General Information

Government Type

Special Service District

Entity

Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area

Public Body

Board of Trustees

Notice Information

Add Notice to Calendar

Notice Title

Minutes May 19, 2022

Notice Tags

Administrative Procedure

Notice Type(s)

Meeting

Event Start Date & Time

May 19, 2022 10:00 AM

Event End Date & Time

May 19, 2022 11:00 AM

Event Deadline Date & Time

05/19/22 10:00 AM

Description/Agenda

Date: May 19, 2022 THE SALT LAKE VALLEY LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE AREA BOARD OF TRUSTEES ('BOARD') MET ON THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2022, AT 10:00 AM. THE PUBLIC WAS NOTIFIED THAT THEY MAY JOIN THE OPEN PORTIONS OF THE MEETING BY CALLING 1-669 900-9128 AND ENTERING MEETING ID 92301763844# AND PASSWORD 259919#. THE PUBLIC WAS ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO ALL OPEN PORTIONS OF THE MEETING. BOARD MEMBERS AND PERSONS PARTICIPATING BY PHONE OR ELECTRONICALLY WERE ABLE TO HEAR ALL DISCUSSIONS. Present: Excused: Attended Via Zoom: TRUSTEE JIM BRADLEY, SALT LAKE COUNTY TRUSTEE PAULINA FLINT, WHITE CITY TRUSTEE DAVID BREMS, EMIGRATION CANYON TRUSTEE ALAN PETERSON, KEARNS TRUSTEE CAROLYN KEIGLEY, BRIGHTON TRUSTEE DAVID OLSEN, COPPERTON TRUSTEE CHRIS STAVROS, SALT LAKE COUNTY TRUSTEE DEA THEODORE, SALT LAKE COUNTY TRUSTEE STEVE PROKOPIS, MAGNA ALSO ATTENDED: SHERIFF ROSIE RIVERA, SALT LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF AND SLVLESA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIEF OF POLICE JASON MAZURAN, UPD CHIEF OF POLICE FRANK NAKAMURA, SLVLESA DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR/SLVLESA LEGAL COUNSEL LISA DUDLEY, SLVLESA CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER RICHARD MOON, SLVLESA TREASURER Item #1-Call to Order. Trustee Bradley called the meeting to order. A roll call vote for attendance was then conducted. Item #2- Conflict of interest disclosure. Action Requested: Identify Conflicts; if any Discussion: Trustee Bradley asked if there were any conflicts of interest. None were identified. Item #3-Public Comment Action Requested: None Discussion: Trustee Bradley asked if there were any members of the public who wished to address the Board. There were none. Item #4- Expenditures for the Month of April 2022 and Other Financial Information. Action Requested: None Discussion: Richard Moon asked if anyone had questions on the expenditure report for April. He said most of it was their bill and the payment of expenses for their Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes. Item #5- Discuss Changes to the SLVLESA General Fund Balance Policy 2021-1 and Use of General Fund Balance. Action Requested: None Discussion: Trustee Bradley said the policy on the general fund balance talked about a target fund balance of 17%, which they thought was an adequate number. They'll discuss the request to use fund balance for SLVLESA's ability to meet the new costs associated with personnel and that would be lower than 17. He asked Frank Nakamura if that would take a revision to policy. Frank Nakamura said yes, it will but they are not doing that today. Lisa Dudley said the changes to this policy that are outlined for your review, gives more flexibility to the Board instead of establishing that very hard line of 17% and especially as the SLVLESA Board needs to figure out their funding mechanism going forward. The statutory minimum is 5%. SLVLESA is in a situation where they may have to dip below what is established at the 17% and be very careful about a 5% but the 17% does seem too high now, too restricted, considering the funding mechanism is not adequate now for the ongoing operations for SLVLESA. Trustee Bradley said this agenda item is just to notice that they have an issue there and we are dealing with it. We will talk more about it. Lisa Dudley said she thinks they are getting the SLVLESA general fund balance mixed up with the UPD precinct fund balances. The budget that was presented this morning is not the SLVLESA budget, it is taking a budgetary use of fund balance from the precinct fund, not SLVLESA. SLVLESA will get its bill from UPD, however UPD passes the budget, the Sherriff's recommendation for the budgetary use of fund balance takes the SLVLESA precincts at UPD down to 8.5%. That is separate from this Board's pot of money that you are managing. Frank Nakamura asked if any Board member had a problem with the use of precinct fund balance above 8.5%. There were no objections. Item #6- Discuss Increasing Officers (FTEs) Assigned to Emigration Canyon Metro Township. Action Requested: None Discussion: Trustee Brems said as they all know, they talked for a long time about the problems they are having in Emigration Canyon with noise and speed. Currently in Emigration Canyon they have one full time officer for 40 hours a week. A conversation has been proposed by Chief Mazuran that we look at a .5 FTE for the summer months. It should be helpful, it will be interesting if they can do this, to see if it helps them with their problem. He said the way he sees it, if