Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 4/8/2025COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY25 TO:Council Members FROM: Austin Kimmel, Sylvia Richards, Jennifer Bruno and Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analysts DATE: April 8, 2025 RE: Budget Amendment Number 5 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 New information Due to a noticing issue, the City Recorder’s office is requesting that the Council continue the public hearing to May 6, 2025. Council Added Items Item I-1 – Advantage Services Increase - $320,000 – Source: vacancy savings (Discussed on 4/8) The adopted FY 25 budget for Advantage Servies is $1.4 million. At the current usage rate, this would be fully expended by the end of April. The Administration indicates the primary reason is the higher-than-anticipated usage rate for the team, as well as expanding the team’s availability from 5 days a week to 7 days a week, to keep up with demand. To make up the difference for FY 25, the Administration is proposing to use vacancy savings within the Community and Neighborhoods budget. Because this is shifting personnel funds to non-personnel usage, it would need to be approved by the Council. The Administration indicates that it will plan to include the full cost of the increased service in the FY 26 budget, as this has become an essential element to the City’s public safety plan. New - The following two items are tangentially related to the larger policy discussion the Chair has scheduled on the Council’s Communication budgets. Because they have already been discussed between some Council and community members, they are included as Council Added items while that policy discussion is pending. The Council could decide to approve these items regardless of the conclusion of the policy discussion. Item I-2 – Council Added Item – Mead Avenue Underpass - $3,000 - $6,000 – Source: Council Office Communication Budget for District 4 and/or District 5 On March 25th at a special meeting of the Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA), the Board straw polled support of dedicating $50,000 from State Street Strategic Intervention funds to the Mead Avenue Underpass project, which the Central 9th Community council is organizing with community member Nick Rimando. The project would provide activation and neighborhood connectivity for a currently-unused UDOT overpass. Community stakeholders and the CRA are continuing to work with UDOT on logistics of implementing this projects. Council Members Mano and Lopez Chavez have been discussing with community stakeholders ways to add to the project budget, including potentially using $3,000 from the communications budgets for D4 and D5. Item I-3 – Council Added Item – Art in D4 - $15,000 – Source: Council Office Communication Budget – District 4 Council Member Lopez Chavez has been working with stakeholders in the community to commission a piece of art for D4, that would be located on private property but would be prominent and public facing. The advantage of this approach is that it would be maintained by the private property owner and would not an ongoing drain on City resources. It would also be implemented more quickly that the typical City process through the Arts Council. The Administration has provided responses to several of the follow-up questions raised by the Council at the April 1 briefing. They are included as an attachment to this staff report. The following information was provided for the April 1, 2025 work session. It is provided again for reference. Project Timeline: Consent: April 1, 2025 1st Briefing: April 1, 2025 2nd Briefing (if needed) & Public Hearing: April 15, 2025 Potential Adoption Vote: May 6, 2025 Budget Amendment Number Five includes 20 proposed amendments, including $2,855,699 in revenues and $9,109,320 in expenditures. The amendment proposes changes in six funds and moving 2.0 general fund positions from the Mayor’s Office; 1 position will be moved to Public Lands, and one will move to IMS. With the adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will be 20.81 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If the item is adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $37,533,578 above the 13% minimum target. Fund Balance While the increased General Fund Balance is positive for the City’s fiscal position, it’s important to note that the annual budget has used an escalating amount of one-time General Fund Balance revenues to fill the annual budget structural deficit. The chart to the right was provided by the Finance Department to show how much General Fund Balance was used in the past seven fiscal years. Note the City’s current fiscal year is FY2025 so the FY2026 column is only for discussion purposes to show the impact of the trend continuing. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration policy goals for the use of General Fund Balance in the next annual budget such as whether reducing the reliance on one-time funding to fill the structural deficit. Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs for the Next Annual Budget The table of potential new ongoing General Fund costs for the FY2026 annual budget is available as Attachment 1 at the end of this document. The total new ongoing costs from Budget Amendments 1 through 5 would be $6,381,054. Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not available for FY2026. UPDATED Fund Balance Chart The Administration has provided an updated revenue chart. Based on revenue data across the first part of the fiscal year, it is proposed that revenues will be approximately $8.59 million above the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. UPDATED Fund Balance Chart The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages based on the proposed changes included in Budget Amendment #5. As mentioned earlier, with the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #5, the available fund balance will increase to 20.81 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $37,533,578 above the 13% minimum target. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached, which can be modified as determined by the Council. Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking The table below is current as of February 28, 2025. Impact fees must be encumbered or spent within six years of the City receiving them. Expired impact fees must be returned to the entity who paid them with interest over the intervening six years. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend” Next Refund Trigger Date $ Expiring in FY2027 Fire $750,546 More than two years away - Parks $8,807,661 More than two years away - Police $1,625,193 More than two years away - Transportation $3,682,347 More than two years away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Section A: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources A-1: 400 South Bridge Reconstruction over Jordan River – ($3,5000,000 – one-time from the County Quarter Cent Fund Balance) The Administration is requesting $3.5 million from the County quarter cent sales tax fund balance to fully fund the 400 South bridge over the Jordan river. $4 million was allocated in FY 25, bringing the total to $7.5 million. Based on structural analysis, the bridge is at risk of being further downgraded, meaning emergency vehicles and UTA buses may not be allowed on it until it is fixed. Funding it now would enable sooner construction. The remaining fund balance in that account would be approximately $2 million if this item is approved. For more background on the inspection of the bridge and other funding for the project please refer to the Administration’s transmittal. A-2: Withdrawn prior to transmittal A-3: Community Land Trust Program Funds Allocation – ($310,000 – one-time from Community Land Trust) The Administration is requesting funding from dormant program income fund dollars to repair various homes in the Community Land Trust program. In previous discussions the Council indicated a willingness to allocate funding within the program, acknowledging that the Administration was working on a more comprehensive policy for the CLT. The administration indicates they expect to transmit that in April. Policy question – the Council may wish to schedule a more in depth discussion on the Community Land Trust when that policy is received from the Administration, particularly if there are budget adjustments that could/should be made for the FY 26 budget. A-4: Hive Pass Funding for Passes and Continuing Greenbike Membership – ($135,000 – one-time from the General Fund Due to increased usage of the HIVE pass, the administration is requesting $114,000 to help keep up with demand. The budget was reduced a few years ago to align with usage, but between FY 24 and FY 25, usage increased. This will bring the total general fund amount to $464,000, which is based on projected usage. The Administration indicates it will include this increased cost in the upcoming budget year. The Administration is also requesting $8,500 to cover related GreenBike memberships for HIVE pass users. For the last seven years UTA has been paying for these memberships. However, current UTA leadership is not interested in continuing the investment. The Administration is planning to include this in the budget for the next three years. Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss whether it is interested in the City providing the GreenBike memberships, and if the Council is interested in funding this service long-term. Council may wish to ask the Administration if UTA was approached to identify additional funds. A-5: Expanding Scope of FY25 Funded Restroom Study to Include Assessment of All Public Restrooms – ($75,000 one-time from the General Fund) Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is proposing to allocate $75,000 of the $500,000 set aside by the Council for “Public Hygiene Pilot program” to expand the scope of the Fairmont Park Restroom Study. $100,000 was allocated in FY 25, and the additional $75,000 will enable the study to be City-wide. Policy question – the Council may wish to ask the administration for more information about what is expected to be included in the scope and if there are any specific policy goals they wish to achieve with this study? A-6: Public Hygiene Pilot Program – ($425,000 – one-time from the General Fund) Note: Public Lands coordinated with CAN on Items A-5&6. The Administration is requesting the Council release funding for the Public Hygiene pilot program, originally allocated in FY 2025. The new amount would be $425,000. The Administration is working on releasing an RFP for proposals. The Administration’s transmittal indicates that the RFP would ask for providing “new and/or increased hygiene and outreach services for unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in SLC. Proposals can include mobile services or improving/expanding existing stationary facilities.” Policy question – the Council