irrigation infrastructure project and the new driving range facility at
Glendale, both of which are expected to generate additional revenue.
Reducing the total General Fund subsidy to the Golf Fund compared to FY26, from $2.1 million in
FY25 to $1.8 million. This amount reimburses several City charges for overhead expenses, freeing
up Golf resources for investment in deferred capital projects, and recognizes the indirect value of
golf green space even for non-golfers (see Section B, below).
The total number of FTEs would not change, but the Division proposes to shift one Golf
Professional I (Grade 23) FTE to Golf Professional II (Grade 28).
KEY BUDGET ISSUES & POLICY QUESTIONS
Golf Fund Revenue Trends. Golf revenue has improved in recent years, after reaching a low in FY17. It
is projected to recover from a slight dip in FY25 to climb nearly 4% in FY26. Continued increases in earned
revenue in recent years are significant to the extent they indicate the potential of the Golf Fund to improve
its financial position. However, as has been the case since FY17, the Golf Fund remains unable to fully cover
annual operating expenses at the City’s six golf courses.
For FY26, general greens fees would provide 42% of annual revenue, cart rentals would provide
almost 17%, and retail merchandise would contribute nearly 8%. The total would represent an
improvement over FY25, from $11.5 million to $12.7 million but is not expected to reach FY24’s
peak of $13.2 million.
Much faster growth, 78%, is predicted for driving range fees, would reach 6% of total revenue,
with the completion of a new CIP project at Glendale (see section D).
With revenue growing since FY20, the Administration proposes continuing the general fund
transfers for FY26 but reducing the total by $812,885 (see section B below).
Page | 3
B.Course Trends. The Golf Division uses several metrics to consider how the six courses it operates
perform relative to one another, and together, as golf system. The annual “utilization” rate uses the number
of “starts” at each course (regardless of whether the rounds played are 9 or 18 holes) and the “playable” tee-
times (to account for weather-related factors) to measure the extent to which each course is being used.
Data is available across the past 12 years, which provides a convenient measure of how changes in the Golf
Division’s operations, and investments in the courses themselves, have improved the attractiveness of the
of SLC Golf over time, and where investments might result in the biggest revenue increases (see below). Of
course, unexpected events—like the beginning of the Covid 19 pandemic and rise in the popularity of
outdoor activities between the 2019 and 2020 golf seasons—are also reflected in the data.
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
1
5
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
1
6
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
1
7
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
1
8
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
1
9
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
2
0
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
2
1
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
2
2
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
2
3
Ac
t
u
a
l
F
Y
2
4
Ad
o
p
t
e
d
FY
2
5
Bu
d
g
e
t
F
Y
2
6
Green Fees
Cart Rental
Driving Range Fees
Retail Merchandise Sales
Concessions
CIP Fee on rounds, passes
Miscellaneous (includes GF Transfer)
Transfers in
Golf Revenue Sources and Trends
Page | 4
C.General Fund Transfers/Subsidy. For FY26, the Administration proposes to continue the practice
begun in FY17 of using General Fund revenue to cover various expenses in the Golf Fund. The
Administration indicates that these transfers are necessary to enable the Golf fund to use its “CIP Fee”
dollars for capital expenditures instead of to help balance operational expenses, which ultimately
increasing its bottom line over the longer run. (See section E in the Addition & Background Information
part of this document, below, for more on this concept, including research indicating other municipal
courses use similar practices.)
With Golf revenue growing since FY20, the Administration proposes continuing most of the General Fund
transfers in FY26, but would reduce the total by $812,885, to $1,819,943 (see page 56 of the MRB). This
reduction would reflect:
A sharp 55% increase in the ongoing Administrative Fee category, which tallies a proportionate
share of costs for certain services provided to all units of City government, like legal and financial
administrative support, and also includes utilities, like water and electricity at courses, whose
prices have increased in recent years.
The regular annual increase to Debt Payments for Irrigation Improvements in FY18 (also know as
the ESCO) at several courses, which will increase every year until 2032.
The final year of the annual $500,000 Rose Park Infrastructure payment.
A much lower Reimbursement to City IMS Fees, by -$37%. This is another Administrative fee
category shared proportionately by all units of City government.
A dramatic drop, -$370,000, in the annual General Fund transfer used to bring part-time and
seasonal staff’s wages to the City’s Living Wage standard. Golf proposes to pay this amount from its
own revenues.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Glendale Bonneville
Forest Dale Rose Park
Mountain Dell Nibley
Course Utilization
Calendar year data, not fiscal year
Page | 5
Policy Question: The Council may wish to request additional information on some
specific elements of the General Fund transfers to Golf, such as: Why Administrative
Fees are proposed to jump so much for FY26? How did Golf manage to reduce the fees
paid to IMS for FY26?
