The URL can be used to link to this page

Council Provided Information - 10/3/2023COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY24 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE: October 3, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number 2 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 NEW INFORMATION At the first briefing on September 19, the Council discussed the chart tracking new potential ongoing costs to the General Fund, updated Fund Balance projections (the City’s rainy-day fund / savings account), and item G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Coordinator Position which is a four-year EPA grant. The Council also took straw polls indicating support for the following time sensitive items: - D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bonds ($24,885,893 from the First Bond Issuance to the CIP Fund) - E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability ($1,229,681 from Misc. Grants) - E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development ($1,391,672 from Misc. Grants) - I-1: Placeholder - Additional Funding for Sanctioned Camping ($1 Million) o The Council discussed potentially using General Fund Balance as the funding source for this item. In a future budget opening, the Council could consider backfilling General Fund Balance from a deeply affordable housing City grant provided to a development that is no longer expected to proceed. The Council is scheduled to continue discussing the remaining items in Budget Amendment #2 at the second briefing on October 3.  Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings  Budget Amendment Number Two includes 28 proposed amendments, $41,675,718 in revenues and $42,576,118 in expenditures of which $233,050 is from General Fund Balance and requesting changes to six funds. Additionally, the transmittal indicates there is an increase of eight FTE’s. Five of the eight FTEs are being requested in Items A-1 & E-3 - State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant for FY2024 ($3,107,201). The Council will be holding a public hearing for this grant on September 19th, the same night as the Budget Amendment No. 2 public hearing. Fund Balance If all the items are adopted as proposed, then General Fund Balance would be projected at 13.96% which is $4,263,736 above the 13% minimum target of ongoing General Fund revenues. Note: this figure includes both General Fund and Funding our Future fund balances. The projected Fund Balance does not include unused FY2023 budgets that drop to Fund Balance at the end of the fiscal year. The General Fund typically sees $2 million to $3 million drop to Fund Balance annually, which would increase the fund balance percentage. It also does not include actual revenues through the end of the last fiscal year. The comprehensive annual financial audit will confirm the actual Fund Balance through the end of FY2023. The annual audit is typically completed in December. This updated 13.96% combined Fund Balance is higher than estimated during the annual budget deliberations in Project Timeline: Set Date: September 19, 2023 1st Briefing: September 19, 2023 2nd Briefing: October 3, 2023 Public Hearing: October 3, 2023 Potential Action: October 17, 2023 June and Budget Amendment #1 last month due to finance department clarification on best practices for what to include or not include in Fund Balance calculations. The revised estimate did not impact the Funding Our Future portion of Fund Balance which remains at 14.51% which is $791,501 above the 13% minimum target. Two Straw Poll Requests The Administration is requesting straw polls for two items due to impending reimbursement deadlines: E-1 TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) Capacity Building Grant Adult Education Program for $1,229,681, and E-2 TANF Capacity Building Grant – Youth Development $1,391,672. 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 Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments Council staff has provided the following list of new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item A-1: Homeless General Fund Reallocation Cost Share for State Homeless Mitigation Grant $53,544 0.5 FTE Community Development Grant Specialist for Homelessness Engagement and Response Team (HEART) This position is proposed to be half funded from the State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant and half by the General Fund for FY2024. The $107,088 reflects the fully loaded annual cost for the FTE. #2 Item A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division $11,139 Reclassify an existing FTE to a higher pay grade and director of new division. Request position be appointed in a future budget opening. Transfer all four (4) full-time landscape architect positions and associated operating budget ($543,144) from the Engineering Division (Public Services Department) to this new division in the Public Lands Department. #2 A-6 Sorenson Janitorial and County Contract - Senior Community Programs Manager Budget Neutral (see note to the right) 1 Senior Community Programs Manager This item requires amending an existing interlocal agreement with the County. At the time of publishing this report, staff is checking whether the amendment could result in additional funding needs to maintain current levels of service. The item might not be budget neutral depending on the agreement changes. #2 A-7: Economic Development Project Manager Position $122,000 1 Economic Development Project Manager Would be focused on the creation of Special Assessment Areas or SAAs for business districts and renewal every three to five years. #2 A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses $6,500 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget #2 A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses $55,750 Program expenses were inadvertently left out of the last annual budget Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2025 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Award $3,107,201 13 Existing FTEs: - 2 Police sergeants - 10 police officers - 1 Business & community liaison 4.5 New FTEs: - 1 Sequential Intercept Case Manager in the Justice Court - 0.5 Grant Specialist in CAN (half grant funded and half by the General Fund in item above) - 1 Police sergeant - 2 police officers Admin expects to apply for grant funding annually to cover these costs. General Fund would not need to cover costs if the State grant is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs. Note: Justice Court FTE is part of the City’s contribution towards implementation of the “Miami Model” of diversion out of the homelessness system. #2 G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Coordinator Position $482,915 (funding is to cover four years of new FTE) 1 Coordinator Four years of salary and benefits. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and achievement. TOTALS $3,356,134 21 FTEs of which 8 are New Does not include the cost of item G-1 Revenue for FY 2023-24 Budget Adjustments The Administration indicates that there are no revenue projection updates yet for FY2024. Fund Balance Chart The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for Budget Amendment #2. Based on those projections the adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 13.96%. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $41,675,718 in revenue and $42,576,118 in expenses. The amendment proposes changes in six funds, with eight increases in FTEs. The proposal includes 27 initiatives for Council review and a potential Council-added item. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached to the transmittal. The Administration requests that document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A.New Budget Items B.Grants for Existing Staff Resources C.Grants for New Staff Resources D.Housekeeping Items E.Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F.Donations G.Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I.Council Added Items Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal provides an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as of 7/20/23 and has taken into account impact fees appropriated by the Council on August 15 as part of the FY2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. The transportation section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan was updated in October 2020. The Administration is working on updates to the fire, parks, and police sections of the plan. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $273,684 More than two years away - Parks $14,064,637 More than two years away - Police $1,402,656 More than two years away - Transportation $6,064,485 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items. A-1: 50% Cost Share for a New FTE Community Development Grant Specialist in the Housing Stability Division (Budget Neutral – Shifting $44,620 in the General Fund from Street Ambassador Program to New FTE) See item E-3 for the FY2024 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant write-up which is proposed to fund 50% of the new FTE The Administration is requesting a new FTE Community Development Grant Specialist to improve contract management of City funding for homeless services. The new FTE is 50% eligible for the state homeless grant funding which reflects the proportion of work related to the State grant. The other half of the position would be funded from the General Fund. This item proposes to shift $44,620 in the General Fund’s for Street Ambassador to instead go to the new FTE. An equivalent $44,620 from the State grant would go to the Street Ambassador program to maintain current service levels. The total $1,384,101 funding for the Street Ambassador program would remain unchanged. The Downtown Alliance is aware of and supports this proposed funding source change. The total $89,240 for the new FTE would cover 10 months. If the State grant is not available next fiscal year, then the next annual budget would need $107,088 to cover the fully