may wish to evaluate whether reducing the funding from the original $500k allocated would potentially reduce the scope of impact of this pilot project. The Council could elect to make up the funding from fund balance. A-7: Additional Funding for Construction Mitigation – ($270,000 – one-time from the General Fund) Due to high demand, the Administration is requesting $270,000 from general fund balance to add to the construction mitigation grants administered by Economic Development. When the Council increased this funding in the FY 25 budget, several Council Members expressed an interest in fully funding requests, given the increased construction activity in the City. In FY 25 the Council allocated $600,000. Economic Development anticipates $270,000 in additional funding will fully address requests for the remainder of the fiscal year. Additionally Economic Development indicates that they will make these funds available to businesses that have been awarded funds in previous rounds. This funding would allow an additional 90 small businesses to receive grants. Staff asked the Administration if the new amount of $870,000 should be included in the FY 26 budget. The Administration indicates that they expect most major street construction projects to be wrapped up by the next fiscal year. Policy question – the Council may wish to have further discussion about other anticipated construction projects that may have business impact, to inform the FY 26 budget. A-8: Animal Services Contract Increase True-Up – ($398,281 – one-time from the General Fund) The Administration is requesting additional funding for the contract with Salt Lake County for animal services. The Contract was finalized after the FY 25 budget was adopted, which is why it wasn’t included. The new contract pricing is $398,281 more than the current budget, and is due largely to inflationary increases, and does not include any service level increases. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is a way to adjust the timing of contract negotiations so they can be included in the timing of the annual budget process. A-9: FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Water for $281,965); FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Sewer for $65,495); FY25 Water Stabilization Monthly Fixed Fee (Franchise Fee Tax $72,752) for a total of $420,212 one-time funds from the General Fund The Administration is requesting $420,212 of funding from general fund balance to cover the cost of the water stabilization fee charged to the City as a water user (water, sewer, and stormwater) – calculated based on each meter, and the size of each meter. The Public Lands department was not aware of this fee proposal at the time of the FY 25 budget. Public Utilities will likely have a new rate structure in time for the FY 26 budget request, at which time Public Lands will evaluate the budget need. A-10: Storm Water Impact Fees ($36,091 one-time from the General Fund; $269,654 one-time from the General Fund and $269,654 from the CIP Fund) The Administration is requesting one-time funds to cover $305, 745 in stormwater impact fees relating to Parks/CIP projects that were not included in those original project budgets – including Sugar House Park Pavilion and several other CIP projects funded in FY 25. The Administration is evaluating how to operationalize including these fees in project budgets in the future. For background information on the City’s stormwater fee and fun, please refer to the Administration’s transmittal. A-11: Public Safety Plan – Westside Parks Security Guards – ($59,430 one-time from the General Fund) The Public Lands department is requesting $59,430 to add additional security detail in westside parks, as contemplated in the Public Safety plan proposed by the Mayor in January 2025. This funding would provide funding for services from April-June. Policy question – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether funding for security services will be included in the FY 26 budget, and if so, the duration of those services. A-12: Updating Four Sections of the Impact Fees Facilities Plan – ($80,000 one-time from the CIP Fund) The Administration is requesting $80,000 from the various impact fee accounts to update all sections of the Impact Fee Facility Plan – Fire, Police, Parks and Transportation. The Council previously approved an update to the transportation in FY 24. This would enable all sections to be updated. The last comprehensive update was in 2016. Updated plans ensure that impact fees are set based on realistic/current cost estimates for improvements relating to growth, and that growth estimates are based on current data. State code governs the impact fee facility plan process, including allowable uses for impact fees. The analysis must be completed by a consultant approved in the impact fee analysis field. A-13: Mayor’s Office Transfer of 2 FTE’s to Two Departments – (Budget Neutral) The Administration is proposing to shift two FTEs out of the Mayor’s office into other City departments: -One is a Constituent Services and Office Coordinator (N19), which is currently occupied, to support the administrative functions of the Public Lands Department, in a project coordinator role. -One is a vacant Community Liaison position (E26), currently focused on language access, that would move to IMS and reclassified as a Communication Specialist I (E27). Due to the reclassification, the position would cost more annually, but for FY 25 would