Policy Question: The Council could also consider requesting a broader overview of all
Administrative Fees charged internally to City units.
B. Indirect and Non-Financial Benefits of Golf’s Green Space. The Golf Fund owns over 1,000 acres
of property across six courses—a substantial amount of publicly-owned green space. Acreage in the City
helps mitigate the urban heat island effect in addition to the aesthetic value of green space. Over a third of
this area (381 acres) sits outside the urban area, at Mountain Dell in Parley’s Canyon, which serves the
additional function of City watershed protection.
GOLF PROPERTIES
Course Maintained
acres
Other
acres
Total
acres
Bonneville 125 55 180
Forest Dale 55 6 61
Glendale 160 16 176
Mountain Dell 260 121 381
Nibley 46 6 52
Rose Park 140 16 156
Total 786 220 1,006
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 Adopted FY26 MRB
Reimburse other Administrative Fees
FY18 Irrigation Improvements (previously ESCO)
Rose Park Infrastructure Investment
Reimburse Fees paid by the Golf Fund to IMS
Living Wage adjustments
General Fund Transfers to Golf Fund
Page | 6
Former Golf properties
Jordan River Par 3 (maintained by Public Lands
as disc golf)
22 - 22
Wingpointe (Airport property, not maintained) 194
The Administration suggests that there are Citywide benefits to maintaining golf courses as partially-
funded, green open space, though they acknowledge that the non-golf benefits are experienced by most
taxpayers in a passive manner. In response to a question from FY 21, the Division noted the following,
which is still relevant from a policy perspective:
“Much of the non-golf use is passive in nature, and the access and preservation of the
open public spaces provide many opportunities and benefits to the public such as:
Trees and Open Space. Contributes benefits to air quality, urban heat islands,
urban wildlife interfaces and
Other activities include wintertime access, walking, snowshoe, dogs, and trails.
Public access to clubhouse and cafes
Public meeting space at Forest Dale
Jordan River Trail Glendale and Rose Park
Disc Golf and Footgolf at Rose Park”
C. Golf CIP. The proposed budget includes a continuation of the $2 per 9-hole round CIP fee. This fee, along
with the General Fund transfers, will allow the Golf Division to continue to invest in deferred capital
projects. The Golf CIP fund was established in FY12 as the repository for a Council-initiated surcharge of $1
per round with the purpose of catching up on deferred maintenance and critical capital projects at all City
courses. The Council’s intent at that time was that these funds not be used to cover operational deficits, as
it had been in the years before the ongoing General Fund subsidy was begun. In FY22, the CIP fee was
raised to $2 per 9-hole round to help reflect the toll of increased inflation across the economy.
The list below shows FY26 planned capital projects at each course, along with their estimated costs, which
would total more than $13.6 million. Another $501,328 in CIP funds is proposed to purchase additional
maintenance equipment for all courses. The Division acknowledges that the revenue generated from these
fees is not sufficient to catch up on all of its planned projects, and it is investigating longer-term solutions.
The full list of planned projects can be found in Attachment C1. Golf CIP Projects Backlog. Meanwhile, CIP
spending has steadily expanded since FY23, with amounts rising steadily, from $4.9 million to $7.1 million
in FY24, and to $8.3 million in FY25.
The Administration proposes the projects listed below for the FY26 CIP allocation. Of special note, the
largest projects would be:
1. New irrigation systems at the Rose Park golf course ($5.5 million) and Nibley Park golf
course ($3.0 million).
2. A driving range hitting facility at Glendale golf course ($1.5 million). This amount would
fund the first phase—the ground level only—of a covered and heated “hitting stalls”
structure at the back of the existing driving range at Glendale so the driving range can be
used during inclement weather, year-round. The covered bays will also contain two or more
golf simulators. The estimated revenues from the range are $225,000 for its first year of
operation; at that rate, the project will begin to turn a profit between years six and seven.
3. Repair of existing cart paths and construction of some new ones ($625,000).
4. Purchase of additional maintenance equipment for all courses ($501,328).
5. New maintenance buildings at Bonneville and Rose Park ($500,000 each).
6. On-course restrooms at 4 golf courses ($150,000 each).
Page | 7
The Council may wish to discuss whether the proposed purchase of additional
maintenance equipment for all courses ($501,328), listed as number 4 above, should
qualify for Golf CIP funding, since it could be considered to fall in the Material &
Supplies category as a regular cost of doing business, rather than a capital investment.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Golf Advisory Board. The terms of all current board members have expired and the board is current not
meeting. The Administration indicates that they are evaluating consolidating efforts with the Parks,
Page | 8
Natural Lands, Urban Forestry and Trails (PNUT) board. The Council may wish to weigh in on this.