loaded annual cost (salary and benefits). A-2: U.S. Treasury Emergency Rent Assistance Program Funding ($2,339,009 to Misc. Grants Fund) In Budget Amendment #5 of FY2023 the Council appropriated $2 million for rental assistance distributed in partnership with the State through the Utah Rent Relief portal. The State has since closed the portal and gradually ended the program. At the briefing, the Council stated a preference to also use the remaining funding from the Treasury for direct rental assistance. The funding could be awarded to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as the sole source provider. A potential advantage of this approach is simpler tracking and compliance reporting to the federal government. Another option is an open and competitive process for interested organizations to apply. The Council could request the Administration (the mayor and/or an advisory board) make funding recommendations based on the applications and then the Council would decide final funding awards. Eligible expenses per federal guidance are security deposits, rent, past due rent, utilities, past due utilities, and some other housing related costs such as application fees. September 30, 2025 is the deadline to spend these funds or return them to the U.S. Treasury. Federal guidance requires the funds be awarded to recipients negatively impacted by covid, recipients are limited to 18 months of rental assistance total, and the application process must be open to all eligible households. The City has received and distributed $20,867,592 through the U.S. Treasury’s Emergency Rent Assistance Program. The Treasury reallocated funding from low performing to high performing jurisdictions like Salt Lake City. Earlier this year, the Administration requested additional funding and the Treasury released another $339,009 in addition to the $2 million the City has yet to budget for use. No additional funding is anticipated to be made available by the Treasury through this program. Policy Question: ➢Housing Authority Sole Source Provider Approach or Open and Competitive Process? The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the pros and cons of the two approaches or discuss other options before selecting how to distribute the funds. A-3: Liberty Park Basketball Court Donation from Utah Jazz ($100,000 to CIP Fund) In FY2022 CIP, the Council approved $99,680 for a constituent application to resurface the basketball court in the center of Liberty Park and replace the two basketball hoops. The court has deteriorated to an extent where resurfacing is no longer a recommended option. The Utah Jazz offered a $100,000 donation to reconstruct the court in honor of their 50th anniversary season. The total project budget of nearly $200,000 would also allow fencing and seating to be installed. The Utah Jazz logo would be included on the court. A-4: Rescope Miller Park Trail ADA Access Improvements and Historic Structure Preservation (Budget Neutral in the CIP Fund) See Attachment 1 for the Miller Park Engagement Report June 2023 In FY2024 CIP, the Council approved $425,000 for a constituent application Miller Park trail ADA access improvements and historic structure preservation. This item would rescope the remaining $365,012. This proposal would not close any informal or “social” trails that exist in the park. The original goals of the project included expanding ADA accessibility, eliminating hazardous steep trail sections, protecting, and restoring historic structures such as the Works Progress Administration walls, and installing a walking bridge. The Public Lands Department hired a consultant who obtained geotechnical and structural engineers, who determined that the recommended projects in the original scope would not fulfill the goals stated, and instead recommended projects that would fulfill the stated goals. The Department is requesting a rescope to use the remaining funds on the new projects recommended by the engineers. Attachment 1 includes a summary of engagement for this item. Some of the organizations that were included in that process were the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, the City’s Risk Management Attorney, a national trail-building firm, American Trails, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Mayor’s ADA coordinator, and the Disability and Accessibility Commission. While some stakeholders expressed support for the department’s proposed way forward, other stakeholders prefer to find ways to make the original scope work. The Department provided the below list of projects (#1 being the highest priority) based on the results of public engagement. Rescoped funds would first be used for project #1 and then proceed down the list until funding runs out. If projects could be done more efficiently in tandem, then they might not strictly follow the priority order. 1. Repairing the historic crib walls to increase wall and trail stability 2. Stabilize exposed wall foundation with soil nails and cover foundation where feasible, and to prevent erosion with adjacent properties 3. Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek, and replace crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated drainage 4. Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South and on the east side of the creek, and other accessibility improvements as there are efficiencies with other projects 5. Improve cross slope near Bonneview Drive Entrance and explore adding stairs and a handrail 6. Reconstruct existing stairs to improve safety 7.Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive A-5: Create a Public Lands Planning & Design Division (Transfer $543,144 and Four FTEs from the Engineering Division) Staff note: Council and Administrative Staff are working on additional clarification on this item. New information may be available for the briefing on Tuesday. The following write-up is based on the transmittal originally sent to the Council, but a revised/clarified proposal may be forthcoming: The Administration is proposing to create a new division in the Public Lands Department. The request has three parts: 1. Creating the Planning & Design Division 2. Transfer four existing landscape architect FTEs from the Engineering Division in the Public Services Department to the new division in Public Lands a. The four FTEs are one Senior Landscape Architect (Grade 34), two Landscape Architect IIIs (Grade 30), and one Landscape Architect II (Grade 27) b. The landscape architects would join two project managers currently in the Public Lands Department. 3. Reclassify an existing Planning Manager FTE in Public Lands to be the director of the new division at a higher pay grade (from 33 to 34 and then 35 in the next annual budget) and as a merit, non-appointed position. The Administration intends to request this position be appointed in the next annual budget. Vacancy savings would be used to cover the increased compensation for the new division director. The next annual budget would need to include $12,113 for the position. The Department stated the need for this new division is caused by the increase in the number and complexity of capital improvement projects for parks, trails, and open spaces from the voter-approved parks bond (first issuance is item D-5 in this budget amendment), the 2022 Sales Tax Revenue Bond, annual CIP funding, and a growing number of grants and donations. Closer coordination and operational savings are potential benefits of the FTE transfer is that the positions planning and designing new capital assets would work in the same department as the employees responsible for maintenance of the assets. The Public Lands Department would be responsible for all planning, prioritization, funding, public and stakeholder engagement, design, consultant management, overall project management, and, ultimately, on-going maintenance of every project. Policy questions: ➢Timely Completion of Capital Projects – The Council may wish to ask the Administration are existing resources and system sufficient to deploy capital projects in a timely manner and meet the policy goal of completing CIP projects within three years? ➢Merit vs Appointed Policy Guidance for Division Directors – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to provide police guidance on the employment status (merit vs appointed) for division directors. Appointed positions are as such to give the Mayor maximum flexibility to implement his/her policy goals, which means merit positions have employment protections that appointed positions do not. Most division directors in the City are appointed but there are a few in a merit status. It’s unclear why there is a mix, although it is likely due to historical practices and evolving policy goals. Staff is clarifying with HR. Department directors and deputy directors are appointed. Legally a merit employee cannot be forced into an appointed status. For this reason, it’s easier to make a position appointed before hiring the employee. Historically, the City has provided increased compensation to appointed positions in recognition that certain employment rights available to merit positions are unavailable to appointed positions. Some options might be placing policy guidance into the annual compensation ordinance for non-represented employees and/or in City Code. ➢Amending City Code to Create New Division – The Council may wish to ask the Attorney’s Office to clarify whether Section 2.08.130 Administrative Organization of the Public Lands Department needs to be amended to formally create the new division. The section currently lists the four divisions of the Public Lands Department: Parks, Golf, Trails & Natural Lands, and Urban Forestry. The Budget Amendment #2 transmittal did not include an ordinance amendment. ➢Parks Bond Reimburse General Fund for Landscape Architect Work – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to explore whether the Parks Bond could reimburse the General Fund for eligible work on bond project implementation by the landscape architects. The