be absorbed by IMS. This is a budget amendment request because the dollar amounts would need to be moved from the Mayor’s office to Public Lands and IMS. Policy question – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on City-wide communication strategy, including any relevant metrics. A-14: Ranked Choice Voting Education and Outreach – ($50,000 one-time from the General Fund) As discussed during the Council’s December discussion on Ranked Choice Voting, the Administration is proposing to add $50,000 in one time money from the general fund balance to support outreach efforts relating to this voting process. This is in addition to funds that are anticipated to be included in the FY 26 budget. Adding funds in this budget amendment would enable efforts to get underway immediately rather than waiting for July 1 to begin. The Council straw polled support of this approach for the 2025 election cycle. A-15: Additional Funding for City Hall Security Guards – ($700,000 ongoing from the General Fund) The Administration is proposing to add $700,000 in funding from general fund balance to account for increased security needs at the City and County building and overall Civic Campus (Washington Square, Library, Public Safety Building). This would be in addition to the $916,000 approved in FY 26, for a total of $1.616 million. The Administration indicated this likely reflects the actual ongoing need, and will plan to include it in the FY 26 budget. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources (None) Section D: Housekeeping (write-ups from Administration’s transmittal) D-1: Engineering Reappropriation for Fencing – ($63,953 one-time from the General Fund to the CIP Fund) One-time funding was provided to Public Service's Engineering Division in FY 2024 in a late-fiscal year budget amendment for fencing adjacent to the North Temple bridge over the Jordan River, Archuleta Bridge, and Folsom Trail. This funding was to be used for temporary fencing associated with a CIP project but could not be transferred to CIP because it didn’t meet certain CIP criteria requirements. Instead of going to CIP, the budget was loaded into Engineering Operations. However, because Engineering was not fully aware of the circumstances associated with the appropriation, the funds were not encumbered and subsequently were not rolled over to the FY 2025 budget. This housekeeping initiative is to reappropriate the $63,953.04 in funds that lapsed to the Fund Balance so the invoice from Mountain States Fence can be paid. D-2: Streets Mini Planer Replacement – ($394,000 one-time from the General Fund) Earlier this year a planer used for the Roadway Preservation Program was damaged in an at-fault accident. A repair estimate was obtained by Fleet, however, it was predicted to exceed the value of the asset. After discussion with the manufacturer, leadership at Fleet and Streets determined it made fiscal sense to send the damaged planer out to an auction, with the hope of finding an interested buyer who may want it for spare parts. Given the robust demands of the Roadway Preservation Program, it is essential for the Streets Division to replace the planer, which is used in removing and replacing old asphalt. The Roadway Preservation Program is an umbrella title that includes among other sub-programs Asphalt Mill & Overlay. This would enable each asphalt team to have access to a dedicated planer, eliminating the need to rely on the availability of another team's equipment, which significantly limits productivity and operational efficiency. Replacing the planer will ensure the Streets Division can operate at full capacity. Since the City is self-insured, Streets must cover the cost of the replacement equipment. Public Services proposes using $394,000 in end-of-year savings be transferred from its division budget to the Fleet Division to cover the replacement cost. This end-of-year savings exists largely due to the mild winter that occurred this season, which resulted in lower weather-related expenses including the salt budget, equipment rentals, and fleet fuel. D-3: Fire Wildland/Hurricane Deployment Reimbursements – ($1,013,067 one-time reimbursement to the General Fund and $38,558 one-time reimbursement to the Fleet Fund) The Fire Department has been deployed several times this fiscal year to three wildland fires and two hurricanes. The department expects to receive a full reimbursement of costs to the General Fund and a portion to Fleet. The costs are itemized below: • California Wildland Park Fire (August 2024) - $195,075 • California Wildland Line Fire (September 2024) - $165,412 • Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Helene (September 2024) - $121,861 • Utah Task Force 1/USAR Hurricane Milton (October 2024) - $148,926 • California Wildland Palisades Fire (January 2024) - $420,351 Total Reimbursement - $1,051,625 Staff inquired about federal funding uncertainties and the Fire Department indicates their counterparts have promised a 75% advance on reimbursements. They will continue to monitor the situation. D-4: Cultural Core Funding – ($241,000 one-time from the General Fund) This funding is being requested to replace funding that fell to fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2024. The amount was housed in Non-Departmental and was meant to be expended in the amount of $50,000 annually to supplement the existing $250,000 annual funding level for the Cultural Core contract. The new total amount the City has committed