they have the .5 FTE, it's really another full-time officer in the Canyon for the summer. He said in a perfect world, if they had someone in the Canyon 12 hours a day on Saturday and Sunday and then from 5 until 8 in the afternoon, on the other days of the week, that would be an interesting experiment and maybe help them with some of the problems they have. He said they are hopefully ticketing illegal exhaust and speeding and that really is the problem. They would very much like to do this and see if it makes a difference and he would appreciate their support. Trustee Bradley asked what hours are currently being covered. Trustee Brems said he thinks UPD doesn't want to divulge the hours, but he assumes he is there more or less a 40-hour week, Monday through Friday but he does not really know. What he is requesting is to try and have an officer in the canyon all the time that they have their problems. Trustee Bradley said they have listened to this for years and he tends to believe it is a legitimate problem and he would be supportive of it. Frank Nakamura said obviously SLVLESA will be funding this if it is included in the budget. Lisa Dudley said that the tentative budget is already set, that is what was approved at the prior UPD Board meeting, but they can make changes to it that would be incorporated into the final budget. Trustee Flint asked what precinct they are running that service through. Lisa Dudley said special ops through canyon patrol, the canyon substation. Trustee Keigley said that they have a similar situation in Big Cottonwood Canyon, and it gets worse every year. She said on some weekends there are 10,000 cars. Chief of Police Jason Mazuran said that they have Officer Elsasser who is in the Canyon 40 hours a week and they have already asked him to make an adjustment to his schedule. For these additional hours, it would be a .5 FTE assigned to the Emigration Township, so you would still have Canyon Patrol overseen by Chief Wayne Dial, but this .5 FTE would probably operate May through September, during that peak period and operate in the evenings and weekends and coordinate something with Officer Elsasser at that point. Trustee Prokopis said at any given point, each of them are either givers or takers of services from UPD and he is wondering where Emigration Canyon is at in terms of getting what they're paying for. He has heard over the months and years that maybe they are being underserved with what they are contributing, and he wants to keep his eye on that. If they are not getting what they are paying for and service delivery. He didn't see actual numbers of what they pay, what they receive and what this is going to cost. He said he knows a fully loaded officer is about $185,000 and a half officer would be another $90,000. Lisa Dudley said they are once again mixing up the UPD budget with the revenue collection through property taxes and SLVLESA, so the budget that is prepared does not address property tax revenue at all. That happens at SLVLESA's budget and SLVLESA's expenditures are simply the assessment for law enforcement, for SLVLESA, as a whole. When we come into the UPD budget, the revenue is not tied to property tax anymore, the revenue is tied to the payment from SLVLESA for that law enforcement bill. So, the UPD budget is not going to show anything about the property tax revenue in each of their communities compared with the cost of law enforcement. Trustee Flint said she is looking at it as if you take White City and move it up a canyon. Are they not going to have 24/7 policing because they live in the canyon? Do they have to rely on something called Canyon Patrol? She thinks the issue is that the Town of Brighton needs to have 24/7 policing. Emigration needs to have 24/7 policing. To relegate it to an officer that might be in the canyon at any given time is problematic and that is not them fulfilling the duty and responsibility to their communities. Yes, SLVLESA is the taxing arm for all of them but when it comes to the UPD side, they expect that service, whether they are in or outside of the canyon. Trustee Prokopis said that he agrees with Trustee Flint, but he does think they need to keep their eye on the overall dollar amount. He said he believes they have an idea of what Emigration Canyon contributes to SLVLESA and they should get comparable service. He said you must get what you pay for, or you must pay extra. Sheriff Rivera said she thinks some of it is getting confused. She said basically what they are asking for is half of an officer to spend their dedicated time in Emigration Canyon and it would come out of the budget like the two sergeants they asked for in Kearns, they were asking to fund from the SLVLESA budget for the sergeants. Emigration is asking SLVLESA to fund that .5 officer. She said they can get them the exact dollar amount and it will be half of whatever a full-time officer costs and it would come out of SLVLESA's budget. They just need to know so that they can put it in the final UPD budget. She said it is more of an experiment to see if it even helps but they will dedicate that half of an officer