If the board is no longer desired the Council would need to amend City code.
B.Discount Programs. The golf fund offers a variety of loyalty and youth/senior discount programs. More
information can be found on SLC Golf’s website: https://www.slc-golf.com/product-
category/memberships/.
D. Comparative Research in 2019. The Finance Department conducted a review of many municipally-
owned golf course systems around the country, as well as a more in-depth review of the accounting laws
governing enterprise funds in the State of Utah.
Key takeaways from the Administration following their review:
Cities of Salt Lake City’s population size do not typically have such extensive public golf systems.
Most of the comparisons are with larger cities in the West.
No other system studied charges administrative fees—although the same municipalities do charge
fees to other enterprise funds.
All but one municipal system operated with a structural and persistent deficit. All those deficits
were supplemented with ongoing support of the municipal general fund.
The State of Utah has legal and accounting barriers that the Finance Department has interpreted
to prohibit simply “absorbing” the Golf Fund into the City general fund. They appear to mean that
SLC Golf must remain a separate enterprise fund. To confirm this interpretation, the Attorney’s
Office has been asked to provide an opinion on the matter.
Similarly, there are legal and accounting barriers to the general fund “assuming” the Golf Fund’s
ESCO (existing secondary water-system debt). However, the general fund is permitted to provide
funds to the Golf Fund to pay these debts.
The Administration does not indicate any interest in selling or developing Golf property for a
different use.
E. 2014 Council Policy Principles. Certain Golf Fund policy issues have come up with regularity over the
years. The Council adopted Guiding Policy Principles for Changes to the Golf Enterprise Fund in 2014.
The Council may wish to discuss whether it would be helpful to discard, or review and update these to
determine relevance to the FY23 budget and policy goals of the Council at this point.
The City has a longstanding general policy of not subsidizing enterprise funds with general tax
dollars, and the Council’s Policy Principles discourage general fund subsidies to the Golf Fund
specifically, although in recent years there have been limited exceptions made to this rule. As part
of these guiding policy statements, the Council also agreed that City-owned open space should be
protected.
The traditional rationale for charging recreation fees for some amenities is related to the need for
“exclusive” use of recreation facilities, like baseball diamonds and soccer fields during league play,
or park pavilions for parties. Golf has been considered more similar to these exclusive uses than to
“non-exclusive” uses like walking on a trail or playing catch on a grassy area, but there may be
reasons to re-examine this view given the passive and/or indirect benefits identified above.
Page | 9
F. General Background Information relating to Golf Fund Financial History. As an enterprise
fund, the Golf Fund is charged with managing and maintaining the courses within the revenues that it can
generate through its operations. The Council has been concerned about the financial sustainability of the
Golf Fund since at least 2007. As early as 2004, deficits began to appear in the Golf Fund, though these
problems typically were described as temporary anomalies, rather than longer-term structural issues, and
were covered with the Golf Fund’s then-substantial fund balance, that was built up in the late 90s and early
2000s when Golf was significantly more profitable.
In 2014, after then-Mayor Ralph Becker indicated that he would close courses to address these budget
issues, the Council adopted a series of policy statements to define their shared view of how the system
should serve golfers, as well as the limits of what could be done to change the system. Staff note: Recent
budgets have not been consistent with some of these policy statements, and recent Councils have not
affirmed that they agree with the policies adopted in 2014. Later that year, the Council embarked on a
process of information gathering and pursued an extensive process to gather ideas from the public. The
Council also hired a municipal finance consultant to identify options that could help the Golf Fund
maintain financial solvency over the long term. In late 2014 and early 2015, a Council-appointed citizen
task force reviewed all the information assembled, including the consultant’s report and all of the public’s
ideas for Council consideration, and provided their recommendations to the Council. The process
culminated in the Council’s own recommendations to the Administration in February, 2015 (Attachment
C2).
Then-Mayor Biskupski’s Administration was optimistic about potential for Golf’s turnaround and proposed
a more incremental approach to change along with more general fund financial support. The guiding policy
ultimately articulated was that City golf courses should be subsidized because they are “public open spaces”
that nearly pay for themselves—unlike traditional parks, which do not raise significant revenue to offset
their own maintenance costs. Another initiative was to plan for more trail uses at Jordan Par 3 and around
Rosepark which would require substantial capital investment (a formal plan has not been transmitted, and
funds for these plans have not been identified). An RFI was published for a “TopGolf”-like experience at
Nibley (2019), but did not attract any proposals.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment C1. Golf CIP Projects Backlog.