to pay Cultural Core annually is $300,000. If the reappropriation is approved, then the funds would be encumbered through a purchase order process. In FY 2023, the City Council approved the Cultural Core Surplus Funds be added to the city’s $250,000 annual contribution. The $291,000 surplus would be divided, adding $50,000 to the city’s contribution which would then total $300,000 for five years. In the sixth year $41,000 would be added to the city’s contribution. D-5: Cultural Core Funding Move – ($250,000 – ongoing from General Fund) In Budget Amendment #3 of FY 2024, Cultural Core funding in the amount of $250,000 was moved from the Department of Economic Development to Non-Departmental. When the budget for FY 2025 was being developed, this budget was initially captured in the Economic Development Department. However, it should have been captured in the Economic Development Non Departmental Cost Center. This amendment formally corrects that discrepancy. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: BEMS – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services – ($6,003 – Misc. Grant Fund) This amendment is to recognize the City's funding availability for an increase in an existing grant award of $6,003. In August of 2024, the Salt Lake City Fire Department was awarded $9,642 through the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. In February of 2025 that award was increased by $6,003 which gave SLC a total award of $15,645. Original Public Hearing was held March 5, 2024. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Consent Agenda G-1: Utah State University Wildlife Foundation – ($85,356 – Misc. Grant Fund) Utah State University has been awarded a grant by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as part of their pollinator program. Part of this grant has been awarded to the Trails and Natural Lands division of the Public Lands Department of Salt Lake City as a subaward. Salt Lake City will use the grant to accomplish three main objectives: 1) Species Development. 2) Seedling Production and 3) Native Seed Farm. The goal of these objectives is to supply the Utah Pollinator Habitat Program and the city’s Trails projects with seedlings which will be used to enhance and restore public lands along trails with pollinator habitat to the benefit of the urban population. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4, 2025. G-2: Utah Department of Natural Resources/Forestry, Fire, and State Lands – ($63,255 – Misc. Grant Fund) The Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands (FFSL) has received funds from the Utah State Legislature to be administered for vegetation improvement projects on sovereign lands of Utah. The proposed uses of the funds were brought before a grant selection committee and approved. The FFSL has awarded Salt Lake City Corporation for the implementation of a Jordan River invasive species control and restoration project. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4, 2025. G-3: State of Utah: Department of Environmental Quality Drinking Water Board – 4th Avenue Well – ($800,000 – Misc. Grant Fund) Public Utilities applied for and was awarded a planning loan through the Drinking Water Board. The loan amount is up to $800,000 for planning and design costs to address PFAS contamination in the 4th Avenue Well. In addition to awarding the loan, the State will also forgive 100% of the principal cost of the loan to pay for an engineering study to address the contamination issue. While this is a loan and not a grant, the mechanism for receiving the money is similar to a grant. Typically, when receiving a loan, the loan recipient receives all the money at once and thus can spend funds once the money is received. In this instance, the funder (lender) is requiring Salt Lake City to initially incur the expenses and then submit reimbursement requests to receive the money. The agreement for this loan is that 100% of the principal will be forgiven and there will be no expectation of repayment. Due to the unique requirements of this loan, the management of funds will follow grant approval and reimbursement processes. The Public Hearing was held Feb. 4, 2025. G-4: Salt Lake City Bike Share Expansion – ($121,236 – Misc. Grant Fund) Transportation Division received a grant from the Utah Department of Transportation for $614,790 in August of 2022. In October of 2024, UDOT increased that amount by $121,236 for a new total of $735,026. This item is to obtain approval for the additional $121,236. This grant was awarded to Salt Lake City to expand the Bike Share program in collaboration with Green Bike. The original public hearing for the grant was March 22, 2022. ATTACHMENTS Ongoing Costs to the General Fund (See chart below) ACRONYMS CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CIP – Capital Improvement Program CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program CLTPF – Community Land Trust Program Funds FFSL – Forestry, Fire and State Lands FOF – Funding Our Future FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund HUD – Housing and Urban Development IMS – Information Management Services PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation ATTACHMENT 1 Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2026 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #1 Item A-1 Attorney’s Office Organizational Structure Change $722,888 3 FTEs: 1 City Prosecutor 1 Senior City Attorney 1 Deputy Director of Administration