first issuance of the bond includes reimbursing the General Fund for two planner positions work on bond projects in the Public Lands Department and a senior project manager in Engineering (currently vacant). New Project Delivery Process See Attachment for a graphic of the Double Diamond project delivery process The Public Lands Department and the Engineering Division shared the following information about two tenets of the new project delivery process that is being developed. (1) “One Project Manager: Currently, every public lands project has two project managers, with tasks divided between at least the Engineering Division’s PLACES Team (landscape architects) and the Public Lands Department’s Planning Team (planners). Project ownership and accountability have been unclear. This requested structural change and the new project delivery process will help rectify that by allowing the Public Lands Department to identify the best project manager for each project (whether a landscape architect or a planner). They will lead each project from start to finish and ultimately manage the staff and consultants that will assist during each phase. This will improve accountability, predictability, and equitable outcomes.” (2) “Double Diamond: The new project delivery process is based on the “double diamond” design process model. It encourages public engagement in the most impactful phases of the project, preventing feedback from being collected too early or too late. It allows for sufficient time for everyone involved in each project to “diverge”, or engage in expansive, creative thinking, and the development of several design alternatives. But it also requires projects to “converge” (at least twice), to synthesize and to move forward once enough information has been collected. Ultimately, the project manager will lead projects from start to finish and depend on project team members for their expertise (e.g., construction managers, designers, civic engagement specialists, etc.). Specifics of the Public Lands Department’s process can be shared with the Council once it has been refined by all project managers within the next few months.” A-6: New FTE Senior Community Programs Manager (Budget Neutral – Shifting $113,798 from County Contract for Sorenson Center Services to New Position) The Administration is requesting a new FTE senior community programs manager at pay grade 26 in the Youth and Family Division of the Community and Neighborhood Department. The total budget for County contracted services at the Sorenson center will be reduced from $1,014,800 to $901,002. The difference of $113,798 would pay for the new FTE. The City Council and County Council would need to amend the existing interlocal agreement to reflect this new budget. The County has requested that the City take on child care and custodial services at the Sorenson Campus. The new FTE will help maintain existing levels of services for childcare functions. The Public Services Department expects to contract with a third party for cleaning and maintenance at existing frequencies at the same or lower cost. In March of 2018, the City and County entered an interlocal agreement (ILA) that defines the responsibilities of the respective entities for programming, operation, and maintenance of the Sorenson Unity Center. The facility is owned by the City, and the City leads educational and community-based programming while the County leads recreational programming. The City is responsible for utilities, security, and maintenance of the facility and the County is responsible for custodial services. Currently, all parties agree that it would be more efficient if the ILA is amended so that responsibility for certain programming and custodial services be transferred from the County to the City. As such, this is a revenue neutral budget request that will rescope the Sorenson budget and facilitate an amendment to the ILA to modify terms relating to childcare programming and custodial responsibilities. A-7: New FTE Economic Development Project Manager to Facilitate Special Assessment Areas (SAAs) ($128,000 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting a new FTE project manager at pay grade 29 in the Economic Development Department. The position would facilitate creation of SAAs for business districts and renewal of SAAs every three to five years. The position may also assist with other business districts support efforts managed by the Economic Development Department. The City’s only current SAA is the Central Business Improvement Area which is authorized until April 2025. The City is currently exploring the creation of an SAA in the Sugar House Business District. The Council also funded $60,000 in the last annual budget for a study of a potential SAA in the Granary District. The new position would facilitate these two new potential SAAs and do outreach to other business districts that may be interested in exploring SAAs too. The Administration stated that the Economic Development Department would be the lead for the potential creation and renewal of SAAs. Initial facilitation of discussions with property owners would be handled by the new FTE and the required consultant study of boundaries and assessment methods (note: consulting studies for future SAAs may require additional budget). Then responsibility could be transferred to another department such as Engineering for public infrastructure improvement SAAs. SAAs are a flexible financing tool where property owners agree to tax themselves in exchange for collective benefits. SAAs are allowed to address several types of activity under state law including economic promotion (like the current Central Business Improvement Area), public infrastructure improvements, enhanced maintenance or operation services, environmental remediation, and utilities. State law has many requirements for creating an SAA. There are approximately 50 steps that can take a year to complete based on the last renewal of the Central Business Improvement Area. It should be noted that an SAA cannot be formed without the support of 60% of the property owners, and that the last SAA the City attempted to implement along North Temple did not meet that threshold (the General Fund covered those improvements). The Attorney’s Office, Finance Department, and sometimes Engineering Division also have important roles for the creation and renewal of SAAs. The Finance Department has an ongoing role in the administration of funds for an SAA (not just creation and renewal every three to five years) including annual invoices, payments, tracking, and collections. Some of the steps to authorize an SAA include the intent to designate resolution, a public hearing, the Board of Equalization Appointment, a second public hearing, publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint SAA contractor, contract award facilitation and ongoing contract management. Policy questions: ➢One-time vs Ongoing Workload between Departments Supporting SAAs – The Council may want to ask the Administration are existing resources and systems sufficient to handle the ongoing workload in the Finance Department for administering SAAs compared to the one-time workload in other departments for creating and renewing SAAs every three to five years? Is the potentially increasing number of SAAs in the City anticipated to need additional resources? ➢Policy Guidance for SAAs – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether policy guidance would be helpful to identify SAAs and activities the City supports (promotion, infrastructure, utilities, etc.), preferred terms, and best practices. A-8: Central Business Improvement Area Assessment Funds to the Downtown Alliance ($664,294 from Special Assessment Fund) This is a legally required financial true up, that would transfer one-time funds from remaining cash balances to the Downtown Alliance as the contract holder for the Central Business Improvement Area (a type of SAA downtown renewed every three years since 1991). The funds accrued over multiple years from late payments by property owners in previous three-year cycles of the downtown SAA dating from 2000 to 2018. It’s important to note that the City passthrough payments of property owner assessments were made to the contract holder as required in prior years. Some of the funds may also have been a result of greater than expected property owner assessments such as higher collection rates. Financial true ups for 2019 and after will be handled in a future budget opening. Policy Question: ➢Resources to Provide More Frequent SAA Financial True-ups – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what resources and/or system changes could help provide more frequent SAA financial true- ups to prevent a similar situation from happening again. A-9: Know Your Neighbor Program Expenses ($6,500 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your Neighbor Program. During the last annual budget these expenses were presented to the Council but inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The ongoing expenses are: - $2,000 for Dues & Publications – Volunteer Sign-up Platform, Canvas - $2,000 for Language Services, Transportation, Child Care, Brand Development - $1,500 for Printed Materials, Advertising, and Promotional Items/Swag - $500 for Food/Refreshments - $500 for Material and Supplies A-10: Love Your Block Program Expenses ($55,750 from General Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting this budget amendment to recognize all expenses associated with the Know Your Neighbor Program. During the last annual budget these expenses were presented to the Council but inadvertently not included in the Mayor’s recommended budget. The ongoing expenses are: - $25,000 for Mini-Grants - $12,000 for Neighborhood Cleanup Trailer - $6,000 for Training - $3,000 for Food/Refreshments - $2,500 for Materials & Supplies - $2,000 for Equipment and Tools - $2,000 for Specialty Contracts, Dues and Publications - $1,500 for Printing and Promotion - $1,000 for Phones/Other - $750 for