Attachment C2. Council Recommendations to the Administration, February, 2015.
Attachment C1. Golf CIP Projects Backlog.
Page | 11
Attachment C2. Salt Lake City Council Recommendations to the Administration:
Options to Address Long-Term Golf Fund Issues
Motion adopted by the Council on February 23, 2015
1. Transfer Wingpointe Golf Course operations to the Airport immediately and encourage the
Airport to continue to operate it as a golf course, an attractive entry way and a potential revenue
producer for the Airport’s otherwise vacant property.
2. Close Glendale Golf Course and repurpose for other open space uses.
3. Consider legal options to repurpose Nibley Golf Course.
Page | 12
4. Initiate a bond proposal this fall to ask voters to fund comprehensive improvements to regional
trails and open space, including transitioning closed golf courses and the former Jordan Par-3
course. Ideally, the bond would be comprehensive enough to provide resources to address a
variety of uses, incorporating foothills and integrating trail systems to create a unique park
connection system. The Council encourages the Administration to determine uses through a
public engagement process throughout the summer.
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Matt Kammeyer, Division Director
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
Insights Description
1 Golf CIP Projects
2 Revenue Increase
3/4 Personal Services / Inflationary & Contractual Increase
Current Proposed Total
$6,286,429 $6,647,071 $12,933,500
FTEs: 34.15
PTE: 47.64 FTE: 0 FTE: 34.15
PTE: 47.64
GOLF
REQUESTED PROGRAMS
Insights Description
1 Golf CIP Projects - $5,903,735 Increase ($13,612,735 total)
2 Revenue Increase - $537,818 Increase ($14,156,634 total)
3 Personal Services - $169,748 ($5,638,655 total)
4 Inflationary & Contractual Increase $35,770
GOLF
Capital Reinvestment
The Golf Division has allocated $5,903,735
in new capital reinvestment projects for
FY26.
These funds come primarily from user fees
collected over the past several years and
have been set aside for prioritized course
projects that address decades of deferred
maintenance.
GOLF
Project FY25 FY26
Tee Box Leveling Projects $60,000 $60,000
Cart Path Improvements $525,000 $625,000
Bonneville Driving Range Fence $900,000 $500,000
Other Capital Projects $324,000 $827,735
On Course Restrooms $600,000
New Maintenance Buildings $1,000,000
Glendale Driving Range $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Nibley Park Irrigation Project $3,000,000
Rose Park Irrigation Project $4,400,000 $5,500,000
Total $7,709,000 $13,612,735
Change $5,903,735
Revenue Increase
The Golf Division projects an increase in
golf course revenue of $537,818 for FY26.
Projected increases are due to fee
increases in calendar year 2025, retail
sales projections and adjustments to
existing programs.
GOLF
Revenue FY25 FY26 Difference
Green Fees $6,427,618 $6,850,617 $422,999
Driving Range $480,036 $853,397 $373,361
Golf Cart Rental $2,239,296 $2,398,305 $159,009
Pass Sales $468,039 $455,166 ($12,873)
Concessions $129,751 $127,161 ($2,590)
Retail Sales $1,060,700 $1,079,705 $19,005
Other $2,813,376 $2,392,283 ($421,0093)
Total $13,618,816 $14,156,634 $537,818
Personal Services
The Golf Division projects an increase in
personal services of $169,748 for FY26.
GOLF
Full-Time Seasonal/Hourly
Operation FY25 FY26 FY25 FY26 Change
Bonneville $645,240 $526,881 $264,282 $299,272 ($83,369)
Forest Dale $293,313 $304,315 $191,944 $215,063 $34,121
Glendale $550,525 $561,071 $218,645 $256,053 $47,954
Mountain Dell $850,449 $879,430 $400,664 $428,421 $56,738
Nibley Park $328,653 $321,730 $154,317 $179,713 $18,473
Rose Park $421,336 $517,090 $203,634 $224,981 $117,101
Golf Admin $869,237 $816,897 $76,668 $107,738 ($21,270)
Total $3,958,753 $3,927,414 $1,510,154 $1,711,241 $169,748
Inflationary & Contractual Increase
The Golf Division has projects $35,770 in
inflationary and contractual increases for
FY26.