to Emigration. Frank Nakamura asked if there were any objections to the request. He said they do not need to appropriate any funds because it is available in the SLVLESA budget. The SLVLESA Board gave their support for the .5 officer in Emigration Canyon. Sheriff Rivera said they will put it in the budget and then when the UPD Board approves the budget, SLVLESA will get it after the UPD meeting. Trustee Flint said she would like, in the future, to look at the structure. You do have a population base that needs policing, and she thinks they should separate that out from what they call canyon patrol because they deserve the same considerations of any other township. Item #7-Discussion on Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Unified Police Department (UPD) Tentative Budget. Action Requested: None Discussion: Sheriff Rivera said they went through this with the UPD Board, and they gave them some direction. For the SLVLESA Board members who were not in the UPD Board meeting, what they discussed and presented the tentative budget and they gave a copy of the budget to all the Board members, which they will get to the SLVLESA board members as well. What was discussed in the UPD Board meeting was more of the shared services increases. The UPD Board has directed them to break that out into what is a one-time cost or whether it's an ongoing cost and what are their priorities. It was also recommended to put the ARPA requests on that list. It makes the ARPA requests complicated because UPD does not have ARPA funds and they will prioritize all of that. Once they have that broken out, they will email that out to the Board members. The UPD Board members will discuss the budge. For the SLVLESA Board members, if they will discuss their budget that is broken down in the budget book, it is not only SLVLESA as a whole but also their individual precincts. But when it is billed, they are just going to bill SLVLESA for the police services. She said they also discussed the fund balance, whether SLVLESA as a whole, wants to make the 8.5% as their target goal for the fund balance and then use the fund balance to pay for a portion of the bill, at the precinct level and that is very complicated, so they are there to answer any questions. Trustee Brems said in the conversation earlier today, it sounded like someone has determined that the ARPA fund balance each of them have, they can spend it however they want. He asked if she anticipates when he goes to his council meeting that they'll say they can spend that money anyway they want and you're asking me to spend it on UPD. Sheriff Rivera said she does not know how they can spend it. UPD as whole does not have ARPA funds but they were directed by the UPD Board to add those in. Trustee Brems said there may be other things competing for that money. Sheriff Rivera said there could be, but she does not know for each individual member what rules they are following, etc. She believes everyone is doing it differently. Trustee Flint said she sits on the MSD Board, and they have their expert who has the ARPA funds broken out by community and divided by separate fund centers. At their last MSD meeting, they were given the direction that the money has been freed up to spend on what they want to spend it on. Their second one will be coming in August and its to be expended by 2024. She said they can request, to cost share in something very important for the benefit of the officers that go on site when you have a terrible event. Trustee Brems asked if there was a specific amount. He said if it is that specific, they could act on that. Trustee Flint said she noticed the total for all metros is $136,000 in cost share for that particular piece. She said all of them as a whole, they have about 85,000 people in their jurisdiction. They are the largest contributor to the service of UPD. She said it is about priorities, they need real policing, not just something that is paid out of a fund just because the county can share because the legislation says it's a recreation thing. Trustee Bradley said he wants to clarify Trustee Brems' question of when he goes to his council meeting, does Emigration Council get to say yes, this is a good expenditure or no, you can't do that. Trustee Brems asked if there is a specific amount, they are requesting from Emigration Canyon. Trustee Flint said it was not broken down, it was all of SLVLESA. Trustee Keigley said they decided to send all their ARPA funds over to UPD. She said that was their choice and it will be different choices from each of their members. She said the only reason Brighton can do that is because they do not have water bills, they don't have sewer costs, gutters, streetlights, etc. Sheriff Rivera said the UPD Board directed them to add those into their shared service requests, so they will be there, and they wanted them to prioritize, and the Board will go through and decide which ones they want to cover. So, if they go to Emigration and present that prior to the Board doing any of that, it may not work. Trustee Brems asked what the best way to do this would be. Lisa Dudley said she can