Uniforms A-11: Proposed Ordinance Amending the FY 2023- 2024 Annual Compensation Plan for Non- Represented Employees (Budget Neutral) Note that the transmittal includes a separate ordinance to amend the annual compensation plan for non- represented employees. The votes on Budget Amendment #2 and amending the compensation plan will be listed separately on a Council formal meeting agenda. The Administration provided the below summary of some changes to the plan. These changes will impact the Department of Public Services’ Snowfighter and the new Safety & Security Director’s pay specifically and will also make changes to the Justice Court Judges salaries as well. The remainder of the changes will have impacts generally throughout the City. - Revising Subsection IV(H) (“Snowfighter Pay”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Snowfighter Pay. In the original redlined copy of the Plan transmitted to City Council, comments stated the specific amounts included in these subsections would be matched and added after the new rates negotiated and adopted in the new AFSCME MOU were known. There wasn’t enough time to update the specific amounts in the Plan between adoption of the annual budget and the conclusion of negotiations and ratification of a new agreement with AFSCME. This also applied to additional items listed below. - Revising Subsection VI(A) (“Other Pay Allowances; Meal Allowance”) of Section III (“Work Hours, Overtime & Other Pay Allowances”) – Changes include insertion of the same pay amounts adopted for AFSCME-covered employees eligible to receive Meal Allowance. - Revising Appendix A (“Salt Lake City Corporation General Employee Pay Plan (GEPP)”) – New rates indicated correct rounding errors discovered in calculation of range minimums, midpoints, and maximums for salaried employees. Corrected rates match pay range information loaded for salaried employees in Workday without fiscal impact. - Revising Appendix B (“Appointed Employees by Department”) – Corrects pay levels shown for certain job titles to match those included in the plan originally transmitted to City Council. The latest copy of the Appointed Pay Plan intended only to show the addition of the new Safety & Security Director for Public Services, but inadvertently included incorrect pay level changes for Justice Court Judges and the Justice Court Administrator. - Revising Appendix D (“Utah State Retirement Contributions FY 2023-2024”) – Specific edits include adjustments to employer contributions required for employees covered under the Tier 1 – Firefighter Retirement System. Notice of these changes was not received from URS until after this Plan was originally transmitted to City Council. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Emergency Demolition Fund Reset ($65,472 from Special Revenue Fund) This request is to reset the 'Emergency Demolition Fund' back to its original budget of $200,000 The fund has been working as intended and paid for the demolition of homes affected by fire on Major Street. The property owner has reimbursed the city for the cost of demolition. D-2: 300 North Pedestrian Bridge - Funding Passthrough ($500,000 from Union Pacific to the CIP Fund) Engineering is ready to bill Union Pacific for their agreed upon contribution of $500,000 towards the 300 N pedestrian bridge project. Under the terms of the agreement, this contribution will be paid to the City. Since this contribution was accounted for as a funding source for the project, this budget amendment records the incoming revenue from Union Pacific's contribution and records the expense as the funds will be used as payment to the contractor. D-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal D-4: RDA Housing Funds Transfer to Miscellaneous Grants ($6,476,014 to Misc. Grants) Funding was transferred in the FY2024 annual budget to the RDA but is now being returned to Misc Grants to better track according to federal guidelines. Note that the Administration’s transmittal inadvertently listed $6.4 million even. The dollar amount has been updated to match the funding transfer from the last annual budget. D-5: General Obligation Series 2023 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Bonds ($24,885,893 from the First Bond Issuance to the CIP Fund) In November 2022, voters authorized the issuance of up to $85 million in general obligation bonds to fund eight Parks, Trails, and Open Space projects. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023 were sold in August 2023 as the first issuance of the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay for renovation of the park projects associated with the bonds. There will be eleven project funds in Cost Center 10508 to which bond proceeds will be allocated. •One allocation will be $9,000,0000 for the Glendale Regional Park (1200 West 1700 South) project. •The second allocation will be $2,000,000 for Liberty Park Playground (600 East 900 South) project. •The third allocation will be $850,000 for Allen Park (1900 South). •The fourth allocation will be $5,000,000 for Folsom Trail Completion & Landscaping projects. •The fifth will be $600,000 for the Fleet Block Park project. •The sixth allocation will be $500,000 for the Fairmont Park (1040 East Sugarmont Drive) project. •The seventh allocation will be $1,050,000 for Reimagine Neighborhood Parks, Trail, or Open Spaces (various Locations with at least one in each Council District) projects. •The eighth allocation will be $600,000 for the Jordan River Corridor (various locations) project. •There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Contingencies/Program Management that will be allocated $3,332,000. •There will also be a unique Fund for Art Allowance that will be allocated $294,000. •There will be an allocation for the bond's cost of issuance. This allocation will receive $225,893.25. •There will be a unique Fund for the bond's Salaries, Benefits and Operational costs for 3 FTE's for 3 years. This allocation will receive $1,434,000 that is slated to be reimbursed to the General Fund. The timing and actual amounts of these reimbursements will be according to tracking of permitted expenses. Policy Question: ➢Reimbursing the General Fund for FY2023 Costs – Note that this funding does not reimburse the General Fund for fronting the $302,600 in FY2023 to hire the three FTEs dedicated to implementing the bond projects. The Council may wish to request that the Administration explore the option for the bond to reimburse the General Fund for those FY2023 expenses. It’s worth noting that one of the three positions, a senior project manager in Engineering, has not been filled nine months after it was authorized and funded. D-6: RV Enforcement Team Budget to Non-departmental for Transfer to IMS and Fleet ($45,800 from Non-departmental) In Budget Amendment #1, funds were redirected from the Compliance Mitigation team funding to be transferred to IMS and Fleet for various related one-time costs. The funds were moved from Compliance but were not moved to Non-departmental to be transferred to IMS and Fleet. This amendment adds that budget to Non-departmental for the transfer to happen. Funding for the FTEs will remain in the Public Services Department. Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources E-1: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Financial Capability ($1,229,681 from Misc. Grants) The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item because of upcoming reimbursement deadlines The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self- sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026. E-2: TANF Capacity Building Grant-Youth Development ($1,391,672 from Misc. Grants) The Administration has requested a straw poll for this item because of upcoming reimbursement deadlines The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to help low-income families achieve self- sufficiency. States receive block grants to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the purposes of the TANF program. The award period for this award is from July 1,2023 to June 30,2026. E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation FY 24 ($3,107,201 to the Misc. Grants Fund) This item is to recognize the annual State grant award in the amount of $3,107,201 for eligible costs associated with homeless resource centers within the City. This is a formula grant subject to annual appropriations by the State Legislature. The City was not required to apply but submitted proposed uses and was awarded by the State. This grant requires no local matching funds. The total award is $357,201 more than last year. The Administration provided the below details of the five new FTEs proposed to be paid by the State grant. At the time of publishing this report, it appears that 13 existing FTEs would continue to be paid from the State grant (two police sergeants, 10 police officers, and a business & community liaison). Five New FTEs - Job Title: Sequential Intercept Case Manager o Pay grade: 26 o Job descriptions is pending but is expected to be based on the existing Homeless Strategies Outreach Coordinator o Annual fully loaded cost: $107,088 o Mitigation grant covers 100% of effort for 10 months o This position will work to implement the Sequential Intercept model (Miami model) with the Salt Lake City Justice Court. The case manager will coordinate access to community resources with high utilizers of the Justice Court. - Job Title: HEART Grant Program Specialist o Pay grade: 26 o Job descriptions is pending but is expected to be based on the existing Grant Specialist o Annual fully loaded cost: $107,088 o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 50% of the cost of this position. General funds are sought to cover the other 50% (see item A-1 in this budget amendment), which is offset by increasing Mitigation award to the Downtown Alliance for the Expanded Ambassador Program. o This position will manage all aspects of contracting, invoicing, reporting, performance monitoring, and will serve as liaison