City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704 annually Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8 months/$236,454 annually Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 - $186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually. At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or less than the current budget under the soon-to-be terminated interlocal agreement with the District Attorney’s Office. #1 Item D-8 $171,910 1 FTE: Capital Asset Planning Financial Analyst IV position Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General Fund for the position’s cost. $2,945,957 grant funding* 4 FTEs: 3 Officer positions 1 Sergeant position *Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover the ongoing costs including the new FTEs. #1 Item E-1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY25 Costs currently paid for by the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant in FY2024 that might be shifting to the General Fund in FY2025 $662,760 For ongoing costs related to 15 existing FTEs; the grant funds a total of 23 FTEs $662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15 officers. The Administration is checking whether existing budgets could absorb some of these costs. #2 Item A-2 Enhanced Security at Justice Court $200,000 A security report identified an issue needing to be addressed immediately. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2026 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #2 Item A-3 Community Oriented Policing Svcs or COPS Hiring Grant from U.S. Dept. of Justice for 2 new Sergeants & 10 new Officers FY 24-25 $1,285,642 in FY2026 For ongoing costs related to hiring 2 new Sergeant FTEs and 10 new Officers in the Police Dept. Ongoing costs include grant salary match plus vehicles, supplies & equipment. After the 48 month grant period ends, the estimated annual cost to retain the 12 police officers is $2,071,325. #2 Item A-4 Vehicles, Equip- ment & Related Police Officer costs not covered by the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation Grant FY24-25 $498,692 is ongoing For ongoing costs related to the hiring of new officers Ongoing costs include ongoing salary increases, supplies, body cameras, vehicles, and computers. #1 & #2 D-7 Prosecutor’s Office Changes since Budget Amendment #1 (-$280,279) back to General Fund Balance 1 FTE Removed City Prosecutor FTE removed Reverses a portion of budgetary impacts & actions outlined in BAM#1, Item A-1. #3 A-2 IMS – Add 1 full-time Cybersecurity Engineer and convert 1 part-time Graphic Designer into full-time using funds from the elimination of additional part-time positions. $173,484 ongoing for Cybersecurity Engineer position Adds 1 Cybersecurity Engineer Position .50 Graphic Design position was requested but NOT approved by the Council. #5 A-4: Hive Pass Funding Additional Passes and Continuing Greenbike Membership $135,000 for additional Hive passes ($114,000) and continuing Greenbike membership ($8,500) None #5 A-8: Animal Services Contract Increase True- Up $398,281 ongoing Price increase of old contract plus increase of new contract. Budget Amendment Item Potential Cost to FY2026 Annual Budget Full Time Employee (FTEs)Notes #5 A-15: Additional Funding for City Hall Security Guards $700,000 ongoing for City Hall Security Guards None TOTAL $7,216,054 39 total FTEs of which 16 are New FTEs Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not available for FY2026 Budget Amendment #5 – Follow up Questions and Answers – April 1, 2025 briefing Administrative responses in red A-4: Hive Pass Funding and Greenbike Funding - Can you provide usage data about Greenbike – what percentage of HIVE passholders use this? o 419 Hive Pass users have activated and used the annual GREENbike membership. That is out of the 2000 GREENbike memberships that were purchased with the original $75,000 of funding from UTA. That is 20.9% of HIVE pass holders. - Is there any additional information about why UTA has elected not to fund, and/or did the Administration push for funding? o We aren’t sure why UTA doesn’t want to fund this again. It was one-time funding seven years ago, so it’s possible that personnel and priorities have just changed. - Could the Council choose to fund the HIVA passes and not the Greenbike passes? o Absolutely. This is simply a “value added” option to provide a helpful first/last mile connection. A-5:Expanded scope for Restroom Study - What is included in the scope (or intended to be included in the scope) of the city-wide restroom assessment? o The FY24/25 CIP funded Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study scope of work includes a planning study to update guidance for park restroom policy and practice citywide, conceptual design for new restrooms typologies within parks, and a recommended design for a restroom in Fairmont Park. If the budget amendment is approved, the expanded scope will extend the study to all publicly accessible restrooms citywide (not just parks, but all restroom facilities that allow public access) o The new scope proposed with this budget amendment request is intended to include the following items completed internally by City staff. Public Lands, in collaboration with other City staff, will collect base data that includes: An inventory, including overall condition indices, of all current public restrooms citywide. If the expanded scope is awarded, we can include a map of all publicly accessible restrooms citywide. If not, we'll