break it out for each metro/township. She said as far as the UPD budget goes, if they add this to the budget, it just increases the cost of shared services and that is how it will look on the UPD budget because they do not have ARPA funds, so it would show as an increase to the SLVLESA bill. Trustee Flint said it should be called something else besides ARPA funds. She said if the costs are broken down by population then they can put that on their next agenda. They should get each of their metros to say how much of that money they are willing to share. Trustee Bradley said it seems like this should be done before they finalize the budget. Trustee Prokopis asked if it is built into the budget in shared services, and they pay it as part of the regular SLVLESA bill, can they pay back their metro township for that portion that was designated be used from ARPA funds. Why not bill it separately, take it out of the budget, and bill each entity individually with the expectation they will pay that with ARPA funds. Sheriff Rivera said as far as the UPD budget, they just budget by billing SLVLESA as a whole, so they would have to figure that out and she doesn't know how they do that in a month. Trustee Prokopis said he thinks of it like when they got the last money they got, the Covid money, they got a separate invoice from UPD. He doesn't know why they couldn't do it the same way. Sheriff Rivera said they probably could if they didn't have it in their tentative budget. They could do that in a separate Board meeting, bring them their wish list and have the Board members decide how they pay for it, but the UPD Board gave different direction an hour ago, to add it into the shared services budget. Trustee Flint said an example is they gave a gift of $69,000 to buy cameras for every classroom in 9 schools in the Canyon School District. It was a gift that came from their Covid money. The issue is that they can gift this money for a purpose if it's divided out and they know what their cost sharing is. She said they have one legislative mandate on the list, and she thinks they need to put a category of unfunded mandates by state law and separate that out. Trustee Prokopis said that he supports it, it's just they need to figure out how to do it. Sheriff Rivera said they will figure it out because the UPD Board asked them to add it to the shared services. They will add it and prioritize it and they can also break down how much per entity it would cost using a formula and they can do that for all their requests. Lisa Dudley said this agenda item was just to have a presentation and update on the UPD budget which she thinks they have done and there is nothing that is required from the Board at this moment. She understands the direction given; add .5 officer to Emigration Canyon, to separate into columns the requests and to add those ARPA requests in the budget, which will increase the shared service cost to the members, as long as the Board members are aware of that, that is how it will be shown. She said how this is handled must be up to the individual member. Trustee Bradley said he believes that is true. Item #8-Report by Sheriff Rosie Rivera, SLVLESA Chief Executive Officer Action Requested: None Discussion: Sheriff Rivera said the only report she has is the recognition of the officers, many of the Board members heard it in the UPD meeting. She said she will email it out because there are a lot of details. Item #9-Approve Minutes for the April 21, 2022, meeting. Action Requested: Motion, Second and Vote. Discussion: Trustee Bradley entertained a motion to approve the minutes. Trustee Flint motioned to approve. Trustee Brems seconded the motion. All voted in favor; none opposed. The minutes were approved. Item #10-Adjourn. Trustee Bradley adjourned the meeting.

Notice of Special Accommodations (ADA)

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Frank Nakamura 385-468-9671.

Notice of Electronic or Telephone Participation

Members of the Board may be present in person or participate electronically. The public may physically attend and monitor the open portions of the meeting. Members of the public may also join the open portions of the meeting by calling 1-669 900-9128 and entering Meeting ID 92301763844# and Password 259919#. The public will be allowed to listen to all open portions of the meeting. Public comment will be allowed during the Public Comment portion of the meeting which will start no sooner than 10:00 a.m. For those participating by phone, please mute your phone when you are not making public comment. Board members and persons participating by phone will be able to hear all discussions.

Meeting Information

Meeting Location

3365 South 900 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Show in Apple Maps Show in Google Maps

Contact Name

Marcie Kay

Contact Email

mkay@unifiedpoliceut.gov

Notice Posting Details

Notice Posted On

June 17, 2022 09:58 AM

Notice Last Edited On

June 17, 2022 09:58 AM

Deadline Date

May 19, 2022 10:00 AM

Subscribe by Email

Subscription options will send you alerts regarding future notices posted by this Body.