GOLF
Description FY26
Water - 20% Increase $107,841
Sewer - 20% Increase $3,661
Storm Water - 20% Increase $7,988
Other Equipment & Supplies ($83,720)
Total $35,770
THANK YOU
For questions contact department
GOLF
Calendar Year Starts 2018-2024
Calendar Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total Starts 267,887 251,690 304,916 327,476 312,607 329,916 371,599
Playable Days 264 226 247 251 208 231 249
Avg. Utilization 58%64%86%90%105%100%109%
Total Revenue $7,114,123 $6,775,868 $8,232,219 $9,944,835 $10,039,691 $11,229,373 $12,332,070
Revenue/Start $26.56 $26.92 $27.00 $30.37 $32.12 $34.04 $33.19
GOLF
Glendale Golf Course 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
COMP OTHER 545 450 564 468 461 579 289 311
DISCOUNTS 3,367 2,658 3,116 2,534 4,723 4,317 4,297 4,172
EMPLOYEE COMP GOLF 1,158 1,225 1,277 865 1,487 1,282 1,458 1,726
GOLF PASSES 4,805 5,357 4,808 3,587 4,916 5,497 4,961 5,044
LOYALTY PROGRAMS 10,409 9,350 6,839 6,068 7,123 6,017 4,292 5,510
POS TRADE (EZ LINKS)472 893 1,268 127 0 0 0 0
RACK RATE 27,550 30,899 30,475 42,256 44,109 42,274 42,025 50,666
UGA TOURNAMENTS 0 58 0 0 0 0 172 0
Glendale Golf Course Total 48,306 50,890 48,347 55,905 62,819 59,966 57,494 67,429
Tee Time Intervals 8 8 8 10 9 9 9 9
Playable Days 253 264 226 247 251 208 231 249
Yearly Playable Starts 65,514 69,612 60,151 52,700 57,313 44,147 49,661 51,041
Utilization %74% 73% 80% 106% 110% 136% 116% 132%
Total Course Revenue $1,152,075 $1,206,583 $1,143,997 $1,369,078 $1,738,047 $1,712,242 $1,913,737 $2,131,090
Revenue Per Start $23.85 $23.71 $23.66 $24.49 $27.67 $28.55 $33.29 $31.60
Rack Rate 9-Hole WE Fee $16.00 $16.00 $16.00 $17.00 $17.00 $18.00 $18.00 $19.00
Operations Fund FY25 FY26 Change
Golf Starting Wage $305,100 $0 ($305,100)
Equity Pay Adjustments $65,000 $0 ($65,000)
IMS Costs $350,000 $220,209 ($129,791)
Admin Overhead Costs $356,302 $553,115 $196,813
CIP Fund
General Fund Support $500,000 $500,000 $0
ESCO $528,213 $546,619 $18,406
Total $2,104,615 $1,819,943 ($284,672)
General Fund Transfer
GOLF
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY26
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Public Policy Analyst
DATE: May 22, 2025
RE:Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget:
Department of Economic Development
Budget Book Page References: Key changes pg. 50; Department Budget pp. 181-185;
Staffing document pg. 291.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The proposed budget for the Department of Economic Development (DED) for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) is
$2,896,278. This reflects a decrease of $1,912,905, or 38.78%, compared to FY25.
The decrease is attributable primarily to the Mayor’s recommendation to move the Arts Council Division and
Arts Council Foundation from DED to the Department of Community & Neighborhoods (CAN) in FY26. The
transfer of the Arts Council will result in a reduction of nearly $1.3 million in personnel and operational costs for
the DED. Additionally, there is a proposed decrease of $250,000 in the City’s construction mitigation grant
funding, which is operated by the department, due to an expected decrease in demand.
Economic Development’s budget is funded entirely by the City’s General Fund. The department’s primary
function is to lead Salt Lake City’s efforts in promoting local economic opportunities and business expansion.
The department also focuses its efforts on job creation, Salt Lake City’s business districts, providing support and
resources for small- and medium-sized local businesses, and increasing the City’s tax base.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Construction Mitigation Grant Program Funding: The Council could ask the Administration to
clarify how it concluded an expected decrease in the program in the next fiscal year. The Council could
also request that the department elaborate on what topics it will look into regarding its plans to
recalibrate the grant program, including whether it will consider the maximum dollar amount per
business which is currently set at $3,000.
2. Potential Legislative Intent: Explore Longer-term Assistance Options for Small Local
Businesses during Road Construction: The Council may wish to ask the Administration to explore
longer-term assistance for small local businesses impacted by road reconstructions. This would likely
require new funding and either changes to existing program policies or creation of new programs.
Project Timeline:
Briefing: May 22, 2025
Budget Hearings: May 20 & June 3, 2025
Potential Action: June 10 or 12, 2025
Page | 2
3. Arts Council Transfer: With the reduction of the overall FTE count, does the department have
adequate staffing to meet its objectives? Does the department foresee any impacts on its mission to
serve Salt Lake City businesses with the move of the Arts Council to another department?
4. Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF): Although not included in the General Fund budget
for Economic Development, the Council may wish to ask the department if it proposes any changes to
the EDLF program criteria or administration in FY26.
KEY CHANGES
Arts Council Transfer from DED to the Department of Community & Neighborhoods
($1,299,522; -9 FTEs)
Since its creation in 2016, the DED has consisted of two divisions: Business Development and the Arts Council
Division. For FY26, the Mayor proposes transferring the Arts Council Division (along with the nonprofit Arts
Council Foundation) to the Department of Community & Neighborhoods (CAN).
The proposed transfer would shift 9 FTEs from DED to CAN. A total of $1,245,717 in personnel costs and
$53,805 in operations costs (listed under Charges & Services) is proposed in the CAN budget to support this
transfer. If approved, transferring the Arts Council to CAN would result in DED's FTE count equaling 14
between Economic Development's Administration and the Business Development Division.
Construction Mitigation Grant Program ($250,000)
The City's Construction Mitigation Grant Program provides grants up to $3,000 per qualified business affected
by specific construction sites in a given fiscal year. The program helps retain existing businesses as critical and
necessary improvements are made to upgrade or reconstruct the infrastructure around them.
The proposed budget continues funding the Construction Mitigation Grant Program, which Economic
Development manages. However, in FY26, the program's budget is proposed to decrease by $250,000. The
Administration justifies the decrease to the winding down of projects associated with the Funding Our Future
(FOF) Streets Reconstruction Bond.
If the Construction Mitigation Grant budget is adopted as proposed, the total FY26 budget for the grant
program would equal $350,000 in FY26. Additionally, DED will take the fiscal year to recalibrate the
program to the typical size, duration, frequency, and intensity of ongoing city construction projects.
In correspondence with Economic Development, the Administration plans to keep the grant amounts at $3,000
in FY26, as increasing the dollar amount could mean fewer businesses would receive grants. For context, when
the program first began, the maximum grant was $2,000. The Administration observed that fewer businesses
applied for grants at that lower amount compared to the number of applications received when the maximum
was raised to $3,000.
Economic Development recognizes that the grant program is in high demand due largely to its business
outreach. If the $350,000 in FY26 funding is spent and more businesses apply, DED has indicated it is prepared
to request additional funding in a future budget amendment to accommodate the requests.
Other Changes:
Personal Services Base-to-Base Changes: $86,613 decrease
Charges & Services: $424,505 decrease
o Note: In FY25, the Main Street Promenade Study funds ($115,000) and the Cultural Core
Funds ($250,000) were incorrectly posted to Charges & Services, but have since moved to the
correct cost centers, accounting for the majority of the decrease shown in Charges & Services.
$53,800 is attributed to the Arts Council’s transfer to CAN.
Insurance Rate Changes: $3,249 decrease
Page | 3
Salary Proposal: $97,098 increase
o Note: the salary proposal represents the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) proposed for the
department. The value does include the 9 Arts Council FTEs proposed to transfer to CAN, and
is then included in the $1,245,717 in personnel costs that will be transferred.
Pension Changes: $3,618 decrease
Health Savings Account: $2,000 decrease
Main Street Promenade: received one-time $115,000 funding in FY25; not proposed in FY26
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Non-Departmental Funding
The proposed Non-Departmental budget includes $808,000 for Economic Development in FY26, a
decrease by $1 million from FY25.
B. Economic Development Loan Fund
The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) is a program operated by Economic Development for
the purpose of stimulating business development and expansion by making loans available to businesses
who qualify for specific criteria. Based on the most recent EDLF briefing to the Council in March 2025,
the program’s available balance was approximately $7.9 million and outstanding loans totaled over $4.7
million.
The EDLF loan program is within the City’s Housing and Loan Fund, which is separate from the General
Fund. Because the EDLF program does not lapse, it is separate from the department’s proposed FY26
budget.
C. Open Streets Program
Since 2020, Economic Development has operated the City’s Open Streets program which began as a
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, aimed at to supporting local businesses. Since then, it has become
a popular annual community event. The budget for the Open Streets program is housed within the Non-
Departmental budget and $400,000 ongoing funding is proposed. This marks a change from previous
fiscal years which proposed funding for the program as one-time funding. The ongoing funding, if
approved, could provide Economic Development with greater certainty for the program in the future,
and help the department stay ahead in its planning.