still provide a map of the public lands public restrooms. A needs assessment of current restroom “level of service.” This scope will likely not include a full list of repairs at each location, but coupled with the data that we received from the Strategic Capital, Acquisition and Asset Management Plan, we'll be able to identify major repair and replacement needs and provide a prioritized list of improvement requirements based on condition. A gap analysis to identify restroom deserts throughout the city o The new scope will also include the following to be completed by a consultant: Develop best practices and policies based on other successful public restrooms nationwide Create a typologies guide and recommendations for park and public lands restrooms Recommend priorities for future restroom-related projects as funding becomes available - Are City budget constraints/realities communicated via the scope? o The recommendations of the plan will be scalable and will be used to inform future design and programmatic requests for restroom replacements/repairs. The recommendations will be intended to be used when funding for restroom replacement is awarded. The Strategic Capital, Acquisition and Asset Management Plan that will be completed by Public Lands by the end of this year, will make recommendations on funding requests for programmatic replacements required to maintain our asset replacement schedule and current level of service. The Strategic Capital, Acquisition and Asset Management Plan being developed will include funding recommendations for public restrooms based on the results of the expanded restroom study while balancing competing needs for other capital improvements within anticipated budget constraints. - As a lower priority, could the scope include creative restroom solutions in other communities? o Regardless of additional funding award, the Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study will include a review of successful restrooms in other cities and communities and will make recommendations for Salt Lake City park restrooms based on best practices. A-7: Additional funding for construction mitigation - Has the Administration evaluated whether the current $3k grant process is helpful to businesses, or would a different amount be more helpful? o In the past, the grant amount provided to businesses was $2000 and businesses were not as inclined to apply. The Department of Economic Development (DED) decided to increase the grant amount to $3000 which saw a higher application rate from businesses. o We conducted a survey of Construction Mitigation Grant (CMG) recipients last year and asked businesses for feedback. Most businesses were grateful and yet some expressed that $3,000 isn't enough when they experience a decline in sales. - Can the Administration work with businesses to know the various ways these funds can be spent, and evaluate whether changing the program name makes sense to add clarity? o DED does work with the businesses to explain how funds can be used and they are posted on our website and collateral. A common use of the grant is to expand ways to reach and communicate with customers, for instance, purchasing a software or subscribing to a service that may have previously been cost prohibitive. However, this is not the only use of the grant funds. o DED has expressed to business owners that the grants are not to be revenue replacement for any losses. o It has been DED’s experience that the name is clear to the businesses. DED sees a high application rate, so the name does not seem to be an issue from our perspective. Construction Mitigation also sets parameters for which businesses the grant is intended for. If Council desires, DED is open to consult with the Business Advisory Board (BAB) if they think the name is confusing. We can even conduct an informal focus group in order to obtain the BAB’s perspective on the issue. - Can the Administration engage the Business Advisory Board to inform how the FY 26 funds can/could be structured? o DED works closely with the Business Advisory Board (BAB). The BAB is an asset to the city and to DED; hence, we are always engaging them in our work. We can engage the BAB more strategically as we continue to manage the program. In fact, an assigned BAB member can serve as an advisor to our CMG program. o DED has also surveyed CMG recipients and have looked into similar programs in other cities. We are happy to share those additional insights. o It is worth noting that DED is working on a 2025 Mayor’s goal to formalize CMG as a program, and that similar attributes are being considered. A-8: Animal Services Contract – - Can the Administration work with County staff to adjust timing? o The FY25 BA#5 Animal Services Contract one-time request of $398,271 is attributed to a contract renewal timing issue. A new contract for Animal Services was signed and recorded on 7/1/2024 for another 5 year period after the FY25 budget was adopted. Future contract budget increase requests will be included in the annual budget process and should not require budget amendment adjustments. A-11: Public Safety Plan – Westside park security - How many hours/days would this get in each of the parks – Glendale, Jordan, International Peace Gardens, Cottonwood Park, Riverside Park? o The security detail will operate seven days a week from 9:00 PM to 5:00 AM. o Guards will patrol Glendale, Jordan, International Peace Gardens, Cottonwood Park, and Riverside Park, making multiple