for all grantees of City homeless services general funds, as well as the State Office of Homeless Services and Mitigation subawardees. This work is currently spread out among several members of the HEART team, and the team's ability to monitor contractors for performance is very limited. - Job Title: Police Officer o Pay grade: 25 o Annual fully loaded cost: $117,854 o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 100% of the cost of this position. o This position will increase police services staffing and call response at the Homeless Resource Centers and surrounding areas. The total police staffing on this grant will be 15. - Job Title: Sergeant o Pay grade: 29 o Annual fully loaded cost: $184,995 o Mitigation grant is estimated to cover 100% of the cost of this position. o This position will increase police services staffing and call response at the Homeless Resource Centers and surrounding areas. The total police staffing on this grant will be 15. Policy Questions: ➢Grant Briefing and Additional Details – The Council may wish to schedule a briefing to learn more and discuss the annual Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation State Grant. The FY2023 grant was $2.75 million of which $2.2 million was ongoing for 13 FTEs. The FY2024 grant is $3,107,201. At the time of publishing this report, staff was trying to clarify how the $272,322 used for one-time expenses in the FY2023 grant is proposed to be used in the FY2024 grant such as for new vehicles, equipment, and other one-time supplies. ➢Homeless Services Funding Needs vs Available Funding – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether any excess funding related to homeless resource centers and homeless services exists, and how the funding need compares to available funding. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Grant Consent Agenda G-1: Greater Salt Lake Area Clean Energy and Air Roadmap Grant ($1 million from Misc. Grants) This budget amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability grant award in the amount of $1,000,000 for the purpose of developing a comprehensive, economy-wide climate mitigation plan or update an existing plan in collaboration with air pollution control districts, large and small municipalities statewide and tribal governments that will support actions to reduce greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants and to conduct meaningful engagement with low income and disadvantaged communities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees to pay for 100% of all approved budget period costs incurred up to the $1,000,000 award. 1 New FTE: Four years of salary and fringe benefits for one FTE. The position would be responsible for facilitating the sustained involvement of jurisdiction partners, managing consultants, assisting with community engagement, coordinating stakeholder and public engagement activities and presentations, and tracking task completion and milestone achievement. A Public Hearing was held on July 11,2023. G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($50,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands an extra $50,000 in funding for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. Since the City did not apply for this funding, this item appeared on the September 5, 2023 Consent Agenda during the Council’s formal meeting. G-3: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry Fire and State Lands ($150,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands of the Utah Department of Natural Resources is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. The Public Hearing was held May 16,2023. G-4: State of Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation ($150,000 from Misc. Grants) The Division of Outdoor Recreation is giving Public Lands a $150,000 grant for the purpose of removing navigational hazards, including downed trees, garbage, and other debris, from the Jordan River from 2100 South to 2400 North. No match is required. The Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. G-5: Backman Community Open Space ($200,000 from Misc. Grants) Salt Lake City's Department of Public Lands will improve the open space adjacent to Backman Elementary. The design will likely include intentional landscaping and safety improvements, multiple nature playground amenities, watchable wildlife areas, an outdoor gathering area and permaculture garden and/or similar amenities. This open space area is covered with thick, invasive vegetation and remains virtually unused by the surrounding community. The current conditions create safety concerns for families whose children use the existing trail and bridge to walk to school. An analysis by the University of Utah of census block data shows that this natural area could provide children and their families greater access to nature than any other single natural open space in the city, making the site an unprecedented public asset for hundreds of local children and families in the City's Rose Park neighborhood and users of the Jordan River Parkway by improving a blighted section of the trail. 50% match is required. The Public Hearing was held May 16, 2023. G-6: Utah Office for Victims of Crime-VOCA Misc Grants ($92,846 from Misc. Grants) Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office was awarded $92,846 for a two-year grant to pay partial salary for a victim advocate. This grant does not require any new positions as the victim advocate was partially paid for the last two years by a previous VOCA award. The Public Hearing was held June 6, 2023. The other portion of the Victim Advocate's salary will be used to satisfy the 25% match. G-7: YouthCity Summer Food Service Program - Utah State Board of Education ($11,000 from Misc. Grants) This grant will be used to pay for snacks for the Youth & Family locations throughout the City. No FTEs are paid for by the grant. Employee staff time is being used as a match. The Public Hearing was held September 5, 2023. Section I: Council-Added Items I-1: Placeholder - Additional Funding for Sanctioned Camping ($TBD) The Council may wish to hold further discussions regarding the potential need for additional one-time funding for the pilot sanctioned campground, related public safety, and cleaning expenses. Staff is working with the Administration to identify potential sources should additional funding be necessary. Given that this project will need to move quickly, and that it is an important policy goal for the Mayor and Council to demonstrate the viability of this idea, the Council could choose to appropriate a dollar amount (for example $1 million) to an account that is subject to final Council release of funds, but available as needed on a more immediate basis. The Council appropriated one-time $500,000 as part of the FY2024 annual budget into a holding account for a sanctioned campground. ATTACHMENTS 1. Miller Park Engagement Report June 2023 2. Double Diamond Project Delivery Process Graphic ACRONYMS AFSCME – American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CAN – Department of Community and Neighborhoods CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund EMS – Emergency Medical Services EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERAP – Emergency Rental Assistance Program FTE – Full Time Employee FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund FOF – Funding Our Future IMS – Information Management Services Misc. – Miscellaneous MOU – Memorandum of Understanding RDA – Redevelopment Agency RFP – Request for Proposals SAA – Special Assessment Area TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TBD – To Be Determined UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation VOCA – Victims of Crime Act Miller Park Engagement Trail Access Improvement & Historic Preservation June 2023 1 Table of Contents Background………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Engagement Approach………………………………………………………………. 3 Survey Results………………………………………………………………………….. 4 In-Person Engagement Results………………………………………………….. 9 Common Themes in Open Comments………………………………………… 12 Assessment of Original CIP Request…………………………………………… 14 Next Steps……………………………………………………………………………….. 15 Appendix A: Information about the Proposed Projects………………… 21 Appendix B: Engagement Materials…………………………………..………. 25 2 Background In FY 2018-2019, a constituent submitted a Capital Improvement Project application and received funding for Miller Park to accomplish the following two goals: preserve the historic structures and improve the accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. To achieve these goals, the application originally proposed the following three projects: restoration of a trail alignment that was re-routed to a higher elevation in 2014, installation of a walking bridge over Red Butte Creek, and stabilization of the historic WPA walls. Upon the hiring of a consultant, Salt Lake City obtained geotechnical and structural engineering reports that recommended projects to fulfill the stated goals of preserving historic structures and improving trail accessibility. With the new information gathered, the three originally proposed projects were deemed infeasible as they could not accomplish the stated goals. Therefore, based on the new information and recommendations from the engineering reports, 12 new projects were proposed to fulfill the two original goals to a greater extent. These projects include improvements in the following areas: • Trail Slope Improvement Projects: Projects add access amenities like handrails and stairs. These projects also aim to level out the trail slope and protect the wall foundation. • Accessibility Improvement Projects: Adds access amenities like handrails and ramps to entrances and stairways along the trail. • Wall Foundation Protection Projects: Projects to preserve historic walls by covering exposed foundations and adding stabilization. • Manage Structural Loads on Historic WPA walls: Projects will remove the weight being placed on walls to extend their lifespan and remove stress. • Trail Protection: Projects will improve the infrastructure of the trails and address erosion and access issues, including retaining wall repairs. 3 Engagement Approach The goals of this engagement effort were as follows: ➢ Identify which projects the public prioritize. ➢ Identify concerns and gather feedback. ➢ Inform the public about the proposed projects, how they were selected, and how to access the survey, focusing a majority of engagement efforts on the Yalecrest neighborhood, immediate neighbors, and park users. An online survey and tabling events were held to accomplish the engagement goals. In addition, the City mailed notices of the survey opening to approximately 3 39 residents adjacent to the park and canvassed the adjacent residents to inform them of the survey. The survey was available from February through March 2023. A total of 169 survey responses were recorded through the online survey and approximately 30 individuals participated in the in-person tabling sessions. Project information and the survey were distributed through the following channels: ➢ A project page on the Public Lands website was developed with project information, in- person engagement opportunities, a survey link, and project manager contact information. ➢ A presentation was made at the March 9th Yalecrest Neighborhood Council meeting informing attendees of the survey and providing information on the project process and content of the survey. ➢ 339 mailers with a QR code and information about the survey were sent out to households near Miller Park. ➢ Survey information was promoted on SLC Public Lands’ social media accounts such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, as well as the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council Webpage. ➢ Yard signs with survey QR codes were posted at the park and in the Yalecrest neighborhood. ➢ Door-to-door canvassing was conducted in the Yalecrest neighborhood to inform nearby residents how to complete the survey. ➢ Three in-person tabling sessions were held: one at Rowland Hall and two at the Anderson-Foothill Library on separate days. Individuals had the opportunity to learn about proposed projects and vote on their high-priority projects. ➢ Emailed survey information to Tracy Aviary, Preservation Utah, Seven Canyons Trust, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Utah Open Lands, and Mayor’s Office of Equity & Inclusion to distribute. 4 Survey Results Question 1 Survey respondents were first asked, “Based on the goals of the Miller Park CIP application, which goal would you like prioritized?” The two goals, again, are to preserve the historic structures and improve the accessibility of the trail system that navigates the park. Results showed there are about an equal number of respondents that either want to solely prioritize historic structures or view the two CIP goals equally important. There were fewer responses favoring only prioritizing improvements to make the trail system more accessible. The pie chart (Figure 1) shows the results of how people responded. Figure 1: Goal Prioritization (Note: the number of responses to this question was 160). Preserve historic structures 37.87% Improve accessibility of the trail system 19.53% Equally important 37.28% Based on the goals of the Miller Park CIP application, which goal would you like prioritized 5 Questions 2-4 Participants were then asked to select and rank three of the five proposed project themes. The survey provided respondents with a drop-down option for the listed project themes. This section of the survey revealed that most respondents preferred to prioritize projects that focused on trail improvements, which is different from the results of the previous question (see Figure 1). The responses to this question also revealed that participants prefer projects that protect and make further trail improvements rather than making the trail more accessible. In the ranking section, where respondents were asked to select the proposed project theme they most highly prioritize, trail protection projects were voted the highest, with 38.46% in favor. The second most popular project theme was trail slope improvements with 24.85% in favor. Lastly, 21.89% of participants selected wall foundation projects as the third most important project theme. These results are featured in Figure 2 below which shows the project themes and how they were prioritized. It is important to note that wall foundation projects and projects to manage structural loads on historic walls were closely ranked in each category with wall foundation projects receiving slightly more votes. Figure 2: Participants were asked to select three projects and rank them by priority. The chart shows the results of how projects were ranked in each category. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Priority One Priority Two Priority Three Nu m b e r o f V o t e s Question: Rank which projects you would like prioritized Trail Slope Improvements Accessibility Improvements Wall Foundation Protection Manage Structural Loads on Historic Walls Trail Protection 6 Question 5 The comments responding to the survey question, “Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects?” reveal that people are concerned that if historic projects are not prioritized, it will soon be too late to restore. However, many people also stated how parts of the trail are dangerous to walk on, especially when it rains or snows. While people do want to see trail improvements to ensure safety, there is concern that these improvements will take away from the natural feel of the park and cause negative impacts on the environment. Throughout the project selection, planning and design process, projects that maintain the natural feel of the park will be prioritized. In addition, while minimizing negative impacts to the greatest extent possible, the incorporating elements that enhance the natural environment, where possible, will be a priority. Figure 3 shows other themes that were identified in the open comments for the question, “Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects?”. Figure 3: Recommendations for Proposed Project. Total number of comments submitted was 54. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Improve maintenance Other Comments related to budget Improve Safety Concerns related to Erosion Original CIP Project Concerns about off-leash dogs Historic Preservation Improve Accessibility No changes Restore/preserve wildlife & environmental features Trail Projects Keep Natural Number of times themes were mentioned in comments Do you have any recommendations for the proposed projects? 7 Question 6 Figure 4 below shows the most common themes identified in the open comments for the question, “Are there other projects you would like to see prioritized that were not identified?”. Like the results in Figure 3, many participants expressed how they would like to see projects that improve the vegetation and habitat of the park. Participants also commented on how they would like to restore Miller Park as a bird refuge and believe that improving the environmental conditions can help attract birds to the park. Additionally, comments expressed wanting to see greater enforcement for off-leash dogs at the park. Figure 4: Other Projects Proposed. Total number of comments submitted was 55. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Safety Keep Natural Signage Trail Safety Historic Preservation Other Focus on Maintenance No changes Trail Projects Original CIP Amenities Creek Improvements Mitigate Invasive Species Irrigation Birds Dog Issues Improve Revegetation/ Habitat Number of times themes were mentioned in comments Are there other projects you would like to see prioritized that were not identified? 8 In-Person Engagement Results The public was notified through the Yalecrest Neighborhood Council and Salt Lake City Public Land’s website about in-person tabling sessions. Each proposed project had a printout (Appendix A) with information that included the estimated project cost, the purpose of the proposed project, and an image of the project site. Participants were asked to select which projects they would like to see prioritized by adding a marble to a cup with the corresponding project letter (e.g., “Project A”, “Project B”) on the proposed project printout, simulating the same questions being asked in the survey. A total of 30 individuals participated in the tabling events, 10 of whom were individuals that participated at the Anderson-Foothill library and 20 of whom were students from Rowland Hall. Collectively, results from the in-person engagement showed individuals preferred prioritizing projects B, D, and G. Project B falls under trail protection projects and Project D is under trail slope improvement projects, while Project G focuses on making accessibility improvements. Projects B and D are in line with the online survey results that individuals would like to see prioritized. Below, Figure 5 shows the voting results from all the in-person engagement sessions. Figure 5: Prioritized Projects at Tabling Events (Note: total number of participants was 30) However, participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library and participants from Rowland Hall showed differences in the projects they would like prioritized. Potential reasons for this difference could be due to age and familiarity with the park as participants from the library were older and knew more about the history and progression of the park. Project H, which improves accessibility of the park, received the highest number of votes for prioritization at the Anderson- Foothill Library. Projects A, C, and E were the second priority, and all were ranked equally. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Project B Project G Project D Project A Project E Project I Project K Project C Project L Project F Project H Project J Nu m b e r o f V o t e s Proposed Projects Prioritized Projects at Tabling Events 9 Project A focuses on trail protection while projects C and E aim to make trail slope improvements. The bar chart, Figure 6 below, displays how the total number of participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library voted to prioritize proposed projects. Figure 6: Prioritized Projects at Anderson-Foothill Library. (Note: total number of participants at the Anderson-Foothill Library on February 15 and 21, 2023 was 10) In comparison, students at Rowland Hall prioritized Project B highest which focuses on trail protection. Project G was the second most prioritized project which improves trail accessibility. Lastly, Project D, which makes trail slope improvements was the third prioritized project. Figure 7 below shows the voting results from the engagement at Rowland Hall. Figure 7: Prioritized Projects at Rowland Hall (note: total number of participants at Rowland Hall was 20 participants) 1 2 3 4 Project H Project A Project C Project E Project K Project L Project B Project D Project F Project G Project I Project J Nu m b e r o f V o t e s Proposed Projects Prioritized Projects at Anderson-Foothill Library 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Project B Project G Project D Project E Project I Project A Project K Project F Project J Project L Project C Project H Nu m b e r o f V o t e s Proposed projects Prioritized Projects at Rowland Hall 10 Common Themes in Open Comments The following are themes identified in the open comments from the online survey and in-person engagements, and the City’s response to each is in italics. • Some comments communicated a community preference to see the lower trail by the creek restored. o Please see page 12, “Assessment of Original CIP” section for more information on the lower trail alignment. • Participants expressed they would like to preserve the natural feel and look of the park and are concerned that some of the proposed projects such as the stairs, will cause negative impacts on the wildlife, and vegetation, and accelerate erosion. o Public Lands has prioritized projects that minimize the addition of significant infrastructure that will impact the natural feel of the park. • Participants see a need for proper irrigation systems to be installed and for trees to be planted once the irrigation system is in place. o Public Lands acknowledges the need for improvement of irrigation throughout the park. While irrigation replacement is not an eligible project (see original goals) for this scope of work, the City also believes that, as trail improvements are made, associated irrigation may be addressed, as well. • Participants would like to see projects that help attract birds to Miller Park and restore water levels in the river. o Public Lands is very supportive of projects contributing to wildlife and stream health. While those types of projects are not eligible projects within this scope of work (see original goals), Public Lands will continue to work with the community to identify other sources of funding to accomplish these goals. • Some comments expressed how parts of the trail are dangerous to walk, especially during the winter or rainy seasons, and would like it if the park was safe to walk on year- round. o Trail improvement projects that address hazards and safety have been prioritized based on public engagement. • While some participants may see the benefit of the trail slope improvement projects, they and others have expressed that they would not like these improvements to be made with cement or loose gravel and suggested using wood chips instead. o Public Lands acknowledges these comments and will engage the community further during the detailed design of the projects regarding trail materials. • Survey respondents noted that there need to be more restrictions for off-leash dogs, or that off-leash dogs be prohibited altogether. o Public Lands acknowledges this concern in the park (and others like it) and will continue to work with the community to address these needs. However, addressing restrictions for dog regulations is not eligible within this scope of work and funding (see original goals). • Participants also expressed how they would not like to see the buttress in Project B extend into the trail and believe the buttress will not be effective in supporting the weight placed on the wall. o If this project is pursued within this scope of work and funding source, Public Lands will ensure that adequate trail clearance and access are provided along 11 with improvements to the buttress. Public Lands will consult structural engineers and experts throughout the process to ensure effective and structurally sound improvements. • There are some concerns that some of the proposed projects will encroach on private property. o Public Lands will do all necessary due diligence prior to any physical improvements on public property and will not pursue any projects that occur outside of the park’s boundaries. Main Takeaways Based on the results from the online survey and in-person engagement, trail slope improvement projects and trail protection projects have been consistently prioritized. Project that have minimize negative environmental impacts on the park and maintain the park’s character and purpose will be prioritized. Additionally, projects that both serve to improve trail safety and preserve historic structures will be prioritized so long as they do not impede on private property or extend into natural spaces. 12 Assessment of Original CIP Request Throughout this project’s engagement process (including the most recent engagement activities in 2023 outlined in this report), interest in the original proposal to re-align the original, lower trail that was along the creek prior to 2014, was of particular interest. While the geotechnical and structural reports noted the infeasibility of the re-creation of this trail and that specific project’s inability to fulfill either of the goals of the original proposal, the City consult ed with various experts to confirm these findings and solidify Salt Lake City Public Lands’ recommendation to no longer pursue this particular project. The following are additional considerations that make the relocation of the trail to the original, pre-2014 alignment infeasible: - Flood control measures: the proximity of the lower trail alignment to Red Butte Creek poses potential for the trail to flood, and poses potential dangerous situations for trail users (Salt Lake City Public Lands, Salt Lake City Public Utilities). - Ecological health: erosion control and creek/creekbank health could be improved through revegetating the bank (including the original alignment) with native vegetation (Salt Lake City Public Lands, Trails and Natural Lands). - Risk assessment: The high priority projects for the City Attorney’s Office in relation to risk are included within the twelve proposed projects below. The priority areas for Risk related to the types of claims most filed include crib wall repairs, retaining wall repairs and erosion mitigation along the creek, and reducing trip hazards on the trail by ensuring irrigation and water meters are level with the ground (Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office, Risk Manager). - Trail sustainability: A sustainable trail would not be possible given the original trail alignment’s proximity to the creek. The minimum regulatory width of an accessible trail (36”) would require the concrete bulwark downstream of the culvert to be extended approximately 30” at the existing height for an appropriate gradient. This amount of fill within the floodplain could constrain flood flows and induce stream bed and bank scour and degrade trout habitat. Additionally, a retaining wall would have to be installed downstream to create the level grade of minimum regulatory width required. This would reduce flood storage outside of the main channel and could induce similar scour. This would be very costly and impact the natural resources negatively (American Trails Association). - ADA Access: The lower, creek-side trail alignment has many areas that do not meet technical width requirements, but the current, higher trail alignment does meet or exceed the minimum width requirements. The entrance to the lower trail section has a running slope of 15%, which is higher than the technical requirements for slope, whereas the highest possible grade cannot exceed 12%. Most of the post-2014, upper trail already meets slope requirements. Those segments that do not will be made compliant as part of the other twelve project recommendations, including covering the exposed rock wall foundation in project C. Most of the upper trail tread already consists of crusher fines/decomposed granite that is preferable to bare dirt (for accessibility purposes and to avoid deterioration and erosion). Additionally, the potential recommended project improvements related to the upper trail will make a majority of the park accessible by a trail that complies with trail accessibility guidelines. The remaining parts of the park trails are either un-sanctioned trails or have stairs or access points with a slope outside 13 of the technical requirements that could be altered during this project anyway (Salt Lake City Mayor’s Office, ADA Coordinator). - Historic Preservation: It is not believed that moving the trail away from the walls will solve any preservation problems, and may have the potential to exacerbate issues with the historic walls by moving routine maintenance and inspection away from them (State Historic Preservation Office, State Historic Preservation Officer). 14 Next Steps In the open comments section of the online survey, and during the in-person events, it is evident that improving vegetation, and habitat and keeping Miller Park a natural area is a priority for the community. This funding source is specifically allocated for access improvements and historic preservation, so it is not able to be used for naturalization and restoration projects. However, these comments will be considered as other funding becomes available or is able to be completed in other capacities. (i.e., through the Trails & Natural Lands team’s regular operations and maintenance in the park). Additionally, many of the open comments expressed concerns about increasing the amount of formalized infrastructure in the park and reducing the natural feel and intent of the space. Because of this, Public Lands will consciously minimize additional infrastructure, such as handrails and impervious surfaces, to the greatest extent possible as projects move forward through the design and construction processes. Finally, other comments received in the survey were not relevant to these projects specifically but pertained to the overall management of the park. These comments will be considered by Public Lands and will be passed along to the City Council. Upon thorough analysis of the results of the public engagement, the projects have been prioritized in the following order (beginning on page 14). Please note that not all projects will be able to be completed with current funding. Projects will be prioritized from top to bottom until the current project budget, $367,000, is depleted. All projects will go through a detailed design process prior to construction which will include property surveying, utility assessment, types of materials that will be used, other design processes, and additional public engagement. If there are efficiencies gained by completing multiple projects or project elements at once, those will be considered in the detailed design process. 15 1. Project A: Repairs and replaces crib walls to provide stability. Justification: This project is prioritized as first for three reasons. First, “Preserve historic structures” was the top goal ranked by the community engagement process, a goal which this project would achieve. Second, it also falls under a “Trail Protection” project, which was ranked as the highest priority through the online survey. Finally, it ranked as one of the top five project priorities through the in-person engagement. Additionally, many of the open comments emphasized the need for trail projects that have minimal impact on the natural feel of the space, which this project accomplishes. Likely to be funded with current budget. Goals it fulfills: Preserve Historic Structures Trail Protection 2. Project K: Stabilizes exposed wall foundation with soil nails and covers foundation where feasible. Justification: This project fulfills the highest priority goal identified in the public engagement, “Preserve historic structures” and is considered a “Wall Foundation Protection” project which was identified as the second highest priority theme after projects A and B, falling within the “Trail Protection” category. Finally, open comments in the online survey emphasized the importance within the community of preserving the historic walls, and keeping the park’s natural feel. This project will protect the walls, and maintain the current natural look and feel of the park. Likely to be funded with current budget. Goals it fulfills: Preserve Historic Structures Wall Foundation Protection 16 3. Project L: Covers exposed wall foundation to prevent erosion with adjacent properties. Justification: This project fulfills the highest priority goal identified in the public engagement, “Preserve historic structures” and is considered a “Wall Foundation Protection” project which was identified as the second highest prioritized theme after projects A and B, falling within the “Trail Protection” category. Open comments in the online survey emphasized the importance within the community of preserving the historic walls. Likely to be funded with current budget. Goals it fulfills: Preserve Historic Structures Wall Foundation Protection 4. Project B: Reinforce walls with buttresses on the east side of the creek. Replaces crib wall on creek side to reduce concentrated drainage. Justification: This project falls under a “Trail Protection” project, which was ranked as the highest priority through the online survey, and fulfills the goal to preserve historic structures. However, from an assessment by the State Historic Preservation Office, the timber walls are less historically significant than the stone walls, hence the lower priority than other wall protection projects. Finally, it ranked as the top improvement project coming out of the in-person tabling events. Finally, projects prioritizing historic preservation was a consistent theme in the open comments which were considered during project prioritization, which would be accomplished with the replacement of the concrete crib wall. Likely to be funded with current budget Goals it fulfills: Preserves Historic Structures Trail Protection 17 5. Project D: Improve running and cross slopes for accessibility located near the entrance on 900 South. Justification: Project D is a “Trail Slope Improvement Project” which ranked highest as a second priority in the online survey, and was the highest rated trail slope improvement project throughout the tabling events. For the online survey, the total count for “Wall Foundation Protection” projects listed as a priority one or two was higher than “Trail Slope Improvement Improvements,” which resulted in those projects being prioritized over Project D. Project D is also a high priority to minimize safety risks associated with access, resulting in high prioritization within the trail slope improvement project category. Based on the open comments, the addition of the handrails may be reconsidered during design to minimize additional infrastructure within the park. Project D is also expected to have a positive impact towards protecting the wall foundations. Potentially funded with current project budget. Goals it fulfills: Trail Slope Improvement 6. Project C: Covers exposed rock wall foundation and corrects steep cross slope on east side of creek. Justification: Project C is a “Trail Slope Improvement Project” which ranked highest as a second priority in the online survey. Project C will additionally protect the wall foundations, which was a high priority in both the online and in-person surveys. Finally, Project C is also a high priority to minimize safety risks associated with access by mitigating the steep cross slopes. Potentially funded with current project budget. Goals it fulfills: Trail Slope Improvement 18 7. Project E: Correct cross slope near Bonneview Drive entrance, and add stairs and handrail. Justification: Project E is a “Trail Slope Improvement Project” which ranked highest as a second priority in the online survey. Project E is also a high priority to minimize safety risks associated with access by mitigating the steep cross slopes. Finally, Project E will set the groundwork for improving wheelchair access from Bonneview Drive and will lead in to accomplishing Project H if funding allows. Slope improvements within this project will be prioritized over the construction of the stairs and rails. Additional feasibility assessment and engagement will be needed to install stairs and handrails. Potentially funded with current project budget. Goals it fulfills: Trail Slope Improvement 8. Project G: Reconstruct stairs to make steps even and add handrail. Justification: Project G is lower on the priority list because “Accessibility Improvement Projects” were not prioritized highly by the public in the online survey. However, it was the second highest prioritized project at the in-person event, so it is prioritized higher than all other access improvement projects proposed. Additionally, Project G would mitigate safety concerns with the current stairs, and would improve year-round access which was a repeated concern in the open comments of the online survey. Less likely to be funded with current budget. Goals it fulfills: Accessibility Improvement 19 9. Project H: Add curb cut and ramp from Bonneview Drive Justification: Project H is lower on the priority list because “Accessibility Improvement Projects” were not prioritized highly by the public in the online survey. Additionally, in order to improve wheelchair access to the park, making the project impactful, other cross slope projects, such as Project C, D and E, would be required prior in order for people be able to navigate the trail. However, if this project may be incorporated with a higher- priority project, it may be considered earlier in the process to increase access to the park. Less likely to be funded with current budget. Goals it fulfills: Accessibility Improvement 10. Project I, J and F: Remove concrete wall on 900 South entrance, remove non - native trees upon historic wall, and construct new stairs and handrails on east side of creek. Justification: It is very unlikely that funding will allow the City to explore these low-priority projects. Additionally, due to concerns relayed through the public engagement process by the community, additional feasibility studies and community engagement would be required to move forward with these projects. Therefore, the City at this time will not be moving forward with exploration of these three potential projects. The current budget is likely insufficient to construct these projects. Goals it fulfills: Preserve Historic Structures Accessibility Improvements 20 Appendix A: Information about Proposed Projects Figure A1 to Figure A6 are the documents used to display at tabling events to inform participants about the proposed projects. Figure A1: Instructions and project description. 21 Figure A2: Description of proposed trail protection projects. Figure A3: Description of proposed trail slope improvement projects. 22 Figure A4: Description of proposed accessibility improvement projects. Figure A5: Description of proposed projects to remove weight on historic walls. 23 Figure A6: Description of proposed projects to protect wall foundation 24 Appendix B: Engagement Materials Image 1: The image below was used to create the yard signs, mailers, and flyers for canvassing. 25 Image 2: Project Website 26 Image 3: Post used for social media. 27 Attachment 2 – Double Diamond Project Delivery Graphic