Operating Budget for Department of Economic Development
2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 Difference
Actuals Adopted Proposed Dollars %
Personnel Services $2,972,462 $3,574,170 $2,330,070 ($1,244,100)-34.81%
Operations &
Maintenance $39,102 $43,800 $49,500 $5,700 13.01%
Charges & Services $335,964 $591,213 $166,708 ($424,505)−71.79%
Capital
Expenditures -600,000 $350,000 ($250,000)-41.67&
Improvements
Expense 700,000 ----
Equipment Expense 13,153 --- -
FTE by Fiscal Year 22.00 23.00 14.00 -9
Totals 4,060,682 4,809,183 2,896,278 -1,912,905 -39.78%
Page | 4
OPEN LEGISLATIVE INTENTS:
A.FY15 - Maintenance of Business Districts (listed under the Public Services Department)
It is the intent of the Council to hold a briefing regarding the costs of enhanced services provided to the
Central Business District, in order to consider: a) revising how City services are provided and paid for, b)
services that may be offered to other established or developing Business Districts in the City, and c)
maintenance of amenity upgrades (such as lighting and benches). It is also the intent of the Council that
this discussion happen in time to incorporate any changes into the renewal of the Central Business
District agreement and Sugar House Business District. This Intent includes SAAs. The work should
involve the Department of Economic Development and the Finance Department.
FY25 Administration Response: Public Services is not aware of whether a study of
enhanced services was ever completed by Economic Development or City Finance. Unless
Council passes a special assessment specifically for enhanced maintenance and clean-up, there
is no budget or mechanism to pay for business district expenses (outside of the assessment for
economic promotion conducted by the Downtown Alliance.)
It is the intent of the Council to ask the Attorney’s Office to propose updates to the City’s code that
define and discuss the respective roles of City departments. This review should include, but not be
limited to, the Sustainability, Economic Development, and Public Lands Departments. Per Council
discussion, Sustainability is the priority.
FY25 Administration Response: Research and analysis are ongoing for amendments to
Chapter 2.08 of City Code; acknowledging the priority is Sustainability.
DED – The Department of Economic Development
FY – Fiscal Year
CAN – The Department of Community & Neighborhoods
COLA – Cost of Living Adjustment
FTE – Full-time Equivalent
FOF – Funding Our Future
EDLF – Economic Development Loan Fun
Budget FY 26
Presented by Lorena Riffo-Jenson and
Jake Maxwell
FY25 Economic Impact to date
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
•19 W.I.N.s (Written Impact Narratives)
•$570,500,000 Capital Expenditure
•1,011,655 Square Feet.
•1598 jobs
•12 Economic Development Loans,
equaling $2.2 M, 142 jobs
•191 businesses served by Construction
Mitigation Grants (CMG)
FY 24-25 Highlights
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
•Open Streets, Granary District & Downtown
•Construction Mitigation Grant Shop Local Campaign
•9 Wake the Great Salt Lake Exhibits
•Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) interest has
increased across several business districts
•North Temple Economic Action Plan (Corridor
Investment)
•Trip to Sister City in Matsumoto, Japan
•Foreign Trade Zone Partnership Transfer
Overview of Changes
Current Proposed Total
$4,809,183 - $1,912,905 $2,896,278
FTEs: 23 / PTE: 2 FTE: -9 / PTE: -1 FTE: 14 / PTE: 1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Requests
Insights Description
1 Arts Council Transfer from DED to CAN (-$1,299,517 ongoing)
2 Construction Mitigation Grant (-$250,000 ongoing)
1 Open Streets ($400,000, ongoing) * Non-Departmental
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Arts Council Transfer
The administration would like to transfer the Arts
Council Division from the Department of Economic
Development (DED) to the Department of
Community and Neighborhoods (CAN)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Item Cost Type
Arts Council transfer from DED to CAN -$1,299,517 One time
Total -$1,299,517
Construction Mitigation Grants
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
•Our current, ongoing amount for CMG is $600,000, but
as Funding Our Future projects wrap up in early FY26
and we design an ongoing program, we expect a dip in
demand for these grants.
•Any remaining funds from FY25 BA #5, Council could
appropriate to FY26 and add to the $350,000 request.
Item Cost Type
FY 26 Construction Mitigation Reduction, from $600,000 to $350,000.-$250,000 Reduction, On-going
Open Streets
This event has been a successful strategy for downtown
recovery through activation and outdoor dining and has
proven to bring economic results to the areas where it is
offered.
The 2025 Open Streets will be offered on Main Street every
Friday and Saturday of June 2025.
If the Mayor and City Council choose to carry on the event,
we request ongoing funding so we can contract earlier and
deliver the best possible event for our community.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Item Cost Type
Open Streets - Non- Departmental $400,000 Ongoing
Total $400,000
Summary of Requests
Insight Description FTEs FY26 Request
1 Arts Council Transfer from DED to CAN -9 -$1,299,517
2 Construction Mitigation Grant funds (Ongoing)0 -$250,000
1 Open Streets (Non-Departmental)0 $400,000
TOTAL -9 -$1,549,517
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
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 STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slc.gov/council/
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Michael Sanders
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:May 22, 2025
RE: FY26 BUDGET – OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Budget Book Pages: Key changes – 49; Department Overview - 167-172; Staffing Document - 286-
288
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE:
The Office of the City Attorney includes four divisions: Civil, Legislative Affairs, Risk Management, and
Recorder’s Office, as well as an interlocal agreement with the County District Attorney’s Office (DAO) for the
management of the Prosecutor’s Office. Budgets related to the Risk Management Division are reviewed
separately under the Governmental Immunity Fund and Insurance & Risk Management Fund.
The FY26 proposed budget increases the General Fund portion of the Office of the City Attorney budget by
1.41%, about $181,799, from $12.9 million to $13.1 million. The Key Changes indicate that the department’s
General Fund currently includes 67.5 FTEs, reflecting a net increase of 2 FTEs from budget amendment #2.
(Note: The Key Changes on pg. 49 are correct; the discrepancy with the staffing document on pg. 288 will be
resolved in the updated personnel ledger.) The department budget is summarized below.
Page | 2
$125,444 Increase for Personnel Services
The total personnel services budget is proposed to increase by 1.1%, about $125,443, to $11,447,052. Personnel
costs represent 88% of the total department budget. The increases related to personnel are summarized in the
chart below.
The City Prosecutor’s office is transitioning from the Prosecutor Information Management System (PIMS) to the
eProsecutor System. This upgraded software will streamline the digital transfer of cases from the court into the
new system, reducing administrative burden on staff and aligning with system changes implemented by the
District Attorney’s Office. The transition includes a one-time cost of $25,000 and ongoing costs of
$31,356.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Pay Parity among Attorneys –
The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update regarding the ongoing analysis
with the Human Resources Department on addressing the issue of pay parity among the City
Attorney’s Office, Salt Lake Legal Defenders, City Prosecutors, and County Prosecutors.
The Council may also wish to request a briefing to review the status of the evaluation, analyze
the preliminary findings, and discuss the next steps and strategies to achieve pay parity in both
the short and long term.
2.Increased Prosecution Workload – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update
on the anticipated staffing needs within the City Prosecutor’s Office in light of the sustained increase in
Justice Court filings and the expanded enforcement expectations tied to the Public Safety Plan (PSP)
and Downtown Safety Initiative (DSI).
3.Nuisance Abatement Ordinances – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update
on the anticipated staffing and resource needs in regards to upcoming nuisance abatement ordinance
change recommendations.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City Prosecutor’s Office anticipates an increase in workload for two reasons: (1) a sharp rise in Justice Court
filings and (2) expanding City public safety initiatives. Core criminal filings (excluding parking and small-claims
matters) rose 39% in a single year—from 23,141 in FY 2023 to 32,287 in FY 2024. The volume continues to grow,
with January 2025 arraignments doubling from 1000 to 2000 compared to the January prior.
The Public Safety Plan (PSP) and Downtown Safety Initiative (DSI) emphasize higher-visibility enforcement and
rapid case follow-up. These priorities translate directly into a higher workload due to the screening of more
Page | 3
cases, more courtroom appearances, increased discovery obligations, more cases going to trial, and more
attorney time spent contacting crime victims
two additional prosecutors and one support staff member.
three prosecutors and two support staff.
additional
Administrative Hearing Officer and potential increased demand on city resources to conduct code
enforcement.
HSA Discrepancy
Cost saving measures
CRM and GRAMA Requests
Vacant Positions
Budget FY 25 -26
Presented by Mark Kittrell, City Attorney &
Sim Gill, District Attorney
OVERVIEW OF CHANGES
FY24-25 Adopted
Budget Proposed Total Proposed
Increase
$12,881,528 $13,063,237 $181,799
FTE 80.3 FTE: +0
OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY
General Fund Cost Type
Personnel Services, CCAC, Pension & Insurance
Rate Adjustments (Finance provided)
$125,443 Ongoing
eProsecutor license costs $31,356 Ongoing
eProsecutor User Interface development $25,000 One Time
Total $181,799
Prosecutor’s Office - eProsecutor
Funds requested for eProsecutor software
system: (1) license fees, and (2) eFiling interface
development.
Funding will support the transition from the
outdated PIMS office system to the modern
eProsecutor and then digital loading of cases
from court to the new system to reduce demand
on staff.
OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY
THANK YOU
Mark Kittrell Sim Gill
Allison Parks