stops at each location throughout the night. The security guards will also patrol the hotspots along the Jordan River Parkway Trail such as the smaller pedestrian bridges between the priority parks listed above. o Their primary focus will be to ensure that no unauthorized individuals are in the parks after hours. o Guards will lock and unlock gates (where applicable) at designated times. o They will also monitor for any signs of property damage. o The east side parks (focus on Liberty Park, Herman Franks, Fairmont, and Allen Park) have already experienced positive results from this service. In March 2025, the city transitioned from CBI Security to All Pro Security, and the change has been well-received. All Pro provides daily reports with photos of all patrolled areas, which are reviewed by Safety and Security Director Nate Kobs. He has reported that the service is both effective and valuable. o Weekly Stats report will include: Paraphernalia found (Needles or pipes) Police or Medical Assists (Security calling for police or fire to respond) Persons removed from property or trespassed for committing crimes or multiple violations of city code Community engagement (Resources given with a subsection of if it was accepted or not) - Could security cameras extend the reach of this staff? o Security cameras could significantly enhance the effectiveness of the guards, but only with further expansion. Establishing a Security Operations Center (SOC) with a dedicated guard monitoring live feeds and dispatching personnel as needed would provide more comprehensive and efficient coverage. Depending on location, the upfront capital cost to install new fiber optic cables or other utilities to support the cameras would be needed in addition to the cost of the cameras. Alternatives such as solar power and using cellular networks is being explored. o We understand that SLCPD is actively investigating having a Real Time Crime Center that would essentially accomplish the same thing. A-15: City Hall Security Guards - Does the City have data/metrics about crime in the civic campus before and after security was increased? o The security increase occurred towards the end of fiscal year 2024. This was in response to the Administration and Council asking for increased attention to Washington Square and Library Square crime issues. I asked PD for the calls of service for Washington Square and Library Square from July 2024- March 2025. These calls of service were from individuals that have called in, either the security guards or members of the public, and have asked for PD or medical to respond. The calls for service by month are listed below. This more detailed level of tracking started when the enhanced security service levels started, so there is not a readily available dataset to compare the same metrics before July 2024. July 2024 – 96 August 2024 – 91 September 2024 – 104 October 2024 – 100 November 2024 – 86 December 2024 – 79 January 2025 – 99 February 2025 – 82 March 2025 – 72 The increase is expected as the guards were increased as well as their time spent on patrols. The decrease shows the positive effect as less calls are needed. - Are there current metrics for citations/types of crime/etc? Security guards track various statistics daily, and an active dashboard is nearing completion. The dashboard will include the following metrics: Police/Medical calls (security guards calling for PD to respond for crimes witnessed, and medical called for persons injured or overdosing on drugs) Narcan doses administered. This is the security guards discovering a person overdosing on drugs and while waiting for medical to arrive, the person stops breathing. Security will then administer a Narcan dose. Paraphernalia found (drug needles or pipes) People removed from property (People are removed from property and given a verbal warning for committing multiple violations of city code. People are trespassed from property for committing violence on others, lewdness, and other misdemeanor crimes. Community engagement (Resources offered, with a subsection of if the resource was accepted or rejected. Resources include whether shelter beds are available, meeting with a social worker either PD related or the social worker and other social service providers that are frequently inside the Main Library, and other service provider referrals) The stats recorded for January, February, and March of 2025 are listed below: January 2025 Police/Medical Calls – 23 Narcan Doses - 3 Paraphernalia – 32 Removals - 321 Trespasses – 5 Community Engagement – 52 February 2025 Police/Medical Calls – 29 Narcan Doses - 6 Paraphernalia – 15 Removals – 289 Trespasses – 0 Community Engagement – 12 March 2025 Police/Medical Calls – 18 Narcan Doses – 2 Paraphernalia – 28 Removals – 235 Trespasses – 15 Community Engagement - 1 - How is this security service interfacing with service providers and connecting people to services? o The security guards work with SLCPD daily. While the support from the police department has greatly increased, they are on site sporadically. The security guards are out and visible all day and night doing patrols 24/7/365. o Working with SLCPD and their various divisions, the security guards know when to call for social workers or PD camp mitigation teams within their operating hours (which are less than 24/7/365). o During cold months, the security guards have https://endutahhomelessness.org/daily-bed-availability/